Commons Sitting of 23 March 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Dog Carts, etc.; Charitable Trusts.—Read a third time:—Turnpike Acts Continuance.

TRANSPORTATION OF CONVICTS.
Viscount Mahonrose to bring forward a motion relative to the keeping of convicts at home who had been sentenced to transportation. He said, that upon all their previous discussions on transportation, or other secondary punishments, he had been painfully struck by the contrast between the complete indifference of the House and the high importance of the subject. That indifference had prevailed most impartially, whatever was the change proposed, or whoever was the person to propose it. Last year he remembered an able and interesting speech upon this question from the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, a speech of nearly two hours, but delivered to a House of little more than thirty Members; yet, notwithstanding that indifference, and the consequent discouragement to him, he (Lord Mahon) felt so clearly convinced of the mischief of the present system; of its individual suffering, and its national detriment, of the noble Lord opposite having acted on most imperfect information, and with many doubts and misgivings of his own, that he felt it his duty once more to press this question on the attention of the House. Before he had given notice of his intention to bring forward this motion, he had taken an opportunity to consult some hon. Members whom he thought well qualified to give an opinion upon it, they being engaged in the administration of justice as chairmen

523
of Quarter Sessions, and they had fully concurred with him in the view which he had taken. And if the House would grant him its patience, he would pledge himself to show as strong a case as ever was laid before a British House of Commons—he would pledge himself to show by most irrefragable testimonies the evils and the dangers of the course to which the noble Lord was bending. Let it in the first place be observed, what the noble Lord has actually done. The noble Lord, now at the head of the Colonial Department, in his minute of the 2nd of January, 1839, had laid down this rule for the future.
"That convicts sentenced to seven years, transportation shall be, as far as practicable, employed in the hulks and dockyards at home and at Bermuda."
This was followed by a letter of the hon. Member, the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, of the 30th of January, directing that, in the ensuing year, accommodation in the hulks should be prepared for 3,500 convicts, whereas the report of the Superintendant, Mr. Capper, states that on the previous 1st of January, the number was 1,789 only. This order, it appeared, had been acted upon; for, from the last reports of Mr. Capper, which had been laid upon the Table of the House but yesterday, it appeared that the number of convicts imprisoned, on the 1st of January last, in the hulks, was 3,552. But looking at the practical state of things, a much larger increase must be speedily expected. He found from the calculation appended to the minute of the noble Lord, that in the year 1837 the total number of convicts actually transported was 3,663, and of these 2,166, or about two-thirds of the whole number, had been sentenced to be transported for seven years. Therefore, the result would be, that at least 2,000 persons, who would otherwise have been transported, would be every year added to the number of prisoners in confinement in England, and so many would be, in like manner, after a certain term of years, periodically turned loose upon the community. Now, then, the first objection which he had to make to these proceedings was, that they were, in truth, an undue extension of the prerogative of the Crown. They were, no doubt, in conformity with the letter of the law, but he conceived that they were in utter violation of it spirit. What, he asked, was the object of the law, in placing this discretion in the hands of the Secretary of State? It was
524
this, that he might distinguish between particular cases, that in cases of early youth, of extreme old age, or any other special circumstances, he might inflict imprisonment at home upon those to whose offences the law had affixed the punishment of transportation. But was it ever intended that the Secretary of State should make a wholesale decision without distinction of cases, and declare that the words of the law, "Transportation for seven years," should always be construed to mean "imprisonment at home?" But he felt that it was almost unnecessary for him to insist upon this branch of his argument, because he thought that it had been already admitted by the noble Lord himself, in the observations which he had made the other night in introducing a bill for the amendment of the criminal law. The second charge which he had to make against the noble Lord, was for undue neglect and disregard of the evidence adduced before the House of Lords. In 1835, a Committee of the House of Lords was appointed to consider the whole subject of prisons and prison discipline, and they pursued their inquiries with much zeal, examining the most competent witnesses, and even personally inspecting the hulks. Indeed, when he stated that the Duke of Richmond was the chairman of the committee, he need hardly add that its inquiries were conducted with great talent and great diligence. Now here is the re-commendation of that committee as contained in their third reporr.
"From the view which the Committee take of the inherent defects of the hulk system, and the mischief which it is calculated to produce, they cannot but concur in the opinion expressed by the Committee of the House of Commons upon secondary punishments to that effect, that in future no persons sentenced to transportation should be allowed to remain permanently in this country, (except those selected for confinement in the Penitentiary at Milbank), and that henceforth the convict establishments of the hulks shall be considered solely as an intermediate station between the gaol and the penal colony."
He asked the noble Lord, whether there had been any subsequent inquiry—any alteration of the facts of the case, which had afforded any good reason for forming an opinion unfavourable to this recommendation? If it were a party question, he could well understand that the noble Lord might decline to act upon the recommendation of such men as the Duke of Richmond and Lord Wharncliffe, but such

525
was not the case; and party polities apart, could it be denied that these and such Peers were as competent to come to a right conclusion as any men in the country, upon the due administration of the criminal law? He (Lord Mahon) could not conceive what new light it was which had broken in upon the noble Lord, to induce him to depart from a system which had been sanctioned and recommended by the joint opinions of Committees of the Lords and Commons. Their recommendation of discontinuing the system of the hulks except as an intermediate station had been thus contemptuously set aside. [Lord J. Russell: There was the recommendation of the Transportation Committee.] The Transportation Committee had not touched the subject of the hulks at all, and whatever opinion they might have expressed upon the management of convicts in Australia, not one syllable of approbation of the present system could be inferred from anything contained in their report. The whole of the evidence given before the Committee of the House of Lords fully bore out their expression of opinion. Mr. William Crawford, a person highly competent to form a correct judgment upon such a question, and one from whose authority the noble Lord, at all events, would not feel disposed to detract, as he had entrusted him with a most important mission to examine the gaols and prisons of the United States, thus expressed himself:—
"The system of our hulks is very bad. I have been on the Committee of the Refuge for the Destitute during several years, and I have found that parties released from the hulks have generally turned out the very worst characters. I have frequently asked the gaolers, in our prisons, as to the efficacy of transportation, and the effect which it produces upon prisoners, and I have found that as a punishment its effects are very great, and that it excites great dread."
Mr. Matthew Newman, one of the principal gaolers in Newgate, confirmed this statement. He was asked,
"Do you think that prisoners dread the punishment of transportation more than they did?—I do; it is generally known that it is much worse now."
Mr. Higgins, a visiting justice of the gaols in Bedford, declared his opinion that "the hulks were shamefully conducted." But, perhaps, the opinion strongest of all was that of Mr. Samuel Hoare, chairman of a society much relied upon by the noble Lord, the object of which was the im-
526
provement of prison discipline. He was asked,
"Do you believe that the hulk system has been of any service?" and he answered, "Far from it. It is admirably calculated to promote crime."
And yet this very system, declared on such high authority as "admirably calculated to promote crime," the noble Lord has done doing his best to promote! For his part, he (Lord Mahon) thought that the hulk system was wanting in every quality that ought to attend a good system of secondary punishment. What ought to be the object of the Legislature in reference to this question? Not, surely, the reformation of the criminal solely. He had paid much attention, for many years, to various plans and schemes on the subject of secondary punishments, and this object of reformation had been the principal feature of them, especially of those which he had heard ascribed to the Archbishop of Dublin. But there was a higher and more paramount object than this, namely, the prevention of crime; and, in that respect, the hulks were quite ineffectual. They did not inspire an adequate degree of terror, When the sentence was, that the prisoner be confined in the hulks, instead of being sent to one of the penal colonies, the family or friends of the convict did not appear to be sufficiently affected by it, while transportation caused a much greater degree of salutary dread. He had satisfied himself of this from the testimony he had received, especially from several hon. Members now present, the chairmen of quarter sessions. Nay, he believed, that on this point he might appeal as a witness to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department; he believed, that there was abundant proof of his assertion in the records of that office, showing, that the sentence of the hulks did not strike so much terror as the sentence of transportation. The cases which might be alleged were numerous, but he should only mention one, which had occurred last year, and which he would mention, because it fell under his own observation. The case was that of Seeley, who had been convicted of forgery, and was sentenced to transportation. It happened that he was connected with a highly respectable family, resident at Tetbury, in Gloucestershire, who, through an hon. Member of the House of Commons, applied to the Marquess of Normanby, praying that Seeley might be spared transporta-

527
tion, and sent instead to the hulks, which, it was added, he would much prefer, for any number of years. It appeared then that the hulks did not strike sufficient terror to effect the object of deterring from crime. He came next to the question of the treatment of criminals confined in the hulks. He did not know whether it was true, but he had heard that the operation of the Minute of the noble Lord—the accumulation and crowding together of large numbers in the hulks—had been unfavourable to the health and even lives of the convicts. The evidence taken before the coroners' inquests on those prisoners that had died since the 1st of January last, tended, as he was told, to support this view. But in the absence of these documents—and he wished to know why these returns for which he had moved full three weeks ago had not been laid on the Table, as they ought to have been, especially since it was known he meant to bring forward this motion—he should not press the point, since he could only speak from unauthorised and hearsay statements, and not from official returns. He possessed, however, a statement, dated January 16, 1841, contained in Mr. Capper's last report. It came from Mr. Peter Bossey, a surgeon at the hulks. Mr. Bossey regrets,
"The natural and constant depression of strength and spirits which is ever experienced by those who are subjected to the hard labour and rigorous discipline of the hulks."
Strong expressions to be used upon a system by one of its own officers! Mr. Bossey goes on to say,
"For several years past I have observed a gradual increase in the number and seventy of the cases of scurvy; I believe it to originate in the poorness and sameness of the diet adopted in the prisons."
He (Lord Mahon) should have imagined, that every degree of discipline and rigour necessary in prisons might and ought to have been maintained without these disastrous results. He would observe, also, that the hulks gave no opportunity of carrying into effect the improvements in prison discipline which had been introduced of late years. Neither the silent system nor the solitary system could be adopted there. In short, the hulks must be managed very much as all our prisons were all managed thirty years ago. But then the noble Lord might allege, that by
528
increasing the number of hulks, or by forming establishments on shore, the discipline or the health of the convicts might be effectually secured. No doubt this might be true; but then he (Lord Mahon) came to this question, how far imprisonment for a term of years at home, even under the most advantageous circumstances, could be advantageously used as an equivalent for transportation to a penal colony. He thought that it could not. One main objection to the system of imprisonment was, that it was always necessary to act with more rigour when the convict was confined at home, than when the convict was transported. It was necessary that an extraordinary degree of discipline and rigour should counterbalance the retention in the same neighbourhood; it was natural that confinement at home should, even under such disadvantages, be preferred as a punishment to transportation. When the friends and associates of a convict knew that he was imprisoned in the same town—when they looked upon the very walls that inclosed him—when they remembered that a few short years would give him back to his old haunts and his former confederates, they could not feel as much impressed with awe at his punishment as when they found that he was sent to a far distant and unknown country, that 15,000 miles of sea rolled between him and themselves, and that in all probability they should never see his face again. To counterbalance this feeling, in any degree, requires great severity of discipline in prisons, and which severity is in itself an evil. The old idea of vengeance, of imposing upon a criminal some degree of pain which might be commensurate with his crime, was now, he trusted, no longer entertained. Not that we deny that some crimes are deserving of the severest pain, but we deny that as vengeance we have any right to inflict it; we remember from whom came the awful words "Vengeance is mine;" and we leave the full penalty to the goadings of a guilty conscience and to the judgment of a future life. If, therefore, they could avoid the infliction of suffering consistently with the objects of punishment, that avoidence of suffering would, in his opinion, be a most desirable object. Admitting to the fullest extent the benevolent motives of the new regulations proposed for places of confinement, not even denying the good effect of them, still it would be found that practically these regulations for the

529
most part pointed to the same direction—a further restriction and severity. Take, for instance, perhaps the most carefully conducted of all, the general Penitentiary at Milbank. In the fourth report of the inspectors of prisons, 1839, the following passages occur—
"Prisoners, if well-conducted, are permitted to see their friends once in six months during the first half of their imprisonment, and once in three months during the latter half. There is a visiting cell in each pentagon which is partitioned by iron bars and close wire gratings into three divisions; in the middle division, an officer is placed to watch and hear what passes between the prisoner and his friends, who respectively occupy the divisions on either side of him. The visit is limited to ten minutes."
At first sight, this would not appear any very unreasonable or excessive indulgence; nevertheless, the inspectors add that they are much opposed to this practice and recommend its discontinuance, giving, it must be owned, several strong reasons against it, such as that the prisoners minds become greatly agitated from the expectation of seeing their friends and can neither apply themselves to their work nor to serious and profitable admonition; but still here is a measure of much severity. Thus, again, the inspectors say, that those prisoners who do not see their friends are allowed to write to them, and they object to this permission, although no letter is either sent or received without being opened and read by the governor or chaplain. They add, that they are decidedly of opinion that the privilege of writing and receiving letters, as well as that of receiving visitors should be done away, A greater privation to prisoners, especially to those with families could scarcely be imagined. Thus, again, in the new model prison of Parkhurst, it appears that even the infirmaries—even the receptacles for the sick and aged, are no longer to be tolerated. The last report from Mr. Woole-combe, the governor, has these words:
"No infirmary has been opened, in consequence of the temptation which would afford to the idle or deceitful to feign sickness for the enjoyment of a fireside and other little comparative luxuries."
In like manner, while fully admitting the great advantages, at least, to some prisoners of the silent system, it must be owned that its enforcement gives rise, perhaps unavoidably, to many cases of rigour. In the House of Correction at Petworth,
530
in Sussex, he (Lord Mahon) found among the list of offences punished with "stoppage of food:" (no light punishment)—J. M. May 7, 1839 "Turning himself round in the resting boxes with intent to converse:" five cases in January 1339 "making signs with intent to converse," and then a very strange case:—G. C. May 29, 1839 "Speaking with intent to converse!"—or, perhaps, just as well "conversing with intent to speak!" Now, let not the present argument be misunderstood. He did not deny that these regulations may, perhaps, be just and needful; he did not deny that the magistrates who framed them, were guided by humane and benevolent motives; did he deny, on the contrary, he most readily admitted, that these qualities distinguished the noble Lord who gave them his sanction. But the more needful these regulations—the more humane the men who framed them, the stronger becomes the argument—that imprisonment in gaols or hulks for term of years, requires such strict discipline, and inspires so little of salutary fear that it is constantly necessary to increase their rigour and severity of management so as to secure their utility or augment their moral influence. Compare them with transportation, and you would find that in gaols and hulks you must have recourse to ten times as much severity without producing after all an equal effect in deterring from crime. Then there was the great evil under the system of the hulks or prisons at home, of the inequality of the punishment. He could scarcely conceive any uniform system weighing more unequally on different tempers and different classes. The system of assignment of convicts in the penal colonies had been called unequal, and truly so, but its inequality dwindled into nothing when compared with this. A shepherd who has tended his flock on the mountain side, or a labourer who has plied his spade in the open fields, must feel a prison life in a ten-fold degree above the the artisan, already inured to the close rooms and sedentary labours of the factory. To some men of quick and sensitive temper the confinement would be intolerable, to others of less active mould it would appear no great evil, provided only their meals were of good quality and regular recurrence sicul ignava animalia, quibus si cibum suggeras statim jacent torpentque. Another objection which he had to urge against the hulks was the ground of expense. He should be very sorry to state this as a foremost or para-

531
mount object, and he hoped the House would not consider that he had any intention of so stating it. On the contrary, he admitted that there were other objects of penal legislation which were of far superior importance to economy. But economy was not to be altogether neglected, and certainly economy was not to be attributed to the existing hulk system. This would be seen by comparison with the transportation system. The average expense of transporting a convict was 15 l. Arrived in the colony, instead of a burden, he might become a benefit by his labour. In the hulks the cost of maintenance of each convict every year was about 18 l. From this, however, the noble Lord had estimated that there must be deducted 10 l. for the value of the labour of each convict, leaving only 8l. as the annual cost to the country of each convict in the hulks. He thought, however, that the noble Lord had overestimated the value of convict labour at the hulks, for, in the first place, the noble Lord in the memorandum assumed that every convict was equally capable of work. But the last report of Mr. Capper stated, that there were a great number of persons in the hulks who were unfit for any work of a laborious nature. Secondly, the noble Lord had made no account of the expense of constructing and maintaining the hulks, which was far from inconsiderable. The entire expense of each convict, including every item, might probably amount to between 20 l and 30 l. per annum. Take it at 25 l.; and if they confined in the hulks for four years those sentenced for seven years of transportation, according to the noble Lord's regulation, the country would be put to an expense in each, case of 100 l.; whereas, the entire expense of transporting did not exceed 15 l. Here, then, was the striking difference of fifteen and one hundred. He had the best ground for for stating that he correctly estimated the expense of transportation, and as an instance of the popular delusion which prevailed on this subject, he might mention the fact that in Dr. Bowring's report en Egypt (on the whole a very able document), it was incidentally mentioned that the expense of transporting a convict from England might be estimated at 100 l. for each individual. The hon. Member for Leeds (Sir W. Molesworth) had frequently urged upon the House on the other hand the necessary expense of the military and police establishments of the
532
colony. Such an argument might be very good as a retrospective argument, if the colonists wished to prove as they assert that we are indebted to them for four or five millions saved by us in the transportation of convicts. But how stood the case if it were meant as a prospective argument? We have already transported convicts to a vast extent to Australia. These police and military establishments were in existence, and they must continue to maintain them. No considerable retrenchment could possibly take place in them for a long series of years. This same opinion had been expressed by the noble Lord in his minute. It was perfectly clear from the great number who were incapacitated from labour in the hulks that their confinement and the treatment which they received were very injurious to health. The incapacity and the mortality did not arise from the weakness of infancy, or the imbecility of age. By the report of the inspectors of prisons in Scotland, it appeared that out of 12,418 prisoners whose ages were recorded, 11,016 were between the age of fourteen and fifty, the age at which they would be best able to earn their livelihood. How much useful labour in the colonies was lost by their confinement. He was delighted to perceive, from the statement of the chaplains, the satisfactory reform which had been effected in many of the prisoners at the hulks But, attaching to this information the utmost value, how were the released prisoners to get their bread? Was it not well known that the greatest reluctance prevailed against employing one who had been a convict? Hon. Members themselves would naturally give the preference to persons of unimpeachable character, and why should they not? Is there any moral duty that calls upon us to prefer a man who has committed a crime and repented of it, above another who has lived without blame from his childhood? The fact was, that these unfortunate persons could not get employment, and were driven into a life of prostitution and thievery for the want of legitimate resources. The true character of a convict was to be discovered (as is said by one of the chaplains, the rev. Henry Winter, in his report of July, 1839), not from his conduct at the hulks, but from his constancy in resisting subsequent temptations. The evidence taken by the Lords on this point was very important. Mr. William Miles said, that,

533
"There were many boys now in our gaols who would be honest if removed from evil associations, and put to any profitable employment."
Now, this was the very case of transportation.
" 'A boy in gaol said one day to me' 'I have no character, Sir; when I come out of prison this day nine weeks, who will have me or look after me, Sir? And how am I to get a meal unless I thieve again?' "
Mr. Teague, a governor of Giltspur Street prison, said, that the convicts frequently resorted to him to get them some sort of employment to procure au honest meal—an application let it be remembered which neither Mr. Teague nor any other governor, have the slightest means of granting. Testimony to the same effect was given by the Rev. Dr. Cotton, the ordinary of Newgate.
"I recollect a boy (said he) to whom I said, as he was dismissed from prison, 'You are going out without a hat.' 'Oh, don't trouble yourself, Sir,' was the boy's answer, 'I will have one before night.'"
Of course his meaning was that he would steal one. But, perhaps, the very strongest evidence against the hulk system—the most earnest advice against it—came from the very person who was placed at its head, and entrusted with its execution. Mr. Capper, superintendent of convicts in the hulks, was examined by the Committee of the House of Lords, May 8, 1835, and was asked:—
"Are you aware, that there is any greater dread of transportation now than formerly? (He answered) 'Considerably more, the Governors of the Australian settlements being restricted as to granting pardons, it operates I know, very strongly, and is beginning to be well known in this country, by the felons themselves.' 'You think that is becoming gradually better known in England?' 'I think so. In the overgrown state in which we are, it is really desirable, that those men should go out of the country, for as to their getting employment when they are discharged, it is two to one, that it cannot be done, and, therefore, it is a charity, in the first instance, to transport them.'"
So strongly was the want of this employment felt, that a society was formed at Millbank, for the express purpose of aiding in providing employment, the originators of it being convinced, that it was impossible to reform the penitentiary without some such system. If they wanted a further illustration of the evils of the bulks, they had only to go to France,
534
which maintained two convict establishments, at Brest and Toulon, which had grown into a gigantic evil, periodically letting loose a flood of the worst description of characters upon society. The noble Lord opposite, in his minute of January 2, 1839, had given so clear and graphic an account of the evils France laboured under in this respect, that he would read it in preference to any feeble description of his own. The noble Lord said,
"France is at present suffering from the mass of released convicts, who, after having been confined at the galleys, join the criminal portion of the community, perfect adepts in forgery and housebreaking, and connected by acquaintance and sympathy with all the thieves and swindlers of the community. The same result would occur in any opulent and populous community, where crime has every temptation, and industry is abundantly employed."
Might he not say with justice, that the noble Lord was one of those who
"Discern the better, and the worse pursue?"
Had it not been his course to inflict on England precisely the same system which he denounced in France? The evidence of M. Vidocq, a thief, who had afterwards turned thief-taker, was not very creditable, perhaps, but it was important. When he left the galleys, he stated that he was most anxious to lead a reformed life. He found great difficulty in obtaining employment, but he did obtain it at last. But whenever he met any of his former associates, they insisted on his joining them in their criminal projects, under the threat of revealing his former misdeeds to his employers. He had ascertained from several distinguished statesmen in France, that there was not one word of exaggeration in this; that the released convicts in that country formed the plague-spot of their social system, and the nucleus of every evil design, or attempt at plunder. The Councils-General of various departments in France had presented many petitions to the Minister of the Interior, and the Chamber of Deputies, strongly remonstrating against the continuance of this system, aim suggesting that France should establish some kind of penal colony, "after the happy example of England. On these grounds he maintained that there was every possible objection to the description of secondary punishments proposed by the noble Lord, while it was the peculiar character of transportation that the very refuse and poison of one country, became the sap

535
and nutriment of another; that the parent state was relieved of its thieves and depredators, who were turned into prosperous labourers for the enrichment of the colony, and that all this was effected by the magic of one single word—"employment." Such was the patriotic object of Mr. Pitt, and his colleagues, in laying the foundation of our Australian colonies. Thus a half-starved boy who has been misled into theft by ill associates, rather than his own evil disposition, or perhaps by utter want and hunger, may yet grow into an honest labourer, and in time, a prosperous yeoman. Thus, a woman, who has fallen from virtue, perhaps only by the basest arts, and treachery employed against her, and, God knows, how often it happens, that such arts and treachery are the cause of such a fall, and who, in England, while loathing and abhorring a life of prostitution, would yet be driven into it as her only resource for bread, would have honest employment offered, would have an opportunity of retrieving her lost fame, and would become, in time, a faithful wife and an exemplary mother. And, surely, we should be too happy at becoming the beneficent instruments, under Providence, for effecting such mighty good, and fulfilling such blessed designs! And why should we not fulfil them? Why are we told, that in a great degree, and in spite of every imperfection, they are not already fulfilled? But then they were told of the evidence before the Transportation Committee. He (Lord Mahon), objected to the report of that committee upon two grounds. First, that even while accurately relating particular facts of guilt, it holds forth these facts, not as single cases, not as the exception, but as the habit, as the rule. He would give an instance. A clergyman had been guilty of a gross irregularity, and upon this, the hon. Baronet, the Member for Leeds, pathetically deplored "the frightful system which, corrupts the pastor as well as the flock." Now, the Bishop of Australia declared that this was a solitary instance, that it had never occurred either before or since. Several worse cases had occurred in England, and they must always occur in so large a body, though their occurrence afforded no ground for a general imputation. Another objection to which the report was liable was, that it constantly confounded the defects of the system with the system itself. Was it reasonable to infer, that the abuses of a system could
536
only be cured by the abolition of that system? The noble Lord opposite, some years ago, entertained great objections to the then existing constitution of the House of Commons; but surely he would not have argued on that account that there should be no House of Commons at all. While, then, he fully admitted the objections that existed to the assignment of convicts as hitherto practised, he contended, in spite of the abuses of the system, that transportation had been attended with no inconsiderable degree of benefit, and that it had reformed many more criminals than would be reformed in England under any other system. On this point he would refer to the testimony of the Chief Justice of New South Wales, who stated, that under the system of transportation, thousands of criminals had been converted into useful members of society, and that but for it they would have been cut off from human fellowship. Similar statements had been made by the Attorney-general of the colony, and by the Bishop of Australia, as well as by several clergymen. He did not know whether they could do better on a subject of that kind than have recourse to the spiritual guides of those convicts, and to those exemplary clergymen who devoted their lives to the improving and raising the character of the inhabitants of New South Wales. He was ready to admit, that if they could prove that one system was better than another, as regarded the reformation of the convicts, that any question of profit or loss to the colonists should be treated as one of much less and altogether secondary consideration. On these grounds he admitted the objections to assignment, but he would not admit to the Transportation Committee that assignment must be identified with transportation. Last year, when the subject was before the House, be had quoted the opinion of the Bishop of Australia on the subject, but he had since then received a visit from a most respectable and worthy clergyman who had just returned from Van Diemen's Land, who confirmed all that had been stated by the bishop, and observed, that while many defects of the system of transportation must be admitted, still the amount of benefit derived from it was far greater. Again, he had the testimony of the rev. Mr. Bedford, the senior chaplain in Hobart Town, who had been seventeen years in the colony, and who alluded at a public meeting held in that town on the 29th of April, 1840, in very strong terms,

537
to the moral improvement that had taken place in the conduct of the convict population. He said—
"I have now been a clergyman in Van Diemen's Land for upwards of seventeen years. … I have had frequent occasion to announce divine service in the midst of harvest, and even then I never failed to procure a congregation. … Of the people of this colony I may say, that I never saw a more hospitable or kinder race of people in my life; and I should say, that they are a very moral people. Look at the improvement which has been made in the convict population, all of which has been derived from the moral culture bestowed on them by the free: look to the great number of reclaimed convicts—look to the exertions with them of private individuals."
This testimony was not confined to clergymen of the Church of England, but he could also appeal to the authority of the right rev. Dr. Polding, the head of the Roman Catholic clergy in that colony. That prelate said, in a letter to Sir Richard Bourke, dated May 6, 1836 (this letter was derived from Judge Burton's excellent work on religion and education in Australia), that there was—
"A marked and acknowledged improvement in morals in the convict population, that by no means an inconsiderable number have shown a total reformation of conduct."
And he added—
"This moral improvement amongst our people is, under the Divine blessing, steadily progressing."
These authorites ought not to be discarded by the House in forming an opinion on this subject. But it had been said, that even for the purpose of reforming criminals you had no right to send this species of population into a distant colony. This was an argument not against assignment merely, but against transportation altogether. They were told, that the more respectable inhabitants of the colony were exposed to constant plunder and violence by this class of population, that their property was insecure, that their families were contaminated, and that we had no right to clear the parent-state from its criminals to the detriment of the colonists. Perhaps the the best answer was that the colonists themselves most anxiously desired it. No greater proof could be given of the exaggerations which marked the accounts of the depravity and lawlessness ascribed to the convicts in Australia. As a proof of
538
this, he would refer to a petition which was presented to the House last fear from the colony of New South Wales. The petition was sent to the hon. Member far Liskeard, and, as far as regarded the abilities and zeal of that hon. Gentleman for a cause that he took up, there could not have been a better selection: but, unfortunately, the hon. Member for Liskeard had formed a strong opinion on the subject directly opposed to that of the petitioners, so that he contented himself with placing it on the Table, and bearing his testimony of the respectability of the persons signing it without attempting to give effect to its prayer. This petition was signed by 1,027 respectable settlers, and it strongly pointed out the advantages which had resulted to the colony from convict labour. It admits many previous abuses and errors in the system, but approves the main provisions of assignment, and urges the Government to postpone their decision upon it until a fuller enquiry. The petitioners declare their opinion, that—
"Transportation is an admirable means of punishment, and of moral reformation to the convicts."
And they go on to urge—
"That while the labours of the convict in the penitentiaries or prisons of the mother country operate to the injury of the poorer classes, who have either insufficient or no employ, and thus tend to augment the sum of pauperism, misery, and crime, the labours of the convict, even in the employ of Government in this colony, have a directly opposite effect, as he is converted by the mere process of transportation from a worse than useless burden into a positive advantage. The labours of the convict in this colony involve net merely no competition with the labouring poor at home, but, on the contrary, enhance the demand for labour there, by an immensely increased consumption of British manufactures of almost every description here, imported entirely in British vessels, and for which payment is principally made in raw material, afforded at its present prices by reason of its having been almost entirely raised by means of convict labour … It follows, then, that the continuance of transportation to any amount, so far from being an obstacle to the introduction of labouring emigrants, has the direct effect of enabling the colonists to make more extensive purchases of land, and thereby providing the means of increasing the amount of immigration, towards which they already contribute to the utmost of their ability; it is thus a system of healthy action and reaction within itself, and a combination of benefits almost unexampled."
A series of resolutions, involving nearly

539
the same points, had been agreed to at a public meeting, held on the 29th of April, last year, at Hobart Town, but he would not trouble the House by reading them. It followed, then, that the colony, so far from being opposed to the course which had hitherto been pursued, and to the continuance of transportation, objected to the change introduced by the noble Lord, which had excited the strongest feelings of opposition and disapprobation in the colony; and, above all, they complained that it was adopted without sufficient notice. He knew that there was a strong desire amongst them that the system of assignment should be continued, but, he confessed, that he, like the noble Lord, entertained very serious objections to it. One of the evils of this system was, that the worst criminals might be assigned to a kind master, while those who had been guilty of less crimes might be handed over to the most harsh and cruel masters. By this means great injustice was inflicted in awarding punishment in no degree according to the degree of guilt of the parties. So far, therefore, the system was bad, and he agreed with the noble Lord that the time had come when a great change must be made in the system. He thought, however, that it would be very beneficial to the colony of Van Diemen's Land if they greatly increased the number of convicts there. He thought, that a new penal colony might hereafter be beneficially founded on the northern coast of Australia. On this point he had the authority of Sir Richard Bourke, who was not a partial friend to transportation; he was the very first who, as Governor of New South Wales, addressed a despatch in 1834 to Mr. Secretary Stanley, recommending that the ending of convicts to that particular colony should be discontinued. That officer, on his return from the government of New South Wales, had drawn up a very able minute on the subject of transportation. It is dated December 26th, 1838. He stated—
"From what I have seen effected in New South Wales, I am induced to set a high value upon the power of commanding convict labour during the first process of settlement in a new country. The great demand for labour incident to such undertakings has seldom, if ever, been adequately supplied by free people. Where these have been relied on, and no other description of labour obtained, the progress of the incipient colony has been slow and difficult; hence the striking contrast between the condition of the Swan River Settle-
540
ment and that of New South Wales or Van Diemen's Land. South Australia is of too recent origin to be compared with the other settlements in New Holland, but it is now maintained, I believe, by borrowed capital, and the security is doubtful. It does not seem likely to make a better progress than Swan River."
How far this prediction, made in 1838, appeared verified in 1841, it was needless to point out. But to proceed. Sir Richard went on to admit that transportation was not an unmixed benefit to a colony, and should not be continued beyond a certain point, after the colony had attained a certain degree of internal strength. But he said—
"I will venture to express my apprehension of the success of penitentiaries, upon a scale of such magnitude as to contain the whole number of offenders now sentenced to transportation. The expense of such a measure would be immense, and in countries fully peopled like Great Britain and Ireland it would be a hazardous experiment to return to the population the numbers which will be annually discharged from these prisons as sentences expire. Better far, in my opinion, to lay the foundation of a new colony on the northwestern coast of New Holland, under management improved by the experience derived from New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land. The system which has been pursued there is susceptible of one great improvement—the discontinuance of assignment to private service. But in such case the period of strict servitude which would be devoted to public works should be shortened, and the settlers allowed to obtain the benefit of a convict's labour as a holder of a ticket of leave, the holder being compelled to seek his livelihood in a settler's service, by being restricted from setting up for himself in any trade or business during the continuance of his sentence."
These were practical suggestions, and he thought that, in accordance with them, the evils of the former system of transportation might be avoided, and great improvements effected. These questions of improvement he would leave where he ought to leave them—in the hands of her Majesty's Government. His motion only objected to the extension of the system of the hulks, which the noble Lord had laid down in his minute of the 2nd of January, 1839, and on which point he wished to take the opinion of the House. He most earnestly hoped that these views would meet with the support of the House, and that he should succeed in pressing on it the importance of the subject; and it was his anxious prayer, that our moral improvement would keep

541
pace with our external aggrandisement, that a system of transportation should be so conducted as to secure both objects, so that while we cast abroad the seeds of future empire, we should at the same time best attain the two great objects of all penal legislation—to deter and to reform! The noble Lord concluded with proposing the following resolutions:—
"That in the opinion of this House the large increase of the number of convicts to be permanently confined in the hulks of Great Britain, although sentenced to transportation in pursuance of the minute of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, dated the 2d of January, 1839, is highly inexpedient,"
Loud J. Russellsaid, I cannot but regret with the noble Lord, that a subject of so much importance as the present has not received more attention on the present occasion than it did when I brought it before the House on a former night. I admit that the subject is an important one, but at the same time, after listening to the noble Lord with great attention, I do not, see that the difference between our views of the subject is so very great. The noble Lord does not deny the evils of the system of assessment which Sir R. Bourke had described as leading to a state of slavery attended with the worst evils. With regard to the more immediate question involved in the motion of the noble Lord, that there has been no change in the system of transportation since the Lords' committee sat, I have to call the attention of the noble Lord to the fact of the proceedings before a select committee of this House. That select committee sat for a period of two years, and took a great deal of evidence, with respect to which, although there was much discussion in the committee, there was no difference of opinion, or division. The committee consisted of persons of various political opinions, as well as of persons who had bestowed considerable attention to the subject, and in proof of this, I have only to mention the names of those who were members of that committee. The committee consisted of Sir William Moles-worth, Sir George Grey, Mr. Leader, Mr. Ward, Mr. Hawes, Lord Howick, Sir Thomas Freemantle, Mr. Baring, Sir Charles Lemon, Sir Jamas Graham, and one or two others besides myself, and this enumeration, I think, will show that the committee was fairly constituted, and that the members of it represented the various
542
opinions held by parties in this House. Some of the members of it possessed considerable official experience, having been connected with either the present Government or the former Administrations, and others were persons who had devoted considerable attention to the subject, and had views of their own upon it; and what did this committee, formed as it was of various persons of various opinions do? Why they came to resolutions, the effect of which was, that transportation should be discontinued in reference to certain parts of the colonies of New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land, and that it should only be continued in places which were not settled, or rather in places remote from those where settlements existed, and it is the recommendations contained in these resolutions which the Government have since pursued. The noble Lord says, that there is great objection to the punishment of the hulks. No doubt there is great objection to the punishment of the hulks; but when you once stated that capital punishment was not to be used as an ordinary punishment, that the great majority of offences which incurred the highest penalty of the law, were to be otherwise dealt with—I say, when you once stated this, putting aside the objections to capital punishment, you then came to the adoption of a system of punishments the objections to which you could not easily get over. There were objections to transportation, and however objectionable punishment in the hulks and the present system of prison discipline may be, still until you point out a better system than the one now in operation, I submit your objections to it fail. One great objection to imprisonment in the hulks no doubt is, that the confinement tends to depress the spirits, and in a certain degree to endanger the health, without constant medical attention; but, at the same time, you must take into view, that the object of all punishment is to deter parties from the commission of crime, and if the noble Lord tells me, that he would remedy the evils of the present system, by sending the convicts out to New South Wales or Van Diemen's Land, where they could find employment, obtain high wages, and, perhaps, make large fortunes, notwithstanding they had been transported from this country for stealing; why, then, I must reply to the noble Lord, by saying, that by such a course you incur another

543
objection, namely, that the punishment would not only cease to deter parties from the commission of crime, but, in fact, offer a premium for it. By sending criminals to places where their health is preserved, and the elasticity of their spirits is not affected, what do you do? Why do you not tell the great portion of the ill-disposed population of this country, that by the commission of crime they will have a great prospect of bettering their condition, or, at all events, a great chance of drawing a prize from the lottery of transportation to Australia? Another objection to the present system is in effect, that the convicts, when discharged from the hulks, cannot find employment in this country. That, no doubt, is perfectly true. It is, however, one of the effects of punishment for crime in a settled country like this, that those who begin honest courses after suffering the penalty of previous dishonesty labour under disadvantage, in not being able to find employment as easily as persons of good character. This is an evil which, do what you will, you cannot remedy, because the result of punishment is to give to the good an advantage over the bad, in the way of obtaining employment. If, however, to remedy the evil of this natural result, you say that every person who forfeits his character by the commission of crime, should be sent to a country where the prospect of employment is open to him, what is the consequence? Why, that you incur the other objection to which I have adverted. Sir, I do not like, at present, to go into the large and important question with respect to transportation, and my reason for not going into it is chiefly because it was gone into with great care and impartiality by the select committee of this House, which had sat upon the subject. No doubt many of the statements made to that committee were much exaggerated, but then it is equally certain that those statements were not adopted by the committee in the report which they made to this House. Sir, I shall only go into one other matter touched upon by the noble Lord, and that relates to the subject of expense occasioned by the change I made in having a greater number of prisoners in the hulks than were transported. On this part of the subject I hold in my hand the account of Mr. Capper, dated the 24th of February, 1841. From this account it appeared
544
that the expense of the convicts on board the hulks in this country was 32,333 l., and the value of their labour 32,472 l., while the expense of those at Bermuda was 12,000 l., and the value of their labour 12,246 l. This statement certainly does not agree with the statement made by the noble Lord. Now, Sir, with regard to the whole question, I think it surely a question of degrees between the noble Lord and myself, because the noble Lord does not approve of the new system, and I am not prepared to support the system of imprisonment in the hulks. If, however, you put an end to the present system, and determine on sending the convicts to the colonies, what do you do? Why you make the colonies the repository for all the refuse of the population of this country. You make crime and immorality the staple of your colonies, and thereby injure their character, because the effect of sending out the bad of your own population can have no other effect than that of vitiating the population of the colonies to which your criminals are sent. Whatever, Sir, may be the evils of the difficulties experienced by persons coming out of the prisons of this country in finding employment, yet I do not think that you can justify in the eyes of the world establishing colonies, the great mass of the population of which shall consist of the refuse and worst of your own country. Therefore, it is, Sir, that I have been anxious to diminish transportation, though I must confess that I do not agree with the Archbishop of Dublin, and others, who think that transportation should be abolished. There are still, however, great numbers sent out, but not so many as formerly, owing to the alteration which has taken place in the criminal law. Of those who receive sentence of transportation for seven or ten years, comparatively few are sent out; but of those who are sentenced to transportation for ten or fourteen years, or for life, a great number are, and in, I believe 2,000 cases in each year the sentence is carried into full effect. Those who are sent to perform their sentences abroad are employed on public works in the colonies. They have to undergo hard labour, but they suffer none of those capricious punishments endured under the assignment system. I conceive that under the opinion of the Select Committee of this House, and, seeing the transition in the

545
state of punishments which was going on, I could not take any other course than that which I have pursued. The noble Lord complains of the way in which the prerogative of the Crown has been exercised, and he objects to it on the ground that it is a wholesale exercise which ought not to have been permitted. It is not, however, true that this is the first time that the prerogative of the Crown has been so exercised, because, when Lord Melbourne was Secretary of State, for the Home Department, it was usual for convicts sentenced to transportation to be sent to the hulks. I some time since stated to the House that this system was not to be continued, and that I thought it would be far better, where prisoners were intended to be employed as labourers in the dockyards, that a sentence to that effect should be pronounced by the judge, instead of leaving the matter to the discretion of any other party. I still hold the same opinion, and I hope to be enabled during the present Session to make a proposition to that effect to the House. As it will not be necessary to come to any resolution on the motion of the noble Lord I beg, Sir, to move the previous question.
Mr. Pakingtonbeing a Chairman of quarter sessions, took a deep interest in this subject, the importance of which must be admitted by the House. The able manner in which his noble Friend had dealt with the question it would be impossible to praise too highly, and he could only say, that he concurred in the views of his noble Friend without being influenced by party views or hostility to the Government. He was willing to admit that the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, deserved great credit for the attention which he had bestowed upon the subject of prison discipline: but with respect to the present question he could not concur in the course taken under the minutes of 1839. He listened to the speech of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, but he certainly thought the noble Lord had not answered the speech of his noble Friend. It appeared to him that there had been an undue exercise of the prerogative of the Crown with respect to the commutation of the sentences of transportation for seven years. The return of 1837 was not an accurate one, and, therefore, he should take that of 1839. In that year
546
the number convicted was 3,657, of whom 1,835 were sentenced to seven years' transportation and 1,822 to other periods exceeding seven years. More than one-half of the whole of the convicts in that year, consequently, were sentenced for seven years; and as in their case the sentence was commuted for short terms of imprisonment not exceeding three years, its efficacy was completely frustrated. This was a state of things which he thought justified the interference of Parliament. If it were not intended to carry sentences for seven years into effect, he thought the judges should be empowered to pass such sentences as would be enforced, for otherwise the object of punishment would be altogether defeated by the uncertainty to which such a system as the present gave rise. It was not treating the judges fairly to leave them in ignorance as to whether the sentences they pronounced would be carried out or not; and enabling parties convicted of crimes and sentenced to transportation to return to the scenes of their depredations after short imprisonments, could be anything but satisfactory to either the magistrates or the neighbourhood, from whence they had been taken. The moral effect of such a course could not prove otherwise than injurious. It was manifest that sending parties to the hulks was a much less severe punishment than imprisonment in a House of Correction under the present system of prison discipline, and on this ground he thought himself justified in objecting to the wholesale commutation of sentences which had taken place. With regard to expense he maintained that his noble Friend was perfectly right. The statement of his noble Friend was founded on the return of 1839, and, as that return was signed by the noble Lord opposite, the inaccuracy, if any existed, was his, and not that of his (Mr. Pakington's) noble Friend. It could not be doubted that imprisonment on board the hulks was objectionable on several grounds—first, because it was impossible to preserve proper discipline in the crowded state of the hulks; and next, with reference to health, as it appeared from the testimony of the surgeon of the Warrior, that scurvy was gradually increasing among the convicts. It might be proper to abstain from sending parties who were physically incapable, either from age on any other cause, abroad; but in all other in-

547
stances where sentence of transportation was pronounced, he maintained that the sentence should be carried into full effect, especially now that there was such a morbid feeling in the public mind on the subject of capital punishments. The hon. Gentleman, was sure that the substitution of short imprisonments had been attended with the worst results, and strongly recommended the adoption as speedily as possible of some well considered system of secondary punishments. Concurring as he did in the views of his noble Friend, he should support the motion.
Mr. Humecould not agree with the hon. Member that the feeling prevailing with respect to capital punishments which he was glad to know was general, was a morbid feeling. On the contrary, it was an active intelligent feeling, and he was pleased at it. An instance occurred within the last two weeks which showed the inexpediency of public executions, and he only hoped that such exhibitions would be put an end to. He had listened attentively to what had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Hertford, and he was not aware that he differed from a sentence which that noble Lord had expressed. That noble Lord had collated with great propriety most valuable references from the authorities for the present system, and, holding that the noble Lord was correct, he hoped what he had stated would have its proper influence, and prevent the Government from commuting sentences as they had done. He had always deprecated the departure from the transportation system, and he hailed with satisfaction an announcement made some years back by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke, that it was the intention of the Government to put an end to the hulk system, and to send criminals to their proper destination, according to their sentences. With respect to the evidence on which the present system rested, his opinion was, that transportation ought not to be checked on such evidence, for it was clear they were acting upon exceptions and not in accordance with general rules. He regretted that the hulk system had not been put down, because the effects of restoring prisoners suddenly to society was an active cause of mischief, enabling them not only to engage again in vicious courses, but to contaminate the morals of the rising generation. This country, with her colonies, was little bet-
548
ter than France and other countries without colonies. He thought they ought to take advantage of their colonies for the transportation of criminals, and his only regret was, that the noble Lord the Member for Hertford had not made his motion still more extensive. He was by no means satisfied with the experimental prison in the Isle of Wight. There were 230 young lads confined there at that moment, and no persons could behave better than they had done during their imprisonment. But when he asked the governor of the gaol, a very intelligent man, what would be their fate when they were liberated from prison, and whether he hoped they would become good members of society, his answer was, the same indeed as he had received from the governor of York and other gaols where he had made the same inquiry, that "Unless yon can provide means for their obtaining a livelihood when they leave the prison they will be driven back of necessity to the course of life which led to their imprisonment." So that, after the expense of their being kept in that place of confinement for several years, they would in the end be turned out on society without being reformed, or, if reformed, without the means of getting a living. The noble Lord had done the public a great service by bringing this matter forward, and he was therefore sorry that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies was not then present. He hoped, however, that it would be again brought forward, and that the separate proportions and various stages in which secondary punishments ought to succeed would be clearly stated, and that the opinion of the House would be taken on if. Some alteration was necessary to enable justice to be done. Could anything be more lamentable than the conduct of some of the judges? He saw some who had committed slight offences punished with heavy sentences, whilst those who had been guilty of heinous crimes were visited with light punishment. It might be a great protection, therefore, that the Home Department had the revision of those sentences. Not long since an individual, who had assaulted a policeman in the country, was sentenced by Mr. Justice Erskine to fifteen years' transportation; whilst in London, a noble Lord and a captain in the army, who had together almost murdered a sergeant of police, were not visited with any punishment. Was it thus that hon. Members complained

549
of the wholesale commutation by the Secretary of State? He objected to that wholesale commutation too; but whilst they had so much inequality, so much injustice, towards the mass of the people, according to their circumstances rather than their guilt, he must say, it became a serious matter of consideration whether some alteration should not be made. He did not mean to impugn the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies in the least degree; for he must say, that considering that noble Lord's situation as a Cabinet Minister, he deserved great credit for the manner in which he had attended to the criminal jurisdiction of the country, and that no man could witness his proceedings in the course of those bills that had passed through the House without being convinced that he showed himself clear in his view of the course that ought to be taken. But he hoped that this Session would not be allowed to pass without the noble Lord bringing before the House the result of his opinions and experience on this subject, and that some system of secondary punishment might be arranged so as ultimately to do away with capital punishment.
Mr. Lawsaid, that in concurring with the noble Lord who brought the subject before the House, that the system of substituting the hulks for the punishment of transportation was inexpedient, he did not feet that he thereby cast any censure on another noble Lord who had formed a different conclusion. He thought the public were indebted to the noble Lord for having brought before the House a subject of the deepest importance to the country. In any observations that he might address to the House he should not follow the hon. Member who had spoken last by going into the question of the abolition of capital punishments, or into the question of the inequalities of punishments in this country. It was not to be supposed that the House could be capable of pronouncing a correct opinion as to the inequality of any punishment as compared with another unless hon. Members were perfectly acquainted with all the circumstances of the case. He was confident that those concerned in the administration of justice entertained the opinion which at the present day was so prevalent generally, namely, that it was desirable to have as small an amount of punishment as possible consistent with the great object
550
of punishment—he meant example. The principle which actuated those who sat on the bench in this country was always to administer justice with a proper consideration of mercy. With respect to the substitution of the punishment of the hulks for transportation, it would be necessary to remark that the judge had to decide in certain criminal cases whether they were such as admitted of the punishment of imprisonment being applied, or whether it was necessary to resort to the sentence of transportation, and it was, therefore, not expedient that, after the Judge's decision as to what the punishment ought to be, another punishment should be substituted for it. With regard to the punishment of imprisonment, his experience in the Criminal Courts did not convince him that it was a punishment which was attended with the desirable results. It often happened that in the very week, or even sometimes on the very day, of the prisoner's discharge upon the termination of his punishment he committed another offence. As compared with imprisonment in serious cases, transportation was decidedly preferable. Indeed, he did not see any other effectual secondary punishment which could be introduced. There were evils attendant upon transportation, but there was no doubt that the system was susceptible of great improvement. It would be a great improvement, if an ascending scale of punishment were adopted in the country to which the prisoners should be transported. He was at a loss to know what could be substituted for transportation as a secondary punishment. At the same time that he concurred with the motion before the House, he did so with the highest appreciation of the exertions which had been made in connexion generally with the subject of punishment by the noble Lord at the opposite side of the House, but he (Mr. Law) did not think it expedient to continue to extend the evils that were attendant upon imprisonment. He did not believe the punishment of imprisonment was capable of effecting the objects that were to be desired from it, as it regarded the individuals so imprisoned, although it might be more effectual in the way of example.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, the discussion had as might very naturally be expected, gene into almost every sublet connected with imprisonment and secondary punishment.

551
He was not astonished at its taking so wide a range, for no one could moot so important a subject without its leading to a general discussion. He should, however, confine himself to the question raised by the noble Lord who introduced the motion as to the state of the hulks, the system adopted in them, and the advantages which he was of opinion attended them to a certain extent. In 1837 a committee was appointed to inquire into the subject of transportation, and that committee was unanimous in opinion as to the effect of transportation, particularly directing attention to the assignment system. Upon the report of that committee his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) proceeded to act. The report put forth, in a manner not to be mistaken, the opinion it entertained of the evils which had resulted from the system of assignment; and his Noble Friend felt it necessary to consider how he could best carry out the views of the committee. He did not mean to uphold the hulks as anything like a perfect establishment; but it appeared to him that it was best to have recourse to them as a punishment, until they saw what might be done in the way of providing a proper and efficient means of secondary punishment, seeing that the system of assignment had been so much disapproved of by the committee. When the assignment of convicts was thus opposed, they could not send out such numbers to New South Wales as they had been able to send out during the system of assignment. Those who were afterwards sent out could be only employed on works of a public nature, and, as they were concentrated under the newly-adopted system, if the convicts were sent out in as large numbers as before, the two places to which they were sent, Norfolk Island and Tasman's Peninsula, would be soon glutted. His noble Friend immediately looked about for some means of employing those sentenced to transportation for a short period, and he accordingly determined upon a system which had been formerly adopted and which had been condemned, but which his noble Friend thought was the best substitute for transportation until some better means of secondary punishment should be discovered. In the meantime his noble Friend had not been idle. He did not neglect to lay the foundation of an experiment upon the subject of secondary punishments, and he accordingly applied to the House for a grant to establish an experimental prison, where imprisonment as a secondary punishment might be satisfac-
552
torily tried. He thought it better in the case of convicts sentenced to seven years' transportation to send them to the hulks under certain regulations, but he did not do so without putting forward his views on that subject in a paper which had been laid before the House. Since 1838, up to the present year, the system of extending the hulks has been adopted, and he should take leave to say that there were several statements made by the noble Lord who brought forward the motion which the noble Lord would find were not quite sustained if he had been better acquainted with all the circumstances connected with the system since the repopulation, as he might term it, of the hulks. He did not mean to say, that in the hulks the same degree of separation and silence could be secured which was practicable in prisons on shore; nor did he mean to say that there was more communication in the hulks between persons of bad character than was desirable; but he could assure the House that the character of the hulks, as at present constituted, was very different from that which existed under the former system. Those who were intrusted with the care of the hulks gave their constant attention, morning, noon, and night, to the prisoners who were in their charge. There were many of the convicts who, on entering the hulks, were not only uneducated but ignorant of the common principles of morality, and numbers of those so situated had shown much willingness to listen to the instructions which were offered to them. There was one question which the noble Lord raised, and he (Mr. Maule) was afraid it was one in reference to which it was far easier to start objections than to point out a remedy; it was, what was to become of the convicts after their imprisonment had terminated? That was certainly one of the most difficult questions which could possibly be put. It was quite true they might be able to reform to a certain extent a person so imprisoned, but upon his return to society, he was looked upon as an individual who had to a certain extent a stain upon him. If they were kept in this country there would be a difficulty in their finding employment at honest labour, and if they were sent abroad to any settlement there would still be a stain on them. From inquiries which he had made he ascertained that in such settlements, so long as it was not known that the individual had been at any time the inmate of a prison at home, so long he did not feel any effects such as he had al-

553
luded to; but the instant it became known that he had been the inmate of a prison at home a stain attached to him from that time forward. Suppose they were to establish a new colony, consisting of persons so situated, it might go on well for a few-years, but such a colony would in time become a settlement for free individuals, who would no doubt in their turn complain that convicts were intruded upon them. With regard to a system of secondary punishment, he was not able to say that his noble Friend would be prepared to lay such a proposal before the House during this Session, nor would he promise with certainty that it would be brought before the House in the ensuing Session of Parliament. An impression prevailed against imprisonment in the Penitentiary. But at present a model prison was in progress of erection in this country, which would give them a fair opportunity of giving a fair trial to the experiment of secondary punishment. But until the public mind should have been fully satisfied on this subject, he thought that it would be premature to lay down any wide or extensive system of secondary punishment. He fully agreed with the noble Lord, that the discretion of commuting the punishment of transportation into hard labour at home ought to be taken out of the hands of the Secretary of State, and he thought that hard labour in the dockyards, if it was to be maintained, ought to he so as a minor punishment, to be inflicted only at the discretion of the judge. The noble Lord was mistaken, when he stated that a sentence of seven years transportation was often commuted into two years hard labour at the dockyards. The entire practice in this respect had been reviewed within the last two years. Every prisoner was certain to undergo a punishment of two years imprisonment. Then when this period had expired commenced a certain number of musters, and unless during that period the conduct of the convict proved either good or very good, he received no remission; so that a prisoner sent to the dockyards never received a remission of his punishment before three years, and very seldom before three years and a half, at which period, if he conducted himself well, he might be recommended for pardon on account of good behaviour. With respect to what had been stated as to the expense of maintaining that system, it would be found by the latest returns that the value of the labour performed by the convicts was nearly equal to the cost which the
554
system was to the public. However, in a question of this kind, expense was but a secondary consideration, and what they ought to consider was, whether as a temporary system it was so bad as to induce the House to condemn it. He entirely concurred in the opinion that had been expressed with respect to it as a permanent system, and he hoped that his noble Friend would be able very early to introduce a measure to take away from the Secretary of State the power of inflicting the more moderate punishment, and placing that power in the discretion of the judge. With respect to the treatment of prisoners, there was nothing to show that they were not treated with kindness and humanity. As to the number of convicts who had died during the year at Woolwich, it should be recollected that last winter was one of unusual severity, and it was not surprising that persons whose constitutions had been enfeebled by previous vice and dissipation, should have been more open to its effects. But it appeared from the report of the medical officer who had charge of these convicts that the deaths in the hospital were not more than one in thirteen, which was rather below than above the average in the large hospitals. In conclusion, he hoped that the noble Lord who had brought forward this motion, would not, after what had been stated, press the House to the expression of any opinion upon it. He must see that the publicity which the subject would attain by means of this discussion would accomplish all that the noble Lord could wish with respect to the subject.
Mr. Estcourtexpressed his grateful acknowledgments to the noble Lord for bringing this subject before the House, since it had been the means of eliciting from the noble Lord opposite and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fox Maule) a most satisfactory piece of information—namely, that they were engaged in some measure, which, in the present Session, would be brought before Parliament, for putting an end to a system which, he was able to state from experience, was one of the greatest of evils—the uncertainty of punishment. He was glad to find that no person was liberated from the hulks till he had undergone three years' confinement, and that then he entered on a system of probation. But though a convict could not be released till after three years and a half, yet when the punishment to which a convict was sentenced in face of

555
the court was seven years, an impression was made, that he obtained a mitigation of his punishment through favour. It had been clearly shown that the hulk system had failed as a means of reformation.
Viscount Howickdid not defend the present system of the hulks; he considered it a bad system. There was no classification; one convict was not separated from another, and the system was so radically vicious, that the sooner it was dispensed with the better. But, although he objected to the system of placing convicts on board the hulks, he trusted that the House would not adopt this resolution, which, though it did not in express terms recommend the system of transportation which had been abandoned, it must be considered, coupled with the speech of the noble Lord, as a condemnation of the present plan of detaining an increased number of convicts in the hulks, not merely as a permanent system, but even as a temporary expedient, which roust have the effect of restoring the system of transportation to our Australian colonies as heretofore. It was impossible to exaggerate the mischiefs of such a course. The noble Lord had in his speech passed over lightly the facts and arguments contained in the report of the committee of 1838 on the subject of transportation. His reference to it was most cursory and most unsatisfactory. The noble Lord said, he would not defend the system of assignment which formerly existed. The assignment system was neither more nor less than slavery, and slavery of the very worst description which it ever entered into the heart of man to conceive, demoralising not only to the slave but to the master. There was proved to exist a general demoralization of the population of New South Wales, such as never existed on the face of the earth. The press and every criterion of public opinion showed that a feeling in favour of the convict class existed over that of the free class in New South Wales. He trusted, that this state of society had since been corrected by the non-assignment of convicts, and by the number of new settlers. It was impossible to preach to the labouring population and to the artizans of this country of the advantages of emigration to New South Wales, and of the great demand for labour there, and at the same time to send convicts there and assign them as labourers, and state that this was the worst possible punishment. But if the
556
system of assignment was to be abandoned, what was the alternative, supposing transportation to be continued? The only alternative was, that the convicts should be retained under the immediate charge of the Government, and be employed on the public works. But was not that precisely the same punishment as was now inflicted upon the convicts in the hulks? Nor was forced labour of the same kind likely to be attended with better results in the colony than it was in the hulks; because there the difficulty of getting good superintendents of character being so great, the convicts were necessarily placed under the charge of convicts. He thought the recommendation of the committee that convicts should, as speedily as possible, be subjected to imprisonment under a proper system, and in proper buildings at home, a good one. That system could not at once be introduced, because the proper prisons did not exist, but the Under-Secretary of State, for the Home Department, had called attention that evening to the fact that experimental buildings for trying the effect of imprisonment on this plan were already in progress. He admitted, that it was an advantage in the colonies that convicts, owing to the great demand fur labour, had a better opportunity of obtaining employment from employers being less nice about a man's character than they were at home. But, according to the recommendation of the committee, facilities were to be afforded to persons after their punishment was undergone in this country to be removed to the colonies, in order that they might have the means of maintaining themselves by honest industry. The opinion of the committee was against collecting large bodies of persons together instead of diffusing them as much as possible. He most earnestly hoped that transportation, as it had hitherto existed, to the Australian colonies would not be revived. If the House were to adopt the resolution of the noble Lord opposite, it would revive the system of assignment and that low and degraded state of society which formerly existed in New South Wales. He, therefore, for one, could not concur in the resolution.
The House divided on the previous question, namely, that the Question be now put; Ayes 49; Noes 28: Majority 21.

List of the AYES.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Baker, E.

Bailey, J., jun.

Baring, H. B.

557

Baring, hon. W. B.

Mathew, G. B.

Bolling, W.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Bradshaw, J.

Palmer, G.

Chapman, A.

Patten, J. W.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Plumptre, J. P.

Davies, Col.

Pringle, A.

East, J. B.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Estcourt, T.

Richards, R.

Farnham, E. B.

Rolleston, L.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Gladstone, W E.

Salwey, Col.

Gladstone, J. N.

Sheppard, T.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Shirley, E. J.

Grimsditch, T.

Sibthorp, Col.

Halford, H.

Sotheron, T. E.

Hodgson, R.

Trotter, J.

Holmes, W.

Turner, E.

Hope, G. W.

Vivian, J. E.

Hume, J.

Wakley, T.

Johnson, Gen.

Williams, W.

Jones, Captain

Wood, B.

Law, hon. C. E.

TELLERS.

Lowther, J. H.

Mahon, Visit.

Marsland, T.

Pakington, J. S.

List of the NOES.

Baring, rt. hon. F, T.

Pigot, rt. hon. D.

Barnard, E. G.

Rundle, J.

Brodie, W. B.

Scholefield, J.

Brotherton, J.

Stewart, J.

Busfeild, W.

Strickland, Sir G.

Chichester, Sir B.

Sturt, H. C.

Duke, Sir J.

Teignmouth, Lord

Fitzpatrick, J. W.

Thornely, T.

Gordon, R.

Warburton, H.

Greg, R. H.

White, A.

Handley, H.

Wood, G. W.

Hawes, B.

Yates, J. A.

Howick, Viscount

Marsland, H.

TELLERS.

Muntz, G. F.

Maule, hon. F.

O'Brien, W. S.

Smith, V.

Resolution agreed to.

PROPERTY TAX.
Mr. Scholefieldrose to move the following resolution:—
"That the assessment of all property, real and personal, within the United Kingdom, would be a fit and proper substitute for such of the taxes of excise and customs as press most heavily on the middle and industrious classes; and that such alteration in the mode of raising the public revenue would be calculated, in a high degree, to enhance the value of all property, particularly, by leading to the fuller developement of the copious sources of wealth in this kingdom and its vast dependencies."
He contended that the present system of taxation was extremely unjust to the working classes; it pressed them to the earth and kept them there. The revenue, under the present system, was raised principally, if not altogether, from the necessaries of life, and that alone was a strong
558
reason for introducing a different system. The present system of revenue, moreover, was extremely partial; it favoured and protected the rich at the expense of the poor. In Birmingham and other manufacturing districts, the operation of the present indirect mode of taxation was felt to press with extreme severity, and unless some alteration was introduced, it was impossible that the country could meet the demands imposed upon it. The effect of the present system was to introduce civil war between debtor and creditor, and strife of the worst description between the employer and the employed. Surely it was time that some remedy should be applied; and he, for his part, saw no remedy that was likely to correct the evils of the present system, except the introduction of a system of direct taxation upon property. He believed that the pressure upon the working classes arising from the present unequal system of taxation, was the main cause of much of the immorality and crime that unfortunately at present existed. The working classes were, at present, disaffected, and why? Because they met with no sympathy on the part of that House. So dissatisfied were the working people with that House, that they had resolved to abstain from even petitioning for the redress of grievances; and he must say, from the experience he had hitherto had of that House, the working people were right. He trusted that the House would see the propriety of instilling a different feeling into that most important body, the working classes of the people. He would content himself by moving the resolution he had already read.
Mr. Muntz, in seconding the resolution, said, that the proposition gave the House of Commons an opportunity for showing that it had some sympathy for the distress of the people. The poorer classes in this country were taxed out of all proportion, as he believed they paid nearly two-thirds of the entire taxation of the country. It was said that taxation and representation ought to go hand in hand, but that was not the case. The people were not represented, of which be could not have a better proof than the state of the benches around him. How did the House of Commons guard the interests of the people? By making Corn-laws which limited their subsistence, and monetary laws which oppressed them still further. The consequence of this was, a state of

559
things in which no trade bore any thing like a legitimate profit. In his opinion, the only remedy for the national distress was a property tax, and he should, therefore, support the motion of his hon. Friend.
Mr. E. Turnerregretted to see so small a House on a question of this importance. There was evidently no desire on the part of the House to divide; and, if the question came to a division, it would be evident that the lower orders of the people had not representatives in that House who had sympathy with them.
Mr. W. Williamssaid, he held in his hand a return which showed the articles consumed principally by the poor and middle classes. The first items in the return to which he alluded were spirits, malt, and hops, which articles paid a tax of 13,180,000 l. The next items were sugar, tea, coffee, and tobacco, which four articles paid a duty of 12,700,000 l. The duties paid, too, were not according to value, but according to weight and measure, so that the coarser articles, consumed by the poorer classes, paid a much heavier duty in proportion to their value than the finer articles consumed by the rich. Proceeding to another class of items, such as butter, cheese, currants, corn, cotton, sheep's wool, candles, tallow, glass, timber, and excise licences. These duties amounted to 9,300,000 l. per annum, and were also collected upon the weight and measure system. Thus there was a total taxation in these items of upwards of 85,000,000 l. If he went to the consideration of the stamp duties, he found the duties on the smaller stamps much heavier in proportion than on the larger. In reference to the window duty also the burden fell more heavily on the middle class than the rich. The taxes he had enumerated amounted to 43,700,000 l., whilst the total taxation was 52,000,000 l. Those items of taxation more exclusively paid by the richer classes only amounted to 5,200,000 l., collected principally on the articles of wine, silk, auctions, post-horse duty, and assessed taxes, excluding window duties. Now, it was his opinion that, if we wished to preserve our manufactures, it was absolutely necessary to reduce the burden of taxation on the poorer and working classes, which at present swallowed up full half their wages, and which were enhanced at least twenty-five per cent. by the profit of the wholesale and retail sellers of the taxed artioles, the taxes on which must be paid before they can be sold to the public, and consequently form a part of the cost
560
price. Some hon. Members looked to the repeal of the Corn-laws as a source of great relief. He believed it would, afford some relief, but he thought those persons much mistaken who imagined that a repeal of the Corn-laws alone would enable the manufacturers of this country to compete with their comparatively highly taxed foreign rivals. He had no hope, that this motion would be carried yet, but he believed, that the time must soon come when the discontent of the working classes out of doors would compel the House to attend to the consideration of relieving them from the burdens under which they now groaned.
Mr. Fieldensaid, that nothing could show more convincingly how this House was constituted, and the way in which the interests of the people out of doors were treated by its Members, than a comparison of the appearance of the House last night, with the state of the empty benches this evening. He however thanked his hon. Friend for bringing forward his motion, as whatever might be its fate here, it must do good in the result.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, no doubt hon. Gentlemen would be inclined to draw an unfavourable inference, from the appearance of the House this evening; but it would not be fair, he thought, to attribute the absence of Members to a dislike to enter upon the discussion of any subject practically affecting the interests of the people. He believed, that Englishmen were of a peculiarly businesslike character, and that whenever business was to be done, the Members of this House would assemble in large numbers to attend to it, but that whenever it was generally supposed, that a resolution was to be moved, which could not with any practical use, be put upon the Journals of the House, they thought it no dereliction of their duty to stay away. His hon. Friend had brought forward this motion, no doubt, with the very best intentions, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), was much obliged to him for his suggestions, and would certainly take them into consideration, with the various other projects relating to finance which were continually being offered to him. But, at the same time, he did not think it would be judicious to press this resolution at the present moment; for the adoption of it, unconnected with some other definitive matters of legislative detail, would immediately throw the whole of the commercial interests of the country into commotion. When the variety and im-

561
portance of our trading interests were considered, which under existing laws were affected by the customs and excise, the announcement of the principle advocated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, would throw the whole of those interests into commotion, until the bills were brought in to regulate those taxes and duties which respectively affected them. He thought, that before the hon. Member called upon the House to affirm a resolution such as that which he now proposed, he should have been prepared to state what taxes he would repeal, upon succeeding in establishing a property tax. For his own part, he recollected, that a property tax had already been tried some years ago; and he could not forget, that at that period no language was considered too violent in deprecation of it, and that those who were most strongly opposed to it, were those who were engaged in commercial pursuits. Ten years ago, a noble Friend of his (Mr. P. Thomson, now Lord Sydenham), brought forward a motion on the subject of a commutation of taxes; but, in recommending the adoption of a property tax, for that must be considered as the practical result of his proposal, his noble Friend also specified the taxes which he would reduce or abolish. Of the articles so specified by his noble Friend, extending to seventeen in number, by far the greater number had already been wholly or in part freed from taxation. The tax upon hemp had been repealed; that upon soap had been reduced; that upon sea-borne coals had been repealed; that upon glass had been reduced; that upon calico had been repealed; that upon sugar had not been touched; that upon tea had been reduced; that upon tobacco had not been touched; that upon foreign spirits had not been touched; but that upon foreign wines had been reduced; and the duties for sea policies, upon fire insurance, upon newspapers, and upon advertisements, had all been modified or reduced; so that out of the seventeen items of taxation set down by his noble Friend for commutation for a property-tax, there were only four which had not since been either repealed, reduced, or modified. This had been done without the adoption of a property-tax. He was afraid, however, that they were not at the present moment in a state to enable them safely to hold out the same prospects of reduction of taxes. As he had said before, however, he should certainly give
562
his best attention to the subject mooted by his hon. Friend; and his hon. Friend having obtained what he thought was his hon. Friend's object, namely, that of bringing the subject under the attention of the House, and of her Majesty's Government in particular, he hoped he would not think it necessary to press it to a division. His hon. Friend's motion was framed in terms very proper as a matter for discussion, but hardly in that practicable form to be of any useful result on being negatived or affirmed on a division. He should, therefore, beg, as an amendment, to move, "the previous question."
Mr. Humewas bound in candour to confess that his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, in the way in which he had introduced this subject, had not done it that justice to which it was entitled: otherwise the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not have treated it quite so glibly as he had done. He begged to differ, however, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to this being a proper subject to press to a division. He had no hesitation in saying that the taxes of this country were apportioned most unequally, and consequently most unjustly. It might be very true that certain items of taxation referred to by the right hon. Gentleman had been repealed or reduced since the noble Lord's motion ten years ago in favour of a property-tax. But the broad state of the case was still the same; the same inequality in the apportionment of the public burdens still continued. The higher and wealthier classes of society did not pay above 24 percent. of the taxes, whilst the remaining 76 per cent. fell upon the middling classes and the working man. The constant effect of the present system was to exempt property from taxation, whilst, at the same time, property claimed the exclusive privilege of legislating for the rest of the community. A more nefarious or ruinous principle could not be conceived, and it was very important, in his opinion, that the subject should be brought forward, and that the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it. By affirming the resolution of his hon. Friend, they would be establishing this essential principle, that industry ought to be relieved from taxation, and that persons of large property ought to pay in an equal, if not greater proportion than their industrious and struggling neighbours. Why, under the

563
present system, a man might have an income of 50,000 l. a-year, and yet manage in such a manner as not to pay more taxes than a man with an income of 100 l. a year. Another very hard case was, that whilst every description of personal property was taxed enormously, landed property was almost wholly exempted from taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to revise the whole system of taxation. He should press on those who could bear the burden, and not on those who were perishing in wretchedness from day to day. If his hon. Friend had read the statement with which he was prepared as to Birmingham, it would show that, during no period of the last fifty years, was present distress exceeded. Let them go to Sheffield, Manchester, and Leeds, and they would find that our most flourishing manufacturing towns were at last reached by the prevailing difficulties. Under these circumstances, it was becoming that the Government should stop an evil which was spreading so fast. The poorer classes were not only burdened by taxation, but by regulations which tended to deprive them of employment. If ever there was an opportunity afforded for revising, not only the imposts, but the internal taxation which so hampered and restricted industry, it was how presented. The Government would never move until the House passed some such resolution as the present. If they did not take the Step in time, they would, ere long, be compelled to arrest an evil arising in the lower, and fast spreading to the upper classes of society. He should affirm the resolution as condemnatory of unequal taxation, and, because unequal, unjust.
Mr. Goulburnmaintained that the proposition of the hon. Member for Birmingham was not at all such as had been represented by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. It was not a resolution declaratory of the alleged unequal pressure of taxation, but amounted simply to an assertion "that the assessment of all property real and personal would enhance the value of all property," a manifest absurdity. It was impossible to exaggerate the evils which would inevitably arise in a state of society so artificial as this from any sudden change in the whole system of taxation. If, therefore, this motion did, as he contended it did not, simply affirm that such a change would be expedient,
564
he, for one, should refuse his sanction to a resolution which, without fixing anything for the future, would throw at present all things into a state of irretrievable confusion. He defied the hon. Member for Kilkenny to prove that under the present system the poor man was oppressed, while the rich was exempted from taxation. The question of taxation was not one to be judged of hastily, merely by the amount of money paid by one individual or another to the tax-gatherer. The best mode of imposing taxes had been a disputed point in all communities. Some persons imagined that it would be advisable to take away at once so much of the capital of the country as would be necessary to bear the necessary expenses, white others thought it more expedient to operate upon that capital when it had become diffused throughout the community, and was expended in the various commodities required for consumption by all. He certainly was in favour of the latter mode; and his firm conviction was, if by adopting a proposition like the present, they violently removed that capital which put the whole industry of the country into operation, instead of taxing it in its diffused state, not only would the greatest confusion follow, but employment would be greatly diminished, and irreparable injury sustained by all the industrious classes.
Mr. Wakleythought the worst system of taxation was that which supported an exorbitant expenditure. But, as his hon. Friend did not propose any reduction, but only the continuance by another mode of the present amount of taxation, he was surprised that the motion did not seem agreeable rather than otherwise to the House. His hon. Friend had tacked a sentence to the end of his motion, as a kind of bait for the great landed proprietors, who, however, were not so shortsighted as he might suppose them to be. He imagined that they would think his proposition, if carried into effect, would increase their incomes; but they appeared to be incredulous upon that point. The hon. Member had said that if this resolution were carried, the people would be convinced that it was the intention of that House to benefit the industrious classes. But from what he knew of the public mind he was sure the people would not be so easily convinced of so extraordinary a fact. It would take more than the passing of such a resolution to convince the working

565
classes and the industrious portion of the community that there was a disposition in that House to lessen their burdens. The painful experience of many years had established in their minds a deep-rooted conviction of a totally opposite fact. If the House would produce a different opinion amongst the people, they must set to work in right good earnest, and prove by deeds, not words, that there was a heartfelt desire in that Assembly to ascertain fully the cause of the sufferings of the people, and to apply a speedy and effectual remedy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his very good-humoured speech, when he was wheedling and toying with the hon. Member for Birmingham, and trying to woo and win him into an abandonment of his resolution, was pleased to say that he had gained his object. "I really believe," said the right hon. Gentleman, "that my hon. Friend has gained his object by bringing this resolution before the House." Now, supposing the hon. Member for Birmingham had gained his object, certainly the Chancellor of the Exchequer might say of him that he was a man of very small expectations, for he believed that no hon. Member had ever submitted any motion to that House considering the extraordinary importance and vast magnitude of the question it opened, by which so little had been gained. What had his Friend gained? Was there a single promise, or anything like a promise, that any reduction of taxation was to be made or any change whatever for the better to be attempted? Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to relieve the labouring and industrious people of this country in the slightest degree from that heavy pressure under which they now laboured? No. On the contrary, the arguments laid down were calculated to agitate the fears and excite the apprehensions of, not only the industrious classes, but people of small capital also. The Chancellor of the Exchequer considered the proposition of his hon. Friend dangerous. "Take care what you are about," said he, "lest every thing in the country be thrown into confusion and ruin, for such must be the natural result of any sudden alteration in the mode of collecting the taxes." Well, then, there was to be no speedy change. But if it could not be sudden, might it not be gradual? Why did not the right hon. Gentleman say, that at some distant day a considerable change might be made,
566
even it he qualified the declaration of the necessity for approaching that change gradually? When the right hon. Gentleman entered on his present office, he did so with professions of good intentions and with a mind ready prepared to meet the difficulties which he anticipated were connected with the duties of the situation. But he (Mr. Wakley) feared that the right hon. Gentleman, like those who had preceded him, proved that he had got into a huge machine which moved him, and not he the machine, so that if he attempted to turn round only for a moment to resist the impetus which urged him onwards he would be crushed by the uncontrollable force behind him. But then, it was the duty of the representatives of the people in that House to come forward as a body in the discharge of their duty, and aid the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, if they manifested any desire to relieve the distresses of the people. It was utterly impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, without the sanction and support of that House, as an individual, to make those changes which the state of the country absolutely required. But when he looked around and saw the state of the House after such a motion as this had been placed upon the paper, a motion which after all embraced the principle of a property-tax, he was surprised. Where were noble and testy Lords? He did not think there was a Lord in the House. He would not stop to ascertain what amount of loss the people would sustain if they never came back to it again. Yet it was a remarkable fact that there were no Lords in the House on that occasion. [Oh, yes.] He begged pardon of those noble Lords, and quite envied them on account of their honourable exception. But on a question of such magnitude, involving all the interests of the country, and particularly those of the working people, one would have supposed, even if the motion had not embodied what the great majority out of doors desired, that still noble Lords would attend to enlighten the House with some of that vast knowledge they possessed on all subjects. At all events, the leading Members of the two great influential parties in that House might fairly have been expected to attend, especially in the present day of extensive commercial embarrassments, to state their views with reference to a property-tax. But they were left with a House of fifty

567
Members to discuss a motion of such importance. Indeed, a short time ago, there were not forty Members present—not, in fact, what was called a House. He must say, that he thought that those hon. Members who absented themselves on the present occasion treated the country with great neglect.
Colonel Sibthorprose amidst loud cries of "hear." The hon. Member for Fins-bury was always inveighing against the Government, but why did he sit with them? "Tell me your company, and I'll tell you who you are." There was, certainly some ground for the complaint he made of the absence of the leading Members of the Government, for the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), in his solitary position on the Treasury bench, seemed like an outcast sent there to do the whole business of the Government, while his colleagues were enjoying the luxurious scenes from which he was excluded. The hon. and gallant Officer declared that it was his intention to oppose the motion.
Mr. Mark Philipswould advise his hon. Friend to withdraw his resolution for the present. The state of the House had been alluded to by several Members, and he would suggest to his hon. Friend to bring it on again on some night, when circumstances would compel the attendance of those whose duty it was to be in their places when so grave a subject was under consideration. He would suggest the night appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the bringing in the budget. He did not wish to get rid of the subject. He had, so far back as the year 1834, placed on record his opinion, that the taxes pressed too heavily on the industry, and too lightly on the property of the country. In 1834, he had voted in favour of the motion for the repeal of the Malt Laws, though Lord Althorp had threatened, that a property tax would be the consequence if that motion became law. He had since then parted company with hon. Gentlemen on the malt question, because he found, that they sought for a repeal of the tax, exclusively with a view to the benefit of the agricultural interest. He was well aware, that a property tax would be inconvenient to those who had to pay it, but it would compel them to consider how injuriously taxation pressed on other parties. If his hon. Friend divided the House, be should vote
568
with him; but he was anxious, that this important question should be entered on with the fullest House possible, and, therefore, advised him not to press for a division at present.
General Johnsonrose for the purpose of making a request directly opposite to that made by the hon. Member who last spoke. He hoped the hon. Member for Birmingham would divide the House. He deprecated the practice of hon. Gentlemen bringing forward motions, and thus abandoning them without a division. He would say, in reply to the right hon. Member for Cambridge, that the resolution contained a very plain principle.
Mr. Scholefieldexpressed his opinion, that even the landlords would benefit by the removal of the taxes on articles of general consumption, and his determination to divide the House.
The House divided on the previous question, namely, that the question be now put;—Ayes 27; Noes 40: Majority, 13.

List of the AYES.

Barnard, E. G.

Rice, E. R.

Brotherton, J.

Rundle, J.

Duke, Sir J.

Salwey, Colonel

Evans, Sir De L.

Stewart, J.

Fielden, J.

Thornely, T.

Greg, R. H.

Turner, E.

Hall, Sir B,

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Handley, H.

Wakley, T.

Hindley, C.

Walker, R.

Hume, J.

Williams, W.

Johnson General

Wood, B.

Leader, J. T.

Yates, J. A.

Marsland, H.

TELLERS.

Muskett, G. A.

Muntz, G. F.

Philips, M.

Scholefield, J.

List of the NOES.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Howard, P. H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Broadley, H.

Johnston, H.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Jones, Captain

Chichester, Sir B.

Lowther, J. H.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Marsland, T.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Monypenny, T. G.

East, J. B.

Morgan, O.

Farnham, E. B.

Morris, D.

Fitzpatrick, J. W.

Pakington, J. S.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Pigot, rt. hon. D.

Gladstone, W. E.

Richards, R.

Gordon, R.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Grimston, Viscount

Stuart, Lord J.

Hale, R. B.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Hodgson, R.

Trotter, J.

Holmes, W.

Villiers, Viscount

Hope, G. W.

Wilshere, W.

569

TELLERS.

Worsley, Lord

Smith, V.

Wyse, T.

Seymour, Lord

CHARITABLE THUST PROPERTY.
Mr. James Steuart: Sir, I rise to ask leave of the House to bring in a bill to facilitate the transfer of real and personal property held in trust for charitable purposes, and I will only beg a few moments of the time of the House while I explain its objects. The nature of charitable trust I have no doubt is familiar to most hon. Members. I find most of them shortly mentioned in the preamble to the statute of 43d Elizabeth on this subject. They are, first, the relief of aged, impotent, and poor people; the maintenance of sick and maimed soldiers and mariners; schools of learning, free schools, and scholars in universities; repair of bridges, ports, havens, causeways, churches, sea-banks, and highways; the education and preferment of orphans; the relief, stock or maintenance for houses of correction; the marriages of poor maids, the support, and help of young tradesmen, &c. Now Sir, I am sure there will be a desire on the part of the House to facilitate that object, and I will shortly explain to the House in what manner I purpose to do this by the bill which I am desirous to introduce. I do not purpose to remove any of the guards for securing the due appointment of trustees. I do not wish on the present occasion in any way to touch this part of the subject. I will assume that new trustees are duly appointed. This, Sir, is done in one of two ways. It is done either under an exercise of a power entrusted by the donor or person who established the charity, or it is done by means of a court of equity. But after the appointment is made, there is often very considerable difficulty. The person to whom the trust property is to be conveyed may be well settled, but by the present law, before the charity can be carried on, there must be a valid conveyance of the trust property from the old trustees or the heir at law of the last surviving trustee. Now Sir, here very frequently considerable difficulty and hardship is found to exist. The proper person to execute the conveyance may be abroad, there may be litigation as to who is the heir at law; considerable nicety may exist as to who has the the legal estate, and who is the proper party to execute the conveyance. And the House may see that these questions although often important to other persons or other interests, is of no
570
importance at all so far as the charity is concerned, and the charitable intentions of the donor. But in the mean time, the purposes of the charity may wholly fail; no lease can be granted, the title is in an unsettled state, and all from a circumstance which is of no consequence so far as the charity is concerned. Now, Sir, it appears to me, that there is a remedy which may be applied, which seems to be sufficient for the purpose. I propose, Sir, that this due appointment of the trustees shall vest the property in them by virtue of the appointment. There are several precedents for this course. First, Sir, in the case of a bankrupt's property, the appointment of the assignees vests the property in the assignees without any conveyance whatever. So, Sir, in the case of an insolvent debtor, no conveyance is necessary; the property of the insolvent rests in the provisional assignee without any conveyance from the insolvent. This is a recent improvement in the law, it was introduced by my hon. Friend the Attorney-general as late as the act for abolishing the imprisonment for debt the 1st and 2nd Victoria c. 110. Now, Sir, I do not see why the principle should not be extended to charitable trusts. I propose therefore in this bill to make the due appointment of trustees vest the trust estates in them, and I move therefore for leave to bring in a bill to facilitate the transfer of real and personal property held for charitable purposes.
The Attorney-generalseconded the motion. He fully approved of the bill proposed by his hon. and learned Friend which he considered was a desirable improvement in the law.
Leave given.