Commons Sitting of 11 June 1819

MR. SEPPINGS.
Mr. Crokerhaving presented some papers relating to the Navy,
Sir Joseph Yorkesaid, he should take the oppportunity now offered of mentioning the case of Mr. Seppings. The committee of finance, in giving their opinion of the improvements made in naval architecture by this gentleman, had said, that "these services, although they have nothing of that brilliancy which forcibly attracts public admiration, will continue to confer a lasting benefit to the British nation, long after that period when the beneficial effects of victories, however splendid, shall have passed away." If such were the advantages to be derived from this gentleman's discoveries, he surely was entitled to as great a reward as was usually conferred on those generals and admirals by whom victories were achieved. He was afraid that the
1118
session might be allowed to pass away without any practical proof of gratitude being given to this deserving man; and therefore he should not cease to agitate the question till he knew what reward it was intended to give.
Sir Isaac Coffinsaid, that Mr. Seppings had received 1,000 l. for his beautiful invention for suspending ships; and having been appointed to a situation in the naval service, his abilities, after that, were to be considered as engaged to the country.
Mr. Crokersaid, it was unnecessary for him to enter at present into the question of Mr. Seppings' merits, as he had, on a former occasion, stated his opinion of that gentleman's high abilities, and had agreed to recommend him as a navy-surveyor. He entirely agreed with the suggestion of the committee, as to the propriety of noticing the services of Mr. Seppings. The Admiralty accordingly had recommended to the Treasury to grant him a pension, which would be placed on the navy estimates and would be as honourable and useful to him as any grant that could now be made.

FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL
Mr. Brogdenbrought up the report of this bill. Sir R. Wilson rose for the purpose of speaking to the subject, when lord Castlereagh suggested that it might be better to have the amendments made in the committee printed before any fresh discussion was had upon it.
Mr. Marryatsaid:—It is not my intention to go into any detail on the merits, or rather the demerits of the bill. I wish merely to clear up some facts which I stated on a former occasion, the correctness of which has either been doubted or denied. In speaking of the conduct of Ferdinand the 7th, I observed, that soon after the British army had, quitted his dominions, he directed a public thanksgiving to be offered to Almighty God, that his land was no longer polluted by the presence of Heretics.—The noble lord did not indeed deny this circumstance, but declared that he had never heard of it.—It might be a sufficient answer to the noble lord, to say to him in the words of Hamlet,
"There are more things in Heaven and earth Horatio,
"Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."—
But I can confirm the assertion I made, by positive proof. I hold in my hand a letter from a friend of mine, Mr. J. B.

1119
Sharpe, who was an eye witness of the fact. His letter to me runs in the following terms:—"With reference to the question of public thanksgiving having been offered up to Almighty God, for the purgation of the land from the presence of Heretics, in the churches of Spain, I was in Corunna at the time, and had in my possession one of the printed circulars issued by the heads of churches to that effect, which was left at my place of residence." This gentleman authorises me to say, that he is ready, not only to confirm the contents of this letter in any manner his lordship pleases by his own evidence, but also by that of twenty Englishmen, who like himself were in Spain at the time when this ceremony took place. In enumerating the disadvantages to which the independents were subjected under our existing laws, I stated, that whilst fugitive royalists from the Spanish main, were not only received in Trinidad, but promoted to situations of high honour and responsibility, an asylum had been denied to independents; and that a number of them, who, on the approach of the royalist army to Guiria, embarked on board such boats and canoes as they could procure, and sought refuge in Trinidad, had been refused permission to land, and were obliged to return to the place from whence they came, where they were immediately massacred. The noble lord in answer to these assertions, read an extract from a dispatch from the governor of Trinidad, which did not deny the fact, for it was wholly silent about the refugees from Guiria, but merely stated, that 3,800 persons had at different times been admitted into Trinidad. The under secretary of state for the colonial department went farther; for, referring to a memorial to which my name, in common with the names of other gentlemen connected with Trinidad, was subscribed, he declared, that our statement of an asylum having been refused to particular individuals was incorrect, and that the justification of the governor was perfectly satisfactory. At that time, I had not the documents on which the memorial was founded in my pocket; but on going home and examining my papers, I found that instead of having acted on "the exaggerated or unfounded representations of interested individuals," as we were charged with doing, we had made the statements in the memorial on the authority of governor Woodford himself. I have now in my
1120
hand two petitions to him, with his answers to them. One is signed by several merchants in Trinidad, praying for an asylum for a merchant, a native of the United States, who had been some time settled at Guiria, but who wished to escape from the horrors of revolutionary war; whose peaceable character was vouched for, and for whose good conduct the petitioners offered to give good security. The answer of the governor is in these words, "It is inconsistent with the regulations by which I am directed to guide my conduct during the present disturbed state of the neighbouring Spanish provinces, to admit to an asylum here, any persons not being natural born subjects of his Catholic majesty."—Signed "R. Woodford," and dated "August 15th 1814." From this answer one might be led to conclude, that an asylum would be granted to persons who were natural born subjects of his Catholic majesty. But I have another petition in my hand from Don Josh, Ramires, of that island, praying that his mother Donna Antonia Guezza, a lady 80 years of age, and her two grand children, then living at Cumana, might be permitted to reside in Trinidad, and offering security for their good conduct to any amount. These persons were natural born subjects of his Catholic majesty; but nevertheless the answer to the petition in their favour is in these authoritative and laconic words:—"This petition cannot be complied with!" signed "R. Woodford," and dated "23rd September 1814." I hand up this bloody document to the noble lord; I call it so, because in signing it, sir Ralph did sign the death warrant of the parties on whose behalf the petition was presented; I hand it up to him, that no doubt may remain as to the hand-writing of sir Ralph. Having done this, I now call upon the noble lord to declare, whether, in giving an asylum to individuals of unexceptionable character and for whose good conduct security was offered, governor Woodford would have acted in a manner inconsistent with the instruction by which he was directed to guide his conduct. If so, the responsibility for the massacre of these unhappy wretches, rests not upon sir Ralph, but on his majesty's ministers; but if otherwise, I call upon the noble lord to bring to a severe account, the governor who has cast so foul a stain on the character of his majesty's government.—With respect to the massacre at Guiria, I have it on Spa-

1121
nish authority, on French authority, and on English authority; but I cannot produce the letters of the persons who have furnished me with this information, because I too well know the consequences. Some years ago, at the request of a friend of mine, I transmitted to the Treasury his complaints of the conduct of the governor of Trinidad. Orders to give him redress were sent out, through the medium of the colonial office, who, at the same time, sent the governor copies of the complaints which had been made against him; and the consequence was, instead of redress, a series of persecutions which only terminated with the death of the individual. The gout, acting on a debilitated and irritable frame, flew to his stomach and carried him off. The tales of the other sufferers may hereafter be told; but not till they are in that grave, where "the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest;" lest they too share the fate of the unfortunate Mr. Philip Langton. But the fact at Guiria does not rest upon Trinidad authority alone. I know that an account of it was sent to the colonial office, by Don Polycarpe Ortiz of St. Thomas; for the duplicate of his letter was transmitted to me, and I delivered it in person. The fact is as notorious in that part of the world, as the fact of the battle of Waterloo is in this; and the respectability of the parties in whose letters it is communicated to me is so great, that I have no more doubt of it, than I have of my own existence. Indeed, inferential proof of it is given in the very petitions I have read; for if governor Woodford refused to grant an asylum in Trinidad to parties of unexceptionable characters, and for whose good conduct security was offered, can it be supposed that he would admit an indiscriminate horde, who could give no references for character, and no security for their good conduct? The idea is at once absurd and incredible? I cannot view without concern, the change of sentiment that has taken place in his majesty's ministers, respecting the government of Spain as exercised in her South American colonies. In 1797, when Mr. Pitt was at the head of our councils, a letter was written to general Picton, then governor of Trinidad, directing him to assist the inhabitants in their efforts to shake off the yoke of the mother country; and the reason assigned was, not that we were at war with Spain, but the oppressive and tyrannical na-
1122
ture of her government. This letter, written by the late lord Melville, then secretary of state for the colonial department, was translated into Spanish, and introduced into a proclamation by general Picton copies of which he distributed all over the Spanish main, and one of which I now hold in my hand. The same opinion of this government continued in 1804; for I have also in my hand, a letter from the late lord Hobart to governor Picton, dated 2nd February of that year, expressing "the anxiety of his majesty's ministers to introduce into the island of Trinidad, with the least possible delay, so much of the laws of Great Britain, as may be judged expedient for the security of the persons and properties of his majesty's subjects, and for the general advancement of the interest of the colony." Since then, all that regard to the security of the liberty and property of his majesty's subjects has been forgotten; and the successors of Mr. Pitt, in opposition to his example, have declared their determination to continue that oppressive and tyrannical form of government over British subjects which he encouraged Spanish subjects to throw off. The Spanish nation are historically recorded, as the exterminators of the Aborigines of South America, as well as of the West Indies: and as having first established the slave trade, in order to fill up the frightful void occasioned in the population of those countries by their own cruelty. No political writer has mentioned their colonial government, but with disgust and execration; and it has been found so insupportable, that the inhabitants of South America, trained up as they have been for three centuries past in habits of passive obedience and non-resistance, are at length risking every thing that is dear to man, rather than submit to it any longer; and yet this is the government which his majesty's ministers have thought proper to consider as the best and fittest government, to be continued in a British colony, and to be exercised over British subjects!—When I reflect on these circumstances, and couple them with the fact of Great Britain having become a party to what is called the Holy Alliance, but which I consider as a confederacy of sovereigns against the rights and liberties of their subjects, I believe this country is at present in greater danger from a leaning to arbitrary government, than it has been at any period since the days of the Stuarts. I consider the bill

1123
now before the House, as emanating from that confederacy; and I fear that we shall hereafter be called upon to pass many other bills, framed in the same spirit of supporting tyranny and crushing freedom. I consider this bill as the first stone of a temple intended to be dedicated to arbitrary power; but I trust that the spirit and patriotism of a British House of Commons, will convert it into the corner stone of an altar sacred to liberty; and by rejecting this measure prove both to despots abroad and to ministers at home, that we set too just a value on the rights and privileges we enjoy ourselves to be made the servile or passive instruments of destroying those of others.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that the hon. gentleman had, on a former occasion; mentioned, that governor Woodford had not only favoured the royalists, but had absolutely shut the port against a number of persons who had sought there an asylum from persecution; and that the consequence was, they were all murdered, and the shores for some miles whitened with their bones. Now, he (lord C.) begged again to repeat, that not only had the port not been shut, but that the persons alluded to had all been well received to the number of 3,800, and some royalist vessels which were then in the harbour prevented from following some others which had put to sea. As to the circumstance of governor Woodford's not allowing a particular individual to remain on the island, he could not exactly state what his instructions were on this subject; but the case was quite a different one from that of not affording an asylum to persons who had fled thither for their lives. The hon. gentleman had said, that the conduct towards the insurgents was barbarous. This he must beg to deny. With respect to the circumstance of thanks having been ordered in Spain, on the departure of the British troops, for its having been purged from heretics, he should give it but little credit; if there was any such thanksgiving, it was for having got rid of the Trench, not the English.
Sir M. W. Ridleyobserved, that the conduct of governor Woodford would be found, upon the most strict inquiry, to have been unobjectionable. He had on every occasion conducted himself in the most impartial and honourable manner.
Mr. Goulburnexpressed the same sentiments of governor Woodford's conduct.
1124
The report was then read; after which, the solicitor-general brought up some new clauses. They were agreed to, and lord Castlereagh moved, that the bill, with the amendments, be engrossed.
Mr. Denmanthought the most advisable course would be, to have the bill re-committed. His reason for thinking so was, that the only gound advanced on its introduction for the necessity of it was, that the former legislative provisions on the subject extended only to recognized states, and not to countries in the situation of the South American provinces; whereas in the debates of the preceding night, the ground of observing a general neutrality seemed to have been abandoned, and a new one taken by the noble lord, namely, the necessity of supporting a neutrality, modified as it was by the treaty with Spain in 1814, which the noble lord had argued, should be binding on this country; and it was matter of most serious consideration for the House, whether it would consent that regulations intended to preserve a neutrality, modified by particular circumstances, should be suffered to be made a rule for the observance of neutrality in all cases. He begged leave to inquire, whether ministers had used the same means to prevent assistance being afforded from this country to Spain as to the colonies—whether any thing had been done to prohibit arms, ammunition, and warlike stores being exported for the service of the former power?
Lord Castlereaghreplied, that his majesty's government had issued a prohibition against the exportation of arms or warlike stores to Cuba, or any of our own west India islands, for the purpose of being sent to the service either of the provinces in insurrection, or of those continuing within the allegiance of Spain. They had taken precautions to guard against our own islands being made the means of thwarting the views of the parent state.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that nothing was more proper than the issuing the proclamation by his majesty's ministers commanding British subjects not to render assistance to the colonies, bound as they conceived themselves by the treaty with that state, and empowered as they were by the common law to enforce neutrality. But in order to evince to the world their desire of preserving a strict neutrality, had they issued a similar proclamation regarding Spain—as they had the proclamation against one party, had they it also

1125
against the other? Had ministers prohibited arms, ammunition, and warlike stores being sent from this country to Old Spain as well as to Cuba. For instance, most effectual reinforcement might be provided for Morillo, by the exportation of munitions of war to the expedition fitting out at Cadiz. Had that been guarded against?
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that any steps to prevent the exportation of arms to Cadiz would have been ineffectual, unless ministers had at the same time taken on them to regulate the trade in arms and warlike stores between this country and all the rest of Europe.
Sir J. Mackintoshsaid, it now appeared that the terms of neutrality which had, and at present did exist, were an unbounded supply of arms and warlike stores to the one party, and an absolute prohibition of them to the other.
After some further conversation, the report was ordered to be taken into further consideration on the 16lh.

POOR-RATES MISAPPLICATION BILL.
Mr. S. Bournehaving moved the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Primroseobjected to the principle of the bill, as it went to do away with the 43rd Eliz. which provided, that old and infirm persons only should be chargeable on the poor-rates. The present bill would have the effect of placing the very lowest and worst part of society in a better situation than the honest and industrious classes. It would enable the idle and ill-disposed labourer to have his children provided for by the parish, while those persons, whose parental affection induced them to keep their children at home, were to be deprived of parochial assistance, and left to struggle as they could to support their families. The hon. member moved, as an amendment, that the bill be read a third time on this day six months.
Mr. P. Mooreseconded the motion. He could not consent to deprive the labourer of a share of the poor-rates while he knew, that in Coventry and several other parts of the country, the poor were working 16 hours a day without being able to earn enough to support existence.
Mr. S. Bournesaid, that the measure had been framed not with reference to the situation of any particular body, but as a general amelioration of evils arising from the practice of paying money to the parent for the support of his children. The
1126
first consequence of that was, that the money advanced was most improperly and improvidently expended in many instances; whereas, it appeared from the pamphlet of lord Sheffield, that the money laid out on children taken from their parents was applied solely to their maintenance, instruction, and improvement; and, which was the chief advantage by the latter system, the rising generation were transferred from rags, from want, from dishonest habits, to cleanliness, comfort, and the means of acquiring habits of industry and morality. On these grounds, without having the partiality of a parent for his bill, he thought the measure would be attended with the most beneficial effects.
Lord Miltonentertained similar objections to this measure with those which had been already stated. He wished the House to reflect also, whether it was not calculated to perpetuate the evil, and to legalize that misapplication of parochial funds of which there was already so much reason to complain. There were three classes of persons who took different views on the subject of our poor laws; one class, agreeing with the principle of Mr. Malthus, was for their entire abolition; a second was for retaining them, and merely altering the administration; and the third, to which the right hon. gentleman professed to belong, would confine the benefit and operation of them to the old and impotent. But under the latter description of persons, children were not included, and to grant relief to them, as was the object of the present bill, was not consistent with the principle which the right hon. gentleman professed. If they ought to be ultimately excluded, why was this measure introduced? He agreed, that the evil of the poor laws was partly to be ascribed to the lowness of wages. Since the scarcity in 1795, there had been a strong desire among the farmers to keep down the rate of wages. It appeared to them better to make good the deficiency out of the poor-rates, on the ground that after a rise they never could be lowered. The object of the bill was, by an indirect operation, to raise wages, and stimulate the labourer to increased exertions; but this was to be done by previously inflicting much pain and misery upon him. Agricultural labourers were at present in some measure adscripti glebœ; they hardly knew how to venture to leave their own parishes, and therefore preferred

1127
residing there with inferior wages. He feared this situation of things would continue till the general prosperity of the country was increased, and the capital of the poor man, which was the industry of his right arm, acquired a higher value. It appeared to him that nothing could be more injurious than to bring up the children of the poor as public pledges in these repositories. There were always little cares that served to excite the sympathies and strengthen the ties of affection in every family; and it would be a violation of the first principles of human nature to prevent the formation of such, attachments. Upon these grounds, even were the bill likely to accomplish its object, which he did not think it was, he should oppose it.
Sir J. Sebrightobserved, that it was the poor laws which were the principal cause of low wages. If farmers were to raise the wages of labourers who had large families, they must also raise the wages of those who were without; and the consequence would be improvident, marriages or dissipation in the alehouse. He would support the measure, because it would take the children from the profligacy and idleness which they might see at home, and give them that education which they would otherwise be deprived of.
Mr. Philipsagreed as-to the extensive evil of the poor laws, and the difficulty of suggesting an effectual remedy. His objection to this measure was, that it would immeasurably extend that evil. It would operate most cruelly on the feelings of the respectable poor, and remove from those of a different description all restraint upon improvident marriages. By destroying all filial and parental affection, it would produce on the one hand a mass of misery, and on the other an extent of immorality that was not easily to be conceived.
Sir R. Wilsonwas wholly adverse to the principle of taking children away from their parents, and thus extinguishing all the natural affections of life. A similar experiment had been tried by the French government in Italy, and it produced such an alarm, and so much discontent among the parents of the children, that it was found necessary to discontinue the project.
Mr. Brandthought that this measure had a tendency to decrease the evils of the poor laws. He had always considered that the great mischief was, the low price of wages for labour; he meant strictly the wages for labour only, because he was
1128
fully satisfied, that were the poor-rates properly applied, the labourer would be amply paid. If, instead of the parish officer the master of the labourer gave the supply, not in the shape of a gratuity, but as a right for labour done, then it would be found that the labourer was fully paid. The working man would thus be worthy of his hire, and the pay would be commensurate with the labour performed. The opposers of this bill had objected that the children would be taken from their poor parents, and would become a prey to the vice, in all its deformities, which was to be met with in the workhouses of the kingdom. God forbid, that such should be the case! It was not even contemplated for a moment that these helpless infants should be taken from their parents and put into those receptacles of vice and misery—the workhouses. The utmost attention would be paid by those who should be appointed the guardians of the morals and education of the children.
Sir James Mackintoshfelt himself called upon to declare his sentiments upon a measure of such vital importance to every class of the community. The greatest gratitude, he thought, was due by the House and the public to the committee which investigated this subject with so much skill and assiduity; but it was a most lamentable proof of the imbecility of the legislature, that for so many years these evils had been allowed to exist without the application of one efficient remedy. There appeared to be a greater difficulty in carrying into effect any practical relief to the poor labourer, than in legislating upon any other subject, however intricate or however abstruse. It was most evident that the evil was either in the poor laws themselves, or in the application of them. He thought the application of them by our ancestors was the origin of the present unparalleled distress. The interest of the poor was the interest of society itself; and if it were possible that by the sacrifice of the few, the interests of the many could be promoted, there would not remain a doubt as to what ought to be the course to be pursued. But he was anxious to impress upon the House the too evident and most melancholy fact, that the minds of the lower classes were depraved by the present system of parish relief; their pride was lowered—their spirit was broken. It was on this account that this principle, which had been pur-

1129
sued for so many years, ought to be so deeply deplored. Then with respect to the remedy, every measure proposed for this purpose ought to be tried by two tests: First, did it tend to bring back the ancient and wholesome system adopted in the reign of Elizabeth? and secondly, if it did, was it done with the least possible inconvenience to the country? He confessed that, with respect to the remedy now proposed, it appeared to be too much like that Spartan system of education, by which the mind was moulded into shape by rule. He really thought that the only true and natural instruction was that given under the parental roof, where the children, bound by every feeling of love and duty to the parent by whom they were brought into life, would be more likely ultimately to become good and serviceable members of society. But this was not his principal objection to this measure; he opposed it on reasons much more strong and cogent. It appeared to him, that although in the first instance, the number of applicants for relief might be decreased, yet the ultimate effect would be enormously to increase them. He conceived the measure would have the effect of creating foundling hospitals in every parish. In the ardour and zeal of the first moment, these establishments might be conducted with great care and skill, and would, perhaps, present very flattering results. But the House must feel, that exertions of this kind were short-lived; and those who imagined that a number of public officers would continue to act in this highly praise-worthy and beneficial manner, would find, in the end, that they had adopted principles essentially Utopian. Indeed, it appeared to him, that the present plan was nothing else but a new edition of the old poor laws, greatly augmented. Let the House look to the moral effect of this system. At certain periods, a great number of children, educated in these workhouses, would be sent forth to the world. The question was, could they procure employment? This was an extremely doubtful point. And what would be the consequence, if children, thus thrown on the world, having previously lived in comparative ease, were obliged to struggle with all the ills of poverty? Would not vice be greatly increased in consequence of such a measure? He disapproved of the bill, but would not take the sense of the House upon it. At a proper time, he
1130
meant to move an amendment to one of the clauses, exempting from the operation of the measure, the children of parents who were Dissenters. This he meant, to do, because, under the provisions of the bill, as they existed at present, the children of Dissenters would be obliged to attend a worship which their parents did not follow.
Colonel Woodsaid, that the bill was not a compulsory measure; nor was it intended that the schools should be any other than schools of industry, where the children of the lower orders would learn the means of earning a subsistence when they come into the world. Besides, the parents of the children would no longer receive any allowances on account of their children, which allowances were generally expended in idleness; instead of that, the children would receive the advantages proposed by this bill; and he thought nothing could tend more to improve the morals and condition of the lower orders than that of giving their children instruction.
Mr. Courtenaydenied that the bill was calculated to promote an opinion among the lower orders that they might obtain, under its operation, relief at will for themselves and children, and therefore was calculated to produce premature marriages, and an excess of population. He should certainly give it his support.
Mr. Curwenexpressed his fears, that the operation of the bill would increase the evils of the poor laws in a tenfold degree.
The question being put, That the bill be now read a third time, the House divided: Ayes, 69; Noes. 46.
Sir J. Mackintoshthen proposed a clause to allow the children of Dissenters at the proposed schools to attend their usual places of worship on Sundays, and to provide against any attempt to compel their attendance at any different place of worship.
Mr. S. Bourneobserved, that the clause was unnecessary, as its professed object was already provided for in the bill. The clause was rejected, after which, the bill was passed.