Commons Sitting of 17 March 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Private.—1o City of Glasgow Life Assurance and Reversionary Company; Haddingtonshire Roads; Liverpool Poor; Camburslang and Muirkirk Roads; Aberdeenshire Roads; Kirkintolloch Roads; Inchbelly (Glasgow) Roads; Piel Pier and Harbour.
3oand passed—Clee lnclosure; South Eastern Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Dr. Bowring, and Mr. Dennistoun, from Irvine, Glasgow, and several other places, for a Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Greenall, and Mr. Grimsditch, from Wigan, and Macclesfield, for a Bill to Prevent Brewers Casks from being Distrained for their Customers Rent.—By Mr. Elphinstone, from the Ward of Cheap, for the Redemption of the Tolls on Waterloo, &c. Bridges.-—By Mr. Ferrand, and Mr. Colville, from several places in Staffordshire, Derbyshire, and Warwickshire, against the New Poor-law, and in favour of Gilbert Unions.—By Mr. Hutt, from the Gateshead and Tyne, and Newcastle General Shipping Companies, against the Proposed Addition to the Duty on Coals.— By Mr. 0'Connell, from Derry, that the Ironmongers Company may be compelled to adhere to their Charter, and grant Freehold Leases of their Lands instead of Letting at Will.-—By Mr. Muntz, and Mr. Redington, from Millowners of Stratford-upon-Avon, and in Galway, for Encouraging the Importation of Grain in preference to Flour and Meal from Ainwick, against the Corn Im-
756
portation Bill.—By Mr. Dennistoun, from Glasgow, for a Repeal of the Union—From Manchester, and Salford, against the Buildings Regulation and Boroughs Improvement Bills.—From the Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock Railway Company, for Alteration of the mode of Charging the Duty on Passengers by Railways.—From Worcester, and North Shields, against the Exportation of Hill Coolies from British India.

EDINBURGH AND GLASGOW RAILWAY.
Mr. Oswaldmoved that the Members for the City of Glasgow, and for the counties of Dumbarton and Lanark be added to the committee on the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway Bill.
Mr. Greenesaid, that an application of a similar nature, in relation to the Severn Navigation Bill, had been referred last Session; and, therefore, he thought the hon. Member for Glasgow ought to make out a strong case to induce the House to accede to his motion.
Mr. Oswaldsaid, the railway went to Glasgow, passed through a great portion of the county of Lanark, and went close to the county of Dumbarton, and as it had been referred to the South Eastern list, no Members connected with those places would serve upon the committee.
Mr. Estcourtsaid, it was true the bill had been referred to the South Eastern list. As the railway went from Edinburgh to Glasgow, the bill might with equal propriety be referred to either the South Eastern or the South Western list, and as the South Western list had several bills under their consideration, and the South Eastern list none, it had been thought best to refer the bill to the list which was least burdened with business. As some inconvenience was likely to result if the hon. Gentleman's proposition were not acceded to, he was willing to acquiesce in it.
Mr. Fox Maulewas understood to approve of the course adopted by the hon. Member for Oxford.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, he was much surprised at the opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman opposite, at the same time he had so much confidence in him, that he did not wish to set his opinion in opposition to that of the hon. Member; but he must say, that the House ought to be very cautious how they departed from general regulations. This might be a precedent which would lead to many applications, not only from Scotland, but from other places, and in many instances very good cases might be made out for placing certain Members on committee.
Mr. Lochthought the House ought to consider, before it assented to the motion, as he conceived the hon. Member's proposition would be a very dangerous precedent.
The House divided—Ayes 46; Noes 25: Majority 21.

List of the AYES

Aglionby, H. A.

Hill, Lord M.

Allix, J. P.

Hutt, W.

Bailey, J.

Johnston, Alex.

Barnard, E. G.

Lennox, Lord A.

Bowring, Dr.

Lockhart, W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Lygon, hon. General

Busfeild, W.

Mackinnon, W. Alex.

Campbell, Alex.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Codrington, C. W.

Miles, W.

Cripps, W.

Muntz, G. F.

Dennistoun, J.

Napier, Sir C.

Dick, Quintin

Neeld, J.

Dodd, G.

Redington, T. N.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Rolleston, Col.

Drummond, H. H.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Duncan, G.

Somers, J. P.

Ellice, E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Elphinstone, H.

Stuart, Lord J.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Tollemache, J.

Ferguson, Col.

Trollope, Sir J.

Hastie, Archibald

Tufnell, H.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Hay, Sir A. L.

TELLERS.

Heneage, E.

Oswald, Mr.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Maule, Fox

List of the NOES.

Baillie, H. J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Baldwin, C. B.

Jones, Capt.

Brotherton, J.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Burroughes, H. N.

Lindsay, H. H.

Collett, W. R.

Lyall, G.

Colvile, C. R.

March, Earl of

Douglas, Sir H,

Marsham, Visc.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Pringle, Alex.

Greenall, P.

Rice, E. R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Grimsditch, T.

Trench, Sir F. W

Hale, R. B.

TELLERS.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Loch, Mr.

Henley, J. W.

Greene, Mr.

ELECTION PETITION—ABSENCE OF A MEMBER.
Lord G. Somersetreported from the general committee of elections the names of the members of the select committee appointed to try and determine the merits of the petition complaining of an undue election and return for the borough of Wigan, as follow;—The Earl of Lincoln, Mr. H. Tufnell, Mr. H. Kemble, Mr. R. Scott, Mr. F. A. M'Geachy, the hon. H. T. Howard, and Mr. Benjamin Hawes, (chairman.)
On calling over the names of the Mem-
758
bers preparatory to their being sworn at the Table, it was found that the hon. H. T. Howard was absent.
Lord G. Somersetmoved—
"That the clause in the Election Petition Act relative to the attendance of Members appointed to try and determine the merits of petitions against alleged undue returns of Members to sit in that House be read."
The clerk read the clause, which set forth,
"That any Member appointed to sit on an election petition, who shall not attend in his place one hour after the House meets, and take the oaths, or who shall depart from the House, unless the petition be discharged, shall be ordered to be taken into custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, or otherwise punished or censured as the House may direct, unless it be verified on oath that such Member, by sudden accident, has been prevented from attending."
Lord G. Somersetwished to know before he made the motion which he meant to propose, whether any hon. Member could inform the House of the cause which occasioned the absence of the hon. Mr. H. T. Howard?
Mr. Tufnell said,he believed that it was the intention of the hon. Member to have been in his place at the proper time, and most probably he was then on his way to the House. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would not press his motion at present.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, that as the act was imperative, its letter and spirit must be followed out; and he should, therefore move, that the hon. H. T. Howard be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Motion agreed to.

ARMY IN INDIA.
Lord John Russellhaving understood from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government on a former occasion that it was probable an increase would be made to the army in India, but that no determination could be come to until fuller official information was received, was desirous of knowing whether anything definite had been resolved upon. It was stated that six regiments were about to be added to the army in India. Was the resolution formally taken; and if the increase was resolved upon, did the right hon. Baronet intend to move for a supplementery estimate.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that it was the inten-

759
tion of Government to increase the army in India, and as it was found necessary to increase the military establishment, a supplementary estimate would of course be required, and would be laid upon the Table in due time.
Lord J. Russsellasked the question with the view of ascertaining what additional force would be required.
Sir R. Peelwas in expectation of fresh accounts, containing more detailed information than had yet been received, and until they were furnished he did not think it expedient to state the exact views of the Government upon the subject.

REVENUE COMMISSION.
Mr. Hawesunderstood that a commission had been appointed to inquire respecting the collection of the revenue. He wished to know whether the committee had made any report, and if so, whether any saving was likely to be effected.
Lord G. Somerset(as chairman of the commission) said, that a report had been forwarded to the Treasury, but he could not, of course, say what had been done in consequence. The report did not contain any recommendation as to a definite saving.

ADDRESS TO THE CROWN—COMPENSATION FOR OPIUM SEIZED BY THE CHINESE.
Mr. Lindsay rose,in pursuance of notice, to move—
"That the House will, upon Thursday, the 7th day of April next, resolve itself into a committee, to consider of the following address to her Majesty—that is to say,' That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take into consideration the circumstances under which the British merchants and others, subjects of the British Crown, did on the 27th day of March, 1839, upon the requisition of Captain Elliott, superintendent of British trade in Canton, surrender to the said Captain Elliott, for the service of her Majesty's Government, 20,283 chests of opium, on the assurance of the said Captain Elliott that he on behalf of her Majesty's Government, held himself responsible in the fullest and most unreserved manner for the same, and further, that compensation for the injury sustained by her Majesty's subjects was the first of the demands made by her Majesty upon the government of China (to enforce which an expedition was sent out), and that a sum of money having now been received from the government of China, her Majesty will be graciously pleased to advance to such British merchants and others, on account of their respective losses,
760
to the extent of the sum received from the Chinese government, after deducting the amount awarded by her Majesty to the captors and to assure her Majesty that this House will make good the same."
The hon. Member said he had to request the indulgence of the House while he endeavoured to state the case which had been intrusted to him as clearly and succinctly as it was in his power. The circumstances which had given rise to the case were well known to the House. It would be in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen that a large quantity of opium, the property of British merchants, had been delivered to the superintendent of the British trade in China. It was not necessary that at the present time he should enter into the merits or demerits of the trade in opium. It was sufficient for his present argument, in the first place to prove that the legality of the trade in opium was clearly recognised and sanctioned by the British Government. To prove this he would read, if the House would allow him, a very short extract from the report of the committee of the House of Commons which sat in 1832, in which it was clearly acknowledged that the opium trade was a trade proper to be conducted. After having had all anomalies of the trade explained to them they came to the conclusion, on the complete information before them,
"That in the present state of the revenue of India it does not appear desirable to abandon so important a source of revenue as the opium trade, the duty on opium being one which falls principally on the foreign consumer, and which appears on the whole less liable to objection than any other which can be proposed."
Another portion of the report was as follows—
"That it would be imprudent to rely on the opium monopoly as a permanent source of revenue, and that the time might probably not be very far distant when it might be desirable to substitute an export duty, and thus, by the increased production under a system of freedom, to endeavour to obtain some compensation for the loss of the monopoly profit."
These words were of some importance to the present case, because it was clear that the crisis which arrived in China was chiefly the consequence of the increased production of British opium, which was occasioned by the sanction given to the trade by such authorities as that to which he had referred. His object in making his present address to the House was two-

761
fold—first, to endeavour to prove that the honour and character of the country were involved in the full redemption of certain pledges give by Captain Elliott, on the guarantee of which the British merchants in China surrendered a vast quantity of opium; and, secondly, to endeavour to convince the House that it was desirable, on all grounds of justice and expediency, that those pledges should be redeemed. It was important to show that British subjects trading to China conceived Captain Elliott to be possessed of full authority, which they were bound to obey; and in order to do this he should next proceed to read the words of the act of Parliament and Order in Council granting this authority—
"By act 3rd. and 4th. William the 4th, his late Majesty was empowered, by commission or warrant under his sign manual, to appoint not exceeding three of his Majesty's subjects to be superintendents of the trade of British subjects to and from China, for the purpose of protecting and promoting such trade; and by any such order or orders, commission or commissions, as to his Majesty in Council should appear expedient and salutary, to give to the superintendents, or any of them, powers and authorities over and in respect of the trade and commerce of his Majesty's subjects within any part of the said dominions; and to make and issue directions and regulations touching the said trade and commerce, and for the Government of his Majesty's subjects within the said dominions; and to impose penalties, forfeitures, or imprisonments, for the breach of any such directions and regulations, to be inforced in such manner as in the said order or orders should be specified."
He would allow that the act of Parliament was, perhaps, not very satisfactory, as it would presently appear that all that had been done by the Order in Council was to invest Captain Elliott with the powers held by the supercargo of the East India Company. In pursuance of this act of Parliament an order was made by his late Majesty in Council, on the 9th of December, 1833, by which it was ordered,
"That all the powers and authorities which on the 21st day of April, 1834, should by law be vested in the supercargoes of the East India Company, over and in respect of the trade and commerce of his Majesty's subjects at the port of Canton, should be, and the same were thereby vested in the superintendents for the time being appointed under and by virtue of the said act of Parliament."
The authority of the East India Company's supercargo enabled them to deport from the country British subjects miscon-
762
ducting themselves, to take away licences from ships, and to exercise general control over the trade of the company to China. So great was the impulse given by the East India Company to the opium trade with the view of increasing the revenue derived from it, that it at length extended over the whole coast of China, and established itself within the port of Canton, thereby greatly endangering the regular and legal trade. As a proof of the authority exercised by Captain Elliott, he would read to the House the following order, issued on the 18th of December, 1838, to which due obedience was paid:—
"December, 18, 1838—I, Charles Elliot, chief superintendent of the trade of British subjects in China, moved by the urgent considerations immediately affecting the safety of the lives and properties of all her Majesty's subjects engaged in the trade of Canton, do hereby formally give notice and require, that all British owned schooners, cutters, and otherwise rigged small craft, either habitually or occasionally engaged in the illicit opium traffic within the Bocca Tigris, should proceed forth of the same within the space of three days from the date of these presents, and not return within the Bocca Tigris, being engaged in the said illicit opium traffic."
The British subjects to whom these vessels belonged, obeyed the order of the superintendent, and retired out of the river. He need not enter into the particulars of the crisis produced at Canton, by the arrival of Commissioner Lin. Captain Elliot was not in Canton at the moment when the first arbitrary measures were taken, but bearing, that the lives of British subjects were in danger, he, with that frank courage and gallantry which distinguished his character—for so he must admit, however much he might differ from the gallant Officer on some points—immediately repaired to that city. They had heard a high authority in that House, who was borne out by the great name of the Duke of Wellington, declare, that Captain Elliot was perfectly justified in acting thus. On arriving at Canton, he found, that a great crisis had occurred, all the British subjects were in prison, and Captain Elliot immediately said, on the moment of his arrival, that he would take on himself the whole charge and responsibility of the measures to be taken. He would now read the public notice of Captain Elliot, on which the whole case rested, and the question for the House to decide would be, whether the country was or was not responsible for what Captain Elliot did

763
on that occasion. The notice was addressed to British subjects in Canton, and was dated March 27, 1839:—
"I, Charles Elliot, Chief Superintendent of the trade of British subjects in China, presently forcibly detained in Canton by the provincial Government, together with all the merchants of my own, and the other foreign nations settled here, without supplies of food, deprived of our servants, and cut off from all intercourse with our respective countries (notwithstanding my own official demand to be set at liberty, so that I might act without restraint), have now received the commands of the High Commissioner, issued directly to me under the seal of the hon. officers, to deliver into his hands all the opium held by the people of my country. Now I, the said Chief Superintendent, thus constrained by paramount motives affecting the safety of the lives and liberty of all the foreigners here present in Canton, and by other very weighty causes, do hereby, in the name and on the behalf of her Britannic Majesty's Government, enjoin and require all her Majesty's subjects, now present in Canton, forthwith to make a surrender to me, for the service of her said Majesty's Government, to be delivered over to the Government of China, of all the opium belonging to them, or British opium under their respective control; and to hold the British ships and vessels engaged in the trade of opium subject to my immediate direction, and to forward to me without delay, a sealed list of all the British owned opium in their respective possession. And I, the said Chief Superintendent, do now, in the most full and unreserved manner, hold myself responsible for, and on the behalf of her Britannic Majesty's Government, to all and each of her Majesty's subjects surrendering the said British Owned opium into my hands, to be delivered over to the Chinese Government. And I, the said Chief Superintendent, do further specially caution all her Majesty's subjects here present in Canton, owners of or charged with the management of opium, the property of British subjects, that failing the surrender of the said opium into my hands, at or before six o,clock, this day, I, the said Chief Superintendent hereby declare her Majesty's Government wholly free of all manner of responsibility or liability in respect of the said British owned opium. And it is specially to be understood, that proof of British property and value of all British opium surrendered to me agreeably to this notice shall be determined upon principles in a manner hereafter to be defined by her Majesty's Government. Given under my hand and seal of office at Canton, in China, this 27th day of March, in the year of our Lord 1839, at 6 of the clock in the morning.
CHARLES ELLIOT,
"Chief Superintendent of the Trade of British subjects in China."
It would be seen, from what he had
764
read, that Captain Elliot enjoined British subjects in China to deliver up their property for the service of the Government of Great Britain. He would at once grant that the Chinese Government would have been justified in seizing all the opium on the coast of China, if they had been able to do so. But they had not done so; they had not dared to attempt it. The opium surrendered to Captain Elliot was entirely out of the power of the Chinese, and a large portion of it had already been ordered away from China, and was sailing down the Chinese seas to Singapore. At the urgent request, of the superintendent it was brought back again, in order to be delivered to him. He would not maintain, that the country was responsible for every act which might be done by a foreign Minister in a distant country, because some of his acts might be so injudicious and erroneous, that the country would be quite justified in repudiating them, especially if they involved anything derogatory to the character of the country. But when any acts Were done by a foreign Minister for the purpose of forwarding a series of great political events, and when the Government of the country approved generally of their scope and tenour, it was impossible, with any regard to the honour of the country, to repudiate a certain portion of them. Did the late Government, then, disapprove of the scope and tenour of Captain Elliott's proceedings? Far from it. They approved of them most highly, nay more, the Duke of Wellington, in the other House, expressed his general approbation of them. The Home Government immediately raised him to the dignity of plenipotentiary, and empowered him to carry on negotiations of the highest consequence with the empire of China. With regard to the sums of money that had been obtained by her Majesty's Government from the Chinese authorities, he would read an extract from the letter of Captain Elliot to the Earl of Aberdeen, printed in return to an order o the House of Commons:—
"The definite political purposes in view at the moment, were to break up the large contingent force from the other provinces assembled at Canton, to destroy the formidable aggressive preparation of the last two months, and to tame the spirit and cripple the resources of the Government, by dismissing the imperial commissioners, and levying a contribution on the treasury in part satisfaction of the heavy demands of her Majesty's Government … In this situation of affairs, I was enable to conclude a convention with the local authorities,

765
by which the imperial commissioners were subjected to the disgrace of forced departure from the city; the troops from the other provinces were constrained to evacuate in the sight of our own force without banners displayed (a sign of humiliation in China); 6,000,000 dollars were recovered from the imperial treasury in diminution of the just claims of her Majesty's Government; a further sum of more than 80,000 l. has been paid in compensation of the losses occasioned by the destruction of the factories, and certain previous violence committed by the government of Canton; and we were left in a situation forthwith to withdraw the whole armament from the dangerous effect of the river service upon the health of the force, for movement to the northward."
This fact ought to be taken in connexion with the statement of the noble Lord, the late Leader of the House of Commons (Lord J. Russell), relative to the object of the Chinese expedition. The noble Lord was asked, what was the object of these preparations? The answer was, that
"In the first place they were to obtain reparation for the insults and injuries offered to her Majesty's superintendent and her Majesty's subjects by the Chinese government; and in the second place, they were to obtain for the merchants trading with China indemnification for the loss of their property incurred by threats of violence offered by persons under the direction of the Chinese government."
With reference to the compensation granted to persons who had sustained loss in consequence of the measures of the Chinese, he would take this opportunity of directing the attention of Government to the claim of Joseph Coolidge, an American citizen, which, from the singularity of the circumstances attending it, and the exorbitant amount of it, had excited much curiosity. It was as follows:—

Dollars.

Office furniture

1,610

Mouse furniture

4,570

Wardrobe

1,800

Comprador's and servant's effects

1,300

Books

400

Cow and Dog

250

Some item not remembered by us

300

10,260

Add 100 per cent, for inconvenience

10,260

Loss of office-books

5,000

Loss of private-books

1,000

Repairs of the factory

2,000

Cash taken from the Treasury, about

5,100

Making a sum total of

33,710,44

He should be glad to know on what the claims of this gentleman, the amount of which, it appeared from the return of the
766
compensation money, was immediately paid over to him, consisted? This person had obtained 100 per cent, upon the value of his cow and dog, and the article not remembered by him. British subjects were deprived of their property, while the extravagant claim of this American citizen was paid in full. He had now concluded the first branch of his argument, and would proceed to make a few remarks on the question of the political expediency of granting compensation to these parties; with this view, he would read a few extracts from the report of the select committee appointed to investigate the grievances complained of in the petition of merchants interested in the China trade, presented on the 24th of March, 1840. He, believed, that the first object of the appointment of a committee to inquire into these embarrassing and difficult points was, that they might give a clear and definite opinion on the merits or demerits of the claims. The committee collected together a vast deal of information, but they expressed no opinion, and he could not but think that there must have been a feeling in their minds that it would be a difficult matter to give an opinion militating against the claims. Out of the 20,283 chests of opium surrendered to the Chinese, five-sixths or four-fifths belonged to native merchants of India; and he would read a letter, written by a native merchant, and which was produced in the evidence of Mr. Malcolmson. The letter was as follows:—
"The poor natives are not to be blamed for having traded in opium, but the East-India company, who have in every way fostered the trade, and are now drawing an immense revenue from the same. You will be surprised when we tell you, that notwithstanding all that has occurred, yesterday's Government gazette contained the usual annual proclamation for the granting of passes for the Malwa opium, and we learn from Calcutta that the supreme government intend to bring forward 15,000 chests of Patna and 7,500 chests of Benares opium, now ready in their godowns, and that none of the opium agencies are to be discontinued. We enclose for your perusal an extract on this subject:—'The Indian government have taken no steps whatever to check the sale or growth of the drug, but continue to draw immense profits from a trade that they pretend to call contraband. Is it honourable, is it dignified, for a government to foster a trade that is contraband, and by which their subjects will ultimately be ruined? If the Home Government wish, there will be no difficulty in putting an entire stop to the trade, and thereby relieve the poor natives

767
who easily fall into so seducing, but at the same time most dangerous trade. Does it not appear ridiculous that on the one hand Captain Elliot delivers up 20,000 chests, while on the other the Indian government are bringing forward for sale upwards of 40,000 chests more?'"
Another letter, dated Bombay, January 29, 1840, written by another native merchant, stated,
"If your good nation does not come forward, and openly give some assurance for the opium indemnity, you may depend that many respectable men will put an end to their lives. We have already seen two instances, and many more will occur in the interior, as men of high spirit and ancient family cannot bear the disgrace of appealing to the insolvent law. We are ourselves confident that the Government will ultimately redeem the pledge of their own officer, but what will be the use when the mischief is done."
Nevertheless, a long time had now elapsed, and yet no relief had been afforded to these parties. It was stated in another letter from a native Bombay merchant, a man whose character and conduct stood so high that he had been judged fit to receive the honour of knighthood, and was the first native that obtained that distinction:—
"The question now rests between the two Governments of England and China, and it is for the former to determine what course to pursue for the recovery of the property surrendered by her Majesty's representative, whose pledge, we should consider, must be binding, as else all faith in the Government will be at an end. Our property has been peaceably surrendered for the service of our Sovereign, on the unreserved full pledge of her Majesty's superintendent that the "full value should be repaid to us, and, in our opinion, it now only remains to hasten forward the settlement of these uncontested claims.
The letter concluded in the following terms:—
"Had the British Parliament disallowed the continuance to the company of the opium monopoly, and branded its name as contraband and immoral, then the question would have been materially altered, and every man would have traded on his own risk; but, by the course pursued, a pledge was given, which must be fulfilled, and which we and all others are entitled to reckon upon without a shadow of a doubt. We rest upon the honour and integrity of the British Government."
He put it then to the House, would not the refusal of compensation shake the confidence of every native of India in the "honour and integrity of the British Go-
768
vernment." He implored the House to consider on what was based the power by which this country ruled over the countless millions of India. It was the power of public opinion, and the confidence entertained by the natives that this country was prepared to act with perfect faith and honesty. What was it that had kept the native troops of India faithful in times of difficulty? It was the confidence reposed in the promises made by the Government of this country, whatever party might be in office. What induced the natives of India to come to our courts of justice, and feel a willingness to submit their cases to be judged by natives of a distant country, comparatively ignorant of the usages of their country? What was it, but a feeling of confidence, that by doing so, they would always obtain justice? They all had had recently to deplore the occurrence of a great disaster in India; but he apprehended that two such disasters would not be so fatal to the supremacy of England in that empire as any one act which should shake the confidence of its natives, in the "honour and integrity" of the British nation. There was not a district in India where many of the natives would not be reduced to poverty, unless the pledge given by Captain Elliott were fully and honourably redeemed; and the present was not a time for inflicting a blow on the character of this country. He must confess that he had not met with much encouragement on his application on this subject from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he now begged to appeal from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, in his character of a liberal and high-minded statesman. He entreated the right hon. Gentlemen to look, in that capacity, at the question in all its bearings on the honour and character of this country, rather than to consider it as a mere money question. He begged also to appeal to the noble Lord who had lately presided over the foreign affairs of this country. He had great pleasure, not only in bearing his humble testimony to the noble Lord's urbanity in all official intercourse, which was a valuable quality in a Minister, but in acknowledging the value of one of his last official acts—the sending to China of that distinguished officer, Sir H. Pottinger, who, he believed was admirably fitted to bring affairs to a settlement on a proper and honourable basis. The hon. Member concluded by proposing the motion which

769
he had read at the commencement of his speech.
Sir G. Stauntonseconded the motion. He said, that having taken a deep interest in the passing events in China, and having formed a decided opinion on the question submitted to the House, he thought he should not be discharging his duty if he did not endeavour to state the grounds on which that opinion was founded. If he had any bias or prejudice on the subject, previous to investigating the matter, it was adverse rather than otherwise to the claims of those parties. When he had the honour of holding office in China, he never, directly or indirectly, gave support or encouragement to the opium trade. But he could not hesitate to express his opinion, that no abstract view which might be taken of the policy of encouraging or discouraging that trade ought to deter the House of Commons from doing justice to those British merchants who had received a sort of sanction in carrying it on. The warmest opponents of the opium trade might take an example from the course pursued by the British Parliament on the great question of slave emancipation. Those who most strongly condemned the system of slavery, did not shrink from discharging the obligation by which, under the then state of things, they felt themselves to be bound to the slaveowners; and they gave them a compensation of not less than 20,000,000l. sterling. On a similar principle he advocated the granting of compensation to the owners of opium, and, more especially, the transferring into their hands of the instalment of money which had been received from China. But it would be an injustice to the opium trade to place it on the same footing as slavery. It was easy to denounce the trade as smuggling, and stigmatize opium as a poison; but enlightened statemen would not be carried away by such language. They would inquire whether or not it was founded in justice. With respect to the charge of smuggling, he must observe that that trade had not only been carried on with the connivance of the officers of the country into which the opium was imported, from the highest to the lowest station, but the article had even been conveyed in their own vessels. The trade, therefore, could not be fairly and justly called a smuggling trade. Mere paper prohibitions were not sufficient to give it that character. Then, with respect
770
to the charge that opium was a poison, he might state that all medicines taken in excess were poisonous. Opium was a valuable medicine. It was a luxury, and no doubt a vicious luxury to consume it in excess; and then those consequences would ensue which excited so much horror; but he believed that nine-tenths of the people in China who smoked opium consumed it in moderate quantities, and were perfectly able at all times to perform their ordinary business. The opinion he had expressed with reference to the opium trade had been entertained by committees of both Houses of Parliament, and it was not to be supposed that if the trade did bear the odious character by some imputed to it, that the Legislature would not have openly prohibited it. On the 12th of May, 1840, the Duke of Wellington said,—
"I sat as a Member of a committee of the House of Lords, to inquire into this amongst other branches of trade, and I remember that evidence was received on the subject. It was a great object that this very trade in opium should be continued. Questions were put to witnesses whether trade could not be extended, but more particularly in this very branch, the trade of opium; and in the report of the committee of the House of Commons, it is particularly observed, that it was desirable that it should be continued. Really, then, under these circumstances, it is rather hard to come down upon these men, and tell them, 'You have been the cause of this war; you have been the cause of this great misfortune, and you shall therefore have no redress.' That is a course to which I for one never can be a party."
The superintendents of trade acted upon such sentiments. This was the case under the short and disastrous administration of Lord Napier, the first superintendent. Mr. Davis, the second superintendent, continued to discharge his functions with skill and judgment, as might be expected from his long experience in China. He did not think it his duty to give an opinion upon, or to originate any interference with, the opium trade, but left it as he found it. Sir G. Robinson, however, went further. He considered the trade of importance and interest to the country, and gave it every assistance. He went and resided for a considerable time in the focus of the trade. On the 5th February, 1836, he said,—
"Smuggling carried on actually in the mandarin boats can hardly be termed such. Whenever her Majesty's Government direct us to prevent British vessels engaging in the traffic, we can enforce any order to that effect."

771
Captain Elliot wrote, on the 27th July, 1836:—
"It has been a confusion of terms to call the opium trade a smuggling trade. It was formerly a prohibited trade, but no part of the trade of this country had the more active support of the local authorities."
On the 10th of October,—
"We are in expectation of soon receiving the final orders from Pekin for the legalization of the opium trade."
On the 2nd of February, 1837,—
"The imports of opium last year, on account of our merchants, amounted to nearly eighteen millions of dollars, being about one million above the whole value of the tea and silk exported during the same period."
On the 30th of January, 1839,—
"The immense, and, it must be said, unfortunate increase of the supply during the last four years, and the continual drain of silver, have no doubt greatly alarmed the government."
On the 6th of April,—
"Before the arrival of the high commissioner,, I had steadily considered the expediency of formally requiring all the British ships engaged in the opium trade to sail away from the coast of China; but the objections to that measure were very strong, and the result has proved that I took a sound view in refraining from it."
It would have been impossible for Captain Elliot to have anticipated the extraordinary conduct of Commissioner Lin, and for which the Chinese government itself had furnished no precedent. The British merchants naturally considered the pledge which Captain Elliot gave to be conformable with the general tenor of his instructions. With reference to this point, he would make another citation from the very high authority to which he had already alluded, that of the Duke of Wellington. The noble Duke, speaking of Captain Elliot, said,—
"When he came to this extremity of starvation, when he and the whole population were distressed for subsistence, he prevailed on them to give up the opium, and, taking it in the name of her Majesty, he undertook to pay for that which he had thus got from them. But then he had no authority, by an Order in Council, to enable him to perform this service. He performed it at his own risk, and this country and her Majesty's Government owe him, I think, a debt of gratitude, that he did perform this service at his own risk: and by so doing he acted with a courage and self-
772
devotion which few men would have the opportunity of showing, and probably, still fewer, if they had the opportunity, would have shown."
Those words strongly expressed the Duke of Wellington's opinion that, in the extraordinary circumstances in which he happened to be placed, Captain Elliott had exercised a sound and wise discretion. If that were so, the claim of the merchants to indemnification must at once be admitted. He was unable to adduce a declaration from any Member of the late Government, similar to that of the Duke of Wellington; but the course they had pursued proved plainly that they concurred in the noble Duke's opinion of Captain Elliott's conduct. The late Government promoted Captain Elliott to a higher office, and entrusted him with the conduct of most difficult and important negotiations, and subsequently appointed him to another situation in a different part of the world, which appointment had been, if he were not misinformed, confirmed by the present Administration. All antecedent circumstances, therefore, as well as all consequent acts of the British Government, had made Captain Elliott's pledge binding upon the nation. It was a confirmation of that pledge that this country had fitted out an expedition to China, one of the objects of which was stated by a noble Lord, then a Member of the Government, to be the obtaining of satisfaction for the claims of the merchants who had given up their opium. Now, in his opinion, the six millions of dollars paid by the Chinese authorities at Canton ought to be considered as the first instalment of the payment of those claims. In the papers which had been laid before Parliament relative to the payment of the six millions of dollars, it appeared somewhat doubtful what was the precise object for which the money was paid; but certainly, the general tenour of the correspondence would seem to indicate that it was intended as an indemnification to the opium merchants. In Captain Elliott's letter to Viscount Palmerston he found the following passage:—
"I also received the sum of 17,750 taels, equal to 25,000 dollars, being in satisfaction of the loss occasioned by the destruction of the Spanish brig Bilbaino; the Spanish commissioner, Senor Halcon, having expressed his readiness to receive that sum, it was accepted. I am only enabled, my Lord, by this very hurried occasion to state to your Lordship briefly, that I was content to receive securities

773
for 1,099,713 2–9 dollars, with a view to the relief of the Hong merchants from immediate pressure, at great inconvenience to the whole trade; for I found that the authorities had cast upon them more than a million of the payments, upon the pretext of duties and charges due to the government. I have taken a bond from the Kwang-Chow-Foo upon the behalf of the government, for the satisfaction of all losses occasioned by the destruction of the factories; and the Co-Hong have rendered themselves responsible for the pureness of the silver, in addition to my own personal declaration to the government (which will be repeated in writing, as soon as I have leisure), that it will be held responsible for any deficiency arising either from inferiority of standard, or short weight. So far as we have been able to judge, there is no room for representation upon the subject."
Captain Senhouse,writing to Captain Elliott, said:—
"The articles themselves make no mention of the money being paid as a ransom for the town, nor is any mention made of these conditions being confined to the province of Kwangtung. On the contrary, it is well known that the Chinese authorities extended your Excellency's former declaration, that the English wanted nothing but trade on the old footing', to the further settlement of a definitive peace, although, in your Excellency's own understanding, the arrangement was limited to Canton; and the Commissioner Kwang in his private letter said, that you have stated that your nation wanted nothing but trade on the old footing, and invited you to commence negotiations for a definitive peace The sum to be given up being similar to the sum offered to be given for opium, and the introduction of the affair of the 'Bilbaino,' unite in inducing to an unprejudiced and uninformed person, that the arrangement is more intended for a general pacification, which would appear a very poor compensation for all the insults and injuries we have received, than an acknowledgment of the vanquished to the conqueror in the hour of victory. I therefore beg, for the information of my commander-in-chief and their Lordships of the Admiralty, to know whether the arrangement is decidedly a ransom for the city of Canton, to save it from the consequences of legal warfare; leaving out entirely the question of remuneration, compensation, and security for the future, so long mooted—or for other purpose. "
He had seen in the public papers—and he had every reason to believe it was authentic—the Chinese account of the matter, and it was surprising that that document was not comprised amongst the papers which had been submitted to Parliament by the Government. The document to which he alluded professed to be
774
a translation of the report of the commander-in-chief of the Chinese forces, and it contained this passage:—
"I made inquiry from the barbarians; they all said that several millions of taels for the surrendered opium had not been yet paid, and, therefore, requested the sum of a million of taels in liquidation thereof, and then would immediately withdraw and retire outside the Bogue. To this I agreed."
It appeared to him, therefore, that the evidence was in favour of the opinion that the money surrendered at Canton was paid in indemnification of the opium merchants. It was painful to allude to the misfortunes which had lately befallen us in India; but he could not avoid expressing his concurrence in the opinion expressed by his hon. Friend, that it was of peculiar importance at the present moment that we should not impair one of the main sources of our power in that country. The stability of our Indian empire depended, first, on the sense which the natives entertained of our power, and, secondly, in their confidence in our good faith and honour. Without exaggerating our recent misfortunes, or doubting for a moment that the energies of the country would enable us speedily to repair them, and place us in a prouder situation than that which we had previously occupied, he, nevertheless, must say it was of the utmost importance that nothing should occur at the present moment to shake the confidence which the people of India reposed in our good faith. It should be recollected that a large number of the natives of India would be absolutely ruined if they did not obtain indemnification for the losses they sustained. One or two of those unhappy persons had already committed suicide. Under these circumstances, he trusted the House would decide that they should obtain the relief to which they were justly entitled.
Sir G. Larpentsaid, that perceiving this opium discussion bad already produced a soporific effect upon the House, he would not long occupy its attention; but, at the same time, owing to the position which he occupied, and having been long connected with the China and East India trade, he felt that he could not give a silent vote upon this occasion. The question lay in a very narrow compass. His hon. Friend, the Mover, had stated the terms upon which Captain Elliott had induced the subjects of her Majesty to

775
give up their property. Sufficient prominency, however, had not been given to the fact, that the merchants at Canton were the agents for persons at Bombay and other parts of India. He begged the House to consider the situation in which those merchants were placed. Captain Elliott issued the following public notice to British subjects. [The hon. Member again quoted the proclamation of March 27, 1839, quoted by Mr. Lindsay.] If the merchants had not surrendered their opium when thus urged to do so by the representative of her Majesty's Government, they would have been responsible for it to their principals in India. The merchants, therefore, acting in good faith, gave up their opium. What, subsequently, had been the conduct of the British Government towards Captain Elliott? The late Government was composed of his political friends, and he was sure they would not shrink from stating, that as far as they could express an opinion, they approved of Captain Elliott's conduct, and accepted the responsibility which that officer had assumed in their name. That being the case, the merchants were entitled to claim indemnification from the British Government. It was important to ascertain how far the present Government adopted the views of their predecessors with respect to this question. In all the communications which he had held with the late Government upon the subject, he had experienced the most marked attention, and a similar spirit had been evinced by the Earl of Aberdeen, with whom he had had an interview. The question being one which was deeply interesting to the natives of India, to whom the largest portion of the debt was due, he had felt that no exertion on his part ought to be wanting to bring the case fully before the Government, and for that purpose he had, and others had, sought and obtained an interview with the Earl of Aberdeen. He had taken a minute of what occurred at the interview, not for the purpose of binding the Ministers down to particular expressions, but in order to be able to communicate the general purport of his observations to the parties interested. That minute he would read to the House.
"A deputation, consisting of J. A. Smith, J. H. Palmer, G. Lyall, M.P. for the City, and chairman of the East India Company, and myself, waited on the Earl of Aberdeen, to endeavour to get the Government to apportion a
776
part of the six million dollars taken from the Chinese towards the opium sufferers, represented by us, and truly so, as chiefly natives, Parsees, and others of Bombay and Calcutta. The Earl of Aberdeen received us very well, and stated that one of the acknowledged objects of the instructions to Elliott was the compensation for opium; but that, from an ambiguity in Elliott's despatches, it was not clear whether the money was for that object or as a ransom for Canton. He further observed, that the Government considered a part at least as droits of the Crown, and to be applied as usual to the captors, army and navy; that it was, however, only a first instalment, it being the object of the armament to get more from the Chinese: and that it would be within the discretion of Government to deal with the money, beyond what might be appropriated to the captors between the Government to pay expenses and the opium sufferers—the bills of Elliott for the bought opium having been paid. Finding the Earl of Aberdeen so well inclined, impressed him to get a portion of the six millions awarded to opium sufferers, and he admitted the reasonableness of our request, and promised to consult the Treasury, and recommended the compliance with our wishes to the Treasury."
In consequence of what had fallen from the Earl of Aberdeen, letters had been written to India, informing the owners of the opium that his Lordship was about to recommend the Treasury to pay them a portion of the sum due. Under these circumstances it appeared to be absolutely imperative upon Parliament to give an assurance that those persons should receive immediate indemnification. A large sum had been paid by the Chinese at Canton, and he was willing that the captors should, in the first instance, be paid out of it, but the residue, he contended, ought to be immediately handed over to the opium merchants. He had cheerfully responded, as he believed almost every man in the House had done, to the appeal which the right hon. Baronet had recently made to the country, to enable the Government to surmount the financial difficulties which at present existed; but we had civil as well as military interests to provide for, and, in his opinion, it was as incumbent upon Parliament to maintain the honour and integrity of the country, as to uphold our fleets and armies. He trusted that the Members of the late Government would distinctly express their opinions on this occasion, and if they should declare that part of the money received at Canton ought to be paid to the opium merchants, he hoped the present Government would act in accordance with that opinion.

777
No financial difficulties ought to prevent the Government from doing justice to the natives of India. Let it not be supposed that only a few large merchants were interested. No; the great mass of the native Indian traders, persons who were, on every account, entitled to the sympathy and protection of Parliament, were the principal sufferers. He had formerly heard hard names applied to persons engaged in the opium trade; but it should be recollected, that it was a trade recognised by the East India Company, who actually had established a board for the collection of the revenue arising from it. The statements made respecting the evils resulting from the use of opium were greatly exaggerated. He believed that it was more a question of finance than of morals: and that the observation of Commissioner Lin about the Sycee silver oozing out explained the grounds of the hostility of the Chinese government to the trade.
Sir C. Napierobserved, that Captain Elliott had been led frequently by his enterprising spirit to place himself in situations of danger without cause. As to the delivery of the opium, the authority of Captain Elliott ought not to have been deemed binding; and the other commissioner, then the principal, ought to have been applied to. But he strongly desired to urge the claims of the officers and men engaged in the capture of Canton, to whom he was sorry to find the paltry dole of a year's pay had been tendered—for the first time, he believed, since the two services had been in existence—it having always been the practice to give the captors a large share of treasure taken. He hoped, therefore, that whatever steps might be adopted in respect to the merchants, the claims of the officers and the men engaged in the capture would not be overlooked or disregarded.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould assure the hon. Member for Nottingham, (Sir G. Larpent) that whatever might be the difficulties of the country, or whatever the amount of the demands made upon it by the public service, if he were convinced, that the claim now advanced was one which the honour of the country was pledged to discharge, he should be the last individual in the House to offer opposition to the demand. If he could not agree to the motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Lindsay) on this occasion, it was because he did not conceive,
778
that the honour of the country had been pledged to make a payment, on account of the opium seized in China, out of the funds which had been recently placed at the disposal of the Government. The hon. Member who opened the discussion said, that he considered the honour of the country was distinctly pledged to meet those claims; but the hon. Gentleman, throughout the whole course of his speech, distinctly avoided referring to the point put forward in the Address — whether the honour of the country was pledged to make a payment out of the funds now at the disposal of the Crown. That was the question to which he should address himself, and upon which the House would have to decide. As to how far the honour of the Government was pledged by those who conducted the affairs of Government, when these matters were under consideration, he knew of no public declaration beyond what the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had made, which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Lindsay), and in which he distinctly stated the objects for which the operations against China were conducted, and the arrangements which it would be desirable to make whenever those operations were brought to a conclusion. The noble Lord's expressions were recorded, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could speak to their accuracy, he being present at the time. They were as follows:—
"The hon. Gentleman has asked me, what are the objects of the preparations (that was with reference to the war in China), I can only state them very generally. In the first place, they are to obtain reparation for the insults and injuries that have been offered to her Majesty's Superintendent, and her Majesty's subjects, by the Chinese Government. In the second place, they are to obtain for the merchants trading with China an indemnification for the loss of their property, incurred by the violence offered by persons acting under the direction of the Chinese government. And, in the last place, they are to obtain security in future for the persons and property of the British subjects trading with China."
That was the pledge which was given by the noble Lord, as the organ of the Government; and the House would now have to consider whether it imposed any obligations upon the country, out of the limited means derived—not from the Chinese Government, but merely from the ransom of a particular city in the Chinese empire, to make the payment which it was the object of the present motion to get

779
made. The hon. Gentleman who opened the debate, and other hon. Gentlemen, had argued that Captain Elliot was the agent of the Government, that he was invested with great powers as Superintendent in China, that in his capacity of Superintendent, he made a demand upon certain British merchants, that they should surrender to the Chinese government a large property that had been consigned to them for disposal in China, and, that upon the surrender of that property, he gave them an assurance, that he took it on behalf of her Majesty's Government. The hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone (Sir C. Napier) had truly stated to the House the circumstances in which the parties stood at that moment. Our British merchants had been imprisoned; their property was in the power of the Chinese; they themselves were in prison; they were in the greatest fear for their lives; they were in apprehension, that the property they had with them would be seized by the Chinese. [" No, no."] He could shew, from the papers presented to Parliament, that they were in fear for their lives, and that they had great part of their property with them. In this situation of danger, or, at least, of difficulty. Captain Elliot, with feelings which did him honour as a professional man, seeing and believing, that these individuals were in a dangerous situation, went, at great risk to his own life, to ascertain the position in which these persons were placed, and share with them the risk of captivity and life. In this painful situation, the merchants succeeded in persuading Captain Eliot, that he was called upon and was bound to take the opium from them on behalf of the British Government. He admitted, that Captain Elliot did this, and that he did give a pledge on the part of the Government. Then it was argued by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the public officer, having given this assurance, and having given this pledge, the Government Were positively bound to abide by it, and that the refusal to sanction that pledge so given was, on the part of the Government, a violation of the good faith and honour of the country. In that argument he by no means agreed, and in saying this, he did not express his own opinion alone, and that of the Government now in power, but the opinion also of that Government which they had succeeded; for if Captain Elliot's engagements, made under the circumstances to which he had alluded, were so binding on the country,
780
that they could not be departed from without a breach of faith, be would ask on what grounds it happened, that when the bills drawn on the Treasury were presented for acceptance they were protested, and the parties told, that those bills would not be honoured at maturity— that Parliament had not been advised to place money to meet these bills at the disposal of the Crown. If Captain Elliot's guarantee was sufficient to authorise the payment of any bills which it might be necessary for him to draw—the question WHS as open for decision at the time when those bills were protested, as it is now. But as to the pledge stated to have been given on this subject, by the noble Lord, which he had already stated to the House, was these equally obligatory. Those pledges were, that the country should obtain reparation for the injury which the country had sustained in the treatment of her Majesty's subjects— that compensation should be made to her Majesty's suffering subjects, and that the expenses consequent upon the expedition to China should be repaid to this country by the government of China. These were the objects for which the war in China was undertaken; and these were objects which those who were responsible for the war had to secure. The pledge of the noble Lord and of the then Government as to the indemnity to the opium holders, clearly had reference to the period when hostilities were to be terminated. The pledge was, that when hostilities terminated reparation should be made for the losses sustained by those who had been engaged in trading with China; but no pledge was given that the country was out of its own funds or funds which were applicable and liable for the purposes of the war first to make that payment to the merchants who were sufferers. The successes of our troops had placed us in a situation to control one of the cities of the Chinese empire; that city had consented to make a payment to the British power, in the shape of a ransom, in order to save the properties of the people. That sum did not come within the category of a compensation given by the Chinese government at the termination of hostilities to this country. No, it was an individual contribution of an individual place, and that money was no more available for the purposes of indemnity to the merchants, than any military contribution or seizure of stores or artillery made in the course of military operations. The matter

781
stood in this situation, and in no other. What had been the cry of those who were deeply interested in those transactions which had taken place in China? What had they pressed upon the Government? Why they had pressed upon the Government, that the war should be prosecuted with vigour, with energy, and with firmness; that their claims might then be settled. That, he contended, was the tenor of the memorials of the merchants concerned. One of those memorials had been signed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, and the hon. Member for Chichester. That memorial urged, that the present military operations in China should be followed up with the greatest possible vigour, in order that the compensation required for the country and for themselves might be obtained, in the course of the war, a contribution in the nature of that derived from the city of Canton has been obtained, and the Government were now told that they were pledged to forbear applying it to carry on the operations of the war with vigour. He thought, that no man would say there had been anything like a breach of faith in the course which the Government had pursued. The engagement distinctly made to pay the merchants was one which was not to come into force till the termination of hostilities. Those hostilities had unfortunately not terminated; and on applying what had been obtained to the prosecution of this war, the Government were taking the most effective means of prosecuting it "with vigour, with energy, and with firmness," as had been recommended by the hon. Gentleman himself; and as they carried on the war without greatly adding to the burdens already borne by the people of this country, so we had a greater prospect to bring it to a successful termination. On these grounds he did not think it expedient to accede to the motion of his hon. Friend near him. The motion, moreover, was couched in terms which, if he were disposed to cavil at terms on a question where the debate was rather on principle, and not on words, he could not agree to. The tenor of this resolution was to assume that this money had been received from the Chinese government. Throughout the resolution the hon. Gentleman stated that the sum of money was received from China, and that to the extent of the sum so received the Mouse was bound to make good the compensation to the merchants. These were points
782
on which his hon. Friend was mistaken as to the facts. The money was not received from the Chinese government. It was not a payment made by the government of China for the termination of the war now going on. It was a ransom paid for property captured in the progress of the war, available in the first instance for the remuneration of the captors, and applicable to carry on the operations of the war with vigour and effect. As regarded the ultimate satisfaction of the opium merchants, the House were not in a situation to decide. The Government had instituted inquiries as to what was the real value of the property which had been given up under the acts of Captain Elliott, he saw by papers which bad been laid before the House, that this opium was estimated at 1,200 dollars per chest—there was none valued lower than 500 dollars; this was an enormous amount to demand from China, before any step was taken to settle claims of this kind, it was indispensably necessary to know, beyond a doubt, what was the real value of opium at the moment this surrender took place. They should also know whether the merchants did not derive advantages from the additional value given to other parts of their property equivalent to the loss on that destroyed, or surrendered to Captain Elliott; and whether the price contracted for, whilst Captain Elliott was under duress, be the price at which compensation ought to be granted? He did not ask this information in order to shrink from any demand which might honestly be made upon that House; but he was sure the House would agree with him, that they were bound to take into consideration what was the value of the commodity surrendered, even if he admitted the principle that this country was bound to make restitution. And he must say, that circumstances had come to his knowledge which made him confident, that the amount of the claim made far exceeded the value which, under reasonable circumstances, could be considered right. He was not prepared to follow the hon. Gentleman through the discussion as to the propriety of the opium trade, or to enter into the circumstances under which it was contended that that trade was immoral or moral. That was no part of the question before the House. The question at issue was, whether they should address the Crown, in order to enable the executive to make over to these dealers the whole of the money which had been received for

783
the ransom of Canton, or whether they should abide by the pledge of the former Government to prosecute with vigour the operations against China until we should arrive at a settlement,—that settlement being indemnity for the charge and expense of our expedition against the Chinese empire, the indemnity of the opium owners to the amount to which they were entitled, and reparation for past injuries; and security for the future. These were the views which he was disposed to take upon this question; and, entertaining these views, it was impossible for him to support the motion of his hon. Friend.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that having been officially identified with this question, he presumed the House would not think it very unnatural that he should wish to express his opinion on the present occasion. He was far from thinking this a question of right, but he did think it might be one of discretion and policy. He was not prepared to say, that the claimants had any right, founded upon the pledge made by the late Government, upon which they could make out their case on the present occasion. Undoubtedly, the pledges given by the late Government were, as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, that her Majesty's Government would take the necessary steps to obtain from the government of China the value, whatever it might be, of the opium which those parties had been compelled to give up; and he was also prepared to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that the value of the opium remained yet to be ascertained. But he owned he thought that, as a question of discretion—of fair liberality, her Majesty's Government would be acting properly in acceding to the motion of the hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Lindsay). It was perfectly true, that this money was not obtained by treaty from the government of China, and therefore was not (without the consent of Parliament) strictly applicable to the relief of these persons. He was perfectly aware, that by law the money must be paid into the consolidated fund, and that it would require a vote of that House to enable the Government to draw it out of the consolidated fund, and apply it to the relief of these parties. He was also aware, that if, upon the termination of the war, the Chinese government were to yield to the demands made upon them, and were to make over a sum of money
784
for the liquidation of this peculiar claim, and an advance was now made to these merchants, the money so obtained hereafter from the Chinese government by treaty would have to be repaid to the consolidated fund, in satisfaction of the demand for the relief of these parties. When they (the late Government) were in office, applications were made to them more than once to recommend an advance out of the consolidated fund for the temporary relief of the claimants, with the understanding that, when the amount to be advanced should be recovered from the government of China, it should be repaid into the consolidated fund. The late Government, however, declined to accede to this suggestion; they did not think it consistent with their public duty to recommend to Parliament to lay that burden upon the public, nor was it a proposition which they thought Parliament would entertain. But this case was different. There was now a sum recovered from the Chinese people by the operations of our forces on the Chinese station; and he thought it would be perfectly fair, as no additional burden would thereby be entailed upon the British nation, that this money should be applicable to the relief of those who were sufferers by the events out of which the war had arisen. It seemed to him, there was a wide distinction, in fact and in principle, between calling upon the Government to advance money out of the revenues of the country and applying as proposed the money obtained by the operations of war, those operations being carried on for the purpose of obtaining compensation and reparation for the injuries and losses which have been sustained. It was well known, that these parties were grievous sufferers. It might be perfectly true, that some of them might have obtained compensation by the increased price at which they afterwards sold opium in their subsequent transactions, but a large number of them had never had any subsequent dealings, and had therefore not received any compensation in increased prices, and therefore it was, he was of opinion, that if the late Government had been in office when this money was placed at the disposal of the British Government, he should have been inclined to recommend to Parliament the propriety of enabling the Government to apply the money provisionally, for the purpose of relieving the claims of parties from whom the opium

785
was extorted. He would not go into those other topics which had been adverted to by those who had spoken in reference to those transactions which had placed this money at the disposal of the Government. He could not, however, himself, with the opinions which he entertained, conclude without again expressing a hope that her Majesty's Government, upon further consideration, would think that without any dereliction of duty, they might, by the measure proposed, relieve a great deal of individual distress. He trusted that our operations in China would be attended with that success which the right hon. Gentleman justly anticipated, and that the whole amount demanded from the Chinese government would in the end be obtained; and he considered that an advance of a temporary nature might in the mean time properly be made, by which many individuals would be saved from great and severe privations and losses.
Mr. M. Philipsobserved, that many parties had been greatly aggrieved, and it was neither just nor expedient that they should be allowed to remain with their grievances unredressed. As there was now a large sum in the hands of the Government, he thought that it ought to be applied in doing justice to individuals who had suffered in consequence of giving way to the recommendation of Captain Elliott, acting on his responsibility as a public functionary. He wished to know, if the armament now operating against the Chinese did not prove successful, whether the present Government would hold themselves responsible for, and eventually make good, the losses which had been sustained? It was, he conceived, the duty of Great Britain to place her merchants in that high position which would not allow the Chinese people to think that the Government would for a moment hesitate to make good the losses of those merchants.
Sir G. Larpentin explanation, said, that the value put upon the opium was not an improper value, for Captain Elliott in his certificate stated, that there was a distinct understanding, that the value should be determined in such manner as was hereafter to be defined by the Government. The merchants had throughout acted with strict bonâd fides, and nothing could be fairer than their conduct.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose to say a few words in explanation. The
786
hon. Member for Manchester had supposed him to have said, that he (Mr. Goulburn) had no fears as to the early termination of the war in China. He had not expressed such an opinion, though he had every reliance in the gallantry and enterprise of the officers and men who were engaged in China; but he had never undertaken to give an opinion upon the early termination of the war.
Mr. Jardinewas at a loss to see what claims the Government had, except those which were founded upon the claims of the merchants. If any similar cause arose in which the East India Company was concerned, there could be no doubt, that the tribunals of the country would at once settle the dispute. It was the poverty and not the will of the late Government which prevented their making compensation; but now the cupidity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer kept back the money. In his opinion nothing was clearer than that the merchants ought to be compensated before the expenses of the expedition were taken into consideration.
Mr. J. A. Smiththought, that people ignorant of the forms of business in that House could come to no other conclusion than that this was a triumph of the strong over the weak. It was avowed, that an agent of Government had committed a certain act, and though that act had not been confirmed, it was evident, that if the Government of the day, when the expedition against China had been sent out, bad continued in power, the merchants would have been paid. But this the present Government, backed by a strong majority, refused to do. If he had rightly collected the meaning of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, the merchants had nothing to expect, unless a sufficient sum could be collected from the Chinese government, not only to indemnify the merchants for their losses, but also for the costs incurred by the expedition. The costs, moreover, it appeared, were to be paid first. This was the first time in the history of this country, that it had been put forward, that one of the chief objects of a great military expedition was to obtain money to pay the costs of that expedition. The announcement of the Government of the day gave the merchants a right to expect, that the first object of the expedition would be to repair the losses incurred by British subjects,

787
and in his opinion a departure from that rule would be a violation of the faith on which the expedition had been undertaken. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had made some remarks on the valuation of the opium that had been seized. It appeared to him most extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should have indulged in any expressions against the claims of the opium merchants, without previous inquiry into the circumstances under which those claims were preferred. He hoped, that the time was not distant, when the conduct of the merchants would be made public in every particular. All he could say at the present moment was (and he spoke without the interest of one single farthing in the question), that from all he had seen and heard of the conduct of the gentlemen interested in the opium seized at Canton, it was impossible to conceive any thing more searching or satisfactory than the inquiry which they had courted upon the subject. He believed, that the conduct of those gentlemen was far beyond the reach of any insinuation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could throw out against them, and he could only express his sincere regret, that that right hon. Gentleman had allowed himself to indulge in observations which, whatever the estimation in which they might be held in that House, might possibly be misunderstood elsewhere.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould be sorry if any observation had fallen from him calculated to give pain to the parties interested in this question. When he spoke of the value of the opium that had been seized, he spoke only of what must be obvious from the proceedings in the courts of India, where the amount of value awarded was infinitely less than the amount claimed.
Mr. J. A. Smithexplained the circumstances under which the award of the courts in India had been made.
Mr. C. Williams Wynnwith much difficulty, and only by the aid of the gentlemen near him, rose on his legs.
Mr. Blewittmoved, that the right hon. Gentleman be allowed to speak sitting.
Mr. C. W. Wynnassured the hon. Gentleman that such an indulgence was unnecessary. He had been reluctant to rise until he had ascertained the views of the late as well as of the present Government,
788
upon this subject. He had no knowledge whatever upon the matter beyond what he had learnt from the papers printed for the information of the House, and from what he had heard within the walls of the House. He had had no intercourse whatever with any individual interested in the claim. Strictly speaking, perhaps the claim was not a legal one; but he thought it must be admitted to have much weight in equity. Whether Captain Elliott had power under the instructions derived from his Government to pledge the credit of the country was a question upon which much doubt had arisen; but this, at least, could not be disputed, that he was held forth to the Chinese and to the British merchants in India as the representative of the British Government at Canton. In that capacity he pledged the faith of the British Government for the value of a certain quantity of opium, which he (Mr. Wynn) understood, as well from the papers laid upon the Table as from the statements made in the House, was not at the time in the possession of the Chinese government, but which Captain Elliott caused to be removed from British vessels and placed in the custody of the Chinese commissioner. He could not help thinking that the British Government was committed by this act of its representative. As regarded the money paid under the convention, and the mode of applying which formed the subject matter of the present motion, it appeared that Captain Elliott in this particular also had acted as the representative of the British, and in the character of a British Minister. If, instead of negotiating, that 6,000,000 of dollars should be paid to the British Government, it had been agreed that compensation to that amount should be given to the British merchants whose property had been surrendered, there would be no doubt that the merchants would have a priority of claim before all other persons. As the matter stood the money had been paid into the consolidated fund, and to that fund no doubt it legally and strictly belonged. The claims of the troops and seamen engaged in the service upon a sum of money so obtained could not be disputed. It was due to them in the same way as salvage was due to those who saved property from shipwreck. The troops and seamen had the first claim upon the money, and he highly approved of giving them, as they had received some part of the money. Then arose the ques-

789
tion as to the appropriation of the remainder, whether it should be applied to the expenses of the expedition engaged in the prosecution of hostilities against China, or to the liquidation of the losses sustained by the merchants, whose property had been seized. It appeared to him that the settlement of the claims of the latter was rather a question of time than of right. No one, he apprehended, would dispute the right. The point to be determined was, whether they should be indemnified for their losses now, or at the termination of the war. In a strict legal sense, it might be doubtful whether they could put forward a claim to be paid at the first moment; but he certainly wished that some advance could be made to them. He owned that he felt a strong interest for the merchants of India; and he thought it of great importance—their property having been surrendered at the instance of the British superintendent, and with the distinct understanding that they should be indemnified for their losses—that the compensation to which they were equitably entitled should not appear to be unnecessarily delayed. He would rather that the motion now before the House should not be pressed to a division, but that the subject should be left to the further consideration of her Majesty's Ministers, who, he hoped, would take an early opportunity of paying to the merchants a part of their compensation, with an assurance that the remainder should follow as soon as the war was closed.
Sir R. Peelcould have no other motive for taking any part in the debate than an anxiety to show the House that the Government were most desirous to do that which was just to the parties who were claimants, on the one hand, and, on the other, to do justice to that other party whose interest in such discussions as that before the House were ever neglected—the people of England. There were ever too many in that House like his hon. Friend, who looked too favourably upon the case of claimants such as those whose case was under discussion; but he trusted that there was a considerable majority in that House not interested in the opium claims, and whose constituents were unconnected with them, who might form their judgments upon the subject coolly and dispassionately. The question was, was it right, that having realised a certain sum on account of the ransom of a city, it should be applied for the liquidation of claims for
790
opium, supplied on an emergency, or applied to the due prosecution of the war, undertaken for the purpose of obtaining satisfaction and compensation for that opium? The principles on which that war was conducted—the objects with which it had been begun—had been declared by the late Government. They were fully declared in a speech made by the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Palmerston), who being asked with what objects the war had been undertaken, made answer,
"The hon. Gentleman asks me what are the objects are the preparations making for the China expedition? I will answer the hon. Gentleman very generally. In the first place, it is undertaken in order to obtain reparation for the insults and injuries offered to her Majesty's superintendent, and her Majesty's subjects by the Chinese government; in the second place, to obtain redress for breaking the treaty, and indemnification for the loss of property sustained by her Majesty's subjects in China; and, in the last place, to obtain security for the future for the persons and property of her Majesty's subjects resident in or trading with China."
In the first place it was to obtain redress for insults and injuries, not for compensation for the opium. If the House were of opinion that compensation for the opium was due in the first instance, why not vote the whole of the money necessary? Why not vote 1500,000 l. or 2,000,000 l. due to the merchants, and trust to the success of future operations for its repayment to the exchequer. If they were to apply or appropriate money received as the ransom of a city to the indemnification of these losses, on the same principle why not apply the credit of the Treasury—a treasury which was now empty? Surely if they applied the principle which his right hon. Friend had been contending for, it would be equally just to vote the whole sum, and trust to the success of our future hostilities for its repayment to the Treasury the cases were parallel, and rested on the same grounds. Were the Government to follow the advice given by his right hon. Friend, were they to appropriate the money received for the ransom of Canton to repay part of the losses of these merchants, then they ought to follow it up by taking it upon the Government, or rather to make the British people pay the whole indemnification to the merchants; and if the arms of her Majesty failed, which was what he could not for a moment believe possible, but supposing we failed to obtain full compensation, then the loss was to fall upon

791
the British people. That was one point that he hoped the House would bear in mind on coming to a decision upon the motion of his hon. Friend. It had been said that Captain Elliott had pledged the Government to compensation; but did the House forget that the Government, under whose instructions he was acting, never admitted that responsibility; that they repudiated the whole transaction, and that they refused to honour the bills he drew upon them. There was no doubt the merchants acted under an impression that the superintendent was warranted in demanding the delivery of the opium, for what said Captain Thackery, who was one of the sufferers. In his evidence he said—
"The morning I left China I saw Captain Elliott. I then got his receipt from him, and he then stated to me,' You will get your property returned to you as soon as you arrive in England.' I said, 'I hope it will be so.' He said, 'No doubt about it.' I said, "I conceived there would be no loss to the Government.' He said, 'In fact, we could be paid for it now if we liked.' 'Q. He held; out to you the expectation of receiving the money for your opium immediately upon your arrival here?—A positive expectation."
There was no doubt Captain Elliott thought he was acting under his instructions, but the Government who gave him those instructions had never recognised his authority in the matter. They refused to pay his bills, and said the source of payment was to make the Chinese government responsible for the payment of the opium. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Jardine) had said the superintendent, Captain Elliott, did not act under any sort of restraint; that he was a free agent, and at no one moment in danger of his life; that, in fact, he was not acting under any durance in that engagement. Now, what said Captain Elliott of the compulsion under which he was acting.
"I, Charles Elliot, Chief Superintendent of the trade of British subjects in China, presently forcibly detained in Canton by the provincial Government, together with all the merchants of my own and the other foreign nations settled here, without supplies of food, deprived of our servants, and cut off from all intercourse with our respective countries (notwithstanding my own official demand to be set at liberty, so that I might act without restraint) have now received the commands of the High Commissioner, issued directly to me, under the seals of the hon. officers, to deliver over into his hands all the opium held by the people of my Country. Now I, the said Chief Superintend-
792
ent thus constrained from paramount motives, affecting the safety of the lives and liberty of all the foreigners here present in Canton, and by other very weighty causes, do hereby, in the name and on the behalf of her Britannic Majesty's Government, enjoin and require all her Majesty's subjects now present in Canton, forthwith to make a surrender to me for the service, &c."
That was the nature of the restraint under which he acted in demanding the delivery up of the opium. Now, what was the point in issue between them? The Government did not refuse to recognise the claims of the dealers in opium. They did not refuse compensation. Not at all; but they said, there ought to be a full inquiry into the whole of the claims. [Mr. Lindsay: The parties are most anxious to have a full inquiry.] They were anxious to have an inquiry, but they wanted to have the money first. They said, "Let us have an inquiry, but let us have an instalment now." But it appeared to him, that it would be a more regular proceeding to admit the claim conditionally, to institute an inquiry, and pay the money afterwards. The cost of the expedition to China had been 1,500,000 l. already: he estimated, that 1,000,000 l. more would be required for the present year. The war would be prosecuted with the utmost vigour in order to bring it to a speedy termination. They happened to have got most unexpectedly the ransom of a city; the question was whether it was to be applied to the vigorous prosecution of the war, or to the indemnification of the parties whose opium had been given up to the Chinese Government. If it were admitted as he believed it was by all, that the claim for indemnification was upon the Chinese Government, then, he thought, it would be better, that the money should be applied to an earnest and vigorous prosecution of the war, so that it might be brought to as speedy a conclusion as possible, and that the whole sum might be recovered. If they were determined to adopt a different course, then it would be necessary for them to vote another million to satisfy the claims—it would be absolutely necessary to do so whatever the financial difficulties might be—theymust take another 600,000l. to add to it, out of an already impoverished Exchequer, and thereby add to their already large deficiency, and trust for the recovery of so large a sum to the future success of our arms. On the other hand, if they were of opinion, that the inquiries into the claims ought first to be completed,

793
then the money would be employed in obtaining as speedy a termination of the war as possible, by which means compensation might be got at an early period. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of a strong and a weak party; in such discussions the weak party was the people of the country. There was always great sympathy shown with claimants of the description then before the House, as was shown by the discussion on the Danish claims. The question, however, was a very simple one—should the money be applied to the promotion of the success of our arms, or should it be applied in the liquidation of the claims for opium? If the House sanctioned that principle, it appeared to him, that they would be bound to take upon themselves the payment of the whole compensation, without reference to the result of the operations in China—they would be bound to fulfil the promise made by the superintendent, and vote the whole sum from the public treasury. He did not consider that view to have been taken by the late Government, nor was the present Government disposed to approve it; and he must, therefore, in the performance of a public duty, refuse his assent to the motion of the hon. Gentleman.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that the right hon. Baronet had stated very correctly the motives which had induced the late Government to undertake the expedition to China; its object was to resent insults and injuries offered to her Majesty's officers, and her Majesty's subjects, in that empire. If the terms which were originally proposed by her Majesty's representative had been acceded to by the Chinese, full satisfaction would have been afforded us; but as that reparation was refused, instructions were given for the attack of the defences on the Chinese coast; the island of Chusan and several towns were taken by our troops, and a portion of the Chinese forces were destroyed. That was the course to which we had been compelled to resort to obtain reparation for the insults and injuries offered to us as a nation. But a question then arose as to whether those merchants, who by order of the British envoy, had delivered up opium to the Chinese government, were fairly entitled to claim a sum of money as compensation for their loss. If this were put forward as a legal claim, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman would be perfectly correct—it would be a claim going to the full extent of their losses. But it did not appear to him, that this claim could be so regarded;
794
it was rather a claim upon the equity and liberality of the British Government. The ground on which the Government was under an obligation to compensate the merchants was, that the Government would by the war obtain payment for the opium which had been destroyed. If, at the termination of the war, the Government obtained restitution from the Chinese authorities, and then refused to meet the claim of the merchants, the injustice of such a proceeding would be generally admitted. But, in the course of the military operations which had taken place, a sum of money had been obtained from certain persons by our representative in China. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) said, that this money was to be considered in the light of the ransom of a city in the power of our troops, and that it ought, therefore, to be applied to meet the expenses of future operations. He thought there was great force in the observations which had been made by the hon. Member for Ashburton (Mr. Jardine) on this point. If the forces of her Majesty had attacked a certain town, and the Chinese commander had been permitted to retain that town, under specified conditions, on paying a sum of money to our generals or admirals, such a payment would have been properly and legitimately a ransom, and applicable to the expenses of the expedition. But in this case the payment was made to the civil negotiator—the representative of her Majesty—by Chinese commissioners, who were the very same commissioners to whom the opium had been originally surrendered. The Chinese officers assumed to act solely upon their own authority; they stated, that they were not authorised by the Emperor to advance any claims, or to grant any demands, but they undertook, in their own name, to transact business with the British representative. These commissioners delivered a sum of money to Captain Elliot, and he thought, therefore, it could not be considered entirely in the light of a ransom. The right hon. Baronet had said, that if any payment in the nature of an indemnity was made, it ought to be for the full amount of loss, and that according to strict form such payment should not be made till the termination of the war. But it must be remembered, that the sum to which allusion had been made was obtained from the civil commissioners of the Emperor of China in the course of the war. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Pee!) had objected that, the real value of

795
the opium surrendered had not been ascertained, and that it ought to be ascertained before a vote of money as compensation was made. Now, if there was any inclination to adopt a principle of concession upon this question, that it would affoad a conclusive objection to the motion before the House. If the Government were willing to consider whether any allowance or advance should be made to the merchants who claimed indemnity, and to ascertain the actual value of the opium upon which compensation could be required, that would at once answer the object of this motion. Though he thought that the latter part of the motion, pledging the Government to propose a vote to the full extent of the sum received from China, was more than Ministers could be expected to accede to, when the question came before committee; yet, as this was not a demand for a new expense, but a claim, he considered, founded in equity, he should, if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lindsay) conceived the only way of obtaining his object, was by pressing this motion, feel it his duty to give his support to the proposition. If, however, the hon. Gentleman thought it probable, that this subject was likely hereafter to receive the favourable consideration of Government, he considered, that he ought not to press the motion to a division.
Mr. Lindsaysaid, if her Majesty's Government would undertake to give the parties who claimed compensation an opportunity of fixing the value of the opium, and would afford any hope, that an advance would be made on account of indemnity, that would be perfectly satisfactory to him,
Sir R. Peelsaid, the hon. Gentleman must exercise his own discretion as to the course he would pursue with regard to his motion. The Government had directed inquiries to be instituted in India for ascertaining the value of the opium which had been seized, but he could not pledge himself, that such inquiries should be prosecuted in this country, His hon. Friend must decide for himself, whether or not he would take the sense of the House on the question of applying the sum received for the ransom of Canton to the compensation of the owners of opium.
The House divided;-Ayes 37; Noes 87:—Majority 50.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Bannerman, A.

Aldam, W.

Barclay, D.

796

Bowring, Dr.

Morris, D

Brodie, W, B.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Buckley, E.

O'Brien, W.S

Busfeild, W.

Palmerston, Viscount

Chapman, B.

Pechell, Capt.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Philips, M.

Duncan, G.

Plumridge, Capt.

Duncombe, T.

Pulsford, R.

Forster, M.

Russell, Lord J.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Scott, hon. F.

Hawes, B.

Smith, A.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Smith, J. A.

Holdsworth, J.

Stuart, W. V.

Hutt, W.

Wood, B.

Jardine, W.

Wynn, rt. hn. C. W. W.

Johnstone, A.

TELLERS.

Larpent, Sir G. de H.

Lindsay, J. J.

Mangles, R. D.

Staunton, Sir G.

List of the NOES.

Acton, Col.

Hayes, Sir E.

Allix, J. P.

Hodgson, R.

Arkwright, G.

Hope, hon. C.

Ashley, Lord

Hope, G. W.

Bailey, J. jun.

Humphery, Aid.

Baillie, H. J.

Jermyn, Earl

Baring, hon. W. B.

Johnson, W. G.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Jones, Capt.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Lawson, A.

Botfield, B.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Broadley, H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Brotherton, J.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Burroughes, H. N.

Mac Geachy, F. A.

Chute, W. L. W.

Mainwaring, T.

Clerk, Sir G.

Marshall, W.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Martyn, C. C.

Colville, C. R.

Master, T. W. C.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Miles, W.

Corry, right hon, H.

Morgan, O,

Crawford, W. S.

Mundy, E. M.

Crosse, T. B.

Napier, Sir C.

Currie, R.

Peel, right hon. Sir R.

Darner, hon. Col.

Praed, W. T.

Darby, G.

Pringle, A.

Dick, Q.

Rae, right hon. Sir W.

Douglas, Sir H.

Reade, W. M.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Drummond, H, H.

Round, C. G.

Eaton, R, J.

Sibthorp, Col,

Egerton, Sir P.

Smollett, A.

Emlyn, Viscount

Somerset, Lord G.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Stanley, E.

Ffolliott, J.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Fuller, A. E.

Tennent, J. E.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Tollemache, J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Vane, Lord H.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Greenall, P.

Wakley.T.

Greene, T.

Wood, Col. T.

Grimsditch, T.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Hamilton, W. J.

Wyndham, Col. C. W.

Hamilton, Lord C.

TELLERS.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Hardy, J.

Baring, H.

INSPECTION OF COUNTY LUNATIC ASYLUMS.
Lord G. Somersetrose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, relative to the inspection of lunatic asylums in England and Wales, licensed by the magistrates at quarter-sessions. It was notorious to every gentleman who had paid any attention to this subject, that various attempts had been made to regulate these houses for the reception of insane people, and that the attention of the House had frequently been called to the subject, especially by the right hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. C. W.W. Wynn), and not without beneficial result; and at length the system now in existence had been established, after parliamentary inquiry. The House was not perhaps aware of the main provisions of the act then passed, which were still in force, and therefore, he trusted, he should be excused for shortly stating them, in order the more easily to explain the proposition for which he intended to move. The great object of the act passed in 1828, and subsequently subjected to several amendments, was to take care first, that there should be proper houses, of a proper character, licensed for the reception of insane people; the next object was to cause those houses to be conducted on such principles as would conduce to the comfort, and insure the proper treatment, of the inmates; another object was to prevent persons not in a state of insanity being placed in confinement; and, lastly, to prevent persons properly placed in lunatic asylums being kept there after their recovery. But he was ready to admit, that there was a very large class of persons, with regard to whom that act made no provision, and with regard to whom the sympathies of the House must always be strongly excited: he meant those individuals who were either kept in confinement in their own houses, in separate lodgings, or in public institutions, such as county asylums, and the hospitals of Bethlehem and St. Luke's. With regard to these parties, he did not intend to offer any suggestions whatever. He meant to confine his attention to those individuals who were kept in the licensed asylums in the country, and not in the metropolitan districts. By the act to which he had referred all licensed houses were brought under two separate and distinct authorities —namely, a certain portion under the authority of a commission of twenty individuals, five of whom were physicians, two barristers, and the rest gentlemen who,
798
without remuneration, dedicated their time and trouble to this object. All licensed asylums in the county of Middlesex, and in the various parishes adjoining in Surry, Kent, and Essex, were placed entirely under the superintendence and management of the gentlemen of this commission. Nearly one-half of the licensed asylums were situated in the metropolitan district, and about the same number of persons was confined in these as in the private asylums throughout the country. The remainder of the houses licensed throughout the rest of England were placed under a different jurisdiction; they were licensed by the magistrates at quarter-sessions, and placed under the superintendence of physicians and magistrates then appointed to visit them; and who devoted their time to this work of humanity. But it was impossible to suppose that the same regularity of attention and advantage could be derived from this superintendence of the county magistrates with the occasional assistance of medical practitioners, as could be obtained from the regularly appointed commissioners. He did not mean to cast any reflections on those who discharged the duty of visiting the country asylums, who, if placed in the same position as the metropolitan commissioners, would be just as valuable; it was of the system that he could not approve. He would not therefore abrogate the present mode of inquiry and visitation in the country, but super add individuals of experience and knowledge on a similar system to that carried out in the metropolitan districts, in order to obtain greater regularity and efficiency in the visitations. One of the most important duties that could devolve upon the visiters was, to see that the house which was licensed for a certain number of individuals should not receive a greater number of patients than it was licensed to take. Without particularizing cases, he was prepared to show from returns he had received, that in more than one instance more patients had been received in licensed asylums than was warranted. Nothing also was more important than that the visiting magistrates should be regular in their visits to these houses; but the returns showed, that in many counties, in some years, the three annual visits provided for by law, none had been made. This showed that some remedy was wanting; and that remedy ought not to be left to the gratuitous exertions of individuals, but should be pro-

799
vided by imposing on some parties official responsibility, and securing the certainty and regularity of superintendence which official responsibility was likely to lead to. He did not wish to create any prejudice against the proprietors of lunatic asylums, for he had seen amongst them, during three or four years' experience, a strong disposition to act with humanity and every degree of kindness and good feeling; but he urged, on the general principles of human nature, that it was of importance, that these individuals should be actuated by a salutary apprehension of the inspection of intelligent and independent individuals. On the other hand, he would not have the commissioners or visiters interfere in the medical treatment of patients. He believed, that no system could work better than that of the London commission. The medical, legal, and other gentlemen of that commission, had vied with each other in their exertions to render their superintendence as efficient as possible. They had not only done a great deal of good by their exertions, but had prevented much harm. Nothing could be more valuable than the services of the barristers who had been appointed on the commission during the whole period of their appointment. His object was, by the bill he wished to introduce, to appoint that some of the commissioners acting in London should make circuits of inspection to the asylums in the country districts. He had not the slightest doubt but that the habits of business which these gentlemen would have acquired would be found most valuable; and their being also a part of the London commission would act as a check on their proceedings in the country; and the advice of their fellow-commissioners in London would be very useful to them in the proper discharge of their duties. He had now to consider whether it would be desirable to have medical or legal gentlemen, as paid commissioners, to make circuits through the country. He was of opinion, that it was not so desirable to appoint medical men; as generally, though there were some brilliant exceptions, they were not distinguished by the habits of exactness which legal men acquired from their education; and also because it would be difficult to get any medical gentlemen of first rate ability—and others he should be sorry to see appointed—to give up their practice, and dedicate the whole of their time to the duties of their situation; more especially as it was not in his (Lord
800
G. Somerset's) power for various reasons to move that the bill should be more than of temporary duration. What he proposed to do was this—that instead of the legal commissioners being appointed, as they now were—allowed to practise, and only paid for the hours they devoted to this duty— that they should dedicate the whole of their time to the duties of the situation, and be paid by such a salary as should insure the appointment of proper individuals of high legal attainments, and which at the same time should not be so large a salary as to encroach on that fair economy which was proper to be observed. He proposed, therefore, that legal gentlemen should be appointed with a fixed salary; that so long as they continued on the commission they should devote the whole of their time to the duties of the situation, and to their duties on the London commission. He proposed, that these commissioners should, once at least in every four months, visit every licensed asylum for the reception of insane persons in the country. It appeared from returns made, that there were somewhere about sixty or seventy houses licensed for the reception of insane persons in the country. It was rather curious to observe, that in about twenty-five counties—in all the counties in Wales, and some others in England—there was not a single licensed asylum for the reception of insane persons. Consequently, without allowing more than fair time for relaxation for health, he conceived the barrister-commissioner would have proper time to visit regularly every asylum in the metropolitan district four times, and in the country district three times a year. It was not his intention to do away with the visits of the magistrates in the country district as established by law. He thought, that the barristers, from their experience acquired in London, and from their knowledge of the law, would make the local magistrates more active in the discharge of their duties, and that the result would be a very regular superintendence on the part of the magistrates as well as by the commissioners. Every licensed asylum in the country would thereby be visited six times each year; and he thought also, from the greater degree of exertion which would be caused amongst the country gentlemen, that they would be induced to be more frequent in their attendance than the law required. On the visits to be made by these individuals, he proposed that their attention should be specifically directed

801
to various matters—first to the state and description of the licensed house; next, to the treatment of the patients; then to an examination of the certificates, and more especially how far the patients were fitting or otherwise for removal to a lunatic asylum. Such were some of the principal duties which he meant to devolve on these barrister-commissioners. At present it was a most cumbrous process which the law provided, in order to get a person out of the licensed houses; he believed the only course to be pursued at present was, to make an application to the magistrates at quarter-sessions; and thus in the country three or four months sometimes elapsed before the unfortunate individual could be released. Now, what he proposed to do in this respect, would be to accelerate the process in the metropolitan districts by the amount of fifteen days. This he proposed to effect by two operations. At present the law required, that there should be four days' notice before the meeting of the commissioners in the metropolitan district could take place. This notice he proposed to reduce to twenty-four hours. The visits to the patient, prior to his release, were now three in number, with an interval of fifteen days between each. The third visit he proposed by this bill to do away with, and that the commissioner should have power to let out the individual if he so thought fit. With regard to the country districts, he proposed reserving all the powers of the visiting magistrates as they now stood; but that the barrister-commissioner should be allowed, and specially enjoined, to consider the state of mind of every person in the licensed houses, and if he had a doubt of the insanity of any of them, he might proceed, after two visits, with an interval of fourteen days between them, to release such individual on his (the commissioner's) own authority, aided by the opinion of a medical man, to be called in for that purpose. There were various other small particulars which would be contained in the bill, all tending to the comfort of the unhappy patients confined in the licensed houses of reception, and which went to regulate the mode of visitation. He would here observe, that he, together with his noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire, had considered how far it was possible to provide against the improper confinement of persons not in lunatic asylums. They had thought it desirable, if possible, to devise some means more stringent than at
802
present existed to prevent parties being improperly confined, and they had just considered whether it would not be possible to make regulations as to the competency of the party who should sign the certificate, without which no party could be confined. In London they found it would not be very difficult to accomplish this, but in the country the difficulty would practically be such that he was not willing to throw any obstacle in the way of the certificate which necessarily accompanied persons sent to licensed houses of reception. The present certificates would therefore remain as they were at present. Neither did he mean to attempt to regulate the care of a very large class of individuals who were in confinement in private dwelling-houses, and who suffered much more serious grievances than the patients confined in well-regulated licensed houses. The class of persons to whom he alluded were left in the care of individuals over whom there existed little or no power of supervision, and therefore he admitted their case required very serious consideration, and he would very gladly, if it were possible, devise some remedy for the evils. But he remembered when the first act on the subject had been introduced in 1828, and on discussions upon subsequent measures, founded on reports of select committees of the House, great consideration had been given to the possibility of interfering with patients of that description; and on the whole, looking at the delicacy of an interference with the feelings both of the patients so confined, and of their friends and relations who had the care of them, it had been thought not to be advisable to attempt to regulate further than the present law did, persons so confined in private houses. This decision had been come to out of delicacy to the sufferers themselves, to whom the visits of strangers might be irksome. As to the feelings of the relatives of these parties, they presented a great difficulty in the way of such a visitation as would be effectual. What was the fact? Why, that the very reason they did not send the patients to the licensed houses was, because they would be there exposed to the constant visits of the commissioners and public authorities, and therefore they preferred doing that which was most inconvenient— namely, to keep them at home. He did not mean by the measure to attempt to interfere with the public institutions, such as Bedlam, St. Luke's, and the county

803
hospital. He believed that, generally speaking, those hospitals were very well conducted, though he did not think it would be a bad thing to have an inquiry into the manner in which those institutions were conducted. He would admit at once that in proposing this measure he did not do all that he thought could be done in the matter, but he could not help expecting that by doing what he now proposed there would be laid the foundation of a better general system, and that after the information which the commissioners would acquire by their communications with the country, the whole subject would be brought to a focus before the London board. From this great good would arise, and eventually Parliament would be enabled to legislate upon this important subject on a broader and more extensive basis. It might be known to the House that a noble and learned Friend of his had proposed in another place a bill to lessen the costs and expenses attending the conduct of a commission of lunacy. He thought eventually a very useful union might be effected between the commissioners his noble and learned Friend meant to appoint under that bill, and the commissioners who were to inspect the lunatic asylums throughout the kingdom. But, on the other hand, he was of opinion that it would not be advisable to attempt to carry out that principle at present. He thought the experiment of his noble and learned Friend in the other House should be carried out before any amalgamation of the two classes of commissioners should be made, and he desired also to see how his own proposition worked before he ventured to adopt that which, in the end, might be thought useful and desirable. He was aware that in this manner he had confined himself to narrow limits, but still he could not but think that he had gone as far as, under the circumstances, he ought to go. He admitted that his proposition was very short of the wishes of some Gentlemen he saw opposite, and that it did not extend so far as he himself could wish; but, as a precedent of something more extensive, he thought even this little might be useful. With these observations, he would now move for leave to bring in a bill to provide for the more effectual inspection of houses licensed by the magistrates in quarter-sessions for the reception of insane persons in England and Wales.
Mr. Wakleyreturned his thanks to the noble Lord for having given his attention
804
to this subject—a subject which had very long indeed demanded the best consideration of the Government of the country, and which had the strongest claims upon both the sympathy and the time of Parliament. When he had said this, he must express the disappointment he felt at the measure the noble Lord had proposed. The noble Lord had said, and he agreed with him—that this was a small measure indeed, compared with what was required and called for—nay, he (Mr. Wakley) thought that the measure was too insignificant to admit of any designation at all. Look at the state of the law with reference to lunatics in England, in Ireland, and in Scotland. In Scotland, there was one system, in Ireland there was another, and in England there were several, and among them all there was not one which on the whole was entitled to the sanction and approbation of the public, or which was worthy the adoption of the noble Lord. Now, the returns of the labours of the commissioners were before the House, and upon another and an early occasion he would take the opportunity of calling the attention of the House to what they had done, for he did not wish to condemn them without making a statement of facts which would justify him in doing so. The proposal of the noble Lord was, in substance, this—that there should be appointed two commissioners, to visit the licensed houses for the reception of insane persons out of the metropolitan districts. Now, what were licensed lunatic asylums? They were hospitals—houses of reception for the treatment of persons afflicted with the most grievous disease to which humanity could be subject. And what did the noble Lord propose? He proposed to appoint two barristers as medical visitors to these hospitals—two gentlemen of the legal profession were to be selected to visit the hospitals in this country. He did not suppose the noble Lord intended this proposition as an insult to the medical profession; but, if it had been so intended, one of a more marked character could scarcely have been offered. Was the noble Lord aware that the whole evil of the present system consisted in the medical treatment; his proposal did not touch that cause of complaint, or any of the defects of the present system. If there were competent inspectors of a medical education to inspect, examine, and to scrutinize the medical treatment, and to see the means

805
of cure, then an advantage would arise to the unfortunate patients who now suffered grievous and painful neglect. The noble Lord had said he did not mean to touch the great institutions, nor to extend the measure to persons confined singly. Now, looking at the number of persons bereft of reason, and who were in a state of confinement without the means of communicating with their friends, he thought something more comprehensive was necessary, to meet an evil of such magnitude. He thanked the noble Lord for the time and attention he had paid to the question, but he must entreat him not to propose the second reading until some distant day, and in the mean time, if the House would permit him, he would lay the whole case of the asylum treatment of lunatics and the report of the metropolitan commissioners before it, and would then ask the Government if they would refuse to appoints commission to investigate the whole subject with a view to legislating upon it for England, Ireland, and Scotland. He repeated that the measure now proposed would not remedy one of the existing evils. The visitations appointed by the bill were not numerous enough. As he meant to ask the attention of the House to the whole subject immediately after Easter, he begged the noble Lord to postpone further proceedings on the bill till he should have made his statement.
Mr. Haweswas disappointed with the measure, which he thought so small as hardly to be worth producing. The appointment of barristers to judge whether a lunatic should or should not be retained in an asylum was absurd. The public hospitals ought to be rendered liable to inspection. At present a different system of inspection was adopted in each; in some there was no system at all. The noble Lord had not told them what amount of salary he proposed to give the barristers; this was a very important point, because if they were to obtain legal functionaries of any reputation, they must pay them well. He thought there was no objection, if there must be a legal inspector at all, to joining a medical one with him. The inspectors ought to have more power than at present, which the bill did not give. He hoped considerable time would be given before the second reading, in order that hon. Members might give a full consideration to the subject; but he would much rather that the bill were sus-
806
pended, in order that the London board of commissioners might have time to take into their consideration the subject of the bill, and that a more extensive and efficient measure might be framed in pursuance of their suggestions than this could ever be.
Lord Ashleywished the measure had gone somewhat further. However, even under the present law, the House was unaware, he was sure, of the very great improvement that had been effected. No one could be properly acquainted with the defects of the provincial system but one who had seen the working of the metropolitan system. In the former there was no effective visitation whatever. A very large proportion of the houses occupied as asylums were not reported on, and no knowledge was to be had respecting them. The consequence was, that the London commissioners in respect of them were wholly unable to carry out the great objects of the statute. They had not the power of tracing lunatics through the provincial houses, and therefore could not tell what was done with them. That power it was desirable they should have. The proper sphere of the board, however, was to control, not to suggest. It would baffle the ingenuity of the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) to institute a practicable system of uniformity for all the asylums in the country. Take the system of non-coercion, it would be impossible to enforce its adoption in all asylums. The great expense would be an effectual obstacle in many cases. It should be remembered that persons having the care of lunatics were seldom highly paid for their services, and they had little inducement to try experiments of new modes of treatment. From his own observation, however, he was able to testify to the great good affected at the Hanwell Asylum by this system, where the coercion had been reduced at least two-thirds. With respect to the question of legal inspectors, he must say, speaking from the experience he had had in visiting these houses, that although so far as health was concerned the opinion of a medical man was of the greatest importance, yet it having been once established that the insanity of a patient did not arise from the state of his bodily health, a man of common sense could give as good an opinion as any medical man he ever knew. But it was found of very great importance, in many instances, to have a person as

807
inspector who had been brought up to the law. With respect to the certificate, there was no one point in the whole range of these operations on which it was so difficult to come to a conclusion as on the certificate. If the law were applicable only to the large towns, he should think they might make several improvements in it; but applicable as it was to the whole country, where there was often only one medical man within a range of several miles, you must take whoever you could get, and instead of having certificates from men of five years' standing, they were often obliged to take those of men of one or two years. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said, that there was too great a facility for incarcerating these unfortunate persons; he went elsewhere, and found persons of equal feeling asserting that such was the state of things that there was no regard for the public safety— madmen were walking about in all directions. What, then, were the commissioners to do? They had aimed at a medium line of policy, and an immense amount of human misery had been abated under the present law, and by the industry of those who carried it into execution.
Mr. C. Williams Wynnthought the measure did not go far enough, but that what it did would be of considerable benefit to the community. The bill, on the whole, had his approbation, and he would give the measure his best attention, so as to render it as beneficial as possible.
Leave granted.

NEW POOR-LAW—GILBERT UNIONS.
Mr. T. Duncomberose to move for—
"A select committee to inquire into the administration of relief to the poor in parishes incorporated under Gilbert's Act, or subject to the provisions of any local act, and to report whether it would be expedient or just to repeal those acts for the purposes of substituting in lieu thereof the Poor-law Amendment Act."
The proposition was so reasonable in itself that it would not require much time to impress upon the House the justice of acceding to it. To give effect to the prayer of the petitions which, on that evening and at various other times, he had presented upon this subject, he would take leave to call to the remembrance of the House the state of the question. When the New Poor-law Act was proposed in 1834, by Lord Althorp, great apprehensions I were entertained and expressed by several
808
Members lest the operation of the measure then about to be introduced should interfere with the unions established under Gilbert's and other local acts. The then Member for Marylebone (Sir S. Whalley) put the question to Lord Althorp, and asked whether it was intended that the bill should interfere with these acts. The answer given by his Lordship on the 17th of April, 1834, was as follows:—
"As to the observation of the hon. Member for Marylebone, who hoped that the Commissioners would not interfere with parishes that were well regulated, he (Lord Althorp) had only to say that he hoped they would not. The only mode in which he trusted they would deal with such parishes would be by following their example. When a parish was really well-regulated, it need not entertain the slightest apprehension of interference on the part of the Commissioners."
This promise Lord Althorp fulfilled to the very letter; for, by the 32nd clause, though a power was given to the commissioners from time to time to dissolve, add to or take from any union, whether formed before or after the passing of the act, it was provided in a subsequent part of the clause that no such dissolution, alteration, or addition should take place or be made unless a majority of at least two-thirds of the guardians of such union should also concur therein. Here, then, was a solemn compact entered into by Parliament with respect to these unions which existed under local acts. If that compact had not been entered into, such was the opposition at that time offered to the measure, that Government would have found the greatest possible difficulty in passing it. That clause, however, neutralised the opposition to the bill, and as the law now stood, before any of the unions established under those local acts could be brought under the control of the Poor-law Commissioners, it was necessary to procure the assent of at least two-thirds of the guardians for that purpose. The Poor-law Commissioners had induced several unions to dissolve, and the majority of the guardians had given their consent to have the local acts repealed, but there was still a considerable number of unions established under local acts which were, as yet, by no means satisfied as to the alleged superiority of the working of the new system. What was now proposed to be done by the two measures which had lately been introduced to the House? It was proposed to grant to the Poor-law Commissioners a power to dissolve the Gilbert unions and other unions incorporated

809
under local acts without the consent of the guardians. That which by solemn compact was vested in the guardians, and which could not be taken away without the consent of a majority, amounting to two-thirds, was about to be wrested from them by force, and the unions dissolved at the will of the commissioners, by the new bill of the right hon. Baronet. It was true, when he questioned the right hon. Baronet as to whether this was the intention of the bill, the right hon. Gentleman made no answer as to what the Government intended to do. The right hon. Gentleman was silent upon the point, and contented himself by saying that it would be then inconvenient to enter into details, and then declined to answer. There were others, however, more communicative than the right hon. Gentleman, who were aware that it was the intention of the Government to grant to the commissioners power to dissolve these unions, and that a bill for the purpose would be brought in soon after Easter. If such was the intention, would it not be a gross breach of faith to violate a compact which had been entered into for the purpose of neutralizing a powerful opposition, and to do now, when the party was supposed to be weak, what the promoters of the law would not have dared to do when the act was in progress? There was another reason why the House should consent to adopt his motion. The fact was, that they were pledged to grant a hearing to the parties who petitioned on this occasion. When a committee sat upon the subject upstairs in 1838 several charges were made against these unions which he was informed were groundless, and he challenged the proof of them by the commissioners. The parties against whom the charges were made stated it as their opinion that they were put forward for the purpose of inducing the House to grant to the Poor-law Commissioners power to dissolve the unions. He, acting upon this information, moved that it should be an instruction to the committee to inquire into the alleged mismanagement in the Gilbert unions and others incorporated under local acts, and to report thereon to the House. The report, at page 418, stated that,—
"Obstacles were raised on the part of the guardians to the dissolution of the unions, partly from adverse personal interests, and partly from the difficulty of convincing them of the general advantages of a change of system."
The report also stated that,—
"Under Gilbert's Act the guardians receive
810
some 5l., some 10 l., and some as much as 20 l. each."
Now, this he was prepared to deny. There were 160 parishes in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and he denied that any of the guardians of the Gilbert unions had received one shilling. The report further stated,—
"That many of the guardians were uncultivated and prejudiced persons—that they were unable to write their own names—that arguments of a general nature were totally unintelligible to them, and that they were guided in their proceedings by matters purely local."
Now, he was satisfied the agricultural Members of the House would agree with him in saying that this was a gross libel on those persons. So far from being unintelligent, they had very excellent ideas of their own interests, as well as of what was due to the poor; and they gave the best proof of their intelligence by preferring the system which would preserve the unions under their own government and control. In 1838 the House consented to institute an inquiry, and he stipulated that they should not confine the inquiry to Poor-law Commissioners and their assistants, but that practical men should be called in to furnish the committee with the information of which it stood so much in need. Of that committee Mr. Fazakerley was the chairman, and he told that gentleman that he had a list of persons whom he wished to have examined. That gentleman replied they should be examined, and added, that information should be given as to the time when it would be convenient for them to attend. The committee was overwhelmed with business— two or three Poor-law Commissioners were examined, but not one of the names in his list was called upon, though they were most anxious to give evidence. This, he conceived, was a gross breach of faith with regard to these parties. The reason given for this conduct was, that the unions under local acts interfered with, and were hostile to, the uniform operation of the new act. For his own part he liked them the better for that, as in his mind the new act was not quite so agreeable to the public as by any means to render its uniform operation desirable. He was authorised to state, on the part of these unions, that if a committee were granted, if a full and fair hearing were allowed, and if it could be shown that the operation of the new act possessed advantages over their system, they would consent to dissolve the unions. Could

811
any thing be more fair than that? Why would the House shrink from inquiry? Was it that it dreaded a comparison? He would read to the House an extract from a letter which he had received from the Rev. Mr. Bathurst, of Leeds, in which that gentleman most strongly urged investigation. His words were these:—
"Such an inquiry we desire, and I hope we are not so unreasonable as to wish to maintain our system if the judgment of impartial and competent persons pronounces it, after careful investigation, to be decidedly inferior to that of the New Poor-law. The petition is sent to Mr. E. B. Denison for presentation, and it is hoped that he will be disposed to support your motion for a committee of inquiry."
He hoped he had now said enough to convince the House of the justice and expediency of his motion. He did not want to extend the inquiry over a very wide field, nor to investigate the whole of the Poor-law, but where unions founded upon the two different systems lay contiguously to each other, let both be compared, and it would soon be perceived which was the more humane, the more economical, and the more satisfactory in its operation. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the committee.
Captain Pechellseconded the motion with the most cordial satisfaction. The inquiry was asked for on two grounds— first, because charges of the grossest peculation and ignorance had been made by the commissioners against the guardians of the Gilbert unions. Those incorporations were spread over a great part of the country, especially in the counties of York and Sussex, and embraced a population of not less than 5,000,000 souls. It was most necessary that charges brought against the officers of those important bodies should be rebutted. Mr. Hall, the assistant-commissioner, in his report, stated that the opposition raised to the dissolution of those unions on the part of their guardians, arose partly from their adverse personal interests, and partly from the difficulty of convincing them of the advantages which would result from a change of system; and that the guardians in the rural districts were so ignorant that many of them were unable to write their own names. Now, in the county of Sussex, where there were two large incorporations, he would pledge himself that the guardians were of a very different description. In the nineteen parishes which
812
composed the East Preston Union the guardians represented property to the amount of 14,000 l. a year, many of them being proprietors, and others renting farms of the value of from 500 l. to 1,000 l. a year. Mr. Hawley stated, that these incorporations still continued unsubjected to the provisions of the New Poor-law, and were of mischievous example to the newly formed unions. Now, every person must know that those unions were subjected to the provisions of the New Poor-law so far as was consistent with the operation of Gilbert's Act, though they were not subject to the uncontrolled influence of the Poor-law Commissioners. Was it, he would ask, of mischievous example to provide increased comforts to the old and decayed poor in the workhouse, who had probably seen better days? Was it of mischievous example that the guardians should exercise the power of considering the conduct and character of persons who applied for relief? Was it mischievous to allow the paupers to go to church on Sunday and hear divine service? Was it mischievous to allow them better and more wholesome diet, with beer, which article was expressly mentioned in the schedule to Gilbert's Act? If the guardians neglected their duty, was it mischievous that a mandamus should issue to compel them to observe the rules and regulations prescribed for the management of the incorporations? In these unions relief was allowed to be given without sending the poor man to the workhouse. Mr. Hawley again charged the guardians with having acted illegally in selling goods to the poor, but it turned out on inquiry that one of them was in the habit of laying in a stock of fuel, and allowing the poor to purchase it during the winter at half-price. Before a committee he could produce evidence which showed that that was the fact Assistant-commissioner Hall being asked,
"Were the guardians paid for their attendance under Gilbert's Act?" answered, "Within my experience they were almost all paid. I believe all." "Was the payment sufficient to be an object to a person in the situation of guardian?—Certainly. The majority of the guardians within my experience were persons to whom the salary was a considerable object." "What was the amount of the salaries?—They varied from 5l., 3l., to 30 l. per annum."
Now, the fact was, that the guardians under Gilbert's Act were under a penalty

813
of 5l. for non-attendance at their monthly meetings; so that a guardian might, under some peculiar circumstances, be liable to the payment of 60 l. in one year. Mr. assistant-commissioner Power was asked before the committeee of 1838,
"Can you give the amount of rates in the Gilbert unions?—No, I cannot." "Are they more or less generally than in the Poor-law union?—-They would be much less than in some Poor-law unions that are now existing in other parts of the country, as compared with the population." "Have you heard of any complaints from the ratepayers in the Gilbert unions?—No, I have not." "Have you heard any complaints from the labouring poor?—No." You say that the expense of Gilbert unions is probably less than in some of the unions under the Poor-law Act?—Yes, I have no doubt that it is, in proportion to the population." "What was the nature of the objections which the guardians of the Gilbert unions raised to being put under the New Poor-law?—In the first place they entertained a considerable distrust of the value of the amendments. I think also their unwillingness to dissolve has been very much increased by the better management, and a considerable reduction of rates, which has been effected by them within the last three or four years. I think they have an increased confidence in their own management, and they do not know, and it is very difficult to explain to them, the value and advantages of the change proposed to be introduced."
Mr. Richard Hall,assistant-commissioner, in answer to a question, says
"That in some of the Gilbert unions the rates are lower. In those Gilbert unions which afterwards formed the Lutterworth Union I found the rates lower than in the adjoining union of Market Harborough, where there had been no Gilbert unions. "
Mr. Pilkington, at a meeting at Worthing, July, 1835, assured the meeting that the commissioners had no other object in view in wishing for a dissolution but their benefit; that they had doubts as to the powers of the guardians in the case of able-bodied paupers, as in Norfolk a doubt was entertained, and the question had been much mooted; and but for this doubt the commissioners had no desire to interfere, their wish being merely to strengthen the hands of the guardians, and that, if all parishes were as well managed as Worthing, there would not be any occasion for commissioners or assistants. The present motion extended also to an inquiry into the administration of parishes under local acts; and he might cite the example of Brighton in proof of
814
the excellent manner in which they were managed. The expenditure by guardians under local acts for ten years from 1830 was as follows:—From 1830 to 1834, 121,288l.; from 1835 to 1839,100,121 l.; showing a decrease of 21,167 l. The county-rate for the first five years was 8,906 l., for the second five years 13,906 l., showing an increase of county-rate of 5,000 l. The weekly average of inmates maintained in workhouses for the first five years was 343, for the second five years 401, showing an increase of weekly average for the last five years of fifty-eight. No better proof could be had of the prudence with which the affairs of such parishes were managed than the provision inserted in the act of last Session, that the commissioners should not have power to enact rules and regulations for the parishes under those acts.
The question having been put,
Sir J. Grahamsaid, his parliamentary experience had informed him long ago that no motion was so specious or attractive as one for a committee of inquiry, and also that it was one frequently very convenient for the executive Government. If it were consistent with his sense of duty to acquiesce in the present motion, he knew no occasion on which the latter part of the proposition would be more true. The committee, if granted, would not terminate in the present Session, and probably not in the next, and nothing would be more easy or more convenient than for the Government, under the shelter of an interminable committee, to propose a short bill towards the end of the present Session to continue the Poor-law Commission for one year more. But he did not think it his duty to acquiesce in any such proposal. On the part of her Majesty's Government he should, as soon after Easter as the state of the public business permitted, offer to the House, as he had already stated, not a measure for the superseding of the powers of the commissioners, but a bill embodying such emendations of the law as experience would seem to justify and render desirable. He had already refused to state by piecemeal what was the extent or character of the alterations he intended to propose. He thought such a course would be, on many accounts, exceedingly inconvenient, and he must, despite the temptation now offered him, continue to adhere to his original opinion, that it would be most unsatisfactory to

815
discuss the principles of so great and important a measure upon every question or motion that was raised relating to it. He submitted, that this was not the time or opportunity to enter upon such a discussion, and therefore he must decline to follow the hon. Gentlemen who had just sat down in the arguments they had used with regard to the measure. At the same time there were some remarks which had fallen from those hon. Members which he could not but feel it his duty to notice. The hon. Mover had read a report of an isolated passage in a speech delivered by Lord Althorp, which he interpreted to contain a pledge that the Gilbert unions should not be touched. Now, he had been a Member of the Cabinet which introduced the Poor-law Amendment Act —he had been a party to that measure— had been fully cognizant of all the points considered in connexion with it prior to its being submitted to Parliament, and he could distinctly state, that in the first draught of the bill the repeal of the Gilbert unions was introduced. Subsequent modifications had taken place, but still, although a direct repeal had been avoided, yet, looking at the 15th clause of the bill, which placed the administration of relief under the control of the commissioners, and comparing it with the 52nd clause, which gave the commissioners the power
"By such rules, orders, and regulations, as they thought fit, to declare to what extent, and for what period, the relief to be given to able-bodied persons in any particular parish or union may be administered out of the workhouse of such parish or union."
(These were the words of the clause)— looking at, and comparing those two clauses, and then applying to them the interpretation clause, which defined what a union was, he must say, that if it had not been for the authority of the late Attorney-general, now Lord Campbell, he should certainly have thought that the bill, as it now stood, did go very far to repeal the unions formed under Gilbert's Act. The opinion of Lord Campbell, however, on the subject, rendered it quite clear, that the repeal was incomplete, and that it was still open to Parliament to discuss the question whether such repeal should take place or not. Now, the hon. Gentlemen opposite had referred to the great number of persons affected by these unions, and had stated that there were no less than 3,000,000 people living under Gilbert's
816
Act, and other local acts of the same character. Conjointly this was quite true, but he would beg the House to look at the question in another point of view. Since the Poor-law Amendment Act had passed no less than fifty-five Gilbert unions had voluntarily agreed to dissolve themselves, and come under the operation of the general Poor-law. Those fifty-five unions contained 715 parishes, and it was a remarkable circumstance, that at the time when they came under the operation of the new system they owed a debt of 39,000 l., of which they had since paid off nearly 20,000 l., or not less than one-half. When the hon. Gentleman, too, had spoken of these 3,000,000 of people, he should have borne in mind that the number of persons living under the operation of the Gilbert unions was by no means so great. As he had already said, fifty-five Gilbert unions had joined the general system. There now remained only twelve Gilbert unions, distributed in nine counties out of the fifty-two in England and Wales. Those twelve unions contained 349 parishes, and 156,000 persons.
Captain Pechellhad referred to the number of persons living in unions under Gilbert's Act and local acts conjointly.
Sir J. Grahamwas now discriminating between the Gilbert unions and the unions formed under local acts; and under the former, as he before said, there were only 156,000 persons. He had spoken of the large amount by which the fifty-five unions had reduced their debt; now let him look to the other side. The twelve unions which remained owed, when the Poor-law Amendment Act passed, a debt of 4,457 l. They had since paid off 1,400 l., that was to say, that whilst those unions which had dissolved themselves had paid off one-half the amount they owed, the twelve which remained had only paid off one-fifth. So much for the management under these unions. But the hon. Gentlemen opposite had very contemptuously referred to the geographical difficulties; had spoken of the way in which country gentlemen were gulled; and had held up the commissioners' map to the ridicule of the House. Now, he might, perhaps, be allowed to tell the hon. Member, that in consequence of the geographical difficulties thus lightly adverted to, there were parishes in England containing 250,000 inhabitants, who were entirely cut off from all Poor-law management whatever. He, perhaps,

817
could not illustrate the inconveniences of the existing system better than by referring to the fact that those parishes were unable to take advantage of the provisions of that admirable law which passed the House last year—the Vaccination Act. He believed that that act had given every satisfaction, and he could state on the best authority that its provisions had worked most admirably, especially in the metropolitan districts. He was enabled to state, on the authority of Mr. Farr, whose name was known in connexion with the registration of births, deaths, and marriages, that in the metropolis, during the first quarter of the last year, 608 children died of the small-pox. In the next quarter, ending the 3rd of July, which was subsequent to the passing of the act, 252 only had died. Up to October, the third quarter, 128 died; and in the quarter ending the 1st of January, 1842, the number was further reduced to sixty-eight. That was to say, that whilst within the quarter previous to the passing of the act 605 children had died of small-pox, in the third quarter, after the bill came into operation, the number had been reduced to sixty-eight. Now, he only wished the House to look at the hardship upon those who were excluded from the operation of the act—who were unable to take advantage of the provisions of this most salutary law. The hon. Member for Brighton praised the exemplary management under the system in operation in the town he represented. He, however, had seen in the public papers reports of certain acts done, and statements of the way in which the poor-rates of the town were expended, which, if he was required to state a case of abuse, he should certainly consider very fair matter for illustration and comment. He would take leave to ask the Hon. Member if he had never heard of the appropriation of a part of the poor-rates to the hire of a court dress for some parish functionary who desired to be particularly gay in honour of the birth of the Princess Royal? [Captain Pechell: That money was spent out of the constables' rate.] Had the Hon. Member never heard of a summer-house being built in the workhouse garden out of the public money? Had he never heard of a costly stock of wines laid in, of a large bill for cigars, all paid for out of the poor-rate of the town? There were statements to this effect afloat, and they certainly did not show very good
818
management. But he would not trespass on the time of the House any further. At the proper period, when her Majesty's Government brought forward their proposition, whatever it might be, with regard to the general question, or with regard to the unions under Gilbert's Act or any other local acts,' then would be the time for him to enter into a discussion of these subjects; and he could assure the House that he should not shrink from the task. As far as regarded the question now under consideration, he did not consider that this was a proper time to discuss it, and he would, therefore, at once say, that he should give it his decided opposition.
Captain Pechellrose to explain. When he stated the number of persons living under the operation of Gilbert's Act and local acts, he had spoken of those acts conjointly, and he believed he had correctly represented the numbers. With regard to the abuses said to exist at Brighton, he could tell the right hon. Baronet that the vestry had put down those abuses, all of which, he believed, took place some time ago. Whenever such abuses were discovered in Brighton, the voice of the people was sure to correct them, and they did not require any interference on the part of commissioners to put an end to such practices.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, the incident of the court dress of which he had spoken occurred not more than twelve months since.
Mr. Wakleywas quite ready to admit that this was not the proper time to enter into a general discussion as to the Poor-law, nor as to the merits or demerits of the administration of relief, either under Gilbert's or local acts of Parliament. The simple question they had to discuss was, whether or not the Gilbert unions were to maintain their integrity if it was the disposition of the parishioners to retain them. The right hon. Baronet opposite had gone back to the origin of the Poor-law Amendment Act, and had made a statement as to the intentions of the Government at the time of its passing, with regard to which he (Mr. Wakley) would only say that he was exceedingly glad the Government had not had the opportunity of carrying their views into effect, and that he only wished more disagreeable points had been struck out of that hideous measure. But in his opinion it was not by any means necessary to go so far back as to Lord Althorps declaration in 1834. They had something

819
more recent to refer to. In the course of last Session there had been a discussion on this subject. Since that time there had been a change of administration, and he did not now see many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in their places who had taken part in the previous discussions. Probably it was not convenient for them to attend. Certainly he was not sorry to see that they were scared away by their own measures, and he hoped many of the public would be scared by them too. But, as he had said before, this question was discussed last year. It was discussed on the 3rd clause of the bill coming under consideration. He did not now see the learned Attorney-general in his place, but he should take the liberty, even in his absence, to refer to what he had then said. He would also briefly quote what had been said by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government as well as a few observations which fell from the noble Lord the Member for London. First, as to the opinions of the Attorney-general— and here he might observe, that he was sure that hon. Gentleman had not changed his opinions with his change of position in that House. The integrity of his principles were too well known to give rise to any supposition that with an alteration of circumstances there would be any alteration in his opinions. The learned Attorney-general had said,
"There was no injustice in saying, that a board of guardians should not be imposed where one already existed; but these boards Were superseded by uniting the several parishes into unions. What was done with reference to the Reform Bill and the Municipal Bill? In the former, a clause was inserted, repealing every charter, statute, and act standing in the way of that bill. A clause to the same effect was introduced into the Municipal Bill. Was this course adopted in the Poor-law Bill? No, and he was not surprised at it. When the Poor-law Amendment Bill was passed, it was the general understanding in the House, that all local acts should not be interfered with, but should remain in due force. He had endeavoured to obtain some precise and exact information with reference to that declaration, and had searched in the usual channels of information. He had not been able to find any distinct statement which fell from Lord Althorp, but certain expressions that fell from the noble Lord during the discussion, justified the House in believing that parishes then under the control of local acts of Parliament, and local hoards of guardians, were not to be brought under the operation of the Poor-law Bill, and Were not to be interfered with by the Poor-law
820
Commissioners. It was worthy of remark, that both the Reform Bill and Municipal Bill repealed all those acts which stood in the way of the operation of those measures. It was never intended by Parliament, that between 300 and 400 acts of the Legislature should exist by the sufferance and caprice of the Poor-law Commissioners. It was ridiculous to suppose, that such an idea was ever contemplated. If it were the intention of the noble Lord to make the House believe that the Poor-law Commissioners did not intend to repeal the local acts under which so many parishes were now governed, it was his duty to say so, more explicitly, and in less ambiguous language than that contained in the third clause of the bill."
That was the language of the present Attorney-general, and what language, he would ask, could be stronger? The learned Attorney-general was followed by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. He would not read the wholè of the right hon. Baronet's address, though it was, in every sense, a most excellent one. Here, however, was the concluding sentence of his speech:—
"He had always thought, that where there were immense masses of population well governed under local acts, it would not be found expedient to place them under the control of the commissioners."
The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, had used a similar expression. He said, that—
"He hoped the large parishes, not already under the Poor-law Commissioners, would be allowed to remain as they were."
But what was said besides this? He would now call the attention of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) to what had been said by the noble Lord, the Member for London. The noble Lord had said,—
"The purport of the clause was, that so far as that act was concerned, no further interference should occur than that which had taken place under the general act. That was what the clause professed and did. He could not see any ambiguity in the clause. It stated most explicitly, that the present act should not interfere with any local acts that might exist."
At that time, the House would recollect the Whigs meant to leave Gilbert's and the local acts untouched. Since then, there had been a change of Ministry—a change which had been, to a great extent, occasioned by what he could not forbear styling the very objectionable conduct of

821
the party in office, with respect to this very measure. He (Mr. Wakley) had expected and hoped, that in consequence of that change in the Administration, there would have been a change for the better with regard to this measure. He had hoped, that its asperities would have been softened, that its rigours would have been alleviated, that most, if not all, of its objectionable characteristics would have been removed. Well, there had been a change, and he had assisted to produce it. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Oh, but he did, and he candidly owned that he had not been sorry to see the change; but he now began to think that he had not acted very wisely. If the Government went on in this way, he should be obliged to betake himself to the bed of repentance. He must say, that their proceeding to-night was lamentable. He could not but see that those unions were sacrificed. Did the right hon. Baronet believe, that public feeling had so far abated, that he was entitled to act as he was acting? Did he think, that the Poor-law Amendment Act would give greater satisfaction under a Tory than under a Whig Administration? He bad hoped for changes, and he should have rejoiced to see them. But to return to the subject he was debating. He did say, that the understanding last Session, with regard to these Gilbert unions was, that they should not be touched—that the Commissioners' power should not be extended to them—that they should not be broken up, but should remain intact as long as the parishioners desired. Was not the present proceeding, then, most unfortunate in reference to public feeling? He had not seen the bill, and the right hon. Baronet opposite took precious good care that he should not see it. He did not approve of this secret policy. It was not a fair proceeding either towards the House or the country. They had been called on to vole a supply to the Crown. Now, it was the ancient policy of Parliament not to give a Government money, if they did not remedy abuses. The Poor-law Commission would expire in July next. What time, then, would the House have for giving the subject that consideration it deserved, when they were kept in total ignorance of the intentions of the Government? The right hon. Baronet had had the bill for a considerable time in preparation; the Government had had many months for taking a review of pub-
822
lic affairs; and, after all that had taken place with respect to the Poor-law Bill, he (Mr.. Wakley) had expected that this measure would have been the first proposed. Instead of this being the case, they were now in March, and they were ignorant of any one proposition or improvement that the new bill was to contain. He felt sure, that the right hon. Baronet, from what he knew of the public feeling in reference to local acts, would, if he meant to maintain them in their present force, be too gratified to make a declaration to that effect. The parishes of Marylebone; containing a population of 160,000, of Islington and St. Luke, containing a population of 60,000, and St. James and a variety of other parishes throughout the country, were all interested in this question, and he called on hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had assisted so nobly in fighting the battle of the people in reference to the Poor-law, to maintain their principles on the present occasion, to redeem their pledges, and uphold the high and dignified part which they pursued in the last Session of Parliament. He regretted not to see that energetic Gentleman, the hon. Member for Knaresborough, in his place. This was the time he should be there. This was the time they wanted such men to give their aid to the popular cause. It was of no use for them to make splendid speeches, if they were not ready to fight the battle when the contest took place. Before he sat down he entreated the right hon. Baronet, and, considering the state of public feeling with reference to local acts, perhaps the right hon. Baronet would not think he was acting unfairly in doing so—he entreated him, if it were his intention not in any way to infringe upon the powers of those acts, or to give the commissioners any further power over them, that he would give up a little portion of his secret, and state so to the House. This would give him most heartfelt satisfaction, because he knew, that at the existing moment the greatest excitement and discontent prevailed in reference to the present state of this question.
Mr. Colvillehad heard the speech of the right hon. Baronet, the Home Secretary, and disagreed from him on two points. The right hon. Baronet said the present was not the time to discuss the merits of Gilbert unions. They came now before the House to seek inquiry; they

823
did not ask for it through the hands of the Poor-law commissioners, but through a committee of that House. It would seem, from what had been said, that the paupers of Brighton were better fed under the Gilbert unions than under the New Poor-law Act. Feeling that the present was not the time to discuss this important subject, he would not trouble the House with many observations; but he could not avoid expressing his satisfaction at the able and gallant manner in which the hon. Member for Finsbury had defended the rights of a large portion of the people of this country. He was also extremely glad that the hon. Member had brought this subject before the House, for he confessed that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had not treated those who were interested in the preservation of Gilbert unions and other local acts with that courtesy which they deserved. This was the fourth time the hon. Baronet had been applied to, in order to explain his intentions with respect to Gilbert unions; and though it might be convenient in the Government to hold a dignified silence, that dignified silence was death to them. Those who were interested in the preservation of the Gilbert unions were quiet and unassuming. They did not wish to agitate the question, nor were they disposed to cry out before they were hurt; but should it be the policy of the Government to abolish those corporations, they were placed under the disadvantage of not knowing what the intentions of Government were. He feared the Government intended to keep them in perfect innocence of their intentions, and then fall upon them before they had time to resist. This was not a manly course. Moreover it was not a course which he expected to see pursued by a Conservative Government. He had heard the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) say, that previous inquiry was the best ground for legislation, and he therefore trusted, that if the right hon. Baronet refused this inquiry, he would also refuse to legislate on the subject, and leave the Gilbert unions alone. He trusted the hon. Member would press his motion to a division, and he, for one, would support him. He only wished the hon. Member had comprehended in his motion an inquiry into those Gilbert unions which had voluntarily dissolved, and he had no doubt that some secrets would come out that would aston-
824
ish hon. Members. If it was the intention of the right hon. Baronet to break up the Gilbert unions, he only hoped, in the name of common justice, they would not be condemned before they were tried.
Mr. Redhead Yorkesaid, that if the right hon. Baronet had observed, that previous inquiry was necessary for legislation, he had also used the following remarkable and inauspicious words,— namely, that he would decline to give any explanation of his measure, to prevent adverse discussion. He thought, that the debate of that night, and particularly the speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury, could not be without advantage to the country; and the sincerity of speeches, uttered under adverse circumstances, would now be tested, when the parties who delivered them were, so to speak, in a happier condition. The point under discussion was, whether the House would allow a select committee to be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Gilbert unions. He could perfectly understand, that, as the right hon. Baronet had stated, there was a manifest advantage in an uniformity of system for the purpose of sound legislation; and if he could have the satisfaction of hearing that the measure intended to be proposed did comprehend within its principles a due consideration for that large class of society who were poor from the force and cruelty of circumstances, and not from any fault of their own, then he should willingly withdraw from any discussion, and patiently wait for the introduction of the Government measure; but as from the right hon. Baronet's silence he had nothing to hope, and everything to fear, he should content himself with saying, that if the hon. Member pressed his motion to a division, he should support it.
Mr. Liddellexpressed his surprise that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire, who desired that the Gilbert unions might not be condemned before they were tried, should condemn without hearing the Government. He entertained better hopes of the Government measure than the hon. Member for South Derbyshire, and, relying on those hopes, and recollecting what the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had said, respecting the inconvenience of a long protracted inquiry into the Gilbert unions, he might, admitting that inconvenience, very easily abstain from the vote he in-

825
tended to give in favour of the motion before the House. He felt strongly that the object of the present motion was one of inquiry, but it was one of principle— viz., whether or not those who had the management of the unions, should have an influential voice in the arrangements connected with them, or whether that authority should be delegated to others. He had seen much of the operation of the existing law; and he had seen instances where the greatest inconvenience, vexation, and grievance were inflicted, and he had himself, on one occasion, been most unsuccessful in endeavouring to obtain relief in a case which he had forwarded to the New Poor-law Commissioners. Though he was not prepared altogether to condemn the existing law, he had pledged himself not to relax in his efforts to obtain such mitigations of the severer clauses, and such modifications of the power of the commissioners as might render its operation more acceptable to the feelings of the community at large, and he was resolved, as long as he had a seat in that House, that he never would refuse a vote similar to that which he was about to give. The country, he was sure, would not misunderstand his vote, for the question was well comprehended. Although the speech he had just heard from the right hon. Baronet had given him considerable pain, yet he was willing to trust in the intentions of her Majesty's Ministers on this subject, and he hoped the country would not be disappointed. He must, however, vote in favour of the motion before the House.
Mr. Hardysaid, hon. Gentlemen opposed to the New Poor-law had been appealed to by the hon. Gentleman opposite, and he was proud to say, that he still retained the same aversion to this measure which he had always hitherto avowed. He admitted, that in some of the rural districts in the South of England the old law was not well administered, yet he was always of opinion that those evils might be remedied, without a total subversion of the then existing law. In a conversation which he had had at the period when the new law was introduced, he had told this to Lord Althorp; and he observed to his Lordship, that in the contemplated measure the relief of the ratepayers was too exclusively attended to; but no measure of the House, he said, would satisfy the country which did not make humane provisions for the relief of
826
the indigent poor. In the South of England, as he had acknowledged, evils existed in the administration of the old law, but in the north no complaints were made. In those parts the persons who sought relief had it administered to them in their own townships; the distance between them and the dispensors of charity was small; and what was given was given in a satisfactory way, and no one complained of the regulations observed. The hon. Member for Finsbury had said, that many Members of that House owed their seats to the opposition they had professed to the New Poor-law. He did not deny this —nay, he felt he should be unworthy a seat there did he hesitate to acknowledge such to be the fact. He had not used-opposition to the new Poor-law as a means of gaining popular support, but he had ever consistently held opinions adverse to the measure, and he had received his reward by a return to that House, for which he was grateful, and he felt convinced it was an honour he never should have received, had it not been for his opposition to this measure. It would, he thought, have given great satisfaction to the minds of many in that House if the right hon. Baronet had given some intimation of the course he intended to pursue with respect to this measure. He entertained a strong impression that in 1834, the bill was laid, on the Table of that House before Easter, in order to obtain the opinion of the magistracy and others likely to feel interested in the measure during that interval. In the present instance, he thought it would have been well had this plan been adopted, as by such a course the country would have had an opportunity of expressing either their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the plan which the Government were about to introduce. The question as to how outdoor relief was to be administered was most important, and any poor-law which failed in this respect would never give satisfaction. In order that the mode of administering out-door relief should be generally approved, it was necessary that the poor should be placed under local authority. They must receive relief from those to whom they were known, A poor lame creature, must not be obliged to hobble to a distance to receive relief which he ought to have nigh at hand. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had spoken of many of the Gilbert unions having been dissolved, but he thought that if further

827
inquiries were instituted, he would find that the unions thus dissolved had laboured under peculiar disadvantages; that they were separated at wide distances from one another; and on these accounts had been found inefficient. He had presented two petitions against this bill—one from Keighley, in Yorkshire, and the other from Bradford, signed by twenty-five out of twenty-eight of the guardians, in which the petitioners expressed themselves sensible of the evils of the present measure, and strongly urged on the Legislature the necessity of a change. He wished the right hon. Baronet had thought proper to disclose the alterations he proposed, and he felt sure that very extensive alterations would give satisfaction to many in the country, who had never regretted the way in which the rates were formerly applied.
Mr. S. Worthysaid, he must express his almost entire concurrence in the opinions of the hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. Colville), who had recently spoken. Still he could not join in those severe censures which had been cast upon the Government, for having declined to state the details of their intended measure. He very much doubted indeed the policy of having many measures on the Table at the same time. Those, however, who felt strongly against the Poor-law had surely a fair right to ask, that they should state their case before legislation was determined on. The presumption was, from the absence of any declaration to the contrary, that the Government meant to propose the extension of the law. Now, all that was asked, was the opportunity of bringing forward evidence of importance to a due understanding of the case. What was the argument against it? Merely that the local acts or Gilbert unions were defective in their working. He thought the local communities decidedly the best judges of this. He was strongly against a coercive extension of the law, in opposition to the wishes and feelings of parishes; and, as he believed the carrying of this motion could not at all prejudice the Government, he should vote in its favour.
Sir R. Peeldeclared his conviction that it would soon be necessary for the House distinctly to decide whether they were inclined to maintain the principles of the Poor-law or to abandon them. And the sooner this question was decided the better would it be for the public interests; for there could be nothing so prejudicial as to
828
leave authorities exercising an unpopular power paralyzed by the prevalence of an impression throughout the country that Parliament were about to abandon the measure. And he must say he was very much surprised to find that of those who had composed the late Government, who had brought forward this law, and rested part of their fame on their support of it as a measure essential to the welfare of the country—that they should none of them, with one solitary exception (Mr. Tufnell), be present on the discussion of a most material motion affecting the integrity of the law itself. For himself, it was un-necessary to say that he was taking the course which on this question he had always pursued. He had never sought popularity by opposing the Poor-law. He had given his assent to the measure on general principles; he was perfectly prepared to listen to modifications which might diminish its severities, or remove just causes of complaint against its operation; but he had always felt, looking to the way in which the old law had been administered, that not merely for the promotion of economy, but for the general interests of the poor themselves, it was desirable that a material alteration should be established. Of this he was perfectly satisfied, that the measure could not be well administered with a general impression pervading the country of a disposition in the Legislature to disturb or to destroy the law. If the law were to he abandoned, let it he given up in a direct manner. To talk of a motion for inquiry as inconvenient to the Government, why it was directly the reverse. He should certainly have thought that there was ample information before the House on the subject of the Poor-law, without instituting a fresh parliamentary inquiry about the twelve Gilbert unions, which were scattered all over the country, obstructing the administration of the law. Surely the House could decide upon the subject with the information it at present possessed. His right hon. Friend intended to submit propositions on the subject of local acts (necessarily affecting also Gilbert acts) after Easter. Was not the House in a condition to decide whether it were fitting that twelve Poor-law jurisdictions should exist in the country, at variance with the general system? For what could the inquiry be instituted? To allow the guardians of unions to relieve themselves from charges? That was perfectly inde-

829
finite and unlimited. Admit one single union on any ground of charge, and how could all the rest be excluded? Every union would claim, and justly, this right of being heard, objecting naturally to a decision upon evidence respecting other unions. Where could this end? If the committee were appointed, then would it be said—" You must not go on with your bill pending the inquiry." The month of June arriving, numbers of Members, as was generally the case at the approach of hot weather, would be anxious to leave town, and the House would eventually acquiesce in a proposal for an annual Poor-law. His hon. Friend said that it was necessary to abandon the system of refusing outdoor relief, and he was no doubt prepared to vote on that subject at the present moment without inquiry. He was prepared to move an amendment, to the effect that the north should not be subjected to that system. But when a law was to be drawn up that definition would be found to be of too vague a character. [An hon. Member: "The manufacturing districts."] Not the north, but the manufacturing districts. Then that included the south, for in the south there were woollen manufactories; so that it would be necessary to amend the amendment of his hon. Friend, and not exclude the south, but make it refer to the manufacturing districts. Now, in common parlance, that was intelligible; but when they came to frame the law, it would, of course, be necessary to define what districts in the country should come under its operation; what districts should be subject to one part of the law, and what to the other; and about the 1st of July his hon. Friend might move for a committee, for the purpose of ascertaining what constituted the manufacturing districts of the country. The consequence of that inquiry would be the passing of temporary acts, whereby they would again not only be relieving the Government by committees of that House from their responsibility as a Government upon the subject, but be leaving the country in a state of uncertainty as to what the intentions of the House and the Legislature really were. It was asked why the Government did not bring forward their measure at once. He would ask in return, what encouragement had the Government met with to bring forward other measures than those already before the House, and which he attended night after night to discuss? It had been said the Government
830
should not lose a day in letting the country know what they meant to do respecting the Corn-laws and the finances of the country. He fully admitted the reasonabless of that observation, and it had been his desire to state in one speech what the intentions of the Government were upon those subjects; but he was compelled to wait until a committee of Ways and Means could be had. They had already spent sixteen nights in discussion upon the Corn-laws, and he had not been able to get further than the 9th clause of the bill yet. He did not object to the discussion of the measure, or deny the importance of discussing it; and, granting that the discussion had not been necessary or fruitless, of what advantage, let him ask, would it have been to have brought forward a bill upon the subject of the Poor-laws, seeing that after sixteen nights' discussion they had only got through nine clauses? In his financial measures no progress at all had been made. The whole attention of the country was naturally directed to these subjects, and he could not see what possible advantage was to be gained by laying before the House for several weeks before it could be duly considered or proceeded with a bill upon the subject of the Poor-laws. It was much the fashion in popular assemblies to call peremptorily for several measures, without reference to the position and circumstances of those who were to bring them forward. His principle, and he confessed, his wish was to take one measure, and go through with it. It really seemed as if this multiplicity of bills was to be urged for the purpose of preventing due attention to be directed to one. The consequence of introducing several measures at a time was, that they spent their time discussing them until the Session was so far advanced, that they could do nothing—a course by which, in his opinion, the character of the House of Commons for practical legislation was greatly impaired. Let them take one of these several great and important measures at a time, and while the discussion of it was yet fresh in their recollection, let them go through with it. Let them do that in preference to demanding for discussion eight or ten measures to which they could not possibly pay sufficient attention. From the opinion he had already expressed on the subject of the Poor-laws he had never varied. He gave his support, founded on that opinion, to an unpopular measure which was brought forward by the late Government. Previous to the

831
late elections, he again expressed himself distinctly upon the subject, stating that he still retained the opinion he was known to profess upon the general principle of the law. It was, therefore, impossible for any man to say that he had not always and consistently maintained the same opinion upon this subject. He thought too well of the House to believe, that it was not now competent to declare its opinion also— to declare whether twelve districts in the country might or might not be governed upon a different system from the rest, or whether by adopting the general system they would not very much facilitate the law in other places. The question was, would they adopt the Gilbert system as a general boon, or the Poor-law as a general boon, and that question the House was as competent to decide that night as they would be at the end of the Session. He, therefore, deprecated this committee as the worst course of proceeding that could possibly be pursued. His right hon. Friend would at the earliest period that was consistent with the proper consideration of the subject bring forward the measure of the Government with those modifications which he thought calculated to remedy any just ground of complaint, maintaining, at the same time, the general principle of the bill. If the House of Commons thought, that it should be altered they were in a condition to say so; but what he contended was, that the worst course which it was possible to pursue was, that of paralyzing the efforts of the Government and the Legislature by protracted inquiry—a course by which the unpopular duty to be performed would be rendered almost impossible of execution. Let them, if they thought the measure unjust, condemn it, or let them support it if they thought it deserved support, but let them not leave all in doubt as to their intentions, by inquiries which he thought could not be satisfactorily concluded within such a period as would enable them to legislate in the manner which the Government proposed, and were convinced was the most desirable.
Mr. T. Duncombein reply, said, he had never considered this as a party question. He had taken the same view of it when the Whigs were in office, and it now gave him infinite pleasure to perceive that it would not be treated as a party question by the House, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite who had cried "Down with the bastiles," and proclaimed themselves the friends of the poor at the hustings, were
832
prepared to avail themselves of the opportunity now afforded them of redeeming the pledges they made upon that occasion. The right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department he knew very well would say, "This is premature; wait until you see my bill;" being a beautiful illustration of locking the stable door after the horse had been stolen. They were to wait until the Poor-law Commissioners locked up the chest, after they had stolen the charter. He was only surprised that the right hon. Baronet did not state, for all his arguments went that way, his intention of altering those Gilbert corporations which were to be under a different law. He asserted, that on the faith of an act of Parliament, those Gilbert corporations had a right to insist on being under a different law until they could get the consent of two-thirds of the guardian to an alteration. They had no right to interfere with the privileges which those corporations possessed. They avoided this position at the time the New Poor-law Bill was brought in, and now what they could not do by reason they wished to do by force, and thus make away with the charter of those corporations. He should like an inquiry to be made into the grounds upon which those individuals had been deluded and entrapped who had already yielded, for he was authorized to state by those unions that had been entrapped, that they were now fully conscious of their mistake. He hoped that the House would not allow the clause incorporating Gilbert unions to pass without giving the parties interested a fair hearing.
The House divided—Ayes 41; Noes 108:—Majority 67.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Henley, J. W.

Aldam, W.

Holdsworth, J.

Beckett, W.

Howard, H. H.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Johnson, General

Bernal, R.

Leader, J. T.

Blackstone, W. S.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Blewitt, R. J.

Morris, D.

Bowring, Dr.

Mundy, E. M.

Burroughes, H. N.

Napier, Sir C.

Colvile, C. R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Crawford, W. S.

Plumridge, Capt.

Duncan, G.

Ricardo, J. L.

Gill, T.

Rolleston, Col.

Gordon, Lord F.

Scholefield, J.

Grimsditch, T.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hall, Sir B.

Tufnell, H.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Hardy, J.

Wakley, T.

Harford, S.

Williams, W.

833

Wood, B

TELLERS.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Duncombe, T.

Yorke. H. R.

Pechell, Capt.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hope, hon. C.

Acland, T. D.

Hope, G. W.

Acton, Col.

Jermyn, Earl

Adderley, C. B.

Johnson, W. G.

Allix, J. P.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Astell, W.

Lawson, A.

Bailey, J.

Leicester, Earl of

Baillie, H. J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Baring, hon. W. B.

Lockhart, W.

Barrington, Visct.

Lowtber, J. H.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

MacGeachy, F. A.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Mainwaring, T.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Marsham, Visct.

Boldero, H. G.

Martin, J.

Botfield, B.

Martin, C. W.

Broadley, H.

Masterman, J.

Brotherton, J.

Miles, P. W. S.

Bruce, Lord E.

Miles, W.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Morgan, O.

Busfeild, W.

Mostyn, hn. E. M. L.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Murray, C. R. S.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Newry, Visct.

Chelsea, Visct.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Chute, W. L. W.

O'Brien, A. S.

Clayton, R. R.

Packe, C. W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Peel, J.

Collett, W. R.

Pringle, A.

Courtenay, Visct.

Pusey, P.

Cripps, W.

Rae, rt. hn. Sir W.

Damer, hon. Col.

Rashleigh, W.

Darby, G.

Reade, W. M.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Dowdeswell, W.

Russell, C.

Ebrington, Visct.

Sandon, Visct.

Egerton, Sir P.

Scott, hon. F.

Ellice, E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Emlyn, Visct.

Stuart, H.

Escott, B.

Strutt, E.

Evans, W.

Sutton, hon. H. M

Fitzroy, Capt.

Tancred H. W.

Fuller, A. E.

Tennent, J. E.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Tollemache, J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Waddington, H. S.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Wawn, J. T.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Greene, T.

Wood, G. W.

Hale, R. B.

Wyndham, Col. C.

Hamilton, W. J.

Wynn. rt. hn. C. W. W.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Young, J.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Herbert, hon. S.

TELLERS.

Hodgson, R.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Holmes, hn. W. A'Ct.

Baring, H.

ANTI-CORN-LAW CONFERENCE.
Dr. Bowringmoved for a report made to the Home Office, by a committee appointed by the conference lately held at the Crown and
834
Anchor, on the subject of manufacturing distress.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that he felt bound to refuse his consent to the motion, on account of the dangerous precedent which it would establish. He had received from four gentlemen, whose names were perfectly unknown to him, a letter stating that they were part of a conference held lately at the Crown and Anchor, and enclosing a very voluminous document, embodying information on the subject of the distress in the manufacturing districts, not collected by themselves, but communicated to them by others. That document was quite open to the hon. Member to make any use of he pleased, in any speech which he might make on the Corn-laws; but as he considered the document of a strictly private nature, and possessing nothing of an official character, he thought that he should be establishing a most dangerous precedent if he were to consent to the present motion, which seemed to him a mere attempt to print a voluminous document at the public expense.
Motion negatived.

EXPORT OF COALS.
Mr. Matthias Attwoodmoved that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct her Majesty's consuls, situated in those ports, to which British coals are exported, to report what quantities of such coals have been received in those ports during the year 1841, and to state, as far as they are enabled to do so, the purposes to which such coals have been applied. The right hon. Baronet had rested that part of his financial scheme which related to the exportation of coals, upon the assertion that the British coals exported were applied to purposes which interfered with British manufactures. He thought that the return for which he moved, would show that there was no ground for that assertion; and it should be recollected that the coals itself was an article of British manufacture—at least, it employed British labour and capital.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that he did not object to the return; but in consenting to it, it must not be supposed that he considered that information at all essential to the consideration of his proposal, or that he bound himself to suspend legislation on the subject until the arrival of that infor-

835
mation which the hon. Member required from distant parts.
Mr. Matthias Attwooddid not suppose that the right hon. Baronet would bind himself to wait until the return could be made; but he could not help considering that information was absolutely essential to the due consideration of this matter, inasmuch as the right hon. Baronet had rested his case entirely upon the assertion to which he had already referred.
Motion agreed to.

CALEDONIAN CANAL.
Sir G. Clerkmoved the appointment of a committee to examine the report of Sir E. Parry on the Caledonian Canal, and to report their observations to the House.
Mr. E. Ellicedid not mean to oppose the motion, but he certainly expected to have heard some grounds stated why the Government had withheld the grant recommended by two committees, and for which object the late Government had obtained a partial grant.
Sir G. Clerksaid, he would move that the reports of the committees of 1839 and 1840, be referred to the committee to be named.
Motion agreed to.
Adjourned.