Commons Sitting of 24 March 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Constabulary; Vaccination.—Read a second time:—Tithe Commutation (Ireland); Consolidated Fund.
Petitions presented. By Colonel Butler, from Kilkenny, for an Extension of the Franchise, and Corporate Re form.—By Messrs. Villiers, Bannerman, Morrison, G. W. Wood, Wallace, Greg, T. Duncombe, Hume, Ashton, Yates, Sir U. Peel, and Lord James Stuart, from a very great number of places, for, and by Messrs. Hodges, Dugdale, Holdsworth, Codrington, Clive, and Lord G. Lennox, from a number of places, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Sir C. B. Vere, Mr. Dugdale, and Mr. Estcourt, from several places, for, and by Mr. C. Lushington, from a Meeting held at the Freemasons Tavern, and Mr. Villiers, from Bilston, against, Church Extension.—By Mr. Round, from Maldon, against the Poor-law Amendment Act.—By Mr. Crawford, from the Merchants of London, for Inquiry into the Opium Trade.—By Sir R. Peel, from Belfast, in favour of Non-Intrusion; from Nova Scotia, in favour of the Established Church; and from Galway, against the Importation of Flour into Ireland.—By Mr. R. Alston, from Ware, for the Release of John Thorogood, and the Abolition of Church Rates.

OPIUM SEIZED BY THE CHINESE.
Mr. Crawfordsaid, there were two petitions now lying before the House from certain persons interested either as owners or as representatives of owners, of a large portion of the opium, which in the month of March last year, had been placed at the disposal of Captain Elliot, the British superintendent at Canton, on a requisition made by that authority to the British merchants at that place; and it was now his intention, in pursuance of his notice, to move, that the subject of grievance set forth in those petitions should be referred to a Select Committee of this House. He understood it was not the intention of Government to oppose that Committee, and he should therefore not go at any length into the details of this question; but, considering the peculiar nature of the transaction, the magnitude of the interests involved in it, and its general importance with respect both to the property of the subject and the public revenue, he might perhaps be allowed to give a brief historical view of the manner in which this trade had been conducted. From the earliest period of communication between Bengal and China, a trade in opium had existed in Behar; and when that province passed under the sovereignty of the British Government it approached much to a monopoly. In the year 1786, when Lord Cornwallis was Governor-general, this subject was brought under the peculiar consideration of his Government, and a scheme, still in existence, was then deter-

7
mined on as to the manner in which the revenue should be raised on that article on exportation to a foreign country. From 1786 to 1796, it was introduced as theretofore on the payment of a fixed duty, but in that year an edict appeared in China, having for its object to discontinue the use of opium. It prohibited the importation of it into that country; but the edict was altogether inoperative in that respect. The quantity of opium introduced into China had not diminished, but had, on the contrary, increased from that time, and ships having opium on board proceeded to the usual anchorage for British ships, and the trade continued to be carried on with the connivance of the highest Chinese authorities, from the Viceroy himself down to the lowest mandarin. It was then suggested, that stricter measures should be taken to prevent the importation of opium, and in 1821 the ships discontinued forming their rendezvous at the usual place. In 1823, however, the traffic began to be carried on upon the eastern coast of China, where in the year 1829 it had become an established trade. It continued increasing to such an extent, that the quantity of opium imported, which was in 1819 only 4,000 chests, arose in 1839 to 27,000 chests. In 1836 the Chinese government took the matter into serious consideration, apparently with a view to put the trade down, and the question arose in the council at Pekin, whether the opium trade should be legalized under restrictions or prohibited altogether. It was by a majority of one voice in the council resolved to make the traffic illegal; more stringent measures were in consequence taken, and did not prove altogether ineffectual. In 1839 the commissioner, of whom so much had been heard, Commissioner Lin, was despatched to Canton, with extraordinary powers, which superseded all the other authorities there. The occurrences that had taken place since that period were too notorious to require any statement of them to be made to the House. It was well known, that Captain Elliot, having placed himself in the lion's mouth by going from Macao to Canton, had called upon the merchants to give up all their opium, which they had accordingly done, upon an agreement for indemnification being entered into with them by Captain Elliot, in the name of the British Government. This agreement had not been ratified by
8
Government. Now, he wished the House to consider what was the condition of the British merchants residing in Canton with reference to the authority of the superintendent. They believed, that they owed obedience to any order which the superintendent gave as the representative of the Government; they thought they had no choice in the matter, and the reason of this impression on their part was this, that the effect of the act passed in 1833 was to transfer to the chief superintendent all the powers and authorities previously exercised by the supercargoes of the East India Company. Now, before the passing of the act, British subjects could only trade with China, under the sanction of the East India Company, by virtue of licences annually granted, and they were called upon to obey every order issued by the supercargoes. It was not, therefore, unreasonable for those merchants to suppose themselves bound to offer the same obedience to the superintendent after the act had passed. As no opposition was offered to his motion, he should not trouble the House with any further observations at present. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that the petition from the proprietors of opium delivered up to Captain Elliot, the superintendent of the British trade in China, for the service of her Majesty's Government, be referred to a Select Committee.
Sir G. Stauntonrose to second the motion, and from the circumstance of his having passed a great part of his life, and held high and important offices in the country alluded to, he trusted the House would bear with him while he detained them for a short time, by entering rather more at length into the question than I otherwise might be prudent. He did not rise to express any opinion upon the validity of the transaction complained of in the petition. The House was not in a condition to determine that point. Still less did he rise to vindicate the opium trade carried on with China: on the contrary, he wished to see it put an end to by an Act of the Legislature, and the good feeling-of the people of this country. However, the magnitude of the claims made by the petitioners, and the valid and binding guarantee given by her Majesty's Superintendent of Trade at Canton—that officer being still in the employment of Government—he considered that it would be an act of gross injustice if these claims

9
were to be dismissed by a letter of six lines from the Secretary to the Treasury. He thought a full and fair inquiry should, injustice to all parties, be instituted, and he knew no better tribunal before which such an inquiry could take place than a Parliamentary Committee. There all parties would be heard, and the full circumstances of the case be laid open. While the East India Company's Charter existed, whenever a vessel arrived at China, notice was given to the commander that the importation of opium was prohibited by the Chinese government, and if it was attempted to smuggle any, the commander would be subjected to severe penalties, and the cargo would be liable to seizure. They were aware that the opium trade contributed to the revenue of India, but the agents of the Company thought it no part of their duty to protect or encourage any species of illicit trade. He was not prepared to say whether that course had been pursued in China during the remaining period of the Company's exclusive privileges, but it would appear, from the papers laid upon the table of the House, that a total change had taken place from the time her Majesty's Superintendents were sent out there. It would appear from these documents, that the opium trade was sanctioned and protected, and authorised by the representative of the British nation. There was at least so much of sanction, that it could not be regarded as a smuggling transaction. On the contrary, it had been spoken of by the authorities as favourable to the general commerce. At length the Chinese Government took more decided measures to suppress the traffic, and such conflicts arose, that the superintendent found it necessary to take measures to restrain it, and he issued a notice restraining it within certain limits. But the storm of Chinese indignation still grew blacker and blacker, the orders were more and more stringent to close the trade. Commissioner Lin arrived at Canton, and an order was issued directing all British vessels engaged in the traffic to quit the port; that was in September, 1839. And if that order had been enforced earlier, the House would not have been considering the losses of individuals, nor have to lament the stoppage of a valuable trade, neither would a struggle have ensued, which he (Sir G. Staunton) would not call unfortunate, for of its issue he felt confident in success, but which, nevertheless,
10
it would have been as well to avoid. Under all these circumstances, the petition would be justly entitled to serious consideration. As to the legality of Captain Elliot's order, he was not qualified to discuss it. But he would venture humbly to submit to the House, that if in the station which Captain Elliot occupied, he felt himself called upon, in order to prevent fatal collisions, to take the measures he had, and if he acted in conformity with his duty to procure the liberation of British subjects, he demanded the opium, and gave the guarantee, which he had done, then certainly those British merchants, who thereby sustained losses, should have compensation. He would not detain the House further. He begged to state, he did not entertain any hostile opinion against the expediency of claiming redress from the Chinese government, and he entirely concurred in the statement made the other night by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies.
Viscount Sandonhaving given notice that he would, on Thursday next, call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which opium was grown in India to be introduced into China, begged to say a few words on the present question. It was his intention to call upon the House in some shape or other to express a strong opinion, or at least to go into an inquiry, which he hoped would issue in the expression of a strong opinion, that it was highly improper for the East India Government any longer to continue the growth of opium for the market of China, and highly expedient for the British Government to lend its best endeavours to the Chinese authorities for the suppression of that mischievous and iniquitous traffic. But, as this matter was now about to be intrusted to a committee, he believed he should best consult the interests of the great question he had at heart by postponing for the present making any distinct motion on the subject, hoping that the result of this inquiry would lead to much further information, and prepare the House and the public for the conclusion to which he wished to bring them. He hoped the committee would institute a strict and searching investigation into the whole circumstance of the case. If he should be appointed a Member, he should go into the inquiry certainly without prejudice against those claims, thinking that a primâ facie case had been made out by those

11
who preferred them, but at the same time with a full determination to examine the whole subject, and an anxious desire, it possible, to discover some means of substituting for a precarious, discreditable, and iniquitous traffic a wholesome and legitimate trade with that vast and important empire. He hoped no measure of the Government would precipitate this country into a war with China of indefinite extent, being wholly unjustified by any proceedings on the part of China; indeed, he had strong doubts whether the Chinese authorities had not better grounds for making war upon us than we had to make war upon them. He should postpone his motion for the present, with the view of renewing it shortly after Easter, if this committee should then have reported.
Viscount Palmerstonrose merely to state, that his hon. Friend who introduced this subject was right in saying that no objection would be urged to the appointment of this committee; because, undoubtedly, Government must acknowledge that the subject was one into which it would be impossible with any appearance of fairness or justice to refuse inquiry before a committee of that House. He should, therefore, have followed the example of his hon. Friend who moved for the committee, by abstaining from entering at all into the wide field of observation laid open by the papers which had been laid on the table, but for an observation which had dropped from the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth. It appeared to be the opinion of his hon. Friend, that the superintendents who had the conduct of our commercial relations with China since the trade was thrown open had departed from the system pursued by the supercargoes with regard to the trade in opium, and that whereas the supercargoes did not encourage that trade, he conceived the superintendents had done so. Now, when his hon. Friend examined the papers more attentively, he would see that in this respect his impression was erroneous. The superintendents had followed exactly the same course which had been pursued by the supercargoes. Like the supercargoes, they knew the existence of the trade, for it was matter of public notoriety; but they had not even the same powers which the supercargoes had in order to put it down if ordered to do so, because the supercargoes had a certain authority; they could order any British subject who was
12
pursuing a trade discreditable or injurious to quit the Chinese waters, but the superintendents had no such power. He had explained this in a despatch which would be found at page 129 of these papers.
"As a misconception on this point (the want of powers) might give rise to much embarrassment both to her Majesty's Government and to the superintendents personally, I have to state to you, for your guidance, that the clause of the Act 26 George 3rd, upon which you rest your opinion (namely, that the superintendents had certain powers over British subjects in China), was repealed by the 146th Clause of the Act 33 George 3rd, c". 52; and further, that the only power exercised by the supercargoes was that of removing unlicensed persons. But as no licence from his Majesty is now necessary to enable his Majesty's subjects to trade with or reside in China, such power of expulsion has altogether ceased to exist with respect to China."
The superintendents, therefore, had no legal power whatever to compel any parties engaged in the opium trade to quit China; all they could do was, not to encourage or protect them, which he had given positive instructions that they should abstain from doing. His hon. Friend was, therefore, mistaken in supposing that any encouragement had been afforded by the superintendents to the trade. As to their not taking any active step to put a stop to it, his answer was, they could not by law take any. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought the noble Lord opposite had not acted improperly in postponing his motion.
Sir G. Stauntonexplained. He had stated, that on the 11th of September, 1839, the British superintendent did prohibit the opium trade; if he had power to prohibit it then, he might have prohibited it before.
Motion agreed to.

PRIVILEGE—RATIONS FOR MR. PEARCE.
Sir F. Burdettrose to call the attention of the House to the petition of G. Johnston Pearce, now in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, which he had presented a few days ago. The short interval which had elapsed had given an opportunity to hon. Members to read the petition itself, and he could not help thinking, from the character and former services of this gentleman, as well as the extremely moderate request he now made, his case would now come strongly recommended to the favourable consideration of

13
the House. Notwithstanding the strong opinions entertained by those on both sides who stood up for the powers or privileges of that House, he firmly believed no revengeful or vindictive feeling was entertained by any, and therefore he indulged the hope, when an inoffensive individual, an involuntary victim, had fallen under their power, they would not; aggravate the other sufferings of his confinement by a deprivation of the common necessaries of life. Mr. Pearce now stood in a most deplorable situation, from which every one must feel the necessity of relieving him. Were he a felon—had he committed any offence and been imprisoned anywhere but in the cells of the House of Commons, he would instantly have become entitled to sustenance; and all he now asked was, that the House should now grant him the means of support while in custody of their officers, so that he should not, upon his discharge, find himself compelled, by debts contracted for his maintenance, under the necessity of going to another prison over the water in order to wipe them off. Mr. Pearce, he contended, was perfectly free from blame, and, considering the length of his imprisonment, he hoped, taking his case into consideration along with the fact that they had been obliged already to discharge two other prisoners from ill health, the House would not only grant the prayer of his petition, but extend to him the further indulgence of liberty to breathe the fresh air daily, and so to preserve that health on which he relied for gaining the honest means of support for himself and family when it should please the House to discharge him from custody. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving, "That Thos. George Johnston Pearce be excused from the payment of the sum of 4l. 19 s. being the cost of his maintenance during his confinement; and that the Sergeant-at-Arms be directed to supply the said Thomas George Johnston Pearce with rations free of expense."
Sir R. Inglisseconded the motion. It was nothing more than a prayer for food. The House had deprived this gentleman—for gentleman he was by birth, education, and service—they had deprived him of the humble means by which he formerly earned his bread; he did not ask for liberty, but, with the recollections of an old soldier, for rations of food to prevent him from starving in prison. He hoped the
14
noble Lord, not content with granting the prayer of the petition, would see the propriety of shortly releasing him and the other prisoners altogether from confinement.
The petition was read by the clerk, and set forth—
"That your petitioner is confined under the authority of the warrant of the right hon. the Speaker of your hon. House, for having been guilty of an alleged high contempt and breach of the privileges thereof. That, upon the incarceration of your petitioner, he was deprived of his means of supporting himself and his family, and is now without any pecuniary resources, other than the contributions of a charitable and sympathizing public. That your petitioner was supplied with provisions by Mr. Bellamy, the keeper of your hon. House, from the 9th day of February last, the day of his committal, until Friday, the 6th of March inst., when, to the great surprise of your petitioner, he had a bill delivered to him by that gentleman, amounting to the sum of 4l. 19 s., being the cost of the maintenance of your petitioner during that period. That your petitioner being unable, from the circumstances above set forth, to meet this demand, humbly prays your hon. House to direct that the payment of the same sum may be excused to him; and further to order that the Sergeant-at-Arms attending your hon. House may in future supply your petitioner with rations free of cost."
Lord J. Russellreally did not see that it was necessary for the House to take any step upon this subject. The usual course was for parties committed by order of the House to pay for their own maintenance, and very often the fees upon their discharge. But the case of a person of extreme poverty, alleging also, as in this instance, his extreme ignorance of the privileges of that House, was so far entitled to compassion, that when the moment came for his discharge the House would be disposed to take the necessary measures, so that there might not be those proceedings against him in courts of law which had been alluded to, and that he should be imprisoned for debt to the Sergeant at-Arms. But at the present moment he did not see, considering the extent of sympathy which had been excited in his behalf in other quarters, that the House was called on to make any order.
Sir E. Knatchbullwas disposed to think the statement of the noble Lord so far satisfactory, if he meant it as an assurance that any reasonable charges incurred for maintenance while in custody

15
would be fairly met when Mr. Pearce should be discharged. But what possible motive could there be in detaining this person any longer in custody? The noble Lord might talk of the sympathy which had been excited elsewhere on the part of these prisoners, but in his own opinion the House had vindicated its privileges in a manner which was altogether unjustifiable. When he looked at the course which had been taken in this case, he could not altogether dismiss from his mind the idea that some degree of vindictive punishment had been resorted to. He would take on himself to say, that if the noble Lord had met this motion by an amendment for the prisoner's discharge, he would have acted more in accordance with the feelings of a large majority on both sides of the House, and the entire approbation of at least nine-tenths of the people out of doors.
Lord J. Russell, in explanation, observed, that what he had stated was, that if it should turn out that the person in custody was in such a state of extreme poverty that he could not discharge these bills, incurred during his confinement, that circumstance might probably be a subject for consideration with the House at the time of his liberation. He must add, both with respect to this prisoner and many Others, that if they had not met with so much sympathy from the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen opposite, they would not have been sustained by a feeling of false pride in resisting the orders of this House, and the House would have got rid of these questions much sooner.
Sir E. Knatchbulldenied that to his conduct was attributable any resistance on the part of others to the orders of the House.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, that there could be no objection to the proposition of the noble Lord, if the officer of the House continued, as formerly, to supply Mr. Pearce with food; but the fact was, that Mr. Bellamy had refused him any further supply. While the sheriffs were in custody he had abstained from visiting them, as well as from every other act which might be considered disrespectful to the majority of the House; but if the noble Lord refused the present application, he would himself, on moderate terms, maintain Mr. Pearce.
Mr. Laboucherecomplained of the man-
16
ner in which the question had been discussed, as if the prisoner was in danger of starvation. Had such been the case, would the hon. Baronet who presented Mr. Pearce's petition on the 12th of March, have allowed the matter to stand over for so many days? The speech of the hon. Member for Kent was most extraordinary, for he began by saying that the statement of the noble Lord was satisfactory, and concluded by denouncing it as highly improper. He regarded these motions as frivolous attempts to divert the attention of the public from the real question at issue—whether or not the important privileges of the House should be maintained.
Mr. Lawfelt so entirely satisfied with the undertaking of the noble Lord for the payment of this small bill, that he was anxious to give him the opportunity of at once carrying his good intentions into effect; and he should therefore move, as an amendment, to substitute for the words "That Mr. Pearce be excused from the payment," "that he be forthwith discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question, Ayes 98; Noes 56: Majority 42.

List of the AYES.

Aglionhy, H. A.

Guest, Sir J.

Aglionby, Major

Harcourt, G. G.

Archbold, R.

Hastie, A.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Hawes, B.

Barnard, E. G.

Hector, C. J.

Barron, H. W.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Beamish, F. B.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Bellew, R. M.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Bewes, T.

Hodges, T. L.

Brocklehurst, J.

Hope, hon. C.

Brodie, W. B.

Horsman, E.

Brotherton, J.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Busfield, W.

Howard, P. H.

Byng, G.

Hume, J.

Campbell, Sir J.

Hutt, W.

Clay, W.

Hutton, R.

Clive, E. B.

James, W.

Compton, H. C.

Knight, H. G.

Corbally, M. E.

Labouchere, H.

Courtenay, P.

Lister, E. C.

Crawford, W.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Currie, R.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Divett, E.

Milnes, R. M.

Ellis, W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Muntz, G. F.

Gordon, R.

O'Connell, D.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

O'Connell, M.

Grey rt. hon. Sir C.

O'Conor, Don

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Paget, F.

17

Palmerston, Viscount

Strickland, Sir G.

Parker, J.

Strutt, E.

Parker, R. T.

Teignmouth, Lord

Philips, M.

Thornely, T.

Pigot, D. R.

Townley, R. G.

Pinney, W.

Tufnell, H.

Price, Sir R.

Verney, Sir H.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Vigors, N. A.

Rice, E. R.

Vivian, Major C.

Roche, W.

Vivian, Sir R. H.

Rundle, J.

Warburton, H.

Russell, Lord J.

Ward, H. G.

Salwey, Colonel

Wilbraham, G.

Sanford, E. A.

Williams, W.

Scholefield, J.

Wilshere, W.

Slaney, R. A.

Worsley, Lord

Smith, G. R.

Wyse, T.

Smith, R. V.

Yates, J. A.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

TELLERS.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Burdett, Sir F.

Stuart, Lord J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Captain

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Baillie, Colonel

Mackenzie, T.

Baring, H. B.

Mahon, Viscount

Baring, hon. W. B.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Neeld, J.

Boldero, H. G.

Nicholl, J.

Broadley, H.

Norreys, Lord

Bruges, W. H. L.

Packe, C. W.

Christopher, R. A.

Perceval, Colonel

D'Israeli, B.

Pigot, R.

Duncombe, T.

Plumptre, J. P.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Powerscourt, Lord

Egerton, W. T.

Praed, W. T.

Fielden, J.

Pringle, A.

Fector, J.

Richards, R.

Filmer, Sir E.

Rolleston, L.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Rushout, G.

Fleming, J.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Forester, hon. G.

Sheppard, T.

Gladstone, W. E.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Grimsditch, T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Halford, H.

Stanley, E.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Style, Sir C.

Henniker, Lord

Sugden, rt. hn. Sir E.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Vivian, J. E.

Holmes, W. A'Court

Wood, Sir M.

Hope, G. W.

Houldsworth, T.

TELLERS.

Jones, J.

Law, hon. C.

Kelburne, Viscount

Barrington, Lord

The House again divided on the main question: Ayes 63; Noes 88; Majority 25.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T.

Boldero, H. G.

A'Court, Captain

Broadley, H.

Baillie, Colonel

Bruges, W. H. L.

Baring, H. B.

Christopher, R. A.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Compton, H. C.

Barrington, Viscount

Courtenay, P.

Bentinck, Lord G.

D'Israeli, B.

18

Duncombe, T.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Neeld, J.

Egerton, W. T.

Nicholl, John

Fielden, J.

Norreys, Lord

Fector, J. M.

Packe, C. W.

Filmer, Sir E.

Parker, R. T.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Perceval, Colonel

Fleming, J.

Pigot, R.

Forester, hon. G.

Plumptre, J. P.

Gladstone, W. E.

Powerscourt, Lord

Grimsditch, T.

Praed, W. T.

Halford, H.

Pringle, A.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Richards, R.

Henniker, Lord

Rolleston, L.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Rushout, G.

Holmes, W. A'Court

Scarlett, hon. J.

Hope, G. W.

Sheppard, T.

Houldsworth, T.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Jones, J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Kelburne, Viscount

Stanley, E.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Style, Sir C.

Knight, H. G.

Surrey, Earl of

Law, hon. C. E.

Teignmouth, Lord

Mackenzie, T.

TELLERS.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Burdett, Sir F.

Milnes, R. M.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hutton, R.

Aglionby, Major

James, W.

Archbold, R.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Lister, E. C.

Barnard, E. G.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Barron, H. W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Beamish, F. B.

Muntz, G. F.

Bellew, R. M.

O'Connell, D.

Bewes, T.

O'Connell, M.

Brocklehurst, J.

O'Conor, Don

Brodie, W. B.

Paget, F.

Brotherton, J.

Palmerston, Viscount

Busfield, W.

Philips, M.

Byng, G.

Pigot, D. R.

Campbell, Sir J.

Pinney, W.

Clay, W.

Price, Sir R.

Clive, E. B.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Corbally, M. E.

Rice, E. R.

Crawford, W.

Roche, W.

Currie, R.

Rundle, J.

Divett, E.

Russell, Lord J.

Ellis, W.

Salwey, Colonel

Gordon, R.

Sanford, E. A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Scholefield, J.

Guest, Sir J.

Slaney, R. A.

Harcourt, G. G.

Smith, G. R.

Hastie, A.

Smith, R. V.

Hawes, B.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Hector, C. J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Strutt, E.

Hodges, T. L.

Strickland, Sir G.

Hope, hon. C.

Thornely, T.

Horsman, E.

Townley, R. G.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Tufnell, H.

Howard, P. H.

Verney, Sir H.

Hume, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Hutt, W.

Vivian, Major C.

19

Vivian, rt. hon. Sir R. H.

Worsley, Lord

Warburton, H.

Wyse, T.

Ward, H. G.

Yates, J. A.

Wilbraham, G.

Williams, W.

TELLERS.

Wilshere, W.

Grey, Sir G.

Wood, Sir M.

Parker, J.

THE CONSTABULARY.
Mr. Law Hodgesmoved for leave to bring in a bill to render effective the ancient constabulary power of England and Wales. He said, that the act of last year had only been adopted by thirteen counties in England and Wales, and by only two to the full extent. This showed that there was some reluctance on the part of the counties to avail themselves of the power of the act, and the main cause which indisposed them was the certainty of the expense which attended its adoption. The bill, in his opinion, would afford as complete protection to persons and property as the act of last session at a quarter the cost. Of course it would only apply to those counties where the former act was not adopted. It would maintain the common law constables, but insure efficiency by a careful selection out of those persons who might be nominated at the leer. The magistrates would have power to increase the number of common law constables in populous parishes and districts, and to appoint a special high constable, to be assisted, if necessary, by three special constables, for each division of a county, who should have the superintendence over the common law constables of his division. He understood that the introduction at least of his bill was hot to be opposed; but, however this might be, he was convinced that if some such measure was not adopted, the only alternative would be to make the act of last session compulsory. That act had only been adopted in thirteen counties out of the whole, and he believed, that it never would become universal unless it were made compulsory, so enormous was the expense of it, an expense which the bill for amending it, introduced this session by the Under Secretary of State, went to increase materially. Many of those who had advocated the adoption of the act of last session in counties, had done so for very different objects from those entertained by the supporters of the measure in Parliament. He had received a letter from a gentleman in Kent, enclosing a pamphlet which the gentleman had written, in which one of
20
the advantages derived from the new law was stated to be, that under it game might be cheaply preserved. He was not one of those who would ever submit to preserve his game on these terms. His objection to the act was, that, besides its costliness, it put a total extinguisher upon the ancient constabulary system of this country. If any attempts had been made to improve that system—if there was one statute on the statute-book with that object, he should have seen reason to give it up; but nothing of the kind had been done. It was as old as the jury system itself, and if the jury system had been as much neglected, there would not have been wanting persons to say, "this is a useless System, and ought to be superseded." The hon. Member then moved for leave to bring in his bill.
Sir E. Knatchbullwished to put this matter to the very serious consideration of the noble Lord, whether he would not, after having consented to the introduction of this bill, send the whole matter before a select committee. Crime had increased greatly; it was confined to, he hoped, petty depredations; but that being the case, it had become a matter of general admission, that the establishment of a rural police was indispensable, and he was confident that a satisfactory measure would be produced by a committee.
Lord J. Russell—I cannot allow this bill to be brought in without saying a few words, for my hon. Friend, not satisfied with stating his reasons in favour of his own bill, made some references to the Act of Parliament of last Session, and to the bill brought in this Session by a Member of the Government. The hon. Member seems to think that his own is a most excellent bill, and that the plan he proposes is much better than that which the Parliament agreed to. But great as is his admiration of the ancient constabulary, the statements he has made are not likely to impress persons with the advantage to be derived from that system at the present day. With respect to the Bill proposed by the hon. Member, I cannot say that it may not be useful in some of its provisions; yet it does not appear to me to do much, if anything, beyond what may be done by the bill at present in operation. As to the general working of the Act of last Session, how had it worked? The hon. Member thinks that a small proportion of the counties

21
have adopted it. That bill was only passed in August last, and it might reasonably be expected, that the magistrates of counties would be disposed, for the greater part, to wait a little, and see how their neighbours fared, who had in the first instance adopted it. If out of the forty counties of England, thirteen have adopted it, which is more than one-fourth, I think that more has been realised than could have been expected. But, beside that, four of the Welch counties had also adopted it: and, so far from being dissatisfied, I think the Act will be adopted in future by all the others. I will not say that the system under that Act is perfect—nor do I think that any advantage would follow from a reference of the whole question to a select committee. The constabulary commissioners did investigate this question and brought out important facts, and, amongst others, that, should the bill of last year be effectually carried out in all the counties, there will be a great saving to individuals. I did not propose the bill of last year as a perfect system, for I thought that a general force, which would be under the control of commissioners, and payable out of the consolidated fund, would be a better system than the present. However, I had no wish to press my own personal opinion against that of the committee. I think, nevertheless, that the Act of last year, with such improvements as may be necessary, will enable the magistrates to provide efficiently for the peace and order of their several counties. The introduction of the bill now brought in by my hon. Friend, will not, I think, be of any essential service in settling the question.
Mr. Plumptrewas quite convinced that the old constabulary force would never exercise a proper supervision over ale and beer shops. He thought, this was one of the chief objections to the proposed bill of the hon. Member. It was necessary that they should have a force, which they should call the police of the country. The very certainty of its being known that these men had nothing else to do but look after the rogues and vagabonds, would act as a great preventive of the evils which existed under the old system.
Mr. E. Ricesaid, that the bill of last Session was not applicable to agricultural counties. He should be very anxious that the hon. Member's proposition should be
22
fairly canvassed. He thought the expense of the bill of last Session would be very greatly lessened by a clause to be introduced, giving power to appoint special constables. Still he doubted the applicability of the bill of last Session to agricultural counties.
Mr. F. Maulehoped that his hon. Friend would take an early opportunity of taking the sense of the House on this question. It was but just that all parties should have but one system of police to look to, and one system alone. He did not think that it would be attended with advantage to refer the improvement of the constabulary to any select committee of the House—the former committee had given them all the information they wanted on this subject. He trusted that the improvements to be introduced would render the bill of last Session more applicable to agricultural counties.
Sir H. Verneysaid, that at present agricultural counties might refuse the bill of last Session, and say, "We won't have it, because of the expense;" and he thought, if that was remedied, it would be be of great advantage, and render the bill a good bill. The whole country contributed towards the aggregate amount of crime, and the whole country should contribute to suppress it. Besides, generally in the larger towns, the police had driven the greatest vagabonds from them into the country, and therefore he thought all the country ought fairly to bear its proportion of the burden—establishing a good police in the country for suppressing the general amount of crime.
Mr. Gally Knighthad no intention to oppose the introduction of this measure, but he thought that the old mode of appointing the constabulary, did not render it efficient. The constables generally followed some trade or occupation, and were elected only for a year. He quite concurred with the hon. Member who had spoken last, relative to the expense of adopting the bill of last Session; and it was this which had prevented many counties from adopting it. He thought it ought to be considered whether a portion of the expense should not be paid out of the consolidated fund. He thought generally, that the bill ought to have been made compulsory; and that a quarter of the expense ought to be paid out of the consolidated fund.
Mr. Humethought nothing could be

23
more unjust than the present system of taking money out of the pockets of the rate-payers in the agricultural districts for such a purpose, without check or control. He thought they should have the same voice in the expenditure of the rate as the people of towns.
Leave given.

PUBLIC RECORDS.
Mr. Protheroe, in pursuance of the notice which he had given, moved for "A return of all the expenditure in detail of the late record commission, and the date of the last returns; together with a return of the various sums otherwise expended within the last year on the custody or repairs of the public records." The hon. Gentleman said, he did not believe there would be any objection to his motion; but he wished to avail himself of that opportunity to put a question to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department, as to when they were to have the report of the keeper and deputy-keeper of the public records laid upon the table of that House? He had been a member of the commission on public records, and, although it gave him great satisfaction to know that that commission was at an end, he felt a corresponding regret to think that no report had been received from the parties in whose custody the public records now were for the last two years. When the question of the destruction of some records—records of the customs of former years, and which he believed were really of no use—came under discussion by the commissioners, he strenuously resisted their destruction. He thought that it was wrong to destroy records of any kind, and he should be glad to know that means had been taken by which the safety of the whole of the public records, whether considered useless or otherwise, could be secured. The Act of Parliament under which the keeper and deputy-keeper of the records were appointed required that they should report on the state of the public records annually. This, however, they had not condescended to do, and unless the report were laid upon the table of the House before the miscellaneous estimates were brought forward, so that he could see how the matter was now managed, he certainly should oppose the vote on the subject. The question which he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman was, when the report of the keeper and deputy-
24
keeper of records for the years 1839 and 1840 was intended to be laid upon the table of that House?
Mr. Fox Maulein reply, said, that he had received a communication from the deputy-keeper of records, in which he stated that the reason no report had been made during the last two years was, because a difficulty had sprung up which had prevented it. He said, however, that it was hoped in a very short time to make a report embracing both years.
Colonel Sibthorpwas not aware that this commission had expired, but he was most happy to hear it. He thought it high time that a select committee had been appointed to inquire with respect to the expense of the multifarious commissions which had been appointed by the present Government. When the returns for which he had moved were laid before the House he was convinced that the country would be astonished at the enormous sums which had been absorbed by those commissions; and as soon as he obtained those returns it was his intention to move for the appointment of a select committee, on which occasion he hoped to have the support of the hon. Member opposite.
Sir R. Peelsaid—Sir, I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary for the Home Department whether the criminal law commission is still in existence, and, if so, whether any private report has been received from that commission? There was such a commission, and it was to report as to the expediency of establishing a code embracing the unwritten as well as the statute criminal law. If this commission still exists, what I wish to know from the hon. Gentleman is, when the commissioners are expected to make a final report? With respect to the destruction of records, alluded to by the hon. Gentleman opposite, I must say, that I think it would be highly satisfactory if a public inquiry on the subject were to take place. There may be much exaggeration in the notions formed of the value of the records which are said to have been destroyed. It is very possible that no record of any value has been destroyed, but still I think that a select committee should be appointed for the satisfaction of the public, to ascertain by what authority any portion of the public records have been destroyed, and what the records were which were so destroyed, For my own part, I think it

25
very unadvisable to destroy any portion of the public records which may tend to throw light on the antiquities of the country: and as the appointment of a select committee is the only way to satisfy the public mind on the subject, I should hope that some hon. Member, who was a member of the commission, will submit such a motion to the House.
Mr. Protheroeperfectly concurred in what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, and he must say, that the reason given by the hon. Gentleman for the non-production of this report, was the worst he had ever heard in his life. If there were any difficulty in the case, it was a difficulty which had arisen in consequence of the keeper and deputy-keeper of the records doing nothing instead of attending to the preservation of the records. He should not neglect the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet. He begged to remark, that the record commission was extinct. The hon. Member then moved for a return of all the expenditure in detail of the late record commission since the date of the last returns, together with a return of the various sums otherwise expended within the last year on the custody or repairs of the public records.
Lord John Russellsaid, it might be supposed, from what had been said, that the Record Commission was now in existence, and were answerable for those records that had been destroyed. But, on a former occasion, he had himself observed, whatever might have been the merits or faults of the Record Commission, that when that commission expired at the demise of the Crown, he did not think it necessary to advise the Crown to re-appoint it. Therefore no commission had existed from that period. The Parliament agreed that there should be a keeper and a deputy keeper of the records. The present keeper, as arranged by act of Parliament, was the Master of the Rolls, and he had the power, with the consent and approbation of the Secretary of State, to appoint a deputy-keeper. The person appointed deputy was Sir Francis Palsgrave. He did not think that any one would say, that those persons were not extremely competent to exercise a sound judgment upon matters under their superintendence. But with regard to the destruction of the records, he believed that those documents were not in the keeping of the Master of
26
the Rolls or the deputy-keeper, nor under their control. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that it was a fit subject of inquiry as to what were the reasons why any historical documents should have been allowed to be destroyed, and not placed in the custody of the commissioners, or in the Museum, or in some other public establishment, where there would be no risk of the, destruction of anything really valuable. With respect to the question of the right hon. Baronet in regard to the commission on criminal law, these commissioners had gone through a great many heads of the criminal law, and had made a digest of them; and when he was referred to, his recommendation was, that the commissioners should continue their labours until they had gone through the whole subject. But with regard to the other question, namely, whether the commissioners were to reduce into a code of statute all the unwritten law of this country, he owned that he did consider that that was a question of such complexity that the commission ought not to be continued for that purpose. At the same time he ought to state that these commissioners did not receive annual pay. When they had formed a digest of the statutes, and produced a report, they then received payment for the report thus given to the Crown. The public, therefore, had no annual salaries to pay. He expected before long that one or two more reports would be made, and then the labours of the commission would be concluded.
Return ordered.