Commons Sitting of 14 July 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Landed Securities (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. LEWIS, from Maidstone, against the Municipal Corporations' Bill.—By Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY, from Offlow South, for Amending the Sale of Beer Act.—By Sir WILLIAM BRABAZON, from the Soap-boilers of Westport, for discontinuing the Drawback on Soap into Ireland; from Aghagour, for a Better System of Education in Ireland. By Admiral ADAM and Mr. WILLIAM ROCHE, from Alloa and Limerick, against any Alteration of the Timber Duties.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.
Mr. Peasemoved that this Bill be re-committed. He trusted that the Bill would be suffered to pass, as it was eminently calculated to prevent the dreadful cruelties which were daily practised towards animals. He would be the last man in the world to support the measure, if it tended to abridge the amusements of the poorer classes; but he was persuaded that it would have no such effect.
Colonel Sibthorpedid not rise to oppose the Bill, but merely for the purpose of throwing out a few suggestions for the consideration of the hon. Member for Durham. He would be the last man in the world to throw ridicule upon any measure having humanity for its object; but the hon. Member, though he enumerated bull, and bear, and badger-baiting, and fox-hunting, had entirely forgotten the atrocious and abominable practice of skinning cats alive which had lately been carried on to a great extent. He hoped the hon. Member would include this offence in his Bill.
Sir Matthew White Ridleyconsidered that the Bill gave too much and too arbitrary power to the inspectors to be appointed under it: and also to the mischievous class of informers who had
538
already too much in their power. It appeared to him that the Acts already in existence—3 and 4 George 3rd., were amply sufficient for all the purposes contemplated by the Bill now brought forward. It appeared to him, too, that the Bill, while it left coursing, shooting, fishing, &c, the amusements of the higher classes, untouched, infringed too much on those of the humbler classes. He hoped the hon. Member would not press the Bill this Session, if he did it would be his duty to take the sense of the House on the propriety of postponing it.
Mr. Alderman Woodthought the expense of the inspectors would be found much too high, particularly in the City.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that though legislalation might not be found efficient in accomplishing everything that was to be wished, yet an effort ought to be made to do all that was possible.
Mr. Wilkssaid, the Bill was calculated to do very great service, consolidating, as it did, three or four different Acts on the subject.
Mr. Brothertonhailed the measure as a further step in civilization.
The House divided: Ayes 30; Noes 16; Majority 14.

List of the Noes.

Blackburne, J.

Sharpe, General

Bramston, T. W.

Sheldon, E. R.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Tancred, H. W.

Evans, G.

Turner, W.

Elphinstone, H.

Warburton, H.

Grimston, E. H.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Hoy, B.

Tellers.

O'Conor, Don

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Roebuck, J. A.

Sibthorp, Colonel

The House went into Committee, several Clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.

THE POST OFFICE.
Lord Lowtherhoped to be indulged by the attention of the House for a few minutes on a matter personal to himself. He had seen by the publications of this morning, that yesterday, in another place, there had been what he might call a field-day of Postmasters-General. In the outset he would say that while he had acted as Commissioner of inquiry into the Post-office, although his time had been limited to about two months, he in that period had endeavoured, as well as his abilities and his occupations in the House would allow, to serve the public zealously and faith-

539
fully, and to make such suggestions on that important department as he conceived reasonable and practicable. It seems that there had existed a difference of opinion between himself and another Commissioner; and what that other Commissioner had called alacrity and despatch, appeared to him (Lord Lowther) delay, and something very nearly approaching obstruction. He had no difficulty in stating the circumstances on which he grounded his opinion, and he did not wish in any way to moderate or retract the term "obstinacy" which he had employed. When he used it, he certainly had had in his recollection the Report of the Finance Committee of 1797, in which allusion was made to the obstacles at that time thrown in the way of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Post-office. There was so slight a difference between "obstinacy" and "obstacle," that he was willing to take all the responsibility belonging to the employment of the larger term. His late colleague disagreed with him in the application of that term, and he was surprised (yet he was not surprised, because in public life he was surprised at nothing), that his colleague should have forgotten that he (Lord Lowther) had made something like the same complaint in a Report to the Treasury on price currents. At that period there were several questions before the Commissioners, and he was most particularly anxious to investigate the arrangement of steam boats and foreign posts. The noble Commissioner had dissented from the conclusion he had come to regarding the forwarding of price currents at a small charge; and as they were about to quit office they made a Report, as a sort of legacy to their successors, on two or three points with which their inquiries had commenced. On the subject of price currents he would take leave to refer the House to the concluding sentence of that Report. He found that the Commission appointed by the Lords of the Treasury in August last, had furnished the Postmaster-General with a statement of the recommendations of the Commission of Revenue Inquiry, and had requested him to prepare certain documents, showing in what cases those recommendations had been carried into effect, and what had prevented the remainder from being adopted. This paper had not been furnished when the Commission closed its proceedings. The Com-
540
missioners appointed in August last, called for this paper; but as it was not presented when their labours terminated, the order was renewed in February last, and it had not been furnished in the middle of April. He and his colleagues had, therefore, applied for it as soon as they were appointed by the Lords of the Treasury, in order to continue the investigation. This paper had been required, he believed, so long ago as September last; and if he complained, therefore, of dilatoriness, unwillingness, or obstinacy, the House would see that it was not without ground. Colonel Yorke had exerted himself with ability and assiduity, and had devoted a great deal of time to the subject; and if he (Lord Lowther) had wanted any re-compence for the services he rendered, it would have been found in making the acquaintance of an officer of so much talent and intelligence, who was now acting as private secretary to Lord Mulgrave. No explanation had been given why the paper was not sent earlier; and it was important, as it would have facilitated the investigation by showing what had been the suggestions of the Commissioners, and how far they had been carried into effect. He would now refer to another point. He had asked for a detailed account of the steam-boat service, conceiving that the public were great losers by the system of establishment instead of contract. He had not the precise words in which this account was required; but the answer was, that it was impossible to furnish it. That did not satisfy him; and he applied to the Admiralty, sending the same request to his Friend, Mr. Dawson, who in three days returned him a most precise and complete reply. Having been once a Lord of the Admiralty, he (Lord Lowther) knew the accuracy of detail with which the whole of that department was managed; and the discipline had rather been increased than lessened while his right hon. Friend the Member for Cumberland presided over it. He had also applied to the General Steam Company, through a friend, who was a governor, and all the most accurate particulars were instantly furnished. He had therefore summoned the accountant of the Post-office, and going into the accounts with him, they had together abstracted all the items required for the last three years. Another point related to the foreign postage of the country, which he considered

541
essential to be examined; and he had called for an account of all the letters sent from London to Calais, and from Calais to London. What was the answer he had received? That they amounted to 134,0001bs. in the course of the year. What was the answer regarding letters from Calais to London? That they amounted to five millions of draughts. Not being able to understand these returns, he had referred to other authorities, in order that the matter might be rendered intelligible, but he had obtained no satisfaction. Did this show a willingness on the part of the Post-office to furnish information. He would add, that their accounts must be excessively ill-kept if they could not state the amount of postage between England and France, and show whether this country lost or gained by the 12,000 l. paid for interior transit duty. He could enumerate other instances in which no return at all had been made—for instance, as to the number of persons employed as packet agents. The late Postmaster-General had said, that the Commissioners examined all they could examine; but he had not given any reason why more accounts were not produced. There was another matter that seemed to be a great grievance: it was generally reported that the Postmaster of Jamaica received a very large salary, and he had called for an account of his income and allowances; the answer was 400 l. a-year salary, and 160 l. a-year allowances. He was dissatisfied with this return, and when he called for another, the reply was, that no other could be given. He had therefore summoned the clerk of the Post-office, and he very reluctantly admitted, that the situation was estimated at 1,600 l. a-year. He had heard that it was much more, but it was admitted to be worth 1,600 l. a-year, and it was supposed that the Postmaster of Jamaica derived an advantage from the sale of newspapers. As far as his recollection served, evidence to this effect was either at the Treasury or in possession of the Board of Trade. Was this like willingness to give information? It could not be said, that the Post-office did not possess the knowledge, for the son of Sir F. Freeling had been sent out, at heavy expense, to examine into the Post-office of the West-Indies, and could hardly be ignorant of the salary and emoluments of the Postmaster of Jamaica. Then he
542
had required a detailed account of he perquisites and salaries of the clerks; as it was known that there was a clerk in the post-office who was or had been a contactor for lighting the mails, and others were paid for conveying electioneering intelligence to the editors of newspapers. Two or three other instances might be mentioned, but he thought he had said enough to show, that he was justified in reiterating the statement of the Commissioners in 1797, and enough to establish that there existed both unwillingness and obstinacy. In the course of his public life, he had been selected on various occasions to make inquiries into the Excise-office, the Tax-office, and into the Exchequer, and the first step towards the abolition of the last was a report made by himself and the hon. Member for Mon-mouth. In examining into the Excise and Tax-offices, he had formerly met with every facility, and he might add, that the difficulties in the Exchequer did not exceed those he had experienced in his investigations regarding the Post-office. He wished that the noble Lord who had appeared in evidence against him was now present; and he would ask him what paper which had been required, the Post-office had shown alacrity in producing? If the noble Lord could adduce a single instance, he was ready to bear all the obloquy of having made an unfounded attack. He might advert to several minor points; but having made this general statement, which proceeded from a sense of duty, he would refrain from going further. If he had made any rash assertion, he should be ready either to retract it, or to bear the consequences; and this he would say, that there was no man more anxious than he was for the correct despatch of public business in all departments of the State. The noble Lord concluded by moving for a Return to show which of the recommendations of the Commissioners of Revenue Inquiry in regard to the Post-office had been carried into effect.
Mr. Vernon Smithdid not wish to enter into the question between the noble Lord and the Postmaster-General, or to join in any crimination or recrimination on either side; he rose only for the purpose of alluding to one return which the noble Lord complained had not been made. He had had the honour to belong to the Post-office Commission, and he would state that Colonel Yorke had certainly

543
drawn out the paper referred to, and it ought to have been found among the documents which devolved into the hands of the new Commissioners on the change of Government. He coincided in the praise bestowed by the noble Lord upon the talents and assiduity of Colonel Yorke.
Mr. Humeconsidered himself, and he hoped the House would also consider itself under an obligation to the noble Lord for the statement just delivered; the active part the noble Lord had taken in public affairs, and the manner in which he had devoted his time to inquiries into the different departments, rendered his evidence of peculiar value. He was sorry that the noble Lord had not had justice done him for his exertions in the Report on the Exchequer, as he had been the first to take up the subject with a determination to go through with it; if obstacles had not been interposed, a reform of the Exchequer would have been effected at least ten years ago.
Mr. Wallacemerely rose for the vindication of his own conduct, which had been impugned in another place. He adhered to every word he had uttered on the former night, and was prepared to prove his statement if an opportunity were afforded. In answer to the noble Duke, he would only refer to a speech he had delivered on the 6th of August last. With regard to the speeches of the various Postmasters-general, it was perfectly conclusive, from their remarks, that they were very ignorant of the office they administered. The noble Lord the late Postmaster-General, after highly lauding Sir Francis Freeling, had arrived at the strange conclusion of differing from him upon many important points, and reversing his directions. He had praised him as if he were the first person in the country, and must, therefore, have possessed a most extraordinary degree of self-complacency when the noble Lord considered himself competent to decide against the opinion of so able and experienced an officer. He (Mr. Wallace) had complained that opening letters was a common occurrence, and in two several years he had complained that a felony had been committed in opening letters in Scotland. He had moved for some papers upon the subject, namely, the informations lodged for the prosecution of the parties; he had argued that the letters had been opened at the Post-office for the purpose of prosecution, and he had
544
moved for a return which would give the House all the necessary particulars, together with the names of the parties who were to be prosecuted. Part of the order had been complied with, but no places were given where the information was dated, and a most extraordinary fact occurred, which he had noticed last year, and which he would now briefly repeat. A very large number of informations were laid against a stationer in Glasgow, of the name of Read, and the solicitor's letter stated that the letters were put into the Post-office on the 15th of February, 1833; the letters themselves showed that they were not written at that date; and the return on the Table stated, that informations were lodged on the 18th of February, whereas he held in his hand the subpœna to bring the parties to justice, which was dated the 4th of February, or eleven days previous to the time when the letters were said to have been written, and fourteen days before the informations appeared to have been lodged. There was positive proof, therefore, that the letters had been opened, and that a felony had been committed. He would now content himself with repeating his anxiety to verify, in any place, the statement he made to the House on Thursday last. One of the noble Lords had said, that he had an opportunity of repairing to the Post-office yesterday, in order to ascertain how far he could refute the assertions made by himself (Mr. Wallace), and by the noble Lord. In justice to himself, and in order that a Member of one House might not be elevated above a Member of another House, in point of privilege, although he left the House only at two o'clock this morning, at eight he had written to the Postmaster-General, demanding to be allowed to visit the Post-office, that he might enjoy the same advantage as had been granted to the noble Lord. He received from the Postmaster-General a most polite refusal to put him on a footing with the noble Lord. Now, he (Mr. Wallace) contended that he had a right to have all the information which was furnished to the noble Lord. He would not trespass upon the House by arguing the question there, but he was ready to meet the five Postmasters-General in the largest hall in London—["Exeter Hall!"]—ay, with all his heart, in Exeter Hall; and let the public be the umpires.
Mr. Labouchereregretted the manner in which this subject had been brought forward. He had had no recent communication with the noble Lord at the head of the Post-office department, but he understood that an accusation had been preferred against Lord Maryborough, for his conduct when that noble Lord was Postmaster-General. He thought, therefore, that the noble Lord now at the head of the department was justified in allowing Lord Maryborough to go through the Post-office, for the purpose of making those personal inquiries, the answers to which were necessary to his defence. But it was not because, under such circumstances, he allowed the noble Lord that privilege, that he was to allow it to any individual Member of Parliament by whom it might be required. He repeated what he had stated the other night, that he did not stand there as the defender or apologist of any abuse of what kind soever. He trusted that he and the other Commissioners who were appointed to investigate the management of the Post-office, would be found prepared to do justice to the public. In consequence of what had been stated the other evening by another hon. Member, he had thought it his duty to inquire at the Post-office, how it happened that such imperfect returns had been made with respect to the Money-order Office, and other matters; and he could now state that in a few days an amended return, comprehending complete details on the subject, would be ready to be laid before the House.
Dr. Bowringstated, that when he was in Paris four years ago, he had an opportunity of knowing something of the correspondence on the subject of the Post-office, which was going on between the British and French Governments; and he must say, that more unworthy documents than those which proceeded from Sir Francis Freeling he never met with. The conduct of the French Government, on the contrary, was most conciliatory and praiseworthy. They offered, if letters for France were put into the Post-office in England without any postage being paid, to take the trouble of arranging and settling with the British Government afterwards. They were willing to allow that the English Post-office packets should convey the letters both from England to France, and from France to England. These propositions were rejected; and
546
they were rejected in a tone and manner that did the English Post-office no honour. He had then stated, that he was sure the English Government would not approve of the course pursued by the Post-office.
Motion agreed to.

ALLEGED BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. Charltonobserved that he had yesterday given notice that he would call the attention of the House to a paragraph in The Morning Chronicle newspaper, in relation to his conduct as a Member of the House of Commons, as a breach of privilege. With the permission of the House, he would now say a few words, on condition that he should not be called to order by the hon. and learned Attorney-General, to explain the reasons which induced him to withdraw his notice. It must be perfectly in the recollection of the House, that so long ago as May last, the columns of The Morning Chronicle were filled with the most gross and virulent abuse of his public conduct. Now he was always desirous that the fullest inquiry should be made into every part of his public conduct; but no notice having been taken of the letters which he had addressed to the editor of The Morning Chronicle in justification of that conduct, he had, under such circumstances, felt it to be his duty to bring the matter before the House as a breach of privilege; and had accordingly given a notice to that effect yesterday evening. Since that time, however, the editor of The Morning Chronicle had published a long letter from him in defence of himself from the charges which had been alleged against him. It was far from his wish or intention when he wrote that letter, that the editor of The Morning Chronicle should inflict upon the readers of that paper the perusal of so long an epistle. All that he asked was, a public acknowledgment that the editor had received a letter from him, which was perfectly satisfactory on the points in question. He should have been still less inclined to notice the attacks which had been made upon him by The Morning Chronicle, if he had not ascertained that some evil-disposed persons, had sent copies of the papers in which those attacks appeared, to the town which he had the honour to represent. Having done that, the least they could do was to send copies of the paper in which his justification of himself had appeared. He

547
must likewise take the liberty of saying, that a very important document, which he had sent with his letter to The Morning Chronicle, had been suppressed. He meant an allusion to the fact, he might almost call it a direct charge, that the attacks which had been made upon him in The Morning Chronicle, were not written by the editor of that paper, but by a private individual—the Secretary to the Municipal Commission; one whom the King, in appointing that Commission, had described as his trusty and well-beloved Joseph Parkes. He was the more induced to form that opinion, because that person had previously written to him a very civil letter, the expressions of which were couched in such terms as to give him every reason to believe that the attacks which had been made upon him in The Morning Chronicle were written by that hon. Gentleman, his Majesty's trusty and well-beloved Joseph Parkes. He thanked the House for the kindness with which they had listened to him; and he trusted that they would extend towards him a little morsel more of their patience, while he read a brief extract from the letter which he had written, and which appeared in The Morning Chronicle. After a detailed refutation of all the charges which had been alleged against him, he had thus proceeded: "I have thus gone through every charge; I have evaded none—on all I court inquiry, and feel thankful to you, rather than angry, for having given me an opportunity of vindicating myself. I have hitherto not made use of an unkind expression; and if, in conclusion, I say anything against your friends, the Ministers (in speaking on that remaining charge—namely, that I have voted against them), pray put it down to no party motive, for though I sit 'cheek by jowl with the Clives'"—and here he hoped he should stand excused with the right hon. Baronet to whom he was about to allude; for he was decidedly of opinion, if the right hon. Baronet would allow him to say so, that it was utterly impossible that anything which he (Mr. Charlton) might say of that right hon. Baronet, could raise or lower him in the estimation of that House or of the public. He had thought it necessary to make this apology to the right hon. Baronet, and he would now proceed with his extract. "I only sit there because there is no other place in which I can show my opposition to the Republican measures of the present Mi-
548
nistry. Be assured it is not out of any regard to Sir Robert Peel, who, in admitting the principle of the unjust measure that is called Corporate Reform, appears to me to have thrown overboard all the principles he ever professed." "I am well aware that there is nothing which I can say that can exalt his character or expose him to censure; still as a public Member of Parliament that has been raised into more notoriety by your notice, I am bold to say, that in admitting its principle he has acted in direct contradiction to all the principles of his party, and has lent a hand to that love of change, and that thirst for what is called improvement, that this year demands the sacrifice of Corporations, against whom no criminality is proved. Another year it will demand a similar sacrifice of the local Magistracy; a short time longer, of the House of Peers, and lastly, of the Crown itself. Such a proposition comes with a better grace from the Ministry who have ever advocated democratical principles. Let them, however, understand the distinction between a Whig and a Republican:—let them beware, lest the Democracy do not become too strong for them;—let them remember that there is no checking the torrent, and when once Democracy has its swing, it sweeps all before it. Friend or foe 'tis all the same." The extract was very short. "Nay, it is said, and I believe it, that there is a special interference of Providence against the original propounders of the mischief:—
"Nec lex est justior ulla
Quam necis artifices arte perire sua.'
"To give the Democracy a fair and just power consistent with security to the other estates of the realm has ever been my object, but I will, to the utmost of my power, resist its sway when it is carried to excess. As you have been good enough to conclude your article with a saying of one famous man, I cannot do better than close mine with the saying of another no less famous, which is descriptive too exactly of my own feelings. When Lycurgus was asked why he, who in other respects, appeared so zealous for the equal rights of men, did not make his Government democratical rather than oligarchical, 'Go you,' said the Legislator,' and try a democracy in your own house!'—"P.S. I deny that—"[General cries of "Order, order, order!"]
The Speakerobserved, that the hon.

549
Member for Ludlow must be quite aware that from the time at which he announced that it was not his intention to call the attention of the House by Motion to the subject respecting which he had given notice, everything; that he had said had been said only by the indulgence of the House; and therefore that hon. Gentleman must feel the propriety of abstaining from further pressing that indulgence, he not intending to conclude his observations with any Motion.
Mr. Charltonbegged the Speaker's pardon. He (Mr. Charlton) had stated at the commencement of his speech, that he withdrew his Motion on the condition of being allowed to make a few observations without being interrupted by the Attorney-General. [Cries of "Order, order, order!" amidst which the hon. Member sat down."]

TREATMENT OF ABORIGINES IN BRITISH SETTLEMENTS.
Mr. Fowell Buxton, in bringing forward his motion, respecting the treatment of the Aboriginal inhabitants in the British Colonies, begged to state why that motion had been delayed so long. There were certain papers respecting the Commissioners appointed to determine the frontier line of the Cape of Good Hope, which it was highly important should be produced. He had moved for them in the last Session, and again in the early part of the present Session, but they had not yet been laid upon the Table. The subject was one which deeply interested a large body—he might say many millions—of persons, and was therefore entitled to the most serious consideration of the House. When he had last addressed the House upon the subject, he had adverted to the cruel oppression which had been practised on the unhappy individuals in question by depriving them of their lands and other property. He had on that occasion expressed his hope that a different kind of policy would be adopted towards them, and his conviction that humanity would be found a course not only more consonant to good feeling, but productive of more advantage than severity. He now repeated his firm opinion that kindness would be far preferable—that it would be far safer, far cheaper, and far more profitable, than coercion. He repeated, that the question was one which demanded the most serious consideration; the lives and property of not
550
fewer than four or five millions of human beings being concerned in the proper settlement of it. In the Indian islands and the Cape of Good Hope there were at least a million; in Australia there were from two to three millions; and in New Zealand and other situations a great many; so that he was fully justified in the assertion which he had made, that the lives and property of four or five millions of human beings were implicated in the question. It was a circumstance well worthy the consideration of the House, that wherever the influence of this country extended in any part of the world, there the aboriginal population was rapidly decreasing. He had evidence to prove that fact beyond all contradiction. [The hon. Gentleman read a number of extracts from various works, to prove that position.] The first quotation was from a work on America, in which it was stated that a village near the city of Quebec contained the last of the Huron Indians; famine and gunpowder had done their work amongst them, and aggression and oppression had nearly completed what these had left undone. In another district, as large perhaps as the whole of Europe, the same consequences had ensued. A writer, in whom he (Mr. Buxton) could place the utmost reliance, Dr. Laing, stated that from the habits of intemperance, and from the diseases which the Aborigines of New South Wales had contracted, in consequence of their connexion with the European settlers in that country, their numbers had decreased to an amazing extent, and were still rapidly diminishing. This was especially the case in the neighbourhood of Sydney. At the Cape of Good Hope he could state, upon the authority of Mr. Barrow, that the numbers of the original inhabitants were still more rapidly on the decline; and in Van Diemen's Land, of which we only took possession in 1803, scarcely one of the original inhabitants remained. By a letter which he had recently received from that country, he was informed that all that remained of a tribe formerly 500 strong, were two or three men, as many women, and a few children. These unhappy persons declared themselves to be the last of their race, and complained that the white men had rooted them out of the soil. If the time at which he was addressing the House gave him the least reason to hope that the House was dis-

551
posed to listen to details of that description, he could give a great variety of instances of the same kind; but he thought he should not appeal in vain to the House to take the Report into its serious consideration, when he said that the lives and possessions of many millions of persons had fallen under the influence which had been exerted over them, in consequence of the establishment of British Colonies in the soil of which they were previously the undisputed lords. Of the 120,000 square miles now occupied or claimed by this country at the Cape of Good Hope, only a few acres were originally purchased; and he was enabled to state, upon the authority of a gentleman who had spent some time in that country in 1832, that the native inhabitants of the place had, nearly disappeared before the face of the white intruders. Thus it would appear that British influence, wherever exerted in the colonies, was uniformly injurious to those who, upon every ground of justice and right, were entitled to protection in the possession of their lands. He (Mr. Buxton) required no more than that we should act justly towards these people. Unless some milder and more benevolent policy were adopted, he was sure the time could not be far distant when these unhappy races would become wholly extinct. Was it fit that we should use our mighty power to accomplish such an end? When he brought forward the Report last, he had alluded to the Report of the military expeditions which occasionally took place at the Cape of Good Hope, and had predicted, that unless these incursions upon the territories of the natives were put an end to, some very serious consequences would ensue. Any one who had read the communications from the Gape during the last two or three months, would see how completely his predictions had been fulfilled. Letters recently received from Caffre land informed them that the patrol system (the name given to military expeditions in the Indians' country) still continued, and that the worst consequences resulted from it. One of his correspondents informed him of the cause of the late war between the Caffres and the colonists. It appeared that some horses had been stolen from the colonists, who sent an expedition into the country headed by an ensign, an extremely young officer, who went to the first Indian
552
village and demanded the horses. The Indians replied that they knew nothing about them, but the young officer, without any further investigation, at once proceeded to take possession of their property. This was resisted and a skirmish ensued, in which the young gentleman received a wound. This was considered a great offence. Another expedition was fitted out against them; their cattle was seized, a tumult ensued, and the patrol found some difficulty in escaping. This commenced the hostilities which had since led to so much bloodshed. He did not wish to make a charge against any individual. He complained only of the system. He said it was a system wholly unworthy of this great nation. There was one other fact connected with the recent disturbances at the Cape which he wished to mention before he sat down. No persons in the midst of these disturbances were placed in a situation of greater danger, or were more completely under the power of the barbarian population, than the European Missionaries, who were scattered about the country in various quarters, yet it so happened that not one of those missionaries had been touched in person or in property, and whilst the hostilities continued, they had it in their power to render great assistance to many Europeans who were travelling in those remote districts. Such, indeed, was the influence of these worthy and pious men, that they were employed, and successfully employed, as negotiators between the colonists and the hostile barbarians. He merely mentioned that fact to show that proper behaviour on the part of Europeans produced a corresponding one on the part of the black population. Considering that this question affected the interests of many millions of people, and extended over a vast portion of the globe, he thought it was every way worthy the serious consideration of the House, and he hoped he should not be thought going too far when he moved for a Committee to inquire into the subject. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee.
Sir George Greydid not rise to object to the principle of the Motion, or even to oppose it. He thought the question one deeply affecting the character of the nation, and one which, therefore, demanded the attention of the House of Commons. Still, as on the 1st of July last year the hon.

553
Gentleman (Mr. Buxton) would not move for the appointment of a Select Committee, but preferrred the shorter course of moving an Address to his Majesty upon the subject; the question for the hon. Gentlemen now to consider was, whether on the 14th of July, a fortnight later in the Session, he would move for the appointment of a Committee, which could have no prospect of prosecuting its inquiries with success, and which could arrive at no satisfactory conclusion before it would necessarily become extinct by the prorogation of Parliament. At the same time, entertaining a strong feeling upon the subject, he (Sir George Grey) should be content to grant the Motion now, upon condition that the Committee, when appointed, should examine only those witnesses who were about to leave the country, and that they should make no Report until the next Session of Parliament, when, upon a Motion of the hon. Member for Weymouth, the Committee might be immediately re-appointed. He, however, could not suffer it to go forth to the world that nothing but injury had resulted to the Indian tribes from their connexion with our colonies. He thought that our Colonial Government had not been of a character to reflect discredit upon the country; and, as regarded the native Indians, he believed that the greatest blessings had, in many instances, flowed from it.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonagreed with the right hon. Baronet in thinking the present an unseasonable period for the appointment of a Committee upon the subject; but he had felt himself compelled to bring forward the Motion, because the documents for which he had twice moved had not yet been produced. He was perfectly ready to accede to the terms proposed by the right hon. Baronet, namely, that the Committee should be appointed—that it should make no Report this Session, and that it should only take evidence of persons about to quit the country.
Motion agreed to.
Committee to be named on the following day.

ARTS—ROYAL ACADEMY.
Mr. Ewartrose to bring forward the Motion, of which he had long given notice, for the encouragement of the Fine Arts. He would first allude to the evidence of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Dr. Bowring), given before the Committee last Session in support of his views on the subject. That
554
hon. Member had stated, that France had enjoyed the benefit of institutions for the encouragement of the Fine Arts ever since the days of Louis XIV, and their good effects were manifested every day in the reverence that prevailed for the Arts in all classes, and the good taste exhibited in all branches of manufactures. The great features of those institution were the number of the schools—the gratuitous nature of their instruction, and the popular character of their exhibitions. By their means a taste for the Fine Arts was infused into the people of France, and it was in the hope of effecting a similar object for the people of England that he submitted his Motion to the House. He admitted that it might be very much doubted which was the best mode of infusing into the people of this country a reverence and taste for the Fine Arts. He believed that the best mode was the opening of all the means by which a knowledge of the Arts was to be acquired. He was of opinion, that arts, like commerce, ought to be essentially free. However, all those were questions for the consideration of the Committee. It could not be forgotten that a great benefit had been already derived from the labours of Wedgwood and Hamilton, who, by introducing superior models, had been enabled to improve several of our manufactures, which had disseminated among the population a superior taste, and gradually extended itself to the higher branches of arts. It might be a subject of consideration for the Government, whether they should not encourage the higher branches of art, by holding out certain advantages for their professors, and by exhibitions. All these were, however, questions which would come before the Committee, and he should rejoice, he must confess, if the Committee for which he intended to move, were instrumental in extending among the people of this country a taste for the Arts (which they yet much wanted), and, at the same time, raising the character of the artists in this country, which, he was sorry to say, stood in a lower degree than that of almost any other country whatever. He must express his regret that neither literary men nor artists acquired that distinction in this country which their very names bestowed on them in every other country of Europe. He felt the necessity of relieving them from what he must deem an unfounded stigma, and he did hope that the means he should recommend would have the desired effect. As the

555
Motion with which he should conclude had the approbation of his right hon. Friend below him, he did not feel himself justified in trespassing longer upon the House. He had given a tolerably ample scope for his Committee, and his apology for the unusual number was, his wish to have as many practical and professional Gentlemen on the Committee. The Committee, he proposed, should restrict themselves, during the present Session, to preliminary arrangements—such as the examination of witnesses about to leave the country, or the inspection of documentary evidence in the possession of the country, and if their constituents were propitious (in case the House did not survive the present Session), the Committee would resume their labours next Session. He begged leave to move, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the best means of extending a knowledge of the Fine Arts, and of the Principles of Design among the people—especially among the manufacturing population of the country; and also, to inquire into the constitution of the Royal Academy, and the effects produced by it."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould not throw any obstruction in the way of the Motion, and he believed the hon. Gentleman would find on the part of the artists every disposition to facilitate his views, and to afford all the information in their power. He would only say, that he did not concur in the observation, that artists were estimated at a lower rate here than in foreign countries. He knew that there were instances of some celebrated men having been neglected, as for example Flax-man, but, in general, that arose from some peculiarity, or negligence, or fault of the artist himself. Generally, however, talents, in this country, obtain a certain and a large reward.
Mr. Wysehad the honour of seconding the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, and could not but express his wonder and regret that a question so nearly allied, not merely to the arts, but the manufactures of the country, should have been so long left untouched. It was true, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, that in the combination of the arts and manufactures, England stood the lowest perhaps in the scale of Europe. It was one of the earliest efforts of the French government to bring forward those two great objects of intellectual culture. It was a remarkable feature in the numerous schools of that country that it was
556
recommended by a great philosopher of that country that the elements of linear design were as necessary subjects of instruction as reading and writing; and it was to the credit of Napoleon that he adopted the suggestion, which had since been carried into effect in every school in France. In the late instructions for public education issued in 1834, it was made an essential article that linear design should be taught in every school. The remarkable effect of this was, that in every canton, however remote they might be from the capital, a taste for the arts was perceptible in the pursuits and the general feeling of the inhabitants themselves. Let any one go to Boulogne, to Calais, or any portion of the South of France, and they would discover that feature in the national character. And it was observable that all these schools of art were carried on for practical purposes, and the designs were connected with the labour of silversmiths, upholsterers, sculptors, &c, including every manufacture that came under the cognizance of taste. The result was, that in France there was a general taste for the antique, a common feeling for the beautiful in the people which the population of this country aimed at in vain. None of our manufacturers could go to Italy, or France, without being made the subject of ridicule. He (Mr. Wyse) had himself witnessed it a thousand times. They had said, "Here is a nation, rich in all the means necessary for the indulgence of their taste, without sufficient education to use them." Another consequence of this want of cultivation in the people at large was the general complaint that the middle classes of this country when they go into a gallery of paintings or sculpture, despised and sometimes destroyed the works of art exhibited, merely because they were not early accustomed to a cultivation of those arts. It had been apprehended, in consequence of evidence given before the Committee on the British Museum, that such would be the result of a free admission, and restrictions were represented as necessary, which would be altogether uncalled for, if they had commenced at an early period in educating the people. He could not understand why, as they put the works of great prose and poetry authors into the hands of the people, they should not have put what was of equal importance before them; viz., the illustrations of their sentiments

557
and feelings in the cultivation of the fine arts. There was another observation of the hon. Member for Liverpool in which he (Mr. Wyse) entirely concurred; viz., that artists in this country were not sufficiently appreciated, and he preserved that opinion notwithstanding the assertion of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was true that some branches of the art of painting received from the public perhaps their fair reward; such as portrait, miniature, or even landscape painting. But it was not the love of art which prompted that encouragement; it was merely vanity in individuals or some other causes equally unconnected with a due appreciation of the arts. The House might judge of that by the encouragement given to historical painting; which every one would admit was strangely deficient as contrasted with that given in other countries. Only look at the case of Flax-man—it was a strange matter of reproach to this nation that that great man, before whose genius the Continent was, as it were, prostrated in adoration, should be almost unknown in his native land. At least he was not appreciated as he justly deserved to be. Prints copied from his admirable works were to be got much cheaper and more abundant on the Continent than in this country, which proved the truth of his observation. It was also to be observed that there was not in England sufficient facilities for preparatory study in the higher branches of art—that the English nation, unlike the French, which had numerous academical schools, was destitute of any means almost for giving its youth the first rudiments of art. At Rome, he (Mr. Wyse) had witnessed the fact, that almost all other nations, the French, and Germans, and Italians had schools there, for studying the great works of art in that capital. The English had not provided any means for the accommodation of the youth of this country who went out for the purpose. He rejoiced with other hon. Members in the House that there was at length a hope held out of a more just appreciation of this important branch of public education. He trusted, that from communications with artists, a feeling of that kind would be brought about, and that a different style of cultivation of the arts would take place. He trusted that the Committee would give them at least the documentary evidence at the end of the Session, that they
558
might judge, in the meantime, what further measures might be adopted. For himself he could only say, that every exertion in his power should be employed to facilitate its inquiries.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that a great part of the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Wyse) consisted of a depreciation of the manufactures and taste of the people of this country. ["No, no" from Mr. Wyse.] Why, one of the last words of that speech was the "rudeness" and "barbarism" of this country; and the hon. Member had stated that in substance several times. He said he had seen the manufactures of this country ridiculed. He wished to ask the hon. Member how it came to pass if its taste and manufacturing skill were so bad, that those productions were carried all over the world? Was anything, for instance, equal to our pottery? And when the hon. Member talked of this country not rewarding the fine arts, he (Sir Robert Inglis) asked him whether the circumstances of one great artist dying neglected in England, or of another being killed by carrying home some 7s. worth of copper in exchange for one of his best pieces, as in Italy—was sufficient to stamp either the one nation or the other with neglect of talent. He (Sir Robert Inglis) could point out many artists of eminence, who, in addition to the applause of Europe, received in this country those more substantial rewards which their talents deserved; and he felt assured that the inquiries of the Committee would produce many proofs that this country had not so far neglected talent as the hon. Member supposed. With regard to foreign countries, notwithstanding the profession of attachment to art in France, he (Sir Robert Inglis) believed there was at least as much real attachment to it in England. He knew with respect to the works of art at Paris that no applications were made for taking castes of those great works which were taken from the Vatican, till they were in the possession of the Allied army, and about to be removed—proving that they were valued, not as fine works of art, but as trophies of victory. Under those circumstances he trusted that the result of the Committee would be to prove that works of art had been much more encouraged in England than hon. Members had been induced to suppose.
Dr. Bowringthought the opinions of the

559
hon. Baronet and the hon. Member for Waterford, were not irreconcileable. Art was in France more popular, in England more aristocratical. When his attention was first directed to the commercial interests of this country with France, he found there a people acquainted with the works of art, and with the elements of drawing. In the great cities, schools of art were established; the children of the weaver studied botany, the elements of architecture, and even physiology; and the instructions thus communicated to the mind, were brought to bear in the workshops of common life. He (Dr. Bowring) did every justice, and he was bound to do every honour to the manufacturers of this country, he did not think his hon. Friend had quite done justice to them. Their defect was this—that they were wanting in what art could do to instruct them—as to beauty of form, and beauty of coloring. The people of France had become artistical by habit; while the people of England had acquired a capacity which had grown out of their mechanical appetite (if he might use such an expression). The other day, when sitting on the Hand-Loom Weavers' Committee, he (Dr. Bowring) inquired of the Representative of a large manufacturing town in England, how many artists the manufacturers of the town were accustomed to employ for those works of which a very large number was exported? and that Gentleman told him, that there were only two ambulating artists who came into the town from time to time, once or twice a-year, who brought very miserable figures—very wretched models, for which manufacturers paid six or seven guineas each. He would just mention that in the town of Lyons, there were between 200 and 300 professional artistes, acquiring an honourable subsistence by turning their knowledge to the use of manufactures. How could the superiority of France in that particular be denied? France produced 120 millions of francs value of silk goods, of which 100 millions' worth forced their way into foreign countries. This country, in one of its most brilliant manufactures produced eighty millions' worth of cotton goods [Lord Sandon eighty millions sterling?] Certainly eighty millions sterling, of which only one-half were exported. The people of France lived (if he might so speak) in an atmosphere of taste; and the same result might be obtained in England if the Go-
560
vernment here pursued the same course. The hon. Member concluded by saying, he would give his cordial support to the Motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Liverpool.
Lord Sandonlooked more into the improvement of manufactures than of the arts in the appointment of this Committee. Without a single encouragement being given to the arts by the establishment of a public school our artists exceeded those of other countries who were petted and fostered in national academies. He preferred the landscapes of British artists to the stiff and academic figures and designs of Rome and Milan.
Lord Francis Egertonexpressed his general concurrence with the views entertained by the hon. Gentleman who had introduced this subject, and thought that much advantage might be derived to the manufactures of this country, by the adoption of some of the measures contemplated by that hon. Gentleman. He could not, however, estimate the merits of our professors at a lower degree than those of foreign artists, nor could he admit that there was any want of encouragement of art in this country. This observation applied generally to all branches of art, historical as well as portrait and landscape, although the size of historical pictures generally precluded them from private galleries.
Mr. Ridley Colborneexpressed his satisfaction that this subject was to go before a Committee, although he regretted that the Motion had not been made in an earlier part of the Session. It was true that encouragement was given to the arts in this country, but it was by private individuals. It was a fact, that in England alone not a shilling was given by the Government for the encouragement of art; unless the 5,000 l. which was given by George the 3rd to the school of painting might be regarded as a public gift.
Mr. Pottersupported the Motion, and expressed a wish that the public might be allowed to see the specimens of the fine arts in Westminster Abbey on a Sunday.
Mr. Borthwicksaid, our artists, in the higher departments of the arts, were as much superior to those of France as Italy was superior to England in the fine arts. In confirmation of this remark it was only necessary to mention the names of Wilkie, Martin, Lawrence, and others equally distinguished. He could not think, therefore,

561
that in painting we yielded to any country. And with regard to sculpture, if Gentlemen stepped over the way and looked at the statue of Canning by Chantrey—he meant the statue in Westminster Abbey, not in Palace-yard—they would find it such as would bear comparison with the production of any country. He cordially concurred in the appointment of the proposed Committee. He wished to rescue the character of the lower orders in this country from the charge of barbarism in disfiguring statues and works of art such as were respected in other countries. The difference in this respect arose not so much from any insensibility to the beauties of form and colour in the people of this country as from other circumstances; in Spain and Italy form and colour were rendered sacred by their association with religion, and on that ground the people respected them, but in England the case was different, and this difference accounted for the distinction in the habits and feelings of the people.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the most marked difference between this and foreign countries consisted in this circumstance—that in other countries the poorer classes of the people had habitual opportunities of seeing works of art, by which their taste was refined, whereas in England the opportunity of viewing such works formed only the exception to the general rule of exclusion. The nakedness of Churches in this country as contrasted with the splendid exhibition of works of high art in the churches of the continent was enough to strike the mind with sorrow, especially when it was considered that churches were the only buildings which were capable of holding large pictures; and further, that they were open to the poorest classes. The effect of contemplating works of high art in the continental churches was to raise and soften the public mind, religious enthusiasm becoming mingled with an admiration of art. Who could go into the City and view the exterior of the magnificent pile St. Paul's without admiration? It was to be lamented that the interior was a dreary solitude, with the exception of some banners. Would it not be better if fine paintings replaced those emblems of war, and an opportunity were afforded the people to admire within that splendid building some of the noblest specimens of the art?
Mr. Humesaid, that the inferiority of
562
our workmen to those of France in point of taste must be admitted, as in the case of the silk manufacture. He recommended the conversion of the school at Chelsea into a school of art, with a view to the improvement of our population in the arts of design, &c.
Mr. Warburtonthought that it was necessary to exhibit to the people fine specimens of painting and sculpture, and improve their taste generally, before attempting to apply the fine arts to the improvement of our manufactures.
Motion agreed to, and Committee appointed.

DRUNKENNESS—PUBLIC WALKS AND INSTITUTIONS.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, the notice which I have given on the Order Book of the House, embraces three measures—which are so nearly allied to each other in their object though separated under different heads for the better arrangement of their details, that I shall save the time of the House, and promote the general convenience, by speaking of them as one. My present purpose is, to ask the leave of the House merely to introduce those measures, so as to admit of their being printed, if the House should so approve, and by deferring their second reading for a sufficient period to admit of ample time to give them general circulation throughout the country, and thus to obtain the expression of public opinion as to their principles and details. As, however, the Bills undoubtedly contemplate great and important changes, I owe it to the House and to the country, no less than to myself, to explain the grounds on which I ask those changes to be made, and to show that evils will result from things being suffered to remain as they are, and benefits be produced by the amendments that I propose. In doing this, I shall confine myself strictly to the subject, and trouble the House with no more than really appears to me essential to the establishment of my case.
Sir, it is no new opinion of mine, but one of nearly forty years' standing—first suggested by an early opportunity which I had in the very outset of my professional life, when a prisoner of war in Spain and Portugal, and subsequently confirmed by a long course of voyages by sea, and journies by land, in all the four quarters of the globe—that notwithstanding the superiority of the British people in arts and arms, in skill and industry, in patriotism and morality, to most of the other nations of the

563
world, there is yet one vice by which they are especially characterized, and to which they are more addicted than the people of any other country, among whom it has been my lot to reside—I mean the habit of drinking to excess, and interweaving this habit so closely with the ordinary customs and occupations of life, as to make it as deeply rooted as it is extensive, and productive, even among the most moderate, of very serious evils to society. If this impression was strongly made upon my mind in early life, when Europe and America were the only portions of the globe that I had visited, it became greatly strengthened in more mature years, when Africa and Asia had been the scene of my observations; and on returning to England after an absence of ten years in the East, the contrast between the sobriety of the people among whom I had lived during that period, and the intemperance of those to whom I had now returned, was so forcible, that no language of mine could adequately describe it. I will mention, however, one fact alone, a fact which I have often mentioned elsewhere, but which deserves to be repeated, and leave the House to judge for itself as to the inference to be deduced from it. During a course of travels in Africa and Asia, which extended over three years of continuous journeying in time, over many thousand miles in space, and which carried me through cities and towns, the united population of which could not be less than three millions of people, I did not witness half-a-dozen cases of visible intoxication; while I had not been landed in England more than a single hour, nor passed over more than a mile in space, nor come in contact with even three hundred persons, before I saw at least thirty drunk, and this in the broad day, in the open street, including women as well as men, and some of them mothers with infants at the breast. What might have been the number drinking in houses, and therefore concealed from public view, I will not venture to imagine; but if there were not one—though the probability is, that the number concealed from sight greatly exceeded those exposed to public view—I felt that I had seen enough to make me resolve, if ever an opportunity should present itself, to bring this subject of our national degradation, in this respect, before the Legislature of the country, for their reprobation at least, and, if possible, for their cure.
Some hon. Gentlemen will perhaps con-
564
ceive that I drew my impressions from too limited a space, and tell me that I ought not to attribute to the country generally, a vice which I had seen carried to such excess only in a seaport town. But I may remove their doubts as to the extensive spread of this evil, by saying that having, subsequently to that period, resided permanently for about six years in London, and having also, at intervals, passed five years in visiting personally every part of England, from Dover to the Land's End, fo m the Thames to the Tweed, the Humber to the Mersey, the sea-coast and the interior, the agricultural and the manufacturing districts,—having extended my excursions from Edinburgh to Aberdeen in Scotland, and from Dublin to Londonderry in Ireland,—I have had as favourable opportunities as could be enjoyed by any man in the kingdom, for seeing with my own eyes, hearing with my own ears, and judging with my own mind, as to the actual state and condition of the British population generally; and I regret to say, but truth demands the avowal, that I found everywhere too many irresistible and incontrovertible proofs of the large mass of the labouring population being addicted to the use of intoxicating drinks, and using them to such excess, as to consume the greater portion of their substance, and to reduce many of their numbers to want and beggary, and their wives and children to nakedness and starvation. I am free to admit, that among the higher orders of society, with whom drunkenness was hardly regarded as a vice some fifty years ago, I found the habits of intoxication to have greatly declined, so that it was now considered vulgar and ungentlemanly to be seen in that state. Even among the middle classes, there has been also a sensible diminution of those habits of excessive drinking. But on the other hand, among the labouring classes I found the practice had become far more general than at any previous period, while one of the worst features of this change is this, that women, and even children, have become infected by the example of their parents, and are to be seen frequently in the dram-shop and the tavern with as little sense of shame as the rest of the multitude. Having, therefore, in addition to the impressions received in early youth, while imprisoned in a foreign land, and confirmed by subsequent voyages and travels to other portions of the globe, witnessed so much of evil clearly resulting from the habits of drinking to excess, in

565
almost every part of England, Scotland, and Ireland, I felt myself justified in giving notice of a Motion, during the last Session of Parliament, for the appointment of a Select Committee, "to inquire into the extent, causes, and consequences of the prevailing vice of intoxication among the labouring classes of the United Kingdom, in order to ascertain whether any legislative measures could he devised to prevent the further spread of so great a national evil." The entry of this notice on the books was the cause of much mirth to some, who little knew of the sorrows and the sufferings of the unhappy victims whose misery it was my object to arrest and relieve, and a perpetual volley of sarcasm was kept up upon me from both sides of the House, from the day of this notice being entered until the day when the discussion was brought on. The object of this was, no doubt, to deter me from my purpose; but if my assailants had known my history better, they would not have been surprised at my taking up this subject: and if they had considered for a moment to what cause it was owing that I have now the honour of a seat in this House, instead of being in India, they would never have entertained so hopeless an attempt as that of seeking to make me abandon any undertaking on which I had entered from principle and conviction, either by blandishment or sarcasms, by raillery or sneers, to all of which I am happily invulnerable, so long as I retain the conviction of my views being founded in justice and truth.
The discussion at length came on; when the statement which I had the honour to make in favour of my Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee, contained so much of undeniable fact and unanswerable argument, that though the Motion was opposed by the noble Lord who then held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his example followed by those to whom his opinion was an authority, and his character a guarantee for the sincerity and honour of his own conduct, and a shield for that of others, yet on a division, the Motion was carried by a majority of sixty-four to forty-seven; the noble Lord had to walk out of the House at the head of the minority, and the Committee was appointed accordingly. That Committee, including as will be seen by a reference to the list, Gentlemen from both sides of the House, Members who had spoken and voted against, as well as those who had advocated its appointment,
566
did me the honour to place me in their Chair, and assisted me with great zeal and assiduity in prosecuting the inquiry which the House had deputed us to make. The Committee sat from the day of its appointment, which was early in June, till nearly the close of the Session; and during that period examined about sixty witnesses. These embraced persons from various parts of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and included individuals of eminence and talent from the following ranks and professions—namely:—physicians, surgeons, county magistrates, sheriffs, metropolitan magistrates, superintendants of police, of bridewells, and lunatic asylums,—clergymen, overseers of the poor, and parish officers,—land-owners, merchants, manufacturers, and tradesmen,—officers of the navy and army, keepers of spirit shops, taverns, and eating-houses, and artizans and labourers by land and sea: and I think it may be asserted, without fear of contradiction, that the records of Parliaments do not contain, in any single volume at least, such a mass of varied, authentic, and important information respecting the habits and condition of the labouring classes of the population of this kingdom, as is exhibited in the evidence elicited before that Committee.
The period at length arrived for drawing up our Report,—and, after submitting this to the examination and revision of the Committee in the usual manner, it was presented, received, and printed by order of the House, notwithstanding an opposition to this most, essential duty of every Committee to make known to the whole of the representatives of the people the results of their inquiries—without which, indeed, their labours would be incomplete. At the close of that Report, was the following suggestion, which I will venture to read, in the terms in which it was expressed:—
As your Committee are fully aware that one of the most important elements in successful legislation is the obtaining the full sanction and support of public opinion in favour of the laws, and as this is most powerful and most enduring when based on careful investigation and accurate knowledge as the result, they venture still further to recommend the most extensive circulation, during the recess, under the direct sanction of the legislature, of an abstract of the evidence obtained by this inquiry, in a cheap and portable volume, as was done with the Poor-law Report, to which it would form the best auxiliary; the national cost of intoxication and its consequences, being tenfold greater in amount than that of the Poor-rates, and pauperism itself being indeed chiefly caused

567
by habits of intemperance, of which it is but one out of many melancholy and fatal results.
This suggestion not having been favourably received, I was willing to show my readiness to do (myself what I had assisted in recommending others to perform; and accordingly as the Government declined to give the extensive publicity proposed, I undertook to publish, at my own risk, and cost a cheap edition of the Evidence and Report, on terms that could leave no profit, however extensive the sale, but such as would barely cover the actual expense of production. The result has been, that of the Evidence in all its voluminous details, two separate editions of several thousand copies each have been already exhausted; and of the Report—founded on that Evidence and embracing a general abstract of the whole—which was comprised within the compass of a single sheet—more than a million of copies have been circulated in this kingdom alone, besides various re-prints of it in America, from which several editions have already reached this country, with commendations that I will not repeat.
I think, then, Sir, the House will allow—that, in drawing its attention to the remedial measures which I am about to ask it to allow me to lay upon their Table, I have not omitted any of the preliminary stages of due investigation and calm inquiry, by which I can fairly establish my claim to their indulgence, if not to their confidence, in a matter of so much importance to the morals and happiness of the community at large. As those remedial measures are founded, however, on the Report, and the Report is founded on the Evidence, they cannot be considered as the exclusive emanation of my own mind. They embrace the united suggestions of the various witnesses examined, and have had the further advantage of having been most extensively circulated in every quarter of the kingdom, and corrected and revised by suggestions transmitted from thence. I do not, by saying this, desire to escape from the full responsibility under which I feel myself as the introducer of these measures. What was not originally my own in the Bills which I shall ask leave to bring in, I have made mine by adoption; and therefore, whether for good or for evil, I am prepared to stand by the measures, and shall not shrink from any censure they may incur:—while whatever merit they may possess, I shall freely share with those to whom a portion of it will justly belong.
568
With the permission of the House, then, I will beg its attention to some passages of the Report as those most essential to be considered: and which I will read from the volume in which that Report has been made public to the world. The hon. Member accordingly quoted the Report at great length to show the evils of drunkenness.
This catalogue continued the hon. Member will appear to the House, no doubt, a fearful and alarming one; and yet I have mentioned only a portion of the evil. If hon. Members could but prevail on themselves to read the Evidence on which the Report is founded, they would find details which would fill them with sorrow for the sufferers—shame for their country—and virtuous resolution to use their best efforts to arrest the evil, and effect its cure. I wish I could count upon the patience of the House while I turned to some of these details; but I fear to trust myself to make the experiment, knowing as I do, the great reluctance of hon. Members to listen to any thing which they do not deem indispensable to the elucidation of the subject under consideration; and fearing, also, that in the multiplicity of passages which would present themselves for extract, the number would be so great as to make the choice or preference difficult and embarrassing, if not almost interminable; for every page of the Evidence deserves to be read. This, however, I will venture to say, that if any hon. Member feels a disposition to examine the Evidence at his leisure, and has not his own copy by him for the purpose, I will most cheerfully furnish him, without cost or trouble, with a volume of the Evidence, which has been printed at my own expense, and shall consider myself his debtor if he will only read it for himself, for then I shall be certain of his co-operation and support. Let me turn, then, to those parts of the Report, in which we ventured to suggest our remedies to the House, for we were not disposed to content ourselves with merely enumerating the evils, without pointing out the mode by which we thought those evils might be cured. Among those remedies there were some which we considered moral, and others legislative. The former we were content to recommend to private societies, and the agency of individual efforts; the latter we thought might be undertaken by the State. Some of our remedies contemplated restraint and punishment; others offered encouragements and rewards; some were purely financial, such

569
as the reduction of duty on wholesome articles of consumption, especially on tea, sugar, coffee, and other unintoxicating drinks; and the duty on newspapers and books. Some were moral and religious, such as the diffusion of useful information—the extension of education and the inculcation of a sense of shame at the crime of obscuring or destroying by poisonous drink, that faculty of reason, and consciousness of responsibility, which chiefly distinguish man from the brute; and which the Almighty, when he created man in his own image, implanted in him to cultivate, to improve, and to refine; and not to corrupt, to brutalize, and to destroy. Others of the remedies suggested, appeared to us so remote, if ever practicable at all, as to be quite beyond our sphere of action, though in justice to those by whom they were suggested, they were included in our Report, but placed apart, under a separate head, and so clearly distinguished from those we had adopted and approved, as to be impossible to be mistaken for suggestions emanating from ourselves, except indeed by some few honourable Members, who never having read the Report at all, but having heard some very imperfect account of its contents from others, committed the strange mistake of declaring that the only remedy we proposed for the evil we had so strongly denounced, was to prevent, at once, all distillation and importation of spirits, though the fact is, that this was the only remedy that was put aside under a separate head, as the suggestions of witnesses in which we did not concur.
Leaving, then, all the moral and financial, as well as the speculative or doubtful, of the remedies proposed to be dealt with by their respective advocates—the first by private agency and associations for moral ends—the second by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and the third, by controversialists and commentators on either side; and adopting only such of the remedies as came under the head of 'immediate and legislative.' I beg to draw the attention of the House to the following passages of the Report, as those on which my three Bills are actually grounded:—
The remedies which appear to your Committee to be desirable, and practicable to be put into immediate operation, may be thus enumerated:—
The separation of houses in which intoxicating drinks are sold, into four distinct classes:—1. Houses for the sale of beer only, not to be consumed on the premises; 2. Houses for the
570
sale of beer only, to be consumed on the premises, and in which refreshments of food may also be obtained; 3. Houses for the sale of spirits only, not to be consumed on the premises; 4. Houses for the accommodation of strangers and travellers, where bed and board may be obtained, and in which spirits, wine, and beer, may all be sold.
The limiting the number of such houses of each class, in proportion to population in towns, and to distance and population in country districts; the licences for each to be annual, and granted by magistrates and municipal authorities, rather than by the excise; to be chargeable with larger sums annually than are now paid for them, especially for the sale of spirits; and the keepers of such houses to be subject to progressively increasing fines for disorderly conduct, and forfeiture of licence, and closing up of the houses, for repeated offences.
The closing of all such houses at earlier hours in the evening than at present, and uniformly with each other, excepting only in the last class of houses, for travellers, which may be opened at any hour for persons requiring food or beds in the dwelling.
The first and second class of houses, in which beer only is sold, to be closed on the Sabbath-day, except for one hour in the afternoon and one hour in the evening, to admit of families being supplied with beer at those periods; the third class of houses, where spirits only are sold, to be entirely closed during the whole of the Sabbath-day; and the fourth class, as inns or hotels, to be closed to all visitors on that day, excepting only to travellers, and the inmates of the dwelling.
The making all retail spirit shops as open to public view as other shops where wholesale provisions are sold, such as those of the baker, the butcher, and the fishmonger; in order that the interior of such spirit shops may be seen from without, and be constantly exposed to public inspection in every part.
The refusal of retail spirit licences to all but those who would engage to confine themselves exclusively to dealing in that article, and consequently the entire separation, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, of the retail sale of spirits, from groceries, provisions, wine, or beer; excepting only in the fourth class of houses (as inns or hotels), for travellers and inmates, or lodgers, as before described.
The prohibition of the practice of paying the wages of workmen at public houses or any other place where intoxicating drinks are sold:
The prohibition of the meetings of all friendly societies, sick clubs, money clubs, masonic lodges, or any other permanent associations of mutual benefit and relief, at public houses or places where intoxicating drinks are sold; as such institutions, when not formed expressly for the benefit of such public houses, and when they are bona fide associations of mutual help

571
in the time of need, can with far more economy, and much greater efficacy, rent and occupy for their periodical meetings equally appropriate rooms in other places.
The establishment, by the joint aid of the government and the local authorities, and residents on the spot, of public walks and gardens, or open spaces for athletic and healthy exercises in the open air, in the immediate vicinity of every town, of an extent and character adapted to its population, and of district and parish libraries, museums and reading-rooms, accessible at the lowest rate of charge, so as to admit of one or the other being visited in any weather, and at any time, with the rigid exclusion of all intoxicating drinks of every kind from all such places, whether in the open air or closed.
In conformity with these recommendations, I have prepared my Bills, considering them, as in reality I do, but separate parts of one measure, and directed to the same end, though for general convenience divided into three Acts, one of them only, being restrictive, and the other two attractive;—one classifying and regulating existing things, to prevent excess and remove abuse;—the others presenting new combinations of pleasure in other shapes, so that the double experiment may be tried, at the same time, of weaning the population from haunts of intemperance, disease, and crime—and attracting them to occupations of sobriety, health, and innocence—a change which all must desire to see accomplished—a change which cannot be effected without some one taking the pains to attempt it—and a change which, if produced, would do more to improve the health, morals, and happiness of the labouring population of this country, than any other, within the range of legislation to effect, that I can at all conceive or imagine. To fail, even, therefore, in such an attempt, would be no dishonour; to succeed, would, indeed, be a high and noble reward; and with the permission of the House I will briefly run over the heads of both these measures, differing, it is true, in their nature, but devoted to one and the same end, the promotion of temperance health and instruction among the labouring classes of society.
My first object, then, is to draw off, by innocent pleasurable recreation and instruction, all who can be thus weaned from habits of drinking, and in whom those habits may not be so deeply rooted as it resist all attempts at this moral method of cure. But as there will yet remain a large number in whom the vice of drinking
572
to excess is too inveterate to yield to such a mode of treatment, I propose to introduce certain enactments for the better classification and regulation of public houses generally, and for the correction and punishment of disorderly conduct committed in them, as shall even bring the confirmed drunkard within the range of their reforming power.
The first and second of these measures, which I should venture to entitle, "Bills for the promotion of healthy recreation and public instruction among the labouring classes," are such as cannot, I apprehend, excite the slightest opposition, as they proceed upon a principle which leaves the application of their powers in the hands of those only who are to be effected by their exercise, and who may, therefore, be safely intrusted with the management and control of that for which they themselves will alone have to pay the cost. The plan and provisions of these Bills are as follows:—
I propose that in any town in which fifty rate payers may desire to have public walks, gardens, baths, and places of sport and recreation in the open air, it shall be competent for that number to sign a requisition to the Mayor or other chief civil authority of the town, requesting him to call a public meeting of the rate-payers of the town, to whom the question shall be submitted, and if approved by the majority on being put to the vote in the usual way, the ratepayers shall then proceed to elect a Committee of twenty-one persons to whom the execution of the task shall be confided. The Committee would then be empowered to call for plans, designs, and estimates from architects and surveyors, by open competition; and the plan being determined on, and the estimate fixed, they should be empowered to borrow the sum requisite for completing the work,—limiting the amount of capital, however to the ratio of ten shillings for every inhabitant of the town, according to the latest official census of the population, and limiting the assessment on the rental of the town to sixpence in the pound per annum, to provide for the payment of five per cent interest on the capital borrowed, and five per cent for the annual redemption of that amount of capital—so as to pay off the capital in twenty years. The Committee should be chosen after the manner of Councillors under the Municipal Reform Bill, and have full power to make such rules and regulations for the gardens, play-grounds, baths, &c. as might be most conducive to the public

573
accommodation; the check upon them being publicity of proceedings and accounts, and liability to annual re-election of one-third, so as to remove or confirm the whole body every three years.
The machinery I should propose for the second Bill would be exactly the same, on the principle of self-taxation and self-control: though the object would be to provide Public Institutions for the assembling together in the winter—when open air exercises cannot be so well enjoyed—of all classes of the inhabitants who desire social intercourse without the necessity of seeking it at the public house. Such buildings should be erected at the public cost, in the same manner as the gardens, grounds, and baths; and they should contain halls for conversational meetings—rooms for benefit societies, clubs, choral societies and committees of all kinds—a spacious theatre for lectures and scientific experiments—a museum for natural history—another for specimens of manufactures—a gallery of the fine arts for sculpture and paintings—and a library for general use. The building once formed, many of the nobility and neighbouring gentry, as well as the wealthy inhabitants of the town, would, by donation and otherwise, contribute progressively to enrich it in various ways; and a very moderate amount of subscription—when the building was once free—would supply all that could be required. The difficulty of raising funds for a suitable building is the chief reason why such institutions are not more prevalent. The desire exists in many towns, but the means are not forthcoming, and the machinery of this Bill will provide them, so that in the course of a very few years, if these Bills should pass into a law, we shall see as many public walks, gardens, and pleasure grounds in the neighbourhood of all our towns, as are now to be found on the Continent of Europe; and in every place of ten thousand inhabitants, a public institution, embracing a museum, gallery, library, theatre, and places of innocent and instructive enjoyment, accessible to the humblest classes—while in twenty years from their foundation, all will be free of further cost or incumbrance to the funds of the community.
The influence which such changes would produce on the habits, morals, and happiness of the community, may be more easily conceived than described; and for myself, Sir, I think it is hardly possible to overrate the amount of public good
574
which would flow, in a thousand ways, from such fountains of health, and knowledge, and pleasure, as these institutions would prove. For these reasons, therefore, and many more that might be adduced, if time permitted, I can anticipate no possible objection to the introduction of the two measures, which I have thus briefly described.
The third of these measures is intended to classify, regulate and restrict, within certain limits, the number of public houses, generally; to abridge their hours of sale; to close them with certain limitations on the Sabbath; and to subject, all persons found in a state of drunkenness, and the keepers of those disorderly houses in which this drunkenness is chiefly stimulated and encouraged for the sake of gain, to certain punishments proportioned to the frequency and excess of their offences. Even to this Bill I do not, in its present shape, anticipate any very strong objection, because it provides sufficiently for the protection of vested interests, and does not propose to lessen the number of public houses by the suppression of any now actually existing; but rather by suspending the issue of any new licences until the number in each town or district be reduced within a given ratio to population or distance; by which means a gradual extinction will take place of those houses only, the licences of which may fall in by forfeiture for misconduct or other causes; and the numbers thus becoming gradually less and less will make the legitimate business of the remaining houses more extensive as well as respectable, until the beer shop and gin shop shall either wholly disappear, or be merged into the only kind of Establishment necessary for the public convenience, namely, the Licensed Victuallers, at whose houses bed and board may be had by the traveller and inmate who may be absent from their homes.
I shall be prepared at the proper time, whenever the principle of this Bill or its separate details shall come under examination, to shew the grounds upon which every one of the Clauses have been drawn up. But I abstain from doing so at present, as I do not wish to anticipate objections; but will reserve my answers to them till they are actually made. I may say generally, however, that I am as zealous an advocate for the freedom of trade and freedom of action as any hon. Member in this House, and that my only limitation to either is the line beyond which the health, morality,

575
and happiness of the community are endangered or destroyed. I would not permit any man to trade in gunpowder and fire from the same shop, without some limitations and restrictions. I would not allow a maniac to walk the streets unattended, to assault whomsoever he met. I would not sanction the poisoning of brute animals, any more than of human beings,—or the stimulating men, women, and children to crime, and reducing them to beggary and disease; and, therefore, while providing amply for the freest use of all things that persons in possession of their sober faculties could reasonably desire, and furnishing every requisite accommodation for the traveller, the resident, and the labouring man, I would desire only to place such barriers in the way of abuse as could be complained of only by those whose vitiated indulgences were by these means curtailed, and by those whose profits were enhanced in proportion to the immorality which they encouraged.
This, then, is the machinery, simple, practicable, and just, as I believe all will be ready to allow it to be, by which I hope to see a beginning made, at least, in the great work of Temperate Reform:—and when I ask the House to give me leave to introduce those Bills, and lay them on the table, so that they may be printed for general circulation, and the discussion on the second reading deferred till the details shall have been well considered, I hope they will readily accord to me the favour I solicit at their hands; the more especially, as I do not often trespass on their time or patience—that I have never yet done so on any unimportant matter—that I can have no personal or party interests to serve by success—that I have given to the subject all the attention which the most unwearied diligence would permit—that I am willing to respect existing interests and property, and desire no changes but such as carry upon the face of them their own recommendation—that there is nothing in my proposition which trenches on the respect due to constituted authorities, or which will involve either the Government or the people in any increase of expense; and that above all, should my hopes be realized, the majority of the community cannot fail to be benefited themselves. That those who regard the greatest happiness of the greatest number as a sound political maxim will give me their sanction and support I cannot for a moment doubt; and if there be others who, while they ac-
576
knowledge the soundness of this maxim, think there are different modes of arriving at the same ends, I trust they will not deny to me at least the opportunity of having my bills printed, and submitted to the sense of the House after they have been examined in all their details. To all I can offer the most sincere assurance of an earnest desire to advance the happiness of our common country, and improve the condition of our fellow men; and whether I succeed or fail in this attempt so to do, I shall carry with me the consolation of having been animated by no personal motive—of having aimed at no personal end—and, shall await the issue with that calmness and content which a consciousness of rectitude can alone inspire. I now move "for leave to bring in the first Bill, namely, a Bill to facilitate the formation and establishment of public walks, gardens, and places of recreation in the open air in the neighbourhood of all towns, for the use of the population generally."
Mr. Brothertonsaid, that nothing could be more worthy the attention of the Legislature than the introduction of measures having for their object the improvement of the habits and the elevation of the character of the labouring population. Anything that tended to promote the comfort and improve the morals of the lower classes deserved the most favourable consideration on the part of that House, inasmuch as the country owed much of its prosperity to the labouring classes, and it was the duty of the Legislature, therefore, to render their condition as happy as possible. As far as Manchester was concerned he was able to bear testimony to the injury sustained by the inhabitants of that town in consequence of the want of public walks and places of innocent recreation in the open air. The labouring population of Manchester exceeded 20,000. They were confined in factories during the week, and resided for the most part in narrow and crowded streets, so that it was a great privation in their case to be without proper places for the enjoyment of healthful exercise in the open air when leisure permitted them to take it. He fully agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield that the lower classes of this country were degraded by the habit of intoxication, which was but too prevalent amongst them. That habit invariably led, not only to poverty and wretchedness, but to crime; and it was because he thought the measures proposed by his hon. Friend would tend to

577
rescue them from the evils resulting from an undue indulgence in the use of ardent spirits that he stood forward to second his Motion.
Mr. Potterexpressed his cordial concurrence in the Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield. He begged to refer the House to the following extract from a work lately published by Mr. Bailey, of Sheffield:—"The hostility which has been shown by well-intentioned but mistaken moralists against popular amusements would be pernicious, if it could have any effect. Such amusements are required for the healthy play, both of the moral and of the physical constitution of man; and the propensities which they gratify, if not allowed to take a salutary, will assuredly take a mischievous direction. Amidst the monotonous employments arising out of the extreme division of labour in civilized states, excitement and exhilaration are especially demanded and must be had: if they are not to be got in the active game, the absorbing representation, the animating burst of music, the splendid pageant, the spirit-stirring address, they will be sought and found in the tavern and the gaming-house, or the want of them will people the infirmary and the asylum."
Mr. Wysesupported the Motion. Their object should be to prevent the commission of crime, and as those Bills seemed to have that tendency, he should vote for having them brought in. There was hardly any country in Europe, from the most to the least civilized, in which there were so few public institutions for the diffusion of knowledge as in Great Britain. This was much to be deplored, and he thought that as such institutions tended to the good of the State, the Government should in all cases be bound to make provision for them.
Mr. William Rochesaid, he should also give his support to the Motion, because he knew that the want of public walks and literary and scientific institutions was much felt by the inhabitants of Limerick, the town which he had the honour to represent.
Motion agreed to, and leave was given to bring in the Bill.
Leave was also given to bring in a Bill to authorise the erection of Public Institutions.

PUBLIC HOUSES.
On the question that leave be given to bring in the third Bill, for the classification of Houses of Entertainment.
Mr. Humeintreated the hon. Member not to press the Bill, but to be satisfied with bringing up the other two. The regulations affecting public-houses and coffee-shops were constantly changing, greatly to the injury and loss of their proprietors. He trusted the House would not sanction eternal legislation on this subject. It was beginning at the wrong end. Let the hon. Member educate and improve the people first, find deal with public-houses afterwards. The Bill imposed a variety of new restrictions, whereas he would remove all those which now existed, and render the sale of beer and spirits as free and open as that of tea and sugar.
Dr. Bowringthought that the morals of the people would be more served by enabling them to have wholesome beverage, than by any other means that could be devised.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that all he asked was to have the Bill introduced for the purpose of printing and circulation, and if this were conceded he would not press it to a second reading if the sense of the House should be against him.
Colonel Leith Hayconsidered that it was highly inconvenient to allow Bills to be brought in which were not intended to be persevered in.
Mr. Wilksthought that there had been too much petty legislation already on the subject of public-houses. For his part he wished the trade to be thrown open.
Mr. Bagshawhoped the hon. Member for Sheffield would not persist in his Motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that as the hon. Member did not mean to press his measure to a second reading, it would be wholly useless to introduce it at all, especially at this advanced period of the session. He could expect to gain nothing by bringing it in, and, therefore, the wiser course would be to withdraw it for the present.
Mr. George F. Youngsaid, that he must, as an independent Member of that House, protest against the course pursued on the present occasion, when it was no later than one o'clock that morning that a Bill was brought in by a Member of the Government, who, at the time, admitted that it was not his intention to proceed with it during the present Session. He, however, could not see the advantage to arise from the introduction of any of the Bills.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwished to assure the hon. Member for Tynemouth

579
and the other Members of the House, who were quite as independent as the hon. Member, that the two Bills were totally different in their nature and circumstances. The one had reference to the consolidation of the existing laws relating to turnpikes, and the other was a Bill which went to affect the rights of property.
Mr. Buckingham: I am bound to show every proper deference to the opinions of the House, even when I cannot adopt those opinions as my own; and therefore I shall be disposed, after the manner in which my first and second Bills have been received, not to press the third against the sense of the House, at least for the present session. But I must, at the same time, say that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, in thinking that the cheaper you make spirits, and the more extensively you spread places for their sale, the more sober the population will become. On the contrary, all experience and all evidence proves that the increase of beer-shops and dram-shops, in this country at least, leads to an increase of drunkards; and considering that drunkenness is the most fruitful source of crime, disease, and poverty among the labouring population, it is as much for their benefit as for that of the community generally, that the facilities for drunkenness, and the means of indulging in that vice, should be diminished rather than increased. If the hon. Member would ask any officer of the navy or army whether he thought the granting free access to an unlimited supply of spirits or beer would improve the sobriety of his crew or regiment, the inquiry would be thought an insult to common sense; or if he were to ask the policemen or overseers of any district in town or country, whether open houses for the gratuitous or cheap supply of intoxicating drinks would make the neighbourhood more sober or tranquil, they would think the question proposed in jest. As to the hon. Member's statement, that I am beginning at the wrong end, it is somewhat difficult for me to understand which he would think the right one. I have endeavoured to begin at both ends—the one by the way he recommends, education and healthful pleasure for those who are to be operated upon by these means; the other, by restriction for those to whom neither instruction nor recreation will have the least attraction from their habits being too confirmed to yield to this mode of treatment. If I thought it possible to wean away from habits of drunkenness, all those
580
who are now addicted to this vice, by the operation of the attractive measures, I should be too happy to confine myself to these. But being persuaded that the operation of these inducements would be confined to the younger part of the population, who are not yet so far steeped in degradation as to be incorrigible, and being convinced that an immense number of confirmed and habitual drunkards, male and female, will he wholly beyond the reach of the education proposed, I am satisfied that some restrictions and regulations for the houses of public resort are absolutely necessary; and that without these, our work of reformation will be but half accomplished. Still, as I admit the force of the argument urged by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the lateness of the Session will prevent the possibility of my carrying through a Bill that is likely to be much opposed; and as I am desirous of pressing the two measures which the House has given me leave to bring in, to a completion, if possible, before the Session is over, I will, for the present, content myself with these, and defer the other till the approaching Session. In the mean time, hon. Members will have an opportunity, on returning to the country during the recess, of seeing the large amount of property destroyed, and labour lost, and crime, and disease, and misery created by the operation of excessive drinking in their several counties and towns, and come back to Parliament more fully impressed with the necessity of doing something in the way of restraint, as well as in the way of allurement, to correct this degrading and destroying vice. Let them inquire of the magistrates, coroners, medical practitioners, overseers, and others connected professionally with examinations into the state of crime, disease, and pauperism, as to the chief cause of each, and I know well what their answers will be—that excessive drinking is the most prolific source of all. Without shrinking, therefore, from any opinion I have advanced on this subject, and being satisfied that the meddling legislation, as it is called, for the regulation of public houses, is mainly occasioned by the want of some general, comprehensive, and effectual measure for this purpose, which does not now exist, and in consequence of which, there are now no less than three partial measures of most inadequate reform, already passing through the House during the present Session—namely, the Bill of the hon. Member for Lambeth, (Mr. Hawes) for facilitating the

581
transfer of licenses, and opening all descriptions of public houses after one o'clock on Sundays; the Bill of the hon. Member for Middlesex, for permitting music and dancing in all the public houses of the Metropolis; and the Bill of the hon. Member for Durham, for the better regulation of beer houses; being convinced that one large and extensive Act, embracing every thing relating to public houses, such as the one I have ventured to propose, would be far better than ever so great a number and variety of those piecemeal productions, I shall adhere to my original intention of taking the sense of the House upon the measure in an early period of the next Session, if I should then have the honour of a seat in this House; but for the present, though for the present only, and in consequence of the solicitations made on all sides, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for the third Bill, and content myself, during the present Session, with the two already permitted me to bring in.
Motion withdrawn.

CLAIM OF THE BARON DE BODE.
Mr. Gisbornesaid, that he would not enter into the merits of the case of Baron de Bode, which had so frequently been brought under the consideration of the House, but would confine himself to simply stating his reason for moving for the re-appointment of the Committee which sat last Session to investigate that individual's claim. The Committee stated in their Report that they could not terminate the inquiry before the close of last Session in consequence of it having been necessary for the Baron de Bode to send to the Continent to obtain fresh evidence to establish his claim; but they added that their labours were nearly brought to a close, and recommended the House to consent to the revival of the Committee at an early period of the present Session. During the recess the Baron de Bode had been employed in procuring evidence from the Continent at an expense of 3,000 l., and it would be merely an act of justice on the part of the House to consent to the re-appointment of the Committee, in order to enable him to lay that evidence before it. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the re-appointment of the Select Committee to examine into the facts and circumstances of the claim of the Baron de Bode upon the fund received from the French Government for indemnifying British subjects for the loss of property unduly confiscated by French
582
authority, and to report the same with their observations thereupon to the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerfelt bound to oppose the Motion; and he thought that if the House were not prepared to leave out of view the rights of all other parties interested in the claims, they would join him in opposing it. The Baron de Bode's case was not a new one. It had been before the House from time to time, since the year 1816. The Baron de Bode had had opportunities before the Commissioners, before the Lords of the Treasury, before the Privy Council, and before a Committee of the House, yet he failed in making out his case. In every instance he Baron de Bode failed to produce evidence; and now, at this late period of the Session, he came forward to ask for a re-appointment of that Committee before which he was unable to make out his case last Session. It would be an absolute act of injustice to the other parties interested, if the distribution of the fund were delayed any longer. He hoped, for these reasons, that the House would join him in opposing the Motion.
Mr. Sergeant Wildesaid, that nothing had prevented the Baron de Bode from coming forward earlier but his inability to find any Member who had sufficient leisure to take up his case. It was not the fault of the Baron de Bode that it had not been brought forward sooner. He had looked into the case, and he considered it one of great hardship, and he would venture to say that on its merits there never had been any adjudication. It was remarkable that the case was always met on new grounds, which, when examined, had been invariably rebutted. He thought that the re-appointment of the Committee was only an act of justice.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that this was only an attempt to make the House a tribunal of appeal from the common tribunals of the country. The funds in question were vested in Commissioners for adjudication and distribution among the claimants, and an appeal was given to the Privy Council, but the Act of Parliament under which the appeal was so given expressly declares that the decision of the Privy Council should be final. The claim of the Baron de Bode was, he contended, the most Quixotic that ever came before the House. The whole had been submitted to a competent tribunal, and that tribunal had adjudicated against the claim.
Mr. O'Connellcontended that the great-

583
est injustice had been done to the Baron de Bode in this case, and if the House refused the Committeee they would seal that injustice. If the Baron de Bode had not an honest claim, the Committee would decide against him; but if, as he believed, the Baron de Bode had an honest claim, the Committee ought to decide for him. It was true that his claim had been twice rejected, but, then, it had been rejected on contradictory grounds. He trusted that the House would revive the Committee, and give him a fair trial.
Sir Robert Inglisthought that the case had been decided by a competent tribunal, and that with that decision the House ought not to interfere.
Mr. Ewartdenied that a competent tribunal had ever heard the case; and, therefore, contended that it could not be considered as finally decided. In his opinion, the character of the House and of the State would be compromised, if the present Motion were rejected.
Mr. William Rochedeclared that there never had been a case which experienced a more indulgent consideration from every tribunal before which it had been brought than the case of Baron de Bode.
The House divided—Ayes 97; Noes 79; Majority against the Motion 82.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, Matthew

Gaskell, Daniel

Attwood, Thomas

Gillon, W. D.

Balfour, T.

Grattan, H.

Bailey, J.

Grote, G.

Baring, F. T.

Gully, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Hall, B.

Bellew, Sir P.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Bellew, R. M.

Hawkins, J. H.

Blamire, W.

Heathcote, R. E.

Blackstone, W. S.

Hoy, B.

Blake, M. J.

Howard, P. H.

Blackburne, John

Lewis, D.

Bowes, J.

Long, W.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Longfield, R.

Bridgeman, H.

Lister, E. C.

Bruce, Lord E.

Lynch, D.

Buckingham, J. S.

Marsland, H.

Buller, C.

Maher, John

Butler, Colonel

Marjoribanks, S.

Cayley, E. S.

Marshall, W.

Chichester, A.

Martin, J.

Charlton, E. L.

M'Cance, J.

Clayton, Sir W.

Morrison, James

Crawford, W.

O'Connell, D.

Dennistoun, A.

O'Conor, Don

Elphinstone, Howard

Pattison, J.

Euston, Lord

Parker, J.

Fergusson, Sir R. C.

Pease, J.

Ferguson, Robert

Pendarves, W.

Finn, W.T.

Pigot, R.

584

Ponsonby, Hon. J.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Raphael,—

Tulk, C. A.

Ramsbottom, John

Vigors, N. A.

Richards, J.

Wakley, Thomas

Ronayne, Domk.

Walpole, Lord

Rundle, John

Wallace, R.

Russell, Lord

Walker, C. A.

Scholefield, Jos.

Warburton, H.

Sheil, R. L.

Wilde, Sergeant

Sheldon, E. R.

Williams, W. A.

Strutt, Ed.

Williams, W.

Stuart, Lord D.

Wilks, John

Stuart, Lord Jas.

Wood, Alderman

Talfourd, Sergeant

Tellers.

Thornely, Thomas

Ewart, William

Trench, Colonel

Gisborne, T.

Trevor, Hon. A.

GREAT YARMOUTH ELECTION.
Mr. Rigby Wasonrose to submit the Motion of which he had given notice, "That the Petitions from Great Yarmouth, presented 26th and 30th June, alleging, among other things, that the sum of two guineas had been lately paid to many of the voters at the house of one of the most active partisans in behalf of the sitting Members, and humbly and earnestly praying that the House will cause an inquiry to be made into the circumstances stated in the Petitions, and that they be referred to a Select Committee." In support of the Motion, the hon. Gentleman, in the first place, read the resolution of the House against bribery. He then went on to state, that the Petitions were signed by 1,370 persons, and that the allegations of bribery were set forth in the strongest and most decided terms. The appointment of the Committee would not affect the return of the sitting Members; and, unless the resolution he had read were intended to be regarded merely as a dead letter, he contended that the House could not refuse to accede to his Motion.
Mr. Praedsaid, that having distinctly understood from the hon. Member, at an earlier hour in the evening, that it was not his intention to bring forward his Motion that night—
Mr. Rigby Wasonbegged to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He had given no such pledge.
Sir Frederick Trenchcould only say, that he had put the question to the hon. Gentleman himself, as to whether he would bring his Motion on that night, and the reply was, "Certainly not."
Mr. Rigby Wasondeclared he had not given a positive answer to the question. His reply was conditional. When the

585
question was put to him, he certainly said he did not much expect to have the opportunity of bringing forward the Motion, because he looked upon the Baron de Bode's question as a Burking question, having, within his own experience, known the House counted out two or three times upon that question.
Sir Frederick Trenchrepeated, that the hon. Member's reply to his question was "Certainly not."
Colonel Lowtherhad, also, understood the hon. Gentleman to state positively that it was not his intention to bring forward the Motion that night.
Mr. Praedwould only suggest to the hon. Gentleman, that if on any other occasion he should have a Motion of this description to bring forward, strongly affecting the character and reputation of individuals, it would be very desirable that he should use no expression whatever calculated to convey to the minds of any who heard him a doubt as to the course he might intend to pursue. Had he (Mr. Praed) been aware that it was the hon. Gentleman's intention to persist in bringing forward his Motion, he should have been prepared to show how the Petition in question had been got up. He could state, however, from his own knowledge, that it was signed by persons not inhabitants of Great Yarmouth—not members of the constituency of that borough; that it was signed, in fact, by a very small minority of the constituency, and principally by persons wholly unconnected with the town. He (Mr. Praed) was extremely sorry that the suggestion of his hon. Colleague for printing the names of the parties whose names were attached to the Petition had not been complied with, because it would have been the means of showing to the world who those petitioners were, and how little connexion the majority of them had with the town of Great Yarmouth. Had his hon. Friend's suggestion been acted upon, he believed that the names of several Members, distinguished on both sides of that House, would have been found amongst the signatures. As the result of the Motion, however it might be determined, was not likely to affect his (Mr. Praed's) seat, he should deal with it as one in which he had no individual concern; and looking upon it in that light, he would beg to ask the House how such a Motion could be entertained? The offences alleged in the Petition, if they had really taken place, were cognizable by the courts of law. With
586
what consistency, then, or with what propriety, could they be brought before a Committee of that House? Was it to be established as a precedent that Committees of that House were to usurp the functions of the courts of law, or was it to be laid down as a principle that, at the suggestion of an individual Member of Parliament, the courts of justice were to be passed by, and an appeal to be made to a Select Committee of the House of Commons? What was the object proposed in appointing the Committee? The hon. Gentleman had declared that it was not to displace the sitting Members—that it was not to affect them in any respect. What, then, was its object? To prove that bribery had been committed at the last election. A fact, of course, that could in no respect affect the sitting Members. It would not cost the sitting Members their seats, but, supposing the allegations to be proved, and in disproof of them the sitting Members were to have no opportunity of appearing either by counsel or witnesses, it was to go forth to the world that they had been guilty of direct and extensive bribery. That was a circumstance which, according to the hon. Member for Ipswich, could in no way affect them. He contended that there was no precedent for such a proceeding; and he said further, that a vote, appointing a Committee under such circumstances, and for such purposes, whatever the merits, or whatever the truth of the case might be, could be dictated by nothing but the feeling of party, which, in a case of judicial investigation like the present, ought to be the last feeling upon which the House should act.
Mr. Prymesaid, that if any doubt upon die subject had previously existed in his mind, the speech of the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Praed) would convince him that the House ought to grant the Committee; inasmuch as that the hon. Gentleman's observations involved no denial of the fact of the distribution of money.
Mr. Praedwould never come forward to state a fact as a witness in that House, upon a point which affected himself personally. The hon. Gentleman would hardly take his silence upon the point as a proof of the guilt of others.
Mr. Williams Wynncontended that if the Motion were acceded to, the House would be giving greater advantages to the Petitioners than under any other circumstances they could have. They would

587
be permitted to proceed without incurring the responsibility of petitioners in an ordinary election case. There was nothing, except the case of Stafford, which could be at all cited as a precedent, for the course they were asked to take. Committees to inquire into bribery had always, in that House, been the consequence of a special report of an election Committee. The hon. Gentleman opposite said, he did not propose to affect the seats of the present Members, but see what the result would be. It was true that this Committee could not declare the seats void, nor could the House, in consequence of the Report; but if it were shown in evidence that the hon. Members had been guilty of bribery, his opinion was, that such a gross violation of the privileges of the House would be a ground for their expulsion. Supposing the Report of the House to state, that plain cases of bribery could be brought home to the sitting Members, what was the House to do? Would not the House be bound to direct the prosecution of the Members? and, then, if they were convicted by a court of justice, would it be possible for the House, with a due regard to its own respectability, to suffer men so convicted to continue to hold their seats? It was clear, then, that the seats of hon. Gentlemen might be affected by the inquiry. He should say, let the petitioners, in the first instance, proceed in the courts of justice. It was impossible, if the bribery took place as described in the petition, that there was not somebody who could be prosecuted. Proceedings at law might be pending at that moment. It was not for the House to grant a Committee to sweep together evidence for these penal prosecutions in the courts of law.
Mr. Aglionbycould not conceal his surprise at the ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman rested his opposition to the Motion. In his (Mr. Aglionby's) view of the subject, the only question to be considered was, whether the House had or had not the power of appointing such a Committee as that moved for. If it had the power, there could be no doubt as to the propriety of exercising it. The course pursued by the House in the cases of Liverpool and Stafford, where Select Committees were appointed to investigate allegations of bribery, afforded, in his opinion, direct and satisfactory precedents for the course now proposed to be pursued in the case of Great Yarmouth.
Mr. Thomas Baringwould not detain
588
the House more than two minutes. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Wason) ad stated that the petition was signed by 1,370 persons. Now, in Great Yarmouth there were 1,040 freemen, of whom only 186 had signed the petition. He presumed that that cheer meant to say, that the freemen were not very likely to sign it. There were 576 ten-pound householders in the borough, and of them only 171 had signed the petition. So that, of 1660 electors, it appeared that only 357 had attached their names to the petition. A great many of the persons said, that they signed the petition without knowing what it was, and others said, that they never signed it at all, and that their names were put to the petition without their knowledge. There were other forgeries—O'Connell's name appeared twice, Robert Peel's twice, Stanley's once, and one name appeared seven times. These were names which none of the inhabitants of Yarmouth knew any thing of. If, therefore, this were taken into consideration as the Petition of Great Yarmouth, the House would act under a serious mistake.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he should give his vote against the appointment of a Committee upon this ground—that the effect of such an appointment would be gradually to undermine the force of that tribunal which had been founded for the express purpose of securing equality and impartiality in the decisions of that House. The hon. Member who cheered might doubt whether the tribunal had that effect; and if the hon. Member would show him that any other system could be devised, by which the character of the House could be sustained for the impartiality of its decisions on election cases, he should be glad to adopt it. He was not contending that the present tribunal was the best for that purpose, but was simply stating, that the object of it was to do away with the scandal of former times, which was practically found to result from leaving these matters to be decided under the influence of party feeling in this House. If petitions, such as that now before the House were made the subjects of special inquiry, the House would be virtually doing away with the Grenville Act, and taking from the proceedings of election Committees the sanction of an oath, which only Committees under that Act could administer. What was the fact with regard to the Committee on the Liverpool case? They had no power to compel the attendance of Members; and he believed that not three

589
Members regularly attended that Committee. But under the Grenville Act a regular attendance could be enforced. Supposing, however, the Committee to be appointed, what was to be its object. It was not to try the right of a Member to a particular seat, but to decide on the existence of the elective franchise of the borough; and this on the allegations contained in a petition which had been signed twice, and in one case seven times by the same person. Having once sanctioned this Committee, where would the House stop? You cannot draw the line at a petition signed by 1,300 or 1,000. The principle on which you go will just as well, as far as I can see, justify you in taking a similar course with one signed by 100, or even a smaller number. And see who are they on whose allegations you are about to take this step. They are wholly irresponsible, and have not even the risk of incurring any expense if they do not succeed in making good their allegations; and yet, on such grounds as these, you establish a precedent by which the franchise of any city or borough in the country may be put in jeopardy. This was a serious, and in practice a very embarrassing proceeding. In addition to the Grenville Act, the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) had passed a Resolution which entirely met a case of this kind. For where a petition had been postponed for fourteen days after the return of the writ, the Resolution gave the parties who could allege the fact of bribery having been committed, leave to present a petition to the House within twenty-eight days after the fact alleged was said to have taken place. But in the present case the parties did not come forward within twenty-eight days. Again, as well under the Resolution of the noble Lord asunder the Grenville Act, the parties incurred some responsibility; but they were now about to open a mode of investigation which dispensed with all responsibility. He would venture to say, that if this precedent should be established the two former course would no longer be acted upon, but that parties, taking the choice of destroying the elective franchise without any risk, this would be the only course resorted to. Under these circumstances, and believing that no case existed which could be made a precedent for this Motion—believing that if they once adopted this there would be no limit as to the numbers on whose allegations a similar charge plight be brought, that it might be 1,300
590
or not 100; believing also that this precedent would bring back the most objectionable practice of deciding election matters rather with reference to the interests of political parties than to the intrinsic merits of the case, he must, if this case went to a division, give his vote against the Motion.
Lord John Russellwould shortly state the grounds on which he should give a vote different from that of the right hon. Baronet. He had long been of opinion, and he had stated that opinion many years ago to the House, that the Act called the renville Act, while it provided a tribunal where one, less just certainly, before existed, to decide the question between private parties as to which of two Candidates ought to have the seat, yet it provided an inadequate and insufficient tribunal before which the public when aggrieved by cases of gross bribery and corruption could obtain redress. He remembered when he first mooted this question, quoting the case which was formerly brought before the House, now more than a century ago, by Sir Edward Seymour. On that occasion, gross bribery, in several boroughs, was inquired into, and the parties being proved guilty, were brought to the Bar of the House; and the thanks of the House were given, by the Speaker, to Sir Edward Seymour, who said, that he deserved the thanks of the country for the course he had pursued. The right hon. Baronet had said, that possibly defects did exist in the present system. He begged to say, that he had not been wanting in his endeavours to supply those defects. He had more than twice succeeded in carrying Bills through nearly all their stages to cure those defects. Two Bills had been taken up to the House of Lords, having that for their object: one was rejected on the ground of its being too late in the Session to pass it; and the other came back to the Commons so altered, and containing provisions so entirely new, and so inconsistent with the privileges of this House, that he was unable to obtain the assent of the House to the Amendments. Nor did he think it likely that anything he could devise would be at once acceptable to this, and be sanctioned by the other House of Parliament. Then in the present state of the law, and while they were not capable of obtaining the assent of Parliament to a sufficient remedy, ought the House of Commons; he would ask, to allow gross cases of bribery to be brought before

591
them, and to be permitted to pass unpunished, because the general law was not sufficient to reach them? Undoubtedly a due degree of caution must be used; nor ought they to institute inquiries lightly, and upon petitions brought forward for party purposes. If it had been shown, that this was a petition of such a kind, and that it really did not come from any person entitled to relief from this House, he would admit that it would in that case be neither fair to the House itself, nor to the Representatives of Yarmouth, that they should enter into the inquiry. But the hon. Member for Yarmouth had himself made out a sufficient case in support of the present Motion; for he said that 171 ten-pound householders had signed the petition, and that more than 350 persons having a right to vote for the Members of Great Yarmouth had also signed it. Considering the circumstances, this was a very great number. He could suppose a borough which, by the influence of bribery, might be reduced to that state, that you would not find twenty persons having the right to vote who would venture to sign a petition for inquiry: and yet if there were those twenty, or even if only ten, he thought it might be right, upon their specific allegations, to enter into an inquiry. He did not wish the House to sanction the creation of precedents of this kind. But in the case of Stafford, he thought the House had acted with great propriety. Upon the precedent formed by that case, a Bill had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Buckingham, and he had not heard any objection made to that Bill on that ground; therefore, if any sanction were required for the present Motion, it was to be found in the precedent established last year. By adopting this Motion, they would be supporting the general privileges and purity of this House. But if they were to set the precedent of last year aside, and establish one of an opposite kind, and determine that no case of bribery which came before them should be treated in any other manner than the mode prescribed by the Grenville Act, it would be imputed to them by the public generally, and with some justice, that while they took especial pains to secure the particular rights of Members, and of candidates for the honour of a seat in the House of Commons, they were exceedingly careless with respect to the general purity of that body upon which the representation of the House itself rested. For I these reasons, he should vote for the Motion.
Mr. Evelyn Denisonsupported the Motion. The petition alleged that a certain sum of money was paid to electors at great Yarmouth, and that was a fact which he thought ought to be inquired into.
Viscount Sandonopposed the Motion. As to the Liverpool Committee, he knew one Member of it who said he never read one word of the defence, and heard but part of the case of the petitioners. What would the country say when such a case as this was to be forced, in opposition to all precedent and justice, by a party who happened to possess a majority? Was a question of this sort to be made a point for party, for majorities or minorities? If so, then no constituency was safe. If the Committee were granted, the parties, whether they were successful or not, would be allowed all their expenses out of the public funds. Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer such an economist as to grant the public money for this purpose? The tribunal was an unfair one. When the noble Lord brought forward his resolution he should have directed the Committee to be a sworn Committee, and the parties to enter into recognizances to maintain their own case at their peril.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the Liverpool Committee had for its object to check corruption, and it did check it, as by the admission of the noble Lord on another occasion there had been no bribery since. If the electors of Yarmouth were so pure and so calumniated why was there not a counter petition? Why no denial of the present petition?—and there was time enough for it. He admired the delicacy of the Member for Yarmouth in saying, that he would not say a word about bribery—that he knew nothing about it. If the House refused a Committee, they would be protecting bribery. Bribery was a horrible thing, but it was more horrible that it should go forth to the public that the House refused inquiry. The fact of bribery at Yarmouth was not denied—171 persons allege of their own knowledge that it was committed; that it was a practice up to the last election. It was said, the proposed Committee was an infringement on the Grenville Act. But the Grenville Act was bad, as it was notorious that Members were canvassed to attend the ballot, and that the canvassing went on on both sides openly. Any Committee was had where there was a chance of an overwhelming majority being given to one party. In the present Committee, care

593
would be taken that no party had such a preponderance. It was clear that his name or that of the right hon. Baronet was inserted in the petition by no friend to it. It was easy to insert names clandestinely in such a petition.
Sir Thomas Fremantledenied, that this case could be compared to the case of Stafford. When the parties in that case refused to proceed it was not consistent with the dignity of the House to allow the matter to stop. The hon. Baronet then adverted to the Hertford case of last year, and asked the noble Lord (Russell) why it was that after gross bribery had been proved in that case he had not brought the matter before the House upon the noble Lord's Own resolution of which he (Sir Thomas Fremantle) altogether approved.
Viscount Howickobserved, that if it happened that parties prosecuting an election petition on the ground of bribery, afterwards made a compromise, there was no method whatever under the existing state of the law by which the honour and dignity of the House could be vindicated, or those who had violated its privileges be punished. It was absolutely necessary, therefore, to institute an inquiry by the House itself. Was it a sufficient reason not to have an inquiry that there was no party sufficiently interested to incur all the vexation and expense of prosecuting a private election petition! If the House refused inquiry upon no other ground than this, the public would have a fair right to believe that they were not anxious to put a stop to bribery and corruption. With these feelings he gave his most hearty acquiescence to the Motion. The House divided, when there appeared,
For the Motion, 186; Against it, 132; Majority in favour of it, 54.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Barnard, E. G.

Alston, R.

Brotherton, J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Bodkin, J. J.

Astley, Sir J,

Butler, Colonel

Attwood, T.

Blake, M. J.

Bagshaw, J.

Baldwin, Dr.

Bannerman, D.

Biddulph, R.

Blackburne, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Bowes, J.

Brodie, W. B.

Barron, H. W.

Buckingham, J. S.

Berkeley, C.

Bewes, T.

Berkeley, F.

Bridgman, H.

Baines, E.

Blamire, W.

Bowring, Dr.

Buller, C.

Bellew, R. M.

Blackstone, W. S:

Bellew, Sir P.

Browne, D.

594

Byng, H. G.

Murray, J. A.

Brady, D. C:

Maule, Hon. F.

Byng, G.

Majoribanks, S.

Codrington, Sir E.

Milton, Lord

Chalmers, P.

Mackenzie, J. A. S.

Chichester, J. P. B:

Morrison, J.

Cavendish,—

Marsland, H.

Chapman, M. L.

M'Cance, J.

Clive, E. B.

Maher, J.

Cave, O.

M'Taggart, J.

Clay, W.

Marshall, W.

Collier, J.

Nagle, Sir R.

Cayley, E. S.

O'Connor, Don

Carter, J. B.

O'Connell, D.

Clayton, Sir W. R.

O'Connell, J.

Crawford, S.

O'Connell, M. J.

Denison,—

O'Loghlen, M.

Dunlop, C.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Dunlop, J.

Oliphant, L.

Dundas, Hon. T.

Oswald, J.

Denistoun, A.

Palmerston, Lord

Dykes, F. L.

Parker, J.

Davenport, J.

Parrott, J.

Ebrington, Lord

Pinney, W>

Euston, Lord

Plumptre, J. P.

Ewart, W.

Ponsonby, J.

Evans, G.

Ponsonby, W.

Egerton, Sir P. D. M.

Potter, R.

Elphinstone, H.

Philips, M.

Finn, W. F.

Pryme, E.

Ferguson, R.

Pelham, Hon. A.

Fitzsimon, N.

Pendarves, E. W.

Fergus, John

Pattison, J.

Ferguson, Sir Ronald

Pease, J.

Folkes, Sir W.

Power, W.

Forster, C. S.

Russell, Lord

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Russell, Lord C. J.

Gordon, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Grattan, H.

Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S.

Grote, G.

Rolfe, Sir R.

Gaskell, D.

Roche, W.

Gillon, W. D.

Ronayne, D.

Gully, J.

Raphael,—

Heneage, E,

Rundle, J.

Harland, W. C.

Ruthven, E. S.

Mutt, W.

Ruthven, E.

Howick, Lord

Ramsbottom, J.

Hay, Colonel

Spiers, A.

Howard, E.

Spiers, A., jun.

Hodges, T.

Sheil, R. L.

Hume, J.

Smith, V.

Howard, Captain

Sandford, A.

Hindley, C.

Strutt, E.

Heathcoat, J.

Stanley, E. J.

Hawkins, J. H.

Stuart, R.

Hall, B.

Stuart, Lord J.

Ingham, R.

Sheldon, E. R. C.

Jervis, J.

Smith, B.

Kerry, Lord

Stewart, P.

Leader, J.T.

Scholefield, J.

Lennard, T. B.

Scott, Sir E.

Lennox, Lord G.

Tracy, H.

Lemon, Sir C.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Lefevre, S.

Tancred, H. W.

Loch, J.

Thornley, T.

Lister, C. N.

Tooke, W.

Long, W.

Tulk, C. A.

595

Thompson, Colonel

Wason, R.

Trelawney,Sir W.

Warburton, H.

Talfourd,T.N.

Williams, W. A.

Vigors, N. C.

Westenra, Hn. H. R.

Villiers, C.

Walker, C. A.

Wallace, R.

Wilde, Sergeant

Wilks, J.

Wyse, T.

Williams, W.

Wilson, H.

Wigney, I. N.

Wood, Ald.

Wakley, T.

Young, G. F.

Wood, C.

On our re-admission to the gallery, we found
Sir Robert Peeladdressing the House. He was understood to suggest to the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) that the appointment of the Committee should be postponed until to-morrow.
Mr. Wasonthought it perfectly fair that six Members should be appointed on the Committee from that (the ministerial) side of the House and five from the other side—the five being selected from the counties of York and Norfolk.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that if the Committee so constituted were to proceed on its inquiries, it would not be long before there were petitions from other counties and places, calling in question the returns of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. He was convinced, from the specimen which they had that night, not of judicial conduct, but of party feeling, that the Committee could not dispose of these two cases, without hearing others of a similar description. He respected much the character of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General; but he could not help expressing it as his opinion, that there was the same facility of accusation by means of petition with as numerous signatures, against the constituents of the hon. and learned Member, as against those of the hon. Members for Yarmouth and York. He would not now name other places; but he knew many other hon. Members who, before the Committee closed its proceedings, would be brought under the operation of the same system. Therefore, he did consider, that the mode in which it was proposed to strike the Committee in the Yarmouth and York cases, was not at all satisfactory. He thought it would be much better to have the appointment postponed for twenty-four hours.
Mr. Hume: I do hope that hon. Members will not be deterred from doing their duty by the threats which have been dealt out by the hon. and gallant Gentleman; if such proceedings as those to which the
596
hon. and gallant Gentleman has alluded, do actually occur, the best course is to bring them immediately under the consideration of the House, and at once to put an end to those disgraceful practices where-ever they are found to exist.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has dealt quite fairly with the House, or with those Gentlemen to whose individual cases he has alluded as being similar to those of the hon. Members for York and Yarmouth. I do think that he has not acted in a spirit of justice to my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Penryn; for he should have recollected that a petition was lodged against that hon. and gallant Gentleman containing allegations of bribery and corruption, and those allegations, the parties who brought them forward, have been completely unable to prove; and yet, contrary to this decision, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman now comes forward and designates my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Penryn, as an individual Member whose conduct is open to animadversion. Now all I can say is, let that case, or any other case involving bribery or corruption, be brought forward, whether on a small scale or on a large scale, and I, for one, shall never be found in a minority against its being referred to the decision of a Committee; but after the decision to which I have alluded, the right hon. and gallant Officer has certainly done wrong by referring to the case of Penryn and casting a censure on my hon. and learned Friend.
Sir Henry Hardinge, in explanation, said that he had purposely avoided making any charge against the hon. and learned Gentleman; all he had stated was, that the constituency of Penryn would in all probability, be placed very speedily on their trial, as well as of several other cases which he did not think it necessary to mention, if these precedents were established. The Penryn Election Committee had only tried the question of agency, and on that point the sitting member had a full right to claim the benefit of their decision, but the inevitable consequence of the unprecedented proceedings of that evening would be, for questions being entertained with respect to the independence of the constituencies all over the country.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that as a charge had been made, not against himself, but against his constituents, he hoped that the House would allow him to speak of what

597
came within his own knowledge. It was true that the case had gone off against himself, because no evidence had been produced by his opponents which could connect him with anything which bore even the appearance of bribery, but he was prepared to say this—that so far as he knew anything of the proceedings of his election, except from the mere gossip of the witnesses who were examined before the Penryn Election Committee, he had no reason to suspect that anything irregular had been practised by any member of his Committee. It might be that an occasional half-crown had been given away by some of his friends without his knowledge. He admitted that there would have been some grounds for those cheers, had he himself given away to any of the electors an occasional half-crown—but he had done no such thing. If he had given away an occasional half-crown, it would have been a good reason for unseating him; but if supporters of his had done so without his concurrence,—and he did not mean to admit that they had,—though he might ask where was the Member whose supporters had not done something of the kind; that was no reason for bringing any charge against him, nor yet for impugning the general purity of his constituents.
Mr. Wilksbegged leave, as a Chairman of the Penryn Election Committee, to state, that by that Committee a full opportunity had been given to the petitioners to bring forward any specific charge of bribery, either against the sitting Member or any of his supporters. The Committee had left an opportunity open to the petitioners of bringing forward evidence, which they had not brought forward; the Committee had given them an opportunity of bringing forward proof of general bribery; but of that opportunity the petitioners had not availed themselves. The Committee had, therefore, no opportunity of entering into that question.
Mr. Wasonsaid, that he was at the disposal of the House. [Cries of "Name the Committee" from Mr. Hume and several hon. Members near kim.] In deference to the opinion of the right hon. Baronet opposite, he was ready—
Sir Robert Peel. I have no interest in this question. I only suggested that it would be best for the character of the House to adjourn the appointment of the Committee for twenty-four hours.
Lord Sandonrose amid cries of "Spoke," and said, that the hon. Member for Ipswich
598
had proposed to form his Committee of five Members connected with the Counties of York and Norfolk, and of six Members taken from the Ministerial side of the House, [Cries of "Spoke, spoke."] When hon. Gentlemen so far forgot what had passed as to assert that he had already spoken on this question, he begged leave to remind them, and to assert most solemnly, that he had not. He was sorry to say, that he had observed of late a practice growing up in that House, of Gentlemen meeting any argument that they could not refute, or any assertion that they felt to be disagreeable, by loud cries of "Spoke, spoke." Such a practice was most pernicious in its results, and was one which he should always resist, and in which he should expect to be always supported by a majority of the House. He was desirous of confining his observations to what the hon. Member for Ipswich had said about the nomination of this Committee. In former cases of this kind the object had always been to select a Committee impartially, and not to choose the Members from any particular county or counties. Why had the hon. Member departed from the ordinary practice?
Lord John Russellsaid, that it certainly appeared to him desirable that the appointment of this Committee should be deferred for four-and-twenty hours.
Postponed appointment of the Committee.

CORRUPTION OF THE FREEMEN OF THE CITY OF YORK.
Mr. Aglionbyhoped that, at that late hour of the night, (it was a quarter to two o'clock) he should be spared the necessity of stating the circumstances which induced him to move that the petitions of the inhabitants of York, complaining of bribery and treating at the last elections for Members of that city, be referred to a select Committee. As the petitions had been printed, he should take it for granted that every Member was acquainted with their contents. The principle on which it was proposed to refer such petitions to the consideration of a select Committee was so well known, that he would not venture to say a word upon it. With regard to the first petition; which was presented from the inhabitants of the City of York, he would only observe that he considered, that in presenting it he was performing a duty unpleasant in itself, but still necessary, as it had been put into his hands. He was sure that the House would excuse him from going into the details of the petitions, as there was nothing in either of

599
them which could take them out of the rule just laid down in the Yarmouth case. He was sure that his hon. Friend, the Member for York, would offer no objection to this motion, for the petitions contained no allegations against him, though they did contain allegations that the most gross and corrupt practices had taken place among his constituents. He (Mr. Aglionby) was most desirous that the circumstances of every election since 1831 for the City of York should be fully examined into by the Committee. The hon. Member for Buckingham had told the House, that in such an investigation he would not rely upon testimony merely oral. Now, if the House would allow these petitions to go to a Committee, he would undertake to say, that the hon. Member for Buckingham should have something beyond mere oral testimony. He was given to understand that sovereigns had been enclosed in papers to more than 800 persons in the City of York, and these papers would be presented to the Committee in great numbers. He had made inquiry into the subject matter of these petitions, and he believed that the allegations which they contained would be fully substantiated. If he had not entertained such a belief, he for one would not have required that this question should be investigated. He should, therefore, beg leave to move that the two petitions from the inhabitants of York presented, one on the 30th of June, and the other on the 13th of July, complaining of bribery at the two last elections for that City, and that the allegations contained in those two petitions respecting the contested elections for that City, be referred to a select Committee. He hoped that that Committee would be impartially selected, and that no party feeling would be visible in its appointment. He likewise hoped, that every Member appointed a Member of it would attend its sittings, as in the Ipswich case, every day, whilst the investigation was going on.
Mr. Lowthercalled the attention of the House to this fact, that the first of the petitions presented against his constituents was signed by not more than forty-five, and the second by not more than sixty-three, persons. There was, therefore, a great difference between this case and that of Yarmouth, where the petition had been numerously signed. The House would also be surprised to hear, that many of the individuals who had signed these petitions had since shrunk from avowing their sig-
600
natures. He stated this upon the authority of one of the leading Whig journals of York.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that as not more than one individual in forty of the electors of York had signed these petitions, he was anxious to learn what number of signatures would be hereafter deemed sufficient to induce the House to follow the example which it had now set, of referring petitions containing general allegations of bribery exercised among the constituency to the consideration of a select Committee. Out of a constituency of 400 persons, such for instance as existed at Tavistock, if ten persons were to send a petition to the House complaining of the general corruption of the electors, would the noble Lord opposite deem that number sufficient to induce him to grant a Committee to inquire into the allegations of their misconduct? As to the case of York, the proportion was one to forty; was it intended that elsewhere the same proportion should be the criterion of the numbers necessary to obtain an inquiry into allegations of corruption? If that were to be the criterion, perhaps hon. Members on the other side of the House would soon find a greater number of petitions presented against the disinterested purity of their constituents than they might find agreeable.
Mr. Rundle. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member had better take his criterion from Launceston than from Tavistock, especially as a petition was presented in the last session of Parliament from the former borough against his return, on the ground of the corrupt charges which he had appeared to patronize.
Lord John Russell, in reply to the speech of the right hon. and gallant Officer on the other side of the House, observed, that it was difficult to lay down any precise rule in such a case as that which had been proposed to his consideration. Still, in cases like the present, where a petition was presented, alleging as a fact that sums of money had been sent in letters to the voters as a consideration for their votes, he thought that the House was bound to institute an inquiry. But, in cases where a small number of electors did nothing more than make general allegations of bribery against their brother electors, he thought that doubts might fairly be entertained whether the House was bound to interfere at all.
Sir Henry Hardingecontended, that when a new precedent like the present was established, it was fitting that the House

601
should know the basis on which it was established. He confessed that he was at a loss to imagine what it was that the hon. Member for Tavistock had alluded to. He had formerly represented in Parliament the City of Durham, which contained a numerous constituency of 1,500 Freemen. He could solemnly declare, that as the Representative of that Town, he had never been guilty, directly or indirectly, of an act of bribery; and he would further say, upon his honour as an Officer and a Gentleman, that he had never been guilty of any corrupt practice at Launceston. It was in the power of any set of persons, if the principle now contended for were established, to bring the most unfounded charges against any constituency. If five signatures were as good as ten, or as good as fifty, to such petitions, you would soon be able to shake from its privileges every constituency in the British Empire.
Mr. Cayleyadmitted that the petition which he had presented from the inhabitants of York was not numerously signed; it was, however, signed most respectably, for it had the signatures of five or six aldermen, of the town-clerk, of three or four clergymen, of two or three bankers, and of several most respectable merchants and tradesmen. They were parties who held themselves aloof from the violent partisans on both sides of the question, and being such persons, the prayer of their petition ought, in his opinion, to be attended to immediately.
Sir Henry Hardingeagain repeated, that as the rule was now established, it was desirable that the House should know what number of signatures it was necessary to attach to a petition to obtain a Committee of this kind.
Mr. Lowthersaid, that it was not his intention to cast any imputation upon the petitioners. He admitted that, in their individual capacity, they were all highly respectable persons. He did not know whether all of them stood aloof from party contests; but this he did know, that all, or at any rate the great majority of those who signed the petitions, had voted in the late elections against himself. He agreed with his noble Friend, the Member for Liverpool, that hon. Members were too much in the habit of crying out, "Spoke,spoke," when they heard arguments advanced which told too strongly against themselves. The charges contained in these petitions did not at all affect him, but they affected his constituents, the Freemen of York, who were
602
as respectable and independent a body of electors as any that they could find in the kingdom. So far was it from being correct, that he had authorized his agents to adopt corrupt practices to secure his election, that he had absolutely given them directions to discountenance such practices to the utmost.
Mr. Rundlewould say, that his constituents at Tavistock courted the strictest investigation into the manner in which the election of Members was conducted in their borough. He was surprised that the hon. and gallant Officer should have alluded to the Borough of Tavistock, when he had a case at hand much more apposite—he meant the Borough of Launceston, of which the inhabitants had last year presented a petition against the right hon. and gallant Officer's return.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that his only reason for alluding to Tavistock, was because he then saw the noble Member for Stroud standing right opposite to him. He was sure that the noble Lord would agree with him, that under the Reform Bill, Tavistock had been a place of particular favour. He was convinced that the last election at Launceston had been conducted with as much purity as any election in the country, and he repudiated all insinuations to the contrary.
Lord Ebringtonsaid, that if the right hon. and gallant Officer had felt himself justified in casting imputations upon the electors of Tavistock, merely because he sat opposite to his noble Friend the Member for Stroud, surely the hon. Member for Tavistock had a right to feel himself justified to glance at the constituents of the right hon. and gallant Officer, especially as he sat opposite to the right hon. and gallant Officer, and knew that a petition had been presented from Launceston against his return. In giving his vote in favour of referring these two petitions to a select Committee, he must observe that he did not give it so much in the hope of amending the representation of these two places, York and Yarmouth, as in the hope that it would produce the effect with which the right hon. and gallant Officer had threatened his side of the House—namely, that in all cases in which bribery had been committed, and in which the parties who could have proved it, were deterred by the ex-pence of disputing the return from coming to prove it before the House, they would now come forward to prove the bribery before a Committee of the description which

603
the House was then on the point of appointing.
The motion agreed to.