Commons Sitting of 24 July 1849

MINUTES
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Slave Trade (Persian Gulf); Admiralty Jurisdiction in the Colonies.
Reported.—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Leasehold Tenure of Lands (Ireland); Customs; Workhouse Loans (Ireland); Treasury Instruments; House of Lords Costs Taxation; General Board of Health; Metropolitan Sewers; Bankrupt Law Consolidation.
3° Railways Abandonment; Royal Pavilion (Brighton); Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c.; Pilotage.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. H. Stanley, from King's Lynn, for Universal Suffrage.—By the Marquess of Worcester, from Bath, respecting the Welsh Language in the Established Church (Wales); and from Campden, for Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys' Certificates; also from Woolastone and Alvington, for an Alteration of the Sale of Beer Act.—By Mr. Masterman, from the City of Lon don, for the Protection of Women Bill.

LEASEHOLD TENURE OE LANDS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. LAWsaid, he rose to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Bill on this day three months. If it was the pleasure of the House not to adopt his Amendment, he should propose clauses by which the corporation of London and the Irish Society should be excepted from the operation of this Bill. The object of the Bill was to convert leasehold into freehold property by a compulsory process. The preamble stated—
"Whereas many lands in Ireland are held under leases and under-leases respectively, with covenants for perpetual renewal, and great expense is constantly incurred in procuring renewals under such covenants, and much litigation and inconvenience arise from such tenures; and it is expedient that such tenures should be converted, in manner hereinafter provided, into tenures in fee, and that, except as herein excepted, all leases and under-leases of lands in Ireland, with covenants for perpetual renewal, granted or made after the passing of this Act, should operate and take effect in manner hereinafter mentioned,"

883
The allegations, whatever foundation may have existed for them in other cases, were not only inaccurate but untrue as regarded the Irish Society. The Bill as it stood was an infringement and partial repeal of charters granted by the Crown to the corporation of London in the reign of James I. Nothing like the proposal now before the House of Commons had been made, unless during the existence of the Star Chamber, when these and other charters were cancelled by that anomalous and tyrannical body in the time of Charles I.; and that monarch had ever after reason to regret the course then taken by him. These charters were restored in the time of Charles II., the object of which was to plant and colonise the city and county of Londonderry and Colcraine, and under them large sums of money had been raised and expended. [The hon. and learned Gentleman then read the purposes intended and the powers conferred, as stated in the charters.] The property granted was undertaken by the twelve great companies of the city of London, and the Irish Society. Nearly one half of the property retained by the Irish Society would be materially affected by the Bill. If it were necessary, he should be able to show that the present Lord Chancellor, when Master of the Rolls, and Lord Lyndhurst, with the assent of Lord Campbell, held that this property was of a permanent character, of which it could not be divested, and powers over it remained to be exercised under the direction of the Irish Society. What, then, could be thought of the modesty of those who required the Irish Society to relinquish the character of landlords of this property—which they had hold since the reign of James I. to the present time, and all power and control over it? This was impolitic as well as unjust; for what was unjust never could be expedient even in politics. He challenged the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry, who was more the author of the Bill than the Government, to prove that there was any great expense to the tenantry in getting renewals of their leases. He denied that there was any expense of the kind to the tenants of the Irish Society to justify the proposal to convert the present leasehold tenures into tenures in fee. Was the House aware of the nature of the holdings of this property? With the view of showing this, he would refer the House to the statement of the Irish Society. That body stated—
884
"The Irish Society object to be included in the provisions of the Leasehold Tenure of Lands (Ireland) Bill, because none of the reasons which exist in other parts of Ireland for such a Bill, apply in the slightest degree to the property granted by charter to the Irish Society. The Irish Society have never in any case insisted upon the forfeiture of a lease, nor has litigation prevailed amongst their lessees and their undertenants; a covenant in their leases constitutes the society the sole arbitrator in all disputes which may arise between them. The leases are for twenty-eight years and three lives; so that, should the lives drop, the lessee is certain of a terra of twenty-eight years without a renewal. The average period of renewal is about thirty years. The leases also contain covenants to repair, to protect the fisheries of the society, and other covenants most beneficial to the property and its lessees. The only certain means of enforcing the performance of the covenants of the lessees is by periodical renewal. This wholesome check is by the Bill proposed to be abolished; and the Irish Society will be deprived of the best means of enforcing the regulations which have been found so beneficial. The charters granted to the Irish Society for plantation purposes have been carried out to the fullest extent. The property of the society is a pattern to all other parts of Ireland for peace and tranquillity. If the authority of the Irish Society is repealed by granting the fee of their estates to their lessees, they will no longer have any motive to apply the whole of their disposable revenue in improving the property and contributing to the educational and other charities of the district, as heretofore; and the property will in a few years become like the other parts of Ireland. The Bill will transfer the powers of the society to the middlemen, who have been so notorious for their extortion and hardship to their undertenants; and will leave their under-tenants entirely in their hands, without the salutary chock which the society has hitherto had upon them."
The rent received by the Irish Society amounted to only the small sum of 2,500 l. a year, while the rent received by the gentlemen holding under them, according to the poor-law assessment, amounted to 40,000 l. a year. From this it was clear that the benefits conferred by this Bill would be derived exclusively by the middlemen, who would possess themselves of the entire control over these estates. He could not conceive on what ground they should attempt to divest the Irish Society of the land they held under charter, and of all control over their own estates. It was notorious that this changing the tenure to a fee-farm rent, must add greatly to the value of the property to the leaseholder, without giving any compensation to the Irish Society. He was told that existing covenants were amply provided for under the Bill as it stood; but he did not believe that the noble Lord who introduced the clauses al-

885
luded to in another place, could believe that they would have the slightest effect to insure the interests of the Irish Society. He was the only permanent member of the Irish Society, and he was so in his official capacity as Recorder of the city of London; he, therefore, would not confine himself to his own interpretation of this Bill, as to its effects on the property of that corporation. He had taken the opinion of an eminent conveyancer as to the effect which this measure would have, and that learned gentleman stated that no process whatever, and no clause which could be inserted in the Bill, would have any effect in protecting the interests of that body; their only safety, therefore, consisted in being freed from the operation of the Bill. [The hon. and learned Gentleman then read the opinion in question.] Such being the effect of this Bill on the estates of that body, he asked whether they were justified in pressing it? He did not say it might not be called for in other parts of Ireland, but it would be the grossest injustice in enforcing it here. The House should consider the peculiar circumstances connected with this case. Here was an enormous estate, placed in the hands of the Irish Society, in consideration of their laying out large sums of money upon it. This was by the act of the Crown, when a large tract of the country, in or near Londonderry and Coleraine, was placed at its disposal by the forfeiture of its former owners. An appeal was made to the corporation of London, and the plantation was to be undertaken by the Irish Society and the large companies. The latter bodies had since laid out large sums in the purchase of other properties. It was desirable, also, that this property should remain under the control of the Irish Society, so as to ensure its good government, and the welfare of the people on it. There were provisions in the leases which only allowed the Irish Society to enter on the property at a certain period, if the tenant had not complied with the engagements entered into by him. There would be the danger of great inconvenience, and a stoppage to improvements, if the Irish Society had not the power of making their lessees carry out the conditions and objects of the plantation. This was the first opportunity he had had, and that at the close of a laborious Session, of protesting against the forfeiture of property belonging to the Irish Society and the corporation of London under this Bill.
886
In doing so, he could not avoid expressing his surprise that the provision should be endeavoured to be enforced at a time when the Government were calling upon English capitalists, and the corporation of London, to come forward and assist in the regeneration of Ireland. This was at a time when the parties now to be affected were anxious to promote the welfare of Ireland, and when the landlords of that country were unable to help the peasantry, who were in a starving condition, and who also were unable to maintain any rents. The corporation of London were then making great exertions for the furtherance of improvements, and for the extension of civilisation in Ireland, and they ought to be protected by law in the employment of their capital, instead of being injuriously dealt with, as they would be under this Bill. The moment was selected for this proceeding to repeal the charters granted by James I. and Charles II., as if it was feared any bodies would dare to undertake improvements in Ireland. This measure, he repeated, was nothing but an act of spoliation of the worst kind, and transferred the property from such wise and moderate landlords as the Irish Society, to a number of large tenants, who were at present required by the covenants of their leases to improve the property, but who, if this measure was passed, would not be compelled to look to the interests of the tenants immediately under them. The Irish Society had also promoted the moral and religious instruction of the population on their estates without religious distinction, and had advanced every measure for the improvement of their condition. The Irish Society constantly held courts to see if any thing could be done for the benefit of the part of the country with which they were connected. At the present moment, when he looked at the thin condition of the House, and at the number of Irish Members present, he could hope to make little impression on it. No doubt the hon. Member for Londonderry might have some misgiving when he voted to take the control of their property from the Irish Society, and give it to himself and others who had a personal interest in the matter; and no doubt nothing but the most enlarged views and patriotic feelings induced the hon. Baronet to overcome his objections to the course which he had taken. All that the Irish Society asked was to be insured the means of being allowed to carry out the conditions of the charters of plantation,

887
which they had sworn to do. Did Irish Gentlemen forget that they were going to dispossess the Irish Society of what was fixed in them by the charters of the Crown, and the conditions of which had been faithfully performed on the part of this society?
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word, "that" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee."
MR. GRATTANregretted the hon. and learned Gentleman had made the observations which he did on the Irish Members, and, above all, as he intended to support the hon. and learned Gentleman. He regretted the hon. and learned Gentleman had not laid on the table the charters under which the Irish Society held their property. The Bill was most injurious to that body, and so it would prove to many private landlords. The hon. and learned Gentleman alluded to the charters granted by the Stuarts, as if they were the production of peculiarly wise monarchs. Now, these monarchs were only remarkable in this way, namely, the first was a bad poet; the second never spoke the truth; the third was always with women; and the fourth was a coward, and ran away. The hon. and learned Gentleman was anxious to be enabled to prove the extent to which the Irish Society would be injured; he therefore thought the House ought to accede to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member, and clear all, at that late period of the Session, when they were within a few days of the prorogation. Every attention should be paid to the city of London, and, above all, at a time when it was going to Connemara to take possession of Mr. Martin's property for the purpose of improvement; and he hoped the gentlemen who went over for that purpose, would be hospitably received in Ireland.
SIR J. YOUNGsaid, that he had every respect for such a respectable body as the Irish Society; but he could not understand why it should be excepted from the operation of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given notice of many special clauses under which the Irish Society and the corporation would be exempted from its provisions; but he had proposed an Amendment directed against the principle of the Bill. This would affect all landowners, and the Irish Society had no greater claim to be excepted than private gentlemen. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in the course of his observations,
888
turned round and said he should be defeated, as he saw so many Irish Members present; and the inference he seemed to draw was, that they were all bad landlords, while the corporation was the only good one. He (Sir J. Young) would venture to say that there were hundreds of Irish proprietors who were quite as good landlords as the society alluded to. He would go further, and would say that there was not a county in Ireland in which there were not numbers of tenants better off, and lodged in better houses, and the farms better cultivated, than was the case on the estates of the Irish Society. He knew many large owners of property who were a great deal better landlords—who were better landlords than the Irish Society had over been, or could ever be. The great improvements effected on the property of that body, had been effected by the tenantry under the perpetual leases held by them, and these would be extended if this Bill passed. If the clause of the hon. and learned Gentleman were adopted, it would appear to be a very invidious distinction.
SIR R. A. FERGUSONsaid, as he had been so personally alluded to by the hon. and learned Member, he felt called upon to make a few observations. The hon. and learned Member had spoken as if an enormous property belonged to the corporation. This was not so, for the enormous tract was of the extent of about 8,000 acres in and near Londonderry and Coleraine. The matter was one entirely between the Irish Society and the tenants on its property. It had been declared that the Irish Society had granted leases of their property on the most beneficial terms. Now, the fact was, they had been compelled to grant leases in perpetuity about eighty years ago, after a dispute had arisen on the subject which had lasted for a long period. If this had not been done, the whole would have been ruined, and the whole settlement lost. But this was not a piece of liberality on the part of that society; for it imposed an increased rent and other charges on the tenants to the amount of 36 per cent. and hampered the tenants, on the leases so granted, with all sorts of vexatious provisions. The hon. and learned Member said there had been no case of litigation between the tenants and the society. He could mention cases of the kind in which the society had been defeated. As for there being no case of forfeiture, it arose from the circumstance that the Court of Chancery decided that the society, having

889
promised or given leases in perpetuity to the tenants, could not come in to eject them. Did the hon. and learned Member mean to say that the Irish Society had well managed its affairs, and was in a prosperous condition? By their folly and extravagance, they last year had to pay 670 l. for the interest of the money they had borrowed; and that debt was gradually increasing. All that the tenantry on the property of the Irish Society asked was, that the same privileges should be extended to them which were given by all other landlords. When these leases were granted, the estate was estimated at 2,500 l. a year rental; but it had since been so improved by the tenants, that it was now assessed to the poor-rates at 40,000 l a year. He conceived it to be impossible, with any fairness, to draw a distinction between the Irish Society and other landlords.
MR. NEWDEGATEregretted the debate had been allowed to proceed in the absence of the hon. Alderman the Member for Southwark, the head of the Irish Society, and the other Members of the corporation. He therefore moved the adjournment of the debate.
Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."
MR. LAWsaid, that he had given notice of a Motion for the society to be heard by counsel against the Bill, on the second reading; but that stage had been taken at midnight, without any notice to him.
The SOLICITOR GENERALhoped, in a few words, to show the propriety of not acceding to the Motion just made. The Bill had been delayed in consequence of the illness of the Lord Chancellor; but it had been sent down from the other House after it had received the most attentive consideration. He had had several opportunities of proceeding with this Bill in Committee, in the morning sittings; but he had postponed doing so in consequence of his hon. and learned Friend being anxious to be heard in opposition to it, and, in conformity with an arrangement made with his hon. and learned Friend, that day had been fixed upon for the debate. With respect to the other Members connected with the corporation of London and this society not being present, there would be ample opportunities of hearing them at its future stages. He confidently appealed to the House not to allow the Motion for adjournment to be adopted, the
890
only effect of which would be to defeat the Bill. The question raised by his hon. and learned Friend was entirely one for the Committee, as it applied to the details and not to the principle of the Bill. The question involved in this measure had not been introduced for the first time, and the city of London had no right to complain that they had no opportunity of stating their views on the Bill. No one would say that the House of Lords was in favour of confiscation, or unwilling to hear parties who said they had grounds of complaint to state against a measure. The Bill had been delayed for a considerable time in the House of Lords, and the city of London had ample opportunities of interposing.
MR. F. FRENCHsaid, it was a matter of regret that no one connected with the Irish Society was present. He had had opportunities of inspecting the accounts of the Irish Society, and he was satisfied no property could be bettor managed. As it was, four-fifths of the rental received was laid out in the improvement of the property and in benefiting the tenantry. He believed the Irish Society to be entitled to every indulgence and support, in consequence of their liberal treatment of their tenantry. Coming as he did from the west of Ireland, he was anxious to encourage the introduction of capital with habits of business and improvement, as was proposed under the auspices of the city of London. He fared this Bill would have the effect of deterring English capitalists from interfering with Irish property.
MR. MONSELLsaid, the Members of the Irish Society could be heard at a future stage of the Bill; therefore, the present Motion appeared to be a most vexatious mode of defeating this Bill. He would venture to say, that in the south of Ireland, where this tenure was well known, the tenants were most anxious that the Bill should pass, and the landlords were not opposed to it. In fact, all classes in Ireland believed that it would confer great benefit on them. [Mr. F. FRENCH: Make it permissive.] It was very well for the hon. Member now to ask to make it permissive, when he had just stated that it should be postponed until certain Aldermen could come down to the House. The proceeding adopted was a factious mode of defeating the Bill by a mere side wind.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he had no personal interest in the matter, but he thought the Irish Society ought to have a fair opportunity of being heard. He would

891
not persist in his Amendment for adjourning the debate.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question,"
put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
On Clause 1,
MR. F. FRENCHproposed the alteration of certain words, to make the measure permissive instead of its being compulsory.
MR. LAWsupported the proposition. The House had refused to acknowledge in the case of copyholds the principle that a proprietor should be compelled to part with his property; and why should they in the present instance compel a landlord to give the fee-simple of his land to a tenant, whether he was willing or not? There was gross injustice in such a proposal. He objected also to the monstrous proposition that a landlord should be obliged to pay the costs incurred in defending his property before the Court of Exchequer or Chancery, and that the Remembrancer of the Court of Exchequer should have the power of conveying that man's estate in his name, and against his will.
The SOLICITOR GENERALwould say nothing with respect to the question of costs, as that was embraced in another clause. The question before them was, whether it should be compulsory on the original lessor to commute a leasehold tenure into a fee-simple. Now, the real owner of the estate was the lessee, the lessor having no right whatever to the property. They had heard much of the Irish Society; but estates held under this tenure were no more the property of the Irish Society than copyhold property was the property of the landlord. The real owner of the property was the lessee, with the perpetual right of renewal. Now, this view of the case did away with all those charges of injustice which were brought against the Bill. It was not correct that the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill was thrown out on the principle. It was rejected because the details of the Bill were found not to be in harmony with the principle. It might as justly be said that the owner of the manors in England was the owner of the soil that belonged to the copyhold tenant, as to say that the lessor of those lands in Ireland was the owner of those lands.
MR. HUMEhad objected to the compulsory power given in the Copyhold Es-
892
tates Bill for Enland introduced by the hon. Member for Cockermouth, and they were now going to place the tenants of a certain description in Ireland in such a situation that they would be able to compel the landlords to change the tenure of their property. Surely if in England, where the landlords were to receive compensation, the House would not yield, it was monstrous to make the Irish Society subject to such enactments, when it would not get the slightest benefit from the change. This was a more stringent provision than he had ever before seen in an Act of Parliament. Under this Bill, also, the costs were to be paid under the direction of the Court of Chancery or the Remembrancer, by either the landlord or the tenant. This was a monstrous injustice, for by it the costs might be thrown on the unwilling party. It was, in short, an act of confiscation. The only question was, whether it should be compulsory on the original lessor or the person who represented him to commute the leasehold tenure into a fee-simple upon the payment of a fee-farm rent. Now, the real owner was not the lessor but the lessee, who had a perpetual right to the renewal of his lease, which right, it had been decided, in a great number of cases, could not he taken away from him. The hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to the case of copyholds. The case was perfectly analogous with the present. The property held in Londonderry by the tenantry on the estates alluded to, was no more the property of the Irish Society than a copyhold estate was the property of the lord of the manor. He was entitled to certain rights and fees, but he could not get possession of the property or receive the rents. So it was in Ireland. In such cases as the Irish Society, they were compelled to grant new leases for ever, and because they kept up the word lease, it had given rise to an erroneous notion of the Bill. The Copyhold Estates Bill was not thrown out the other day because it was compulsory in its enactments, but because its details would not carry the object in view into effect. He denied that the Irish Society were the real owners of the land, but the lessees who held under them, and to whom it was proposed to give the real advantages of their position.
CAPTAIN JONESregretted to hear the hon. and learned Recorder say that the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry had a personal interest in the matter. The

893
hon. Baronet might hold property under the Irish Society as a trustee, but he had no interest in the matter. He (Captain Jones) was also connected with Londonderry and supported the Bill, but he had no personal interest in the matter.
Amendment negatived without a division.
On the Question that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, as he understood the matter, the objection to the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill, introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Cocker-mouth, was, that it was compulsory on the landlord and not on the tenant. As he read this clause, it was open to the same objection. He conceived, that with regard to this as well as the other Bill, the House should proceed on something like fixed principles. It appeared that it was only where the reversionist was called upon by the tenant, that the deed of enfranchisement would be granted. It appeared to him to be very hard upon a reversionist, who had many of these lessees on his estate, that he should be compelled by some of them to convert their tenures into perpetuities, while others of his tenants, because they refused to make the application, would keep up the old tenure. He thought the power should be given to both parties.
The SOLICITOR GENERALwas sorry to say, the clause was open to the objection stated by the right hon. Baronet. It was exceedingly difficult to make such an arrangement as was desirable, as had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman. The present Bill would enable any one tenant to go to the lessor, and compel an enfranchisement subject to a foe-farm rent. The reason why the course suggested by the right hon. Baronet had not been adopted was, that such difficulties would arise as to the details that it would not he possible to carry them into effect.
SIR J. GRAHAMasked whether the provisions of this clause were the same as those in the Church Temporalities Bill?
The SOLICITOR GENERALthought they were the same, but he would not at once pledge himself on the subject.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, he had objected to the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill, because it was a one-sided measure; and he now found this Bill was open to the same objection. He thought there ought to be equal powers on both sides. The
894
provisions in the Bill should be altered, so as to effect this object.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the Clause should be reconsidered before the last stage of the Bill.
Ayes 71; Noes 21: Majority 50.
Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 2 to 38.
The other clauses were also agreed to after a long and desultory conversation.
MR. LAWthen proposed the introduction of an additional clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was painful to him to think that he was the only Member of the House present who was connected with the corporation and the Irish Society, and he had attended day after day in that House to protect the interests of both those bodies. As the legal adviser of the corporation, he was hound not to shrink from the duty of defending their interests. He should take the sense of the House as to this last effort he should make to except the Irish Society from the operation of this Bill:—
"And be it enacted, That nothing in this Act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to prejudice, diminish, alter, or take away any of the rights, privileges, powers, or authorities vested in or enjoyed by, or duties or liabilities imposed upon, the Society of the Governor and Assistants, London, of the New plantation in Ulster, within the realm of Ireland, under or by virtue of any Charter or Charters heretofore granted to them by the Crown, or of any Statute or Statutes in anywise relating thereto."
Brought up, and read 1°.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second Time."
ALDERMAN SIDNEYfelt bound to state that the corporation of London, as well as the Irish Society, had been treated very strongly at the present moment, when they were about to purchase land to a very great extent in Ireland for the purpose of improvement. Was this the time to take from them the management of their own capital? As the trust for the plantation was originally imposed upon them, he conceived they were justified in asking the House to be excepted from the operation of the Act.
SIR R. A. FERGUSONsaid, there was no difference between the leases in perpetuity granted by this society, and those given by any other owner. It was about eighty years since the Irish Society had been compelled to grant leases in perpetuity.
COLONEL DUNNEcould conceive an opposition to the Bill, on the ground that it

895
was objectionable on principle, or because it was a one-sided measure, but he could not conceive why there should be an exception in favour of the Irish Society. He considered the effect this Bill would have on that Society was one of the best parts of the Bill.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 10; Noes 88; Majority 70.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

CUSTOMS BILL.
On the Motion of the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUBE for the House to resolve itself into Committee on this Bill,
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the object of one of the clauses of the Bill appeared to him to be objectionable. The proposed mode of keeping accounts was unsatisfactory, as under it they would find it impossible to ascertain the real amount of consumption, except they deducted the quantity of articles exported from the quantity imported. If, under such circumstances, the official accounts were not more accurately prepared, and delivered at an earlier period, they would be comparatively useless. There was another clause in the Bill which he conceived was also objectionable. He alluded to the clause which proposed the reduction of the duty on embroidery. It was proposed to reduce the duty of 20 per cent now paid on embroidery and needlework from foreign countries to 15 per cent. and from British possessions to 5 per cent. In 1846, when the new tariff was under consideration, the present duty was imposed, and he could not conceive that sufficient reason existed to reduce it now. The duty paid on foreign embroidery and needlework imported in 1845 was 61,524 l., and in 1846 it was 76,320 l. After the passing of the tariff by which the duties were reduced, the duty for the year 1846, on the same articles, was 116,346 l., and in 1848 it was 110,184 l. The class of persons who would be more particularly affected by this proposal, were those who at present could hardly obtain adequate means of subsistence. When the difficulties of those poor women were increased in this way, many of them might be driven into the streets to endeavour to obtain food by the most revolting means to a mind of the slightest delicacy. Under such circumstances, he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to abide by the duty imposed on those articles by the tariff of 1846.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the only article affected in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman was corn, but he hoped the House would not enter upon a corn-duty debate.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had not intended to excite a corn-law debate.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not charge the hon. Gentleman with attempting to do so. The only article to which the clause alluded to by his hon. Friend was corn. No other article subject to the payment of duty could be brought under it. As for the reduction of the duty on embroidery and needlework from 20 to 15 per cent. he did not anticipate the results stated by the hon. Gentleman. It was notorious that the class of persons referred to by his hon. Friend worked for very low wages, and he did not believe that protection would do them much good, or that the present reduction of duty would make any difference to them. The reason for the reduction of the duty was, that formerly embroidery and needlework paid the same duty as certain silk goods. A great number of articles which came from India, which were manufactured in a peculiar way, were, until recently, admitted as silk goods; but the Custom-house had decided that strictly and legally speaking they came under the head embroidery and needlework, and therefore had to pay the 20 s. duty. He alluded to India shawls, and some other articles of a similar character. Under these circumstances, it was deemed desirable to place them on the same footing that they formerly were. He believed the proposed change would have a very slight effect.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
On Clause 12 being put,
MR. THORNELYexpressed a hope that the Government would propose a mea-sure to sweep away the absurd restrictions on commerce imposed by the quarantine laws. After the admirable report on the subject, drawn up by the Board of Health, there could be no excuse whatever for retaining them. This should be done without any reference to negotiations with foreign countries, as was the case with respect to free trade and the repeal of the navigation laws. The people of this country almost unanimously wished to get rid of these laws.
MR. ANSTEYwished he could agree with the hon. Gentleman as to the universal feeling of the country being in fa-

897
vour of getting rid of these laws. The hon. Gentleman must know, from his connexion with Liverpool, that many of the merchants of that place, trading with places on the Black Sea, were exposed to the most disgraceful regulations which could be devised by the ingenuity or malice of man, under the name of quarantine regulations, and under the pretext of protecting the health of the persons living on the coast of that sea. The whole object was on the part of the Russians illegally to exclude all intercourse of strangers with Wallachia and Moldavia. He knew on one occasion that some Members were prepared to bring the circumstances under the notice of the House; but a number of English merchants trading on the Black Sea urged those hon. Gentleman to desist from their intentions, as it might further impede, or altogether stop, all trade in that quarter.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the subject was one well deserving of attention; but as this clause merely facilitated the taking of goods out of quarantine, the occasion was not a favourable one for the discussion of the whole question.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill passed through Committee.
House resumed.

RAGGED SCHOOLS.
LORD ASHLEYthen rose to bring under the notice of the House the state of a portion of the juvenile population of the metropolis. If he were asked why he had brought forward his Motion at so late a period of the Session, he must plead as his excuse his utter lack of opportunity to lay the subject before the House, owing to the interposition of other business day after day. But he nevertheless entertained a very strong desire that he should have it in his power to do so, not only on account of those whose claims he represented, but for the purpose of showing the House to what profitable use the small grant he had obtained last Session had been turned, and the prospects of success their past experience might encourage them to cherish. He had another reason, besides, for pressing the subject on the attention of the House—that he was anxious to excite some interest, and perhaps discussion, on the preventive, as contrasted with the reformatory system. Prison discipline seemed a favourite topic for all writers and speakers; and endless inquiries had been
898
entered into with respect to the separate, the solitary, and the associated system of punishment, and with respect to summary jurisdiction and flogging and confinement. But he thought that there was really a system preliminary to them all, and one which was economical and efficient. If he could show that the preventive system was not only economical and efficient, but also truly humane, he would show enough to rouse every well-wisher of the people to a sense of the importance of the subject, whether viewed with reference to policy or religion. Last year he stated the number of that class whose interests he then attempted to represent at 30,000. He believed that estimate was very much under the mark. He then described the temptations to which they were exposed, and the great dangers which threatened society from the existence of that class. In the statement he should have to make that night, he would not be able to show any great improvement in these details. Any such improvement must arise from the application of another principle. So long as people were left in their present sanitary state, confined in courts and alleys, their dens and lurking places—so long as they were crowded together in the styes from which they found it impossible to escape, even so long they could not hope for any improvement in the social and physical condition of the people. But what he wished to bring under the notice of the House was the increase of schools, the improvement of the pupils, and the well-grounded prospects for the future. He wished to show the condition of the metropolis; and for that purpose would state the number taken into custody by the metropolitan police in 1847, as contrasted with the number taken into custody in 1848. In 1847, 41,479 males were taken into custody, of whom 8,405 were under 20 years of age, 3,228 between 10 and 15, and 306 under 10. In 1848, 42,933 males were taken into custody; of whom 8,776 were under 20 years of age, 3,604 between 10 and 15, and 312 under 10. The total increase in 1848 of males taken into custody was 1,4,54, of whom one half was under 20 years of age. But of those who had been taken into custody under 10 years of age—the class which chiefly attended the ragged schools—there had been an increase of only six. The whole number of males taken into custody between 10 and 20, a period of 10 years, was 12,691; between 25 and

899
50, a period of 25 years, 18,591; only one-third more. But, looking at the num-her of those tried and convicted, there appeared a great disproportion. Between 10 and 20, the males tried and convicted were 1,237, whereas the males tried and convicted between 25 and 50 were only 1,059. The same rule prevailed in Manchester, to which he simply referred as a very large town, the returns being characterised by the same accuracy as those for the metropolis. There were taken into custody in Manchester 1,037 males between 10 and 20, and 2,157 between 25 and 50. But there were tried and convicted 165 between 10 and 20; 193 between 25 and 50. Now, these returns showed the preponderating amount of juvenile delinquency. They showed also the possibility of applying the preventive system. The crimes were perpetrated at a period of life when the parties were open to the best influences, and were most capable of receiving permanent impressions. It was also clear that the seeds of crime were sown in early life, and would not, if they were then rooted out, grow up into rank maturity. Being anxious to ascertain the opinions of persons best acquainted with the subject, he circulated among persons having the charge of ragged schools, missionaries, and others, this question, "Do many adult males become criminals for the first time after 20 years of age?" From 43 committees he received the answer, "Very few." One said, "A small proportion, and these chiefly through drunkenness and want of employment. In London, many country people, and the Irish, become criminals after 20 years of age, and those chiefly from the above-mentioned causes." Another said, "I should say not one in fifty. "Another, "I believe that among the lowest classes of society hardly any become criminal for the first time after 20 years of age." Such were the conclusions to which those persons were led, whose opinion he had sought as being most conversant with the circumstances of the poorer classes. Now, what was the condition of those to whom he wished the preventive system applied? That large class roaming over the streets of London, in habits, manners, feelings, and pursuits totally unlike anything with which people were acquainted in ordinary life, formed a seed-plot for three-fourths of the crimes of fraud and violence which prevailed in this metropolis; and what he said of the metropolis he said of every great city in the empire. A short
900
time ago he was anxious to perceive with his own eyes what was the condition of these people—what was the state of their abodes, their lairs, their retreats for the night. He and others perambulated the metropolis. They dived into its recesses. The House would be surprised to hear what was the condition in which they found those young people. Most of them were living in the dry arches of houses not finished, inaccessible except by an aperture only large enough to admit the body of a man. When a lantern was thrust in, six or eight, 10 or 12 people, might be found lying together. Of those whom they found thus lodged, they invited a great number to come the following day, and then an examination was instituted. The number examined Was 33. Their ages varied from 12 to 18, and some were younger; 24 had no parents; six had one; three had step-mothers; 20 had no shirts; nine no shoes; 12 had been once in prison; three twice; three four times; one eight times; and one (only 14 years old) 12 times. The physical condition of these children was exceedingly horrible; they were a prey to vermin; they were troubled with itch; they were begrimed with dirt; not a few were suffering from sickness; and two or three days afterwards two died from disease and the effects of starvation. He had privately examined eight or ten. He was anxious to obtain from them the truth. He examined them separately, taking them into a room alone. He said, "I am going to ask you a variety of questions, to which I trust you will give me true answers, and I, on my part, will undertake to answer any question you may put to me." They thought that a fair bargain, He put to several of them the question, "How often have you slept in a bed during the last three years?" One said perhaps 12 times; another three times; another could not remember that he ever had done so. He asked them how they passed the night in winter. They said, "We lie eight or ton together to keep ourselves warm." He entered on the subject of their employments and modes of living. They fairly confessed they had no means of subsistence but begging and stealing. The only way of earning a penny in a legitimate way was by picking up old bones. But they fairly acknowledged for themselves and others scattered over the town, with whom they professed themselves acquainted, that they had not and could not have any other means of sub-

901
sistence than by begging and stealing. A large proportion of these young persons were at a most dangerous age for society. He had formerly met one very remarkable instance of a boy, past 17. He was struck at discovering that the boy knew the French language, and asked an account of his life. He said he had been in France at the time of the revolution, and had fought in the barricades. He and his mother had gone to Paris some four or five years ago. He there got into some employment; but, as the political atmosphere became warm, he yielded to its influence, and being enticed by French boys, his companions, he joined in the general warfare, fought at the barricades, was taken prisoner, tried, sentenced to punishment; and, at the expiration of his sentence, shipped for England. There were hundreds and thousands of others in London, as capable of being employed for the worst purposes as the Garde Mobile of Paris. And therefore it was that, for the peace of society, no less than its honour, he would direct the attention of the House to the subject. Again, what was the moral condition of those persons? A large proportion of them (it was no fault of theirs) did not recognise the distinctive rights of meum and tuum. Property appeared to them to be only the aggregate of plunder. They held that everything which was possessed was common stock; that he who got most was the cleverest fellow, and that every one had a right to abstract from that stock what he could by his own ingenuity. Was it matter of surprise that they entertained those notions, which were instilled into their minds from the time they were able to creep on all fours—that not only did they disregard all the rights of property, but gloried in doing so, unless they thought the avowal would bring them within the grasp of the law. To illustrate their low state of morality, and to show how utterly shameless they were in speaking on these subjects, he would mention what had passed at a ragged school to which 14 or 15 boys, having presented themselves on a Sunday evening, were admitted as they came. They sat down and the lesson proceeded. The clock struck eight. They all rose and went out, with the exception of one who lagged behind. The master took him by the arm and said—"You must remain; the lesson is not over." The reply was, "We must go to business." The master inquired what business? "Why, don't you see it's eight o'clock. We
902
must go catch them as they come out of the chapels." It was necessary for them, according to the remark of this boy, to go at a certain time in pursuit of their calling. They had no remorse or shame in making the avowal, because they believed that there were no other means of saving themselves from starvation. He recollected a very graphic remark made by one of those children in perfect simplicity, but which yet showed the horrors of their position. The master had been pointing out to him the terrors of punishment in after-life. The remark of the boy was—" That may be so, but I don't think it can be any worse than this world has been to me." Such was the condition of hundreds and thousands. It was necessary for the peace of society that those horrors should be mitigated; but, looking to higher considerations, every one must feel the duty as well as the necessity which required that means should be taken to carry the knowledge of the Gospel to those classes. There were two modes of dealing with those cases: first, to wait till they committed crime; then to bring them to justice, and either transport them or confine them in gaol. The other was to take a preventive course, and anticipate the gaoler and the hangman by a system of wholesome discipline. It had been said in various instances that the case was a hopeless one, and there was nothing but punishment for such as these. He distrusted prison discipline altogether, he had no faith in it as a preventive, or as a mode generally of reforming individuals. Could hon. Members fail to observe how prison discipline had increased in severity of late years, and yet crime had not decreased in proportion? Nor could it decrease in proportion; neither would their prison discipline become effective for its purpose. That system might possibly become effective in certain cases—in the cases of those who had offended in wantonness, or who, on quitting gaol, had resources of their own, or friends on whom to rely. But, for the great mass of those who passed through the gaols, and who were afterwards discharged to recommence the struggle of life, what was usually known as the reformatory system had no effect beyond the walls. It was not his intention to question the utility of the institution at Pentonville, least of all whilst it had the advantage of the services of the present chaplain, of whose exertions for the reformation of offenders it was impossible to speak too highly. Pentonville

903
prison had produced some remarkable and gratifying instances of reformation; but in almost all those cases the parties reformed had found profitable employment in the colonies. To understand how prison discipline failed as a reformatory system, it was only necessary to reflect on the fate of a person committed to gaol. In the first place, there was the long detention before trial, followed in some cases by imprisonment after conviction. Now, it was well known that persons so circumstanced usually came out of prison ten times worse than they were when they entered it. The testimony of those who could speak with authority was conclusive upon this point. The chaplain of the Preston House of Correction, said—
"In 1840, I stated that, 'whether led astray for a moment by bad companions, or assailed by overpowering temptations, or driven by distress and hunger, or trained to vagabond and thievish practices, and, in all cases, with a mind totally unformed by education and uninfluenced by religion, the child of 14, or 10, or even eight years old, is now turned into a yard or 'day-room,' tenanted by 40 or 50 older criminals. Once here, Jus terrors of a prison soon vanish before the levity and merriment of his new companions. He finds them great objects of admiration; and many are the plunderers who can relate the most attractive stories of successful and daring robbery. Excited by these tales, he soon becomes ambitious of imitating the heroes of them. He is instructed in the arcana of the dreadful calling which he has entered upon by some adept in the craft, and thus a few weeks, or even a few days, before trial have sufficed to convert the child, who, until the verdict pronounced at that solemnity, was accounted innocent in the eye of the law, into a hardened profligate, prepared and tutored for a course of iniquity, and determined to run it. I could furnish a hundred histories of misery and crime springing from the pestiferous society of the untried felons' ward."
It was notorious that, in many of these prison yards, the inmates were initiated into all the details connected with thieving. It was customary to have all the characters of a thieves' drama enacted by boys. This account was given by one of the youngsters: "We have," said he, "afterfive o'clock, our time to ourselves; then there is the pickpocket, the gentleman, the lady, the policeman, and the magistrate. The gentleman walks about with a pocket-handkerchief hanging out of his pocket; and the lady, with her chains; they then show us the best and newest way of doing the business." The chaplain of Pentonville Prison remarked that—
"It is not possible to convey to the mind of the reader any adequate idea of the extent of the corruption of mind, feeling, and character, or of the
904
completeness of the education in crime, which goes on in the common gaols of the country, especially before trial."
Lord Denman was of the same opinion. In his evidence given before a Committee of the House of Lords, his Lordship said—
"I am not reconciled to summary convictions, but I highly approve of frequent courts to try petty offenders of all ages promptly on the spot."
…"As long, however, as juvenile offenders are mixed up in our gaols with adults, no effectual improvement can take place."
He heartily concurred with Lord Denman in his suggestion respecting the establishment of courts for the trial of petty offences, and in his objection to increase summary convictions, because he wished the punishment of crime to be as tedious and expensive as possible, being of opinion that no remedy would be applied until the grievance became intolerable. Now, even on the very youngest, the fear of imprisonment had oftentimes little or no influence; true it was that the prospect of the first imprisonment was fearful to their imaginations, and this feeling would greatly aid the preventive system; but the second had fewer terrors, and all in succession afterwards were less and less apprehended. Many indeed, of the lads sought the prison as a refuge for their wants, pressed as they were by constant and hopeless necessity. He would now for a moment draw the attention of the House to what he conceived to be the various causes of juvenile crime. Their name was legion; but the first great cause was the example and neglect of parents. Next came the various temptations to which children were exposed. A fertile source of crime was the reckless exposure in or on the outside of shops of articles of value, and particularly of food, which presented an almost irresistible temptation to hungry children. The number of penny theatres was another cause of crime, and a still more fertile source of evil were the casual wards. No less than 42 thieves out of 150, whom he once examined, confessed that the commencement of their career of theft was attributable to the corrupting influence to which they had been exposed in the casual wards of various unions. Those wards might be necessary; but, nevertheless, it could not be denied that they tempted numbers of children to leave the houses of their parents; and, when once they quitted their homes, they oftentimes never again returned to them. In some cases the commission of crime might be attributed to an inherent spirit of wantonness, mothers it was referable to want of edu-

905
cation, in others, again, to want of employment, and in many instances to a combination of both causes. In a few cases, the commencement of a criminal career might be traced to oppression on the part of employers, and in some it was the result of absolute want. Now, he would assort that the preventive system was not only more economical, certain, and humane, but that it was the only one possible. The prison had failed; criminals were not reduced in number; or, if they were, it was by the operation of means that partook more of a preventive than a penal character. He would contrast the effects produced by the system pursued at parkhurst and Pentonville prison with those which proceeded from the scheme which the House of Commons sanctioned last year upon his recommendation. It was not his intention, he repeated, to deny that both the Parkhurst and Pentonville establishments had done good. But he wished to know in how many instances a permanently beneficial effect had been produced upon persons who, having quitted those places, had returned to their old haunts, and been driven to their old shifts to find employment. It was almost impossible, in the circumstances of the present day, for those convicted of crime, and hearing its brand on their forehead, to recover a position in society when driven to their old haunts and their old companions, exposed to their old temptations, and beset by their old necessities. The story which he was about to relate to the House, would furnish the strongest evidence of the truth of that proposition. In the course of last year he received an invitation from 150 of the most notorious thieves in London, asking him to meet them in some place in the Minories, and to give them his advice as to the best mode by which they might extricate themselves from their miserable way of life. He felt it his duty to accede to the request, and went to the place appointed, where he found, instead of 150, not fewer than 250 thieves assembled in a room. He entered into conversation with them, and addresses were made by several, the substance of which was, "We are tired of our mode of living; existence is a burden to us; we never know from sunrise to sunset whether we shall have a full meal, or any meal; we can get no employment—we have nothing but sorrow before us; give us your counsel as to how we shall extricate ourselves from our miserable position." He replied, it was a most diffi-
906
cult question to solve—that at the present day, so great was the competition for employment, that there were always three candidates for one situation—and that it was unlikely that a person who was stained by crime would be preferred to three persons of untainted character. Thereupon a man rose and said—
"What you say, my Lord, is most true. All in this room have made attempt after attempt to get into some honest employment, but we have found that our tainted characters beset us every-where. My own case is a proof of this. I obtained a situation, and held it for five or six months. I was satisfied with my employer, and he was perfectly satisfied with me. One day there was a knock at the door; I opened it, and in walked a policeman. He asked for my employer, and, when he saw him, said, 'Do you know that you are employing a convicted felon My employer said he was not aware of it, but the policeman assured him it was the fact, and then my master turned round, and dismissed me from his service. Thus I was driven back to my old courses, and I declare to God that the impossibility of obtaining employment compels me and many others to lead the lives we do."
Now, the reformatory system might succeed with discharged criminals if they were not pressed by actual necessity; but when they were placed in that position it was inefficacious, for in those circumstances human nature could not resist the temptation that overwhelmed them. He knew of one instance of a discharged offender triumphing over temptation; but he was a man of such determined character, that in order to persevere in the course of reformation which he had entered on, he endured the most wonderful privations—in fact, he lived the life of a martyr; but, by God's blessing, he ultimately overcame all difficulties, and was now in comfortable, nay, comparatively, affluent circumstances. The scheme which the House sanctioned last year, had produced as much permanent advantage at an expense of 1,500 l. as could have been derived from the system in use at Parkhurst and Pentonville at an expenditure of 150,000 l. or 200,000 l. His scheme was to hold out a system of emigration as a reward of merit to a certain number of children attending the ragged schools. This scheme was doubly advantageous. It benefited not only those who emigrated, but those who remained, by inciting them to join the schools, and persevere in a course of good conduct, in order to qualify themselves for the reward held out. In this manner society, as well as the individual, was benefited. Can the same be said of any prison results? Has the reformation of any one prisoner been

907
the signal for others without the walls to follow his example? A few extracts from letters written by some of the boys who had emigrated on the eve of their departure from England might prove interesting to the House. One boy wrote—
"I assure you, should it please God to spare my life and bless ray industry, it is my intention not only to remit to England something for the support of ragged schools, but endeavour to stir up others to do the same."
Four of the best-behaved boys were pre sented with a suitable outfit and free passage from private sources, to the new colony of Moreton Bay, in Australia. The gratitude expressed by those lads, ere they embarked, was most pleasing, and before they left England, when it was clear that they would never see their benefactors again, they wrote the following letter to the Committee:—
"Gentlemen—We could not think of leaving England without expressing to you our most hearty thanks for all your care of us since we were admitted into the Refuge. We thank you for our protection, our education, and so worthy a master; and for our food and clothing. We hope so to behave as to comfort all your hearts. We may forget some we once knew; we never can forget the Committee."
The following letter was addressed to him as chairman of the committee for the hoys by three boys who had emigrated:—
"Gravesend, April 8, 1849.
"We write to inform you we are arrived safe at Gravesend, and are quite well. We cannot express our gratitude to your Lordship for your kindness towards us, especially when we reflect on our past lives. When Mr. Nash took us under his care, he promised he would never leave us, and he never did, but he often told us to you we were indebted for ragged schools. May God bless your Lordship, may God bless Mr. Nash and every ragged school teacher; and we beg one favour of you, that you will open more schools, such as Mr. Nash's Dormitory, at Westminster, for there are many poor hoys that would be very glad to get in them; and we do promise, through God's grace, to conduct ourselves with the strictest propriety, and open a Sunday school in Australia. You said you would pray for us, so we will for you, every day of our lives, and tell the people in Australia what kind friends you are to poor boys. We are your Lordship's obedient servants."
Now, this was a sketch of their biography. One of the boys who signed the letter was aged 16; he had long lived in a pigsty, and was taken from it to the Refuge; he had been seen seven times in prison, and when rescued from his miserable position was resolved to commit such a robbery as would entitle him to the benefit of transportation. Another of the boys, aged 17, had lived all his lifetime by begging and
908
stealing; he was connected with a gang of thieves in Duck-lane, and slept under carts and on the steps of doors. The third boy, aged 15, lived by begging and stealing; he had lived for days together on the rotten apples in the Borough-market. Perhaps the House would here permit him to read some extracts from letters written by emigrants who had arrived at Australia. A boy addressed his mother thus:—
"Brisbane, Friday, December 23, 1848.
"Dear Mother—I write these few lines to you, hoping to find you in good health, as it leaves me at present. I have arrived with safety in the colony, after a long and wearisome voyage. I am in the depot now, in Brisbane. I am engaged as a shepherd, or to be generally useful, to go to a place called Wide Bay, 120 miles further up the bush. The blacks are not very wild in the towns, but they are out in the bush, where they are wild; they catch kangaroos and cat them. Parrots and cockatoos are very numerous here; the natives will catch them for you, and give them to you, if you give them a piece of bread or tobacco. I forgot to tell you how much wages I am to receive; it is 12 l. per year, and my rations and washing. I am very happy at present, thank God. So no more at present from your affectionate son,
"W—S—."
A similar letter had been received from a boy named Flynn, who went out at the same time, who had also got a place to "mind sheep," as he called it, at 12 l. a year, besides all his food, lodging, washing, &c. Another letter was in these terms:—
"Ipswich, Moreton Bay, December 26, 1848.
"I have a good situation as a gentleman's servant. I have 20 l. a year, board, lodging, plenty to eat and drink. I have had a merry Christmas of it. There is plenty of work for everybody. We were no sooner at the depot than we were all hired."
One of the girls wrote—
"I found the country better than I expected it was. I like the place very much. All I wish is, that my sister Susan had come out with me. … My dear teacher—I am happy. I have got a good place, for my mistress is more like a mother to me. Though I am thousands of miles from you and all my friends, yet you are always in my mind, and the old wall of the poor-school."
Contrast the moral and social condition of these children now with what it was. Those were samples of the effects produced by the emigration scheme. What had been the effect upon society at large? In order to ascertain that point, a series of questions had been proposed to the Committees of various ragged schools in London. The questions were as follows:—
"1. Has the plan of emigration acceded to last year by the Government been the means of stimu-

909
lating the increase of schools, and the attendance and order of the ragged class?"
The answer was unanimously "Yes." The next question was—
"To insure all the benefits that ragged schools are capable of conferring, is it not desirable that, wherever possible, the reformed vagrants should, either by employment or removal elsewhere, be kept from returning to their old haunts and companions?"
The answer was the same. Then the third question was—
"Do they, in general, desire one or the other?" The answer was the same. He then asked—
"With such inducements, a fair provision of school-room, and an adequate supply of proper teachers, would there be any difficulty in obtaining the attendance of throe times as many children as are now receiving instruction?"
The answer was uniformly that there would be no difficulty at all. He thereupon put this question—
"Would it therefore be practicable to grapple with the existing race, and so greatly reduce juvenile delinquency?"
The answer was uniformly "Yes." By that the House might see the effect produced on society at large by this system, and when they considered that it was produced by a sum of 1,500 l. only, he thought he had proved his point. It had effected as much good as their system of prison discipline with an expenditure of 200,000 l. In relation to this point, he was very much struck by the testimony of one man who had given himself up to a vicious course of life; he visited one of the schools, and asked to be shown over it; after seeing it he said—"I approve of this very highly, and I shall subscribe a guinea a year. The answer was—" How can you do so; we know what you are?" To which he re plied—" It is perfectly true: I know what I am; but if such institutions as this had existed when I was a boy, I never should have come to my present disgraceful condition. "That was the testimony of one of the greatest thieves in the metropolis. Now, emigration was preferable to employment at home: first, because it abated the terrible competition of the present day; next, because it removed the young people far from their former haunts and temptations, and in another view, because they were thereby relieved from the infliction of excessive labour. They might depend upon it that one great cause of juvenile delinquency, where the delinquents had been in employment, was the excessive toil to which they were subjected, and from which they fled to
910
dishonesty as their only resource. Two cases of that excessive toil had come to his knowledge, fair specimens of the whole apprentice-system. From the ragged school they had apprenticed a boy to a shoemaker. He (Lord Ashley) saw him the other day; the boy made no complaint; but, on inquiry, he found that the boy began work every morning at half-past five, and continued working until half-past ten at night. He said to the boy—" This is pretty severe, but I conclude you have the Sunday to yourself?" The boy answered—"No, only Sunday afternoon, as I am kept at home to nurse the baby." That boy might resist the temptation, but 19–20ths of those who were so exposed would floe from their master's house and take themselves to an evil course of life. The other case was that of a little girl, who was also apprenticed. He found that she was engaged from four o 'clock in the morning until ten or eleven at night, and so far from having Sunday to herself, she rose on that day at half-past five, and was engaged until half-past four in washing. He wished now to consider the arguments for and against this proposition. One argument that he had heard against this scheme was, that if they did this for the children of the metropolis, they would be called on to do the same for the children of the other great towns in the country. That was perfectly true, but they might depend upon it that if they were to expend upon such a project 100,000 l. a year, they would save ten times that amount in criminal prosecutions and penal expenditure. The next point was, that it would tempt the parents to neglect their children, and to abandon their duty to be performed by the State. He was of a different opinion. In the first place, a very large proportion of those children had no parents at all. He desired the House to observe that fact. In the second place, not a small proportion of them were the children of convicts; and, in the third place, the parents of many of the children were so poor that it was next to impossible they could make any provision at all for them. He would read an extract from the last report published a short time ago by the London City Mission:—
"The poverty of those who avail themselves of the benefits of this institution (Glasshouse-yard) is such, that the average number of articles brought by each washer is less than seven, even when the family apparel is included; and the matron has frequently to lend them dresses to wear while they wash those they take from their backs.

911
Their poverty is indeed such, that Mr. Bowie, a surgeon in the east of London, says, 'I have seen women toiling unremittingly to wash their own and their children's clothing, who had been compelled to sell their hair to purchase food.'"
Now, would they dispose of those children by sending them to the workhouse? Let them consider the result of such an arrangement. The number of children of that class roaming about London exceeded 30,000. The number of children in the unions in England and Wales already amounted to 56,000; and if they added this 30,000 to that number, they would fail in the object they had in view, and throw an intolerable burden on the ratepayers. But suppose they did that; was a workhouse system of education such as would give them more confidence in the success of their undertaking? He was not going to speak disparagingly of the unions, many of them were most excellent, and he was sure that so long as the administration of the poor-law was under the care of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Commission, everything would be done to render the management of all unions as excellent as it could be. But the result of the education at the workhouse, when the children quitted the unions, was most calamitous. Not one in fifty, he believed, occupied that situation in life which they would wish it to occupy, morally or socially. As a proof of that, he would read the following report of the guardians of Marylebone, which appeared in the Times of the 11th of July instant:—
"Hitherto the system of education," says the report, "has been quite unsuccessful, which may be thus demonstrated:—From July, 1840, to July, 1849, 326 female inmates, between the ages of 13 and 20, have been provided with 896 situations from the workhouse, being an average of nearly three situations to each.
"There were 46 who left the school at the age of 13; 103 at 14; 72 at 15; 44 at 16; 18 at 17; 20 at 18; 12 at 19; 11 at 20; Total 326. Of these 89 are now leading abandoned lives; 20 have had illegitimate children that have become chargeable; 37, after having had several situations and outfits, have emigrated; 10 are married; 1 passed; 7 dead; 10 are receiving relief either in or out of the house; 45 are supposed to be in service; 99 nothing certain is known; 8 taken out by friends. Total 326.
"Of the boys, only one class could be traced, namely, those who had been apprenticed to the captains of vessels in the merchant service. From 1843 to the end of 1847, 137 youths, from 15 to 18 years of age, left the workhouse and engaged themselves in the sea service, as above described, and of these 83 returned and became subsequently chargeable."
The fact was, that the workhouse system was, of all, the most ill adapted for train-
912
ing children of that class for the service to which they were to be devoted, and therefore he should hope they would not think of consigning them to the workhouse, with a view to advance their morals, or better their condition. They looked, perhaps, for a remedy in the general amelioration of society: they were right; but they must wait a long time; and meanwhile they had a positive evil of great magnitude to grapple with, and the question was, how they should encounter it? Would they leave those 30,000 children as they were? If they did, they could not be surprised if they grew up in habits of fraud and violence, and became the subjects of the Judges and transportation. Let him describe the hope-loss condition of those children. He had examined several of them. He asked them, did they ever seek for employment? Their answer was, "Repeatedly." But let it be remembered, that they were generally in an utterly filthy condition, covered with vermin, with hardly any clothes to their bodies, wholly unable to read or write, not having, in fact, the least elements of knowledge; and the consequence was, that their application for employment was met with such answers as these: one would say—" How can you ask for employment in this filthy state? go and get new clothes." That was, in fact, a rejection, for the wretched children had no means of getting clothes, and only got their food by picking up scraps, begging, and stealing. Another would ask, "Can you read or write?" The answer was, "No;" and the reply followed, "How can you come here without knowing how to read or write?" But how could the children learn, when they had no school to go to—when they had no opportunity of acquiring the first principles of knowledge, sacred or profane? How, then, obtain a subsistence? The necessary, the inevitable consequence was, that the children were driven to crime and hopeless ruin. He wished the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would tell him how he, as responsible for the peace of the country, would address himself to this evil? How would be, in his high office, attack the mischief? Now, what was their (the ragged school) system? They received the children in the evening, in their rags, and at their own hours. They addressed themselves to their habits, feelings, and propensities, and bent themselves for a while to their irregular habits, until they could bend the children to their better principles; he asserted that, in no

913
one instance, had the parents been induced, by such expectations, to abandon their children. Was the inducement strong enough? Did it exonerate them from the charge? When they took the vagrants into the ragged school, and held out the hope of emigration, it was coupled with these conditions—conditions required of every candidate for emigration from the Government grants, or from any fund under the control of the Chairman of the Ragged School Union:—
"Sound health; regular attendance for at least six months in a ragged school; the ability to write a sentence from dictation; to work the four single rules of arithmetic; to read fluently; to repeat the Lord's prayer, and the Ten Commandments; showing a comprehension of their meaning, and answer a few simple questions on the life of our Saviour. To these must be added a certificate of regular attendance in some industrial class for at least four months, or a competent knowledge of some handicraft, or practical occupation, which would serve as an equivalent for such industrial training."
Now, along with all this, the child must be maintained, and maintained, too, during the process, by its parents or guardians; they must bear their share in effecting the reformation, in preserving the good conduct, in supplying the necessities of the young candidates; and, so far from being tempted to the crime of desertion, they had been oftentimes themselves reformed by the process. And now, Sir, revile the system, and criticise it as they may, these ragged schools have been, and arc, the solo means whereby religious and secular knowledge is imparted to the thousands of a race sunk, whole fathoms deep, in destitution and suffering. This is decidedly the opinion of that intelligent gentleman, Mr. Tufnell, the Government inspector of schools, who was engaged to the young pupils or candidates for emigration. You vote 100,000 l, a year for the purposes of education; you might, so far as these miserables are concerned, vote one hundred pence; they cannot receive any portion of your bounty—they cannot be accommodated to the system of your National and Borough-road schools. What other means exist? We have now 82 schools, full 8,000 children, 124 paid, and 929 voluntary teachers, of whose services I cannot speak with adequate gratitude and respect. In weariness and painfulness, and with every form of self-denial, they surrender themselves, body and soul, to this noble cause, hoping to excite, in others, a kindred sympathy. But they are not successful; the sympathy
914
with the cause is lamentably small, and especially from those who should be the very first in every work of charity and religion. There are, thank God, some glorious exceptions; we owe much to a few active laity, some pious clergy, and a munificent lady, who has, alone, sustained nearly one half of our expenditure. But it is manifest that we must not confide in private benevolence; it has the power, but not the will, to contend with the evil. It is then to the House of Commons that we direct our attention, in the hope that the Legislature will take up the duty that individuals seem to reject. I can hardly appeal to your feelings, because you appear to me to lie under an obligation to consider the case of those desperate sufferers. "Their enemies drive them into the sea, and the sea throws them back upon their enemies;" and yet they are immortal spirits, as precious, body and soul, in the sight of God, as the very best among us in this august assembly. I commit, therefore, the issue to the representatives of the kingdom, believing that they will not gainsay, by their actions, what so many of them profess with their lips, when they pray that "it may please God to defend, and provide for the fatherless children, and all that are desolate and oppressed."
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That it is expedient that means be annually provided for the voluntary emigration to some of Her Majesty's colonies of a certain number of young persons of both sexes, who have been educated in the schools ordinarily called Ragged Schools, in and about the Metropolis."
SIR G. GREYhad no wish to undervalue the importance of these ragged schools, which he had on a former occasion declared to be of great advantage to the interests of society, and which provided the moans of educating a class of the population who had peculiar claims to their attention. Great credit was due to Mr. Sheriff Watson, of Aberdeen, and other individuals who had sot the example which had been followed by the noble Lord. He would not enter into that part of the noble Lord's speech referring to prison discipline, with which the noble Lord could not be so well acquainted as with the ragged schools, or he would not have compared the benefits resulting from the emigration of children belonging to the ragged schools with the results of the prison discipline at Parkhurst and Pentonville—a comparison which had no foundation. The noble Lord said, that the boys from these prisons had relapsed into crime when they were thrown

915
loose upon society. But it was not the fact that these lads were thrown loose upon society. They were all prisoners under sentence of transportation, and they were all sent abroad and enabled to earn an honest living. The youths sent from the ragged schools had, no doubt, expressed themselves in gratifying terms respecting their position in the colonies; but when the noble Lord spoke of the permanent results of Parkhurst and Pentonville, and of the emigration from the ragged schools, he begged to remind the noble Lord that these permanent results had yet to be tested. At the same time, he believed that these lads would be permanently benefited in the greater number of cases, as was however also the case with the lads sent from Parkhurst and Pentonville. He was sorry the noble Lord had held out to the House that the emigration recommended by him would establish any such system as to make it unnecessary to maintain our prisons. He could not recommend the House to adopt the view of his noble Friend, that by a large system of emigration, such as he recommended, any sudden change in society could be produced, or that the House could, by adopting it, anticipate that gradual progress of amelioration which, by other means, was going on in this country. He desired to see ragged schools extended as widely as possible; but when his noble Friend said that "in 1848 there has been an increase of juvenile delinquency; see what prison discipline has done," he (Sir G. Grey) might say, "In 1848 there has been an increase of juvenile delinquency; see what ragged schools have done." It might be advantageous to hold out the prospect of emigration to some of these children; but his noble Friend's Motion went to the removal en masse of a large class of persons that, he said, constituted the nursery of crime. His noble Friend said that the persons for whom emigration was to be provided were not to be considered as having committed crime. But all the instances he had given were those of lads who got their living by crime; and the House should be careful of the danger of establishing a premium upon crime by asking Parliament to pledge itself to make some annual provision for so great a boon to this as distinguished from other classes of society. Last year. Parliament placed a small sum at the disposal of his noble Friend, acting in conjunction with the Emigration Commission; and a letter was addressed by the Under Secre-
916
tary for the Colonies to his noble Friend (Lord Ashley), which he (Sir G. Grey) would read to the House:—
"There are evident reasons why the privilege of a tree passage could not with safety be held out to a greater extent than as a prize to a small number of the most deserving and regular of the children who come to the ragged schools. For the benefit is one which in reality would be most acceptable to vast multitudes of honest parents and children for whom they can find no certain or adequate provision in this country; and to look to emigration on a large scale as a means of entirely removing the class of children who are neglected, would be to hold out a direct stimulus to parents to cast off their children in order to secure for them this great boon. It is only whilst the indulgence is confined in its character to that of a prize conferred upon comparatively few children, that this objection can be escaped. Considerations of a similar nature appear to Her Majesty's Government to show that the measure is not one which could with propriety be made the subject of an annual application to Parliament for a grant out of the public funds. The ragged schools, as your Lordship is aware, have hitherto been entirely supported by the private subscriptions of benevolent individuals; and while the advantage of a gratuitous education is not extended to the children of the working classes generally, it is absolutely necessary that the single exception of a public grant should not be made in favour of those parents who throw aside their children, but that the schools provided for them should preserve their present character of charitable institutions maintained exclusively by voluntary contributions. The same reasons are applicable against asking for a grant of public money from year to year for the benefit of this particular class of children, as distinguished from those who are better taken care of by their parents. The opinion of Her Majesty's Government, therefore, is, that for the future the finding of means to remove to the colonies the most meritorious of the children attending the ragged schools must depend on the same voluntary sources as the other provision for those institutions. But, understanding from your Lordship that probably an inconvenient delay would attend any attempt immediately to raise funds for the purpose by subscription, and that the object could be more easily accomplished after some examples of a successful emigration of the children, the Government is unwilling not to offer some aid towards commencing the experiment."
The sum voted by Parliament last year was 1,500 l.; but, looking to the arguments by which his noble Friend had advocated the removal of what he had described as a dangerous element to society, he found that there were 30,000 children in the metropolis alone, the cost of whose emigration, at 10 l. a head, would be 300,000 l. Then there were 50,000 children in the workhouses, and all that his noble Friend had said of the others applied to them also. He could not advise Parliament to enter upon a plan of emigration which should apply to these classes alone. Their remo-

917
val to the colonies could only be a part of a large and general scheme of emigration, in which other classes of the community should benefit. The children of the metropolis must not only participate in it, but the children of other large towns. He had received communications from Glasgow, complaining that the children there were not admitted to participate in the grant made to the London ragged schools. They would be bound, therefore, to apply the principle equally to all the large towns of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and also to the rural districts. The results of the grant made last year had equalled the expectation of his noble Friend, and now the rest must be loft to the charitable assistance of individual benevolence. The noble Lord denied that the application of the grant would lead parents to neglect their children. But if it should appear that these 30,000 children in London, and those in the large towns, had been supplied with the means of emigration because they were destitute and neglected, he could not conceive any more direct premium upon parents neglecting their children in order that they might gain the benefits of this Parliamentary grant. The value of these ragged schools, and of the emigration of the better conducted children, was becoming so well known, that he was persuaded there would be no difficulty in obtaining from private benevolence the funds necessary for their support. But if Parliament interfered, persons would be deterred from coming forward with their contributions. The noble Lord said that these ragged schools could not obtain any portion of the funds voted by this House for the purposes of education. He (Sir G Grey) was present at a meeting of the committee of Council for settling the conditions on which assistance might be given to the ragged schools; and if the latter could be brought under the rules that parliament had laid down, there would be no indisposition on the part of the Committee of Education to give these schools their fair share of the Parliamentary grant. His noble Friend had asked him how he proposed to clothe and maintion these neglected children, if he opposed the Motion. Now, he was not prepared to answer that question. It was not the duty of Parliament to provide for the maintenance and support of any portion of the population; and it was not by providing a fund for the emigration of a certain class that they would enable people to bring up their children honestly and de-
918
cently. His noble Friend must carry his proposition much further, or he would do great injustice to the parents of those children who, although well brought up, were unable to obtain employment in this country, and who would be too thankful to have them sent abroad at the public expense. He had received a representation from the foreman of the grand jury at York with reference to persons imprisoned for sedition and crimes connected with the state of the country, stating that those prisoners were convinced of the errors and follies of which they had been guilty, and that they dreaded being thrown back upon the society in which they had mixed. The grand jury, therefore, asked him (Sir G. Grey) to supply the funds for the emigration of those persons. Now, no doubt, in some of these individual cases emigration would be beneficial; but he had to ask himself whether it was right that crime should be the stepping-stone by which these persons should attain a boon which many honest and industrious persons who had never committed crime would gladly possess. He had, therefore, replied, that he had no funds at his disposal which would procure the means of emigration for these parties. The House must look at the interests of society as a whole, and he therefore called upon them to oppose the Motion of his noble Friend.
MR. PAGE WOODwas glad the experiment of last year had been made, and yet he did not see his way to any extension of the grant, or to its being voted in perpetuity. He wished the case of orphans in our workhouses could be considered in relation to the same subject. It would be very desirable if any attempt could be made to send them to the colonies. It was obvious what all such propositions as the one before the House would lead to. There would be claims made from the National Schools, from the British and Foreign Schools, and from all schools connected with the Church and with Dissent. Nothing could be more dangerous than for the Government to interfere in such a manner that they should seem not to prop up the honest and industrious, but those of an opposite character. A friend of his, a magistrate in Essex, had told him that a widow in his neighbourhood who was bringing up her son honestly, said, that she was, to her sorrow, frequently tempted to let her poor boy take something, in order that he might be sent to Chelmsford gaol, where tailoring was taught. This showed

919
that there were difficulties connected with the question, and should warn them against being led away too far by their benevolent feelings. He had not objected last year to give a small sum for the aid of these schools. A small gift such as that, operated like the educational grants of the Government in encouraging the voluntary exertions of others; and he should not have complained if a similar amount had been asked for on the present occasion, though he thought it by no means desirable that it should be converted into a constant grant. If any constant grant were made, it should not proceed from the public purse, but from the rates, and under the immediate control of those who contributed to the grant. He thought some little burden thrown on the ratepayers might act as a stimulus in making them look after the wretched condition of the poor children in their districts. With respect to the ragged schools, the noble Lord said that they had not met with that general support which they deserved from those who were able to assist them; but the reason was, because according to the noble Lord's description, the same strict discipline was not maintained in the ragged schools as in the National and British and Foreign Schools. [Lord ASHLEY: No, no!] Why, on a former occasion the noble Lord said, that great temper and management were required in the conduct of these ragged schools, and he praised a schoolmaster, who was tripped up by a scholar and had a severe fall, for affecting to believe that he was tripped up by accident. The great advantage of the ragged schools was, that they had induced persons to look after the necessities of that hopeless and pariah class of children who now attended these schools; and he could not speak in terms of too high praise of the noble Lord and all who had assisted him in inducing them to come to the schools; but when once brought there they ought to be treated like all other children, with gentle kindness, but at the same time they should be subject to wholesome discipline. He should not have said so much if it had not been for his strong desire that the cause which they had at heart—the providing a sound religious education—might not be damaged by a wrong step. Voluntary exertions derived a stimulus from a slight State favour; but the moment the proper limit was over-reached those exertions became paralysed.
LORD ASHLEYshortly replied. He denied that he had spoken disparagingly
920
either of the discipline, or its effects, of the Parkhurst or Pentonville establishments. On the contrary, he had expressly stated that these institutions had produced great reformatory effects; but they had produced these effects only in those cases in which work was provided for their discharged inmates in this country or in the colonies—not in the cases where the convict at the close of his period of imprisonment was thrown upon the world again to re-fight the great battle of life. He had to complain of the statement made by the hon. Member for the city of Oxford, who had just sat down, which was in fact quite a perversion of what he (Lord Ashley) had wished to convey. He had never praised the ragged schools because no discipline was maintained in them. What he had said was, that at the outset the habits of the children were so wild and lawless, that no discipline could be preserved, for, say the first fortnight or three weeks. But he had added, that the general result was, that the children were soon tamed down, and brought under regular habits of discipline; and he could answer for it that, in a vast majority of cases, the scholars of ragged schools were as orderly, as attentive, and as much attached to their masters as were the pupils of 19–20ths of the British and Foreign or the Borough-road schools. As he saw that there was a strong feeling in the House against the proposition which he had submitted to them, he felt that it would be indecorous in him to press it to a division; and he would, therefore, without further trespassing on the time of the House, at once withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BRITISH GUIANA.
SIR HUMErose to move the resolutions of which he had given notice with respect to the colonies of British Guiana. At the hour at which he rose, and in the thin House which he addressed, he would not attempt to go into the question fully, but would content himself with laying down those principles on which, in his opinion, the House ought to act in furtherance of the great object of rendering the colonies of this kingdom satisfied with and benefited by their connexion with the mother country. Such, however, had been the course pursued, that we had not only rendered many of these colonies a burden to the country, but had interfered with their natural advancement, while as to those colo-

921
nies in the western hemisphere, which we had so much prided ourselves on possessing, they had actually been reduced by us to a state of ruin and beggary. The object of his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire, in moving for the Committee which had sat upon the subject, was to bring before the House the condition of two particular colonies, which he (Mr. Hume) believed to have suffered from a degree of misgovernment which had brought ruin on the colonies themselves, and disgrace on the mother country. It was with that view that he had seconded the Motion. The Committee proceeded to inquire into the state of that colony. By a large blue book, which had been produced, it would appear that they had availed themselves of documents furnished by the Colonial Office, but which, he was of opinion, taken in connexion with the absence of parties from the spot to substantiate the case, were insufficient for the purpose. In that Committee there had not been that assistance rendered which there would have been had parties conversant with the grievances complained of been present. Owing to the absence of such parties, the investigation had necessarily been unsatisfactory. The Committee had nevertheless made a report, and it was because he disagreed with the conclusions which it contained, that he was anxious to bring the case under the notice of Parliament. He complained that that report was inconsistent with the facts; but, as it was the report of the majority, the House was bound to receive it. What he should have liked would have been a distinct decision with respect to the conduct of the colonists and the Colonial Government; but he could only characterise the report as a half-and-half report, meagre in its conclusions, and hardly entitled to be called a report at all. As it presented the most urgent case for investigation, the Committee had proceeded with Guiana instead of Ceylon. It was said at the time that the supplies for the colonies had been stopped, and that the Colonial Cabinet and their House of Commons were at variance with each other. It would have been in the power of the Government to have taken a wiser course between December, 1847, and the present time, than to have allowed the Colonial Office and the colonists to have remained in a state of wanton antagonism and opposition with each other; but the decision which had been arrived at was inconsistent with both law and fact—a circumstance which he could only account for
922
on the supposition of unwillingness to come to a positive decision on the subject. The Committee, in their report, stated that on a review of the circumstances of the case referred to them, they were of opinion that the Crown was entitled to insist on an adherence to the civil list, drawn up in pursuance of an arrangement in 1844, for the full period for which it had been granted; and they thought that no attempt, direct or indirect, to set that arrangement aside could be justified. At no remote period, they said, that list would be open to review; and the Committee recommended that when vacancies occurred they should not be filled up pending the settlement of the matter in dispute. The only other paragraph of the report to which he would refer, was the one in which the Committee stated, that whilst they refrained from offering any opinion on the subject of constitutional reforms, they suggested that any changes with respect to British Guiana should be effected in friendly concert with the colonial authorities, and that a greater control over public affairs should be conceded to the legislature of the colony. The first point to which he would address himself was with respect to the reductions in the civil list. Were the colonists justified in making the reduction in the civil list in the altered commercial circumstances which surrounded them? Now the Act of 1846, which reduced the price of their commodities to so low a point, that in this country they sold below prime cost, was the cause assigned by the colonists for their ruin, and supplied a reason for reduction in the expenditure of the colony. Earl Grey, as the head of the Colonial Department, contrary to both reason and law, refused the request of the colonists. He (Mr. Hume) therefore, arraigned the conduct of the Government with respect to this question of the civil list, as not only being deficient in prudence, but as being positively illegal. First, with respect to the legal part of the question. A similar occurrence had taken place in 1840 and 1841. The colony of Demerara was governed by a Governor and two courts—one a Court of Policy, consisting of five elected members and five official members; the other consisting of the whole Court of Policy, and five or six other elected members, forming a Combined Court. In the Court of Policy the Governor presided, and in pursuance of the eiders of Earl Grey the official members were always to vote with the Governor, so that there were five votes with him, and five with the elect-

923
ed members. The Governor had a double vote, so that in every question brought forward by the Government the Governor had a casting vote. But the Court of Policy had no power to provide or to pay the money; and they were obliged to have recourse to the Combined Court, which consisted more of elected than of official members, and in which the colonists had a majority. The Combined Court was like our own House of Commons. The estimates for 1848, brought in December, 1847, were opposed by the elected members as being too large. They made a powerful appeal to the Government to be allowed to prepare to avert that ruin which they stated they saw impending, by being allowed to reduce all salaries above 700 dollars 25 per cent. They requested the sanction of Earl Grey to the proposal, which they deemed a prudent and a wise one. Earl Grey returned a decided answer, that he would not allow the reduction in the civil list to take place, but that the court might make all and any other reductions in the expenses of the colonies they pleased. True, the civil list was then only 30,000 l.; but the colonists never for a moment doubted that Earl Grey would refuse their proposition. The arrival of the answer of Earl Grey was expected. Governor Light promised to postpone the estimates until the 15th of May, in order to give time for the reception of the reply; but notwithstanding that the arrangement was made an order of the day, on the 11th of April Governor Light brought in the estimates, and by his casting vote in the Court of Policy succeeded in carrying them at the original rate fixed. Now he (Mr. Hume) first complained of a breach of faith in Governor Light in hurrying on the estimates after the promise he had given; but when the answer of Earl Grey arrived, lie declared that no reductions should take place, alleging the bargains which had been made, and stated that until 1854 no such reductions would be considered. On referring to the report of the Committee it would be seen that the Colonial Office had acted in this matter with heartlessness and obstinacy. Earl Grey having directed that the whole of the supplies should be collected, and not a portion of them. The supplies were stopped in consequence, Parliament was blocked up, and the colonists and the Colonial Office had been in a state of antagonism ever since. Now, Earl Grey had no objection to Lord Harris making such reductions in Trinidad as he
924
might think fit; and the colonists of Demerara, believing themselves to be in the same category with respect to the depreciation of their produce, felt that injustice was done in the refusal to grant them the same privilege. It would appear, from the conduct of the Government in this affair, that the Colonial Office could not be induced to contemplate the dreadful state of that colony by allowing the inhabitants to make the desired reductions in their civil list. In 1841, when a similar occurrence took place, and the supplies for the civil list were stopped, the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, finding himself at a loss what course to pursue, and being ignorant of the law on the question, directed Mr. (now Sir James) Stephen, a gentleman of great research and ability, to draw out a case for the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, who were then Dr. Dodson, Sir Thomas Wilde, and Sir John (now Lord) Campbell. These gentlemen gave clear and distinct answers to the questions submitted to them. It was rather singular that in 1840 the same means were had recourse to as recently. When the Governor found that the Combined Court would not pay the civil list in 1840, the Court of Policy carried an ordinance granting the continuance of the civil list. The ordinance came home to England, and the noble Lord then at the head of the Colonial department directed the law officers of the Crown to say whether it was valid or not. The answer to this question was, that the ordinance would be useless, unless the Combined Court supplied the money. The Combined Court did not do that, and Sir Henry M'Leod proceeded to British Guiana, in order, if possible, to settle the dispute between the Governor, the Court of Policy, and the Combined Court. Sir Henry M'Leod carried out the opinion of the law officers of the Crown as a guide to him in his operations. The opinion of the law officers was clear. The Crown had no control over revenue, except over a capitation tax on slaves. The question then came, how was the money to be provided? The answer given was clear. As, since the acquisition of the colony to the period of giving the opinion, the Court of Policy was declared to have the power to fix the estimates, and the Combined Court to provide the ways and moans and vote the money, if the Combined Court refused to vote the money, the only means of getting

925
redress was to come to the Imperial Parliament. Now, the colony at this moment had come to the very point he had described. The Combined Court had refused to vote the money, and a dispute difficult of settlement had arisen. In 1840 the elected Members had been induced to agree to the civil list on the understanding that they were to have the advantage to be derived from the immigration of labour. Matters continued in this state until 1844, when the Government sought an extension of the civil list, which would have expired in 1847. The colonists complained that the promises of the Government had been broken. They said that certain vagrant laws had not been passed according to promise, and that many other facilities for the improvement of the colony (which they had been led to expect) had been denied them. In 1844 they said they had the protection of the English market, which they thought would have been continued to them. Certainly it was singular that after the abolition of slavery the Government should have attempted to raise the civil list. With respect to protection, he had not complained of its withdrawal from the colony, although he had urged that its operation should have been gradual, and that the colonists should have been enabled to obtain labour necessary to the cultivation of the soil. The treatment of the colony, however, had been heartless and severe; and the refusal of reduction by the noble Earl at the head of the Colonial department, was culpable in the highest degree. What was the noble Earl's ground of defence? The noble Earl said the colonists agreed to continue payment of the civil list till 1854. They did; but on the arrival of the immigration ordinance, passed at the same time, in England, it was rejected. The consequence was another ordinance, which never received the sanction of the Combined Court. The noble Earl also contended that it would be wrong to make any reduction in salaries granted on certain conditions, and for a certain time; but the colonists insisted that the legal ordinance only extended to 1847. The now ordinance passed in 1844 was not a legal ordinance. On Governor Walker succeeding Governor Light he summoned the Combined Court, and their first vote was a reduction in the civil list from 39,000 l. to 26,000 l. The Governor objected to the reductions, but the vote passed in due form. After this had been done. Governor Walker sus-
926
pended the Combined Court, and it remained suspended until the arrival of Mr. Barkly. It was not supposed that Mr. Barkly was furnished with any definite instructions. The manner of that gentleman's reception must have been very gratifying; and he was looked upon by the colonists as a friend who would settle all their differences. Governor Walker willingly received supplies for three months; but after the receipt of Earl Grey's letter, he said that for the future he could only accept as a whole. Matters remained in this situation until Mr. Barkly arrived. From his speech it did not appear whether he had received any instructions or not. Under Governor Barkly the colonial legislature proceeded to the other votes; and they went through them, to what extent he did not know, because the Government refused to lay the information on the table, although he had repeatedly asked for information, and given notice of his Motion several weeks ago; and he could only suppose they were afraid to lay the documents on the table for fear of giving information. But, speaking from the reports in the papers sent home from the colony, it appeared that one of the elected members asked Governor Barkly, the supplies being stopped, how he was paying the salaries, and where he got the money from? There was money in the chest, and the elected members, believing that the Governor had applied that without their authority, declared that he was acting illegally and unconstitutionally, and wished to enter their protest against the proceeding. The Governor would not allow them to protest, nor permit the discussion to go on, but shut the door, and the colonists again complained that he 'was adding insult to injustice, not even allowing them to discuss the matter in the Combined Court. They therefore complained, and had sent home the petition that had been presented, setting forth their grievances; and in this extraordinary state matters had gone on up to the 12th of May, since which he was not sure that he had any later accounts. He had read to the House tin; opinion of the Committee, all the witnesses examined before which recommended a reform in the constitution of that colony. The colonists wished to do away with the old Dutch practice, and to have a representative body, with a responsible government, and the Committee recommended that a change should be made consistent with the feelings of the colony. Governor Barkly, finding

927
himself unable to obtain the votes in the Combined Court, shut it up, and the supplies being all stopped no money was collected except from the customs, and by the revival of an old Act for raising money which had been protested against as illegal. But how these funds were expended no account was given; and Governor Barkly, after the insult and injustice he had inflicted on the colonists, brought in an ordinance by which he sought to reform the Court of Policy by extending the suffrage. He (Mr. Hume) had no objection to an extension of the suffrage; but the object of the Governor was evidently to obtain a majority of the elected members, in order to carry out and obtain a sanction to his estimates, which had hitherto been unpaid and unvoted since December, 1847. The colonists complained that the reasons assigned by the Governor were altogether groundless. The Governor said that the right of suffrage depended, under the ordinance—and this was an important point—on the payment of a certain tax, and that the colonial legislature not voting any supplies, consequently those entitled to vote on account of the payment of the money had no claim. Therefore he (the Governor) would bring in a now Bill to alter the suffrage, so as to secure what he no doubt thought would be a body of men elected who would support his own views. Now, the colonists had an answer to make to this; but the Committee had refused to consider this point. He (Mr. Hume) laid before the Committee a paper sent home along with the petition of the colonists, and the lawyers in the colony stated that the law of the case was this—on the 1st of January every year the public officer called for a list of the parties who assessed themselves to the amount required, and they said it was not necessary that payment should take place to entitle them to the suffrage, because from the day that the register and the assessment was made, they were able to vote and had voted, and consequently that payment was out of the question, being merely a pretence got up for interfering with the colonists' old-established privileges. Well, in that enviable state of confusion the colony remained at present, beginning with the dispute about the civil list, whether the colonists should be allowed to reduce all salaries above 700 dollars 25 per cent. It was found that the ordinance sanctioning the civil list was not legal, not having received the sanction of the Combined Court; and that it ought
928
not to have been carried on, as the Combined Court alone had the sole power to hold the purse-strings of the colony, and a single shilling could not be voted without their sanction. Nevertheless, Governor Barkly continued to pay the officers altogether illegally and unconstitutionally; and now sought to carry out a reform that he believed would obtain for him an obedient set of men, as elected members of the Court of Policy. Now, the elected members did not complain of this change. They only wished it to be made complete. They wished to got rid of their present institutions, to substitute real electoral ones in their place. They said, "Let the qualification be placed as high as they liked; only, it should be duly considered and carried out with their sanction and consent." On the whole, it seemed that the Government, being powerful, were determined to maintain their power, because they possessed it at present, whether they were right or wrong; and that the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial department would not yield in a matter of mere etiquette, and allow the least consideration either to law or justice, which appeared to have been violated; and on that ground he (Mr. Hume) thought it time for the House to declare the opinion which he had endeavoured to embody in his resolutions. When before the Committee, Sir H. Light was asked—
"Am I to understand you to state that for the ten years you were in the colony, and for ten years before that, the colonists have always been at variance with the Government?—Yes, always. In the time of Sir Benjamin D'Urban the supplies were stopped for two years, though the King's chest sufficed in some degree to pay some of the officers. During the ten years you were in the colony you have stated that the principal objection arose to you when the abolition of the apprenticeship was proposed?—Yes. After that, what was the next point of difference, or were there any other points of difference between the colonists and yourself?—I think the chief thing was with respect to immigration; not giving them the number of immigrants they wished, but only proposing a certain number of immigrants: I have no idea why they disliked me in fact."
So that it was quite the fact, that from the moment Sir H. Light arrived, up to the time at which he left, there existed this continual antagonism between the Government and the colonists; and the same ruinous state of things was still suffered to continue. The colonists had long complained of their protection being taken away from them contrary to good faith; and they had calld his at tention to the fact, that when the noble Lord, now the

929
Premier, formerly proposed certain alterations in the sugar duties, Lord Sandon (now Earl of Harrowby) proposed an Amendment that was very important, as showing the animus of the House at the time, and how likely it was to lead the colonists to believe that the arrangement was to be permanent. He would not then say anything as to his own views of the merits of the question; he had simply, at the request of the petitioners, to call attention to a matter of fact. Lord Sandon's Amendment, then, was to the effect that, considering the efforts and sacrifices that Parliament and the country had made for the abolition of the slave trade, in the earnest hope that our exertions and example might lead to its mitigation and final extinction by other countries, that House was not prepared, especially with the pro-sent prospect of the supply of sugar from the British possessions, to adopt measures for the reduction of the duties. An hon. Baronet who sat near him (Mr. Hume) seconded this Amendment, stating that he considered it the best way of dealing with a proposal that involved the ruin of most valuable possessions, and a disregard of the sacred duties of humanity. The Amendment was carried by 317 to 281, being a majority of 36 against any alteration of the sugar duties; and the colonists wished him (Mr. Hume) to state that when they assented to so large a civil establishment, they did so on the understanding and with the perfect confidence that they would be secured the continuance of the advantages they then enjoyed with respect to protection on their sugar. It was only duo to a colony, situated at a great distance, 28 estates in which, according to the last mail, had been abandoned, 24 more having passed into the hands of the receiver, in addition to 24 others which appeared in the appendix of the report—it was only justice toward" a distant colony, placed in such circumstances of distress, that he should lay these things before the House. After the sudden change in our commercial legislation, to refuse to allow the colonists to make such reductions in their expenditure as would enable them to meet the requirements of their altered position, be thought a most heartless and reckless course of procedure, and one without the least consideration for the feelings of the colonists. On that ground he brought forward this Motion, and he was sorry the House was not fuller, as he was anxious, at any rate, to have an expression
930
of the feeling of the House at large on this important question. He was sorry that it had been delayed so long, but he was not personally answerable for that. He thought he had now stated in brief all the leading circumstances of the case of this unfortunate colony, which was admitted by Sir H. Light to be in a state of utter ruin—all the planters being ruined; and yet the Government obstinately persisted in keeping up a state of things which they could easily prevent. He had shown that the ordinance which Earl Grey wished to maintain regarding the civil list, was illegal and worthless in the opinion of the law officers of the Crown; and he had also shown that the plea that the salaries of existing officers might not be reduced had no pretence for a foundation, for the salaries were only secured to the end of 1847, not a single officer having taken office subject to a new appointment. On all those grounds, then, it appeared to him the House was called upon to affirm as its opinion the resolutions which he had now to move. His object was to induce the House to say that the Colonial Office should not interfere to prevent the colonists from making reductions in their expenditure if they thought fit; but that the colony should be placed in the situation which Canada occupied, having responsible officers appointed by the people, and having the means of knowing on the spot what were the capabilities and wants of the colony, and being allowed to administer to these wants as the Canadians possessed the power of doing. In Canada he believed that peace, good order, and prosperity would be the consequence of the responsible government. The Houses of Parliament there were now acting in perfect unison with the Governor, and everything was now proceeding with the utmost harmony; whereas in the unfortunate colony now under consideration, for twenty years a pernicious and ruinous state of disunion and antagonism between the constituted authorities bad prevailed.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That it appears by the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on British Guiana, that that Government has been carried on for the last ten years in opposition to the expressed views and opinions of the Elective Members of the Colonial Legislature, and that the supplies are now stopped in the Colony by continued opposition, to the great injury of the Colony:
"That this House is of opinion, that the time has arrived when the Public Expenditure of the Colony should be reduced as desired by the Colonists; and also for the establishment of a respon-

931
sible Local Government, which should have full power to decide on the extent and nature of their establishments, and to provide the means for paying the same."
MR. BAILLIEsaid, that notwithstanding the late period of the Session, when so many Members were out of town, and when, therefore, it was impossible to obtain a fair expression of the opinion of Parliament upon any subject—notwithstanding this disadvantage, his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose had considered it his duty to bring under the notice of the House the report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the grievances of British Guiana; and he did so on two grounds: first, because the inhabitants of that colony, confiding in the justice of the House of Commons, had expressed a desire that the dispute which had so long existed between the Colonial Office and the Legislature of that colony should be decided by the Imperial Parliament; and, secondly, because, having had the misfortune to differ in opinion from the majority of the Committee with respect to the nature of the report which, in accordance with the evidence, it was the duty of the Committee to submit to the House, he thought it would be but just and reasonable that the whole case should be fairly stated, and laid before that tribunal to which the inhabitants themselves had expressed a desire that it should be referred. His hon. Friend was of opinion—and he (Mr. Baillie) confessed he entirely agreed with him—that the Committee had omitted to notice in their report some of the most important points of the evidence that was laid before them. He begged the House to mark this, that if a Committee of that House were appointed to inquire into certain evils and grievances alleged by a colony, and omitted to notice in their report those evils and grievances which were stated to exist in the general practice and administration of the Colonial Office, the House had naturally a right to assume that the silence of the Committee upon those points was a tacit approval of the course of policy which had hitherto been pursued; and the result Would be that no amelioration—no improvement of any kind would take place either in the government of that colony, or in any other colony similarly situated, and placed under a similar system. He was, therefore, on behalf not only of British Guiana, but of all other colonies, that he begged leave to call the attention of the House to just those points of the evidence
932
which had been omitted to be noticed by the Committee. Those hon. Members who had read the evidence must be aware that the Government of British Guiana was one of those which was lately described by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies as a sort of preparatory school for constitutional government; that was to say, colonies with nominally a constitutional government, but which the Colonial Office had gone on to treat like children, depriving them of all real power in the management of their own affairs. For example, in British Guiana the Court of Policy had the supreme legislative authority, but it was in reality entirely under the control of the Governor. The Combined Court had the power to regulate the financial affairs of the colony; but this power had been set aside by the right assumed by the Governor, first of all by placing his veto on any measure introduced into the Court, and thereby putting down all discussion upon it; and, secondly, by adjourning the Court sine die when the Court differed from him. It was indisputable that when the Governor assumed such powers, and was supported in that assumption by the Home Government, the liberties of the subject were in fact placed entirely in his hands; and the colonists could exercise no power whatever. It was against this assumed authority exercised by the present and by the late Governor, that the inhabitants of British Guiana had been contending. By the exercise of the power assumed to adjourn the Court sine die, the colony had been left nearly twelve months without any revenue, to the great injury of the colonists, who were thus deprived of all resource. The Government had threatened to remove from them the protection of Her Majesty's troops; and it had been notified to them by the Governor that he should be under the necessity of disbanding the police force, and the other establishments of the colony. And thus it had in effect been notified to these colonists in terms not to be mistaken, that unless they were disposed to submit to whatever should be dictated to them, they would be handed over to the idle and disorderly black population of the colony, whom the Governor had described as having lately become very much demoralised, and had stated that crimes of all descriptions were upon the increase. Such were the means which the Government had resorted to in order to deprive the inhabitants of this colony of the free exercise of those rights

933
and privileges which their constitution intended they should enjoy—rights and privileges which the law officers of this Grown had pronounced that they had a right to enjoy—privileges which were secured to them by the articles of capitulation when the colony became ours. The first witness examined before the Committee was a gentleman who, for the last ten years, had been the Governor of the colony. The Committee were aware that Sir Henry Light enjoyed a high official reputation at the Colonial Office. He was deemed to be the model of a colonial governor by that department. He was described in an official document as a man of very great ability and of extraordinary vigilance and activity. The Committee was aware that he had had conferred upon him the distinguished honour of the Order of the Bath, which was notified to him by the Secretary of State in the most flattering terms. He (Mr. Baillie) mentioned these circumstances in order that the House should understand how much he appreciated the importance of the evidence given before the Committee by that gentleman. Sir H. Light informed the Committee that for the 10 years during which he administered the affairs of British Guiana, he had governed it contrary to the expressed views and opinions of all the elective members of the legislature; and he said that such a course had been sanctioned by precedent, and it was the only rational mode of dealing with the parties. He (Mr. Baillie) confessed that when he heard the evidence of Sir H. Light, it appeared to him that that gentleman had justified all the resistance which had been offered by the inhabitants of the colony. He could not conceive a greater indignity or a grosser insult offered to a body of Englishmen than that they should be deprived of the exercise of the rights and privileges which their constitution conferred upon them, by the assumptions, arts, and trickery of the Government. He (Mr. Baillie) had thought this to be so important a point that he submitted to the Committee a resolution very similar to the first resolution which the hon. Member for Montrose had on the present occasion proposed for adoption. The Committee, however, did not think fit to entertain it, or to pronounce any opinion upon the subject. There was another grievance of which the inhabitants of this colony had just reason to complain in regard to the conduct of the Governor. The Governor, in spite of the most urgent remon-
934
strances on the part of the colonists, refused to allow any law to pass for the regulation of labour, or for the prevention of paupers and squatters, or permit any contract for labour for a longer period than thirty days, under the pretext that it would be contrary to the liberty of the subject, the Governor being apparently ignorant that in every civilised country in the world such contracts existed. In Scotland no farm labourer was employed for a period of less than six months. In consequence of this refusal, the inhabitants met and passed certain rules and regulations, to which they bound themselves to adhere. These were laid before the Committee; and they were perfectly fair, just, and reasonable, and such as no English labourer would for a moment have objected to. But they were objected to by the negroes, and a general strike took place throughout the colony. A deputation on the part of the blacks waited on the Governor to ask his opinion; he denounced the resolutions, and told the negroes that they were not bound to observe them, and instructed the police magistrates not to enforce them. The result was, that, supported as the negroes were by so great an authority, the planters were obliged to succumb, and he was warranted in asserting that the ruin and misery which had fallen upon that colony was mainly owing to the conduct thus pursued on the part of the Governor. He now came to the question of the civil list; but before he entered upon that topic, he begged the House to bear in mind two points: first, the express reason assigned by Governor Light, in the year 1839, for the great increase in the civil list; and, secondly, the mode, manner, and circumstances under which that increased civil list was ultimately obtained. In 1839, Governor Light wrote a despatch to the Colonial Office, and requested that his salary might be increased from 3,500 l. to 6,000 l, and also an increase of the salaries of the other officers of the colony; and he placed this demand upon these grounds—first, the great and increasing prosperity of the colony, which would fully justify increased burdens being put upon it; and, secondly, the high prices of all the necessaries of life in British Guiana, as compared with the prices in the island of Antigua, of which he had previously been the governor. This despatch was favourably received at the Colonial Office, and Governor Light was instructed that

935
he might make a demand for an increased salary and an increased civil list from the Court of Policy. But when he made that proposition in the Court of Policy, it was violently objected to by the colonists; and the present chief justice of the colony designated the demand as being most unjust, and if granted would be extremely onerous upon the colonists. A resolution was passed to that effect. The consequence was, the Court refused the proposition, and the increased civil list was stopped. In passing that resolution, the Court of Policy acted only as they had a right to act—for no one disputed that right; but because they did so act. Governor Light adjourned the court sine die, whereby 60,000 dollars were lost to the colony. Under these circumstances, the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies, sent the governor of a neighbouring colony in order to allay the disputes between the colonists and the Governor. Now, about this time, a general feeling prevailed that immigration alone would save the colony from ruin. The Government at homo being aware of this feeling, instructed Sir H. Macleod that he might tell the Court of Policy that if they would grant a civil list, they should have an immigration ordinance; but that if they refused to grant a civil list, no immigration ordinance should be issued. That was expressly stated in evidence by Governor Light, who said it was a bribe held out to the colonists, by means of which they hoped to obtain a civil list as large as was necessary. [Mr. HAWES: Where was that evidence?] Do do you dispute it? [Mr. HAWES: Yes.] It is in the evidence, and I will produce it presently. Well, the result was that Sir H. Macleod was enabled to pass in an instant a civil list, and the Government passed an immigration ordinance. But when the necessary document for raising an immigration loan on the credit of the colony was presented at the Colonial Office, it was rejected, and so the matter remained for four years. In 1844 the Colonial Office at length consented to sanction the loan, upon condition that the colony granted the civil list for an additional period of seven years; and thus the Crown obtained a civil list to be voted for fourteen years instead of seven. He confessed he was one of those who thought it was most dishonourable conduct on the part of the Government thus
936
to stipulate with the colonists for a civil list. If the Government considered that immigration was a measure calculated for the well-being of the colony, they ought to have granted it without stipulating for increased pay to the public servants. Therefore, he proposed a resolution to the Committee to that effect; but it was not adopted by the Committee. He now came to the close of the year 1847, when, in consequence of the reduced price of colonial produce, certain resolutions were agreed to in the Court of Policy, setting forth that on account of the distress and the exhausted state of the resources of the colony it had become a matter of necessity that an extensive reduction should be carried out in every branch of the annual expenditure; and they authorised a reduction to the extent of one-fourth. A Motion founded on these resolutions was sent to Earl Grey. He would not weary the House by going into details. Suffice it to say, that the proposition was rejected by Earl Grey, on the ground that he conceived the faith of the Crown and the colony was pledged to the public servants for the maintenance of the civil list for a certain period, and that for that period it must be maintained. Now the Colonial Office appeared not to have remembered that the first reason advanced by Sir H. Light in 1839, in order to obtain an increase of the civil list, namely, the increasing prosperity of the colony, was altogether illusory and without foundation; and that the second reason, namely, the great increase in the cost of living, no longer existed, it having been proved before the Committee that the prices of provisions at this moment were lower than they were in Antigua at the time to which Sir H. Light's comparison referred. The Colonial Office also appeared not to have reflected that they had allowed the Governor of Trinidad to reduce the salaries of the public officers in a greater proportion than was asked for in British Guiana; for while in British Guiana the proposed reduction was only 25 per cent. the Governor of Trinidad reduced the salaries 33 per cent—notwithstanding that in Trinidad the rate of taxation was not more than 20 s. per head, whereas in British Guiana it was about 40 s. There could not be a doubt that the bitter feelings engendered in this dispute were greatly increased by the manner in which the appeal of the Combined Court was rejected by Earl Grey, as well as by the statement which he made about the same period to

937
the House of Lords with respect to the prosperous condition of the colony. Hon. Members who had read the evidence taken before the Committee must be aware that the statement of Earl Grey to the House of Lords with respect to the colony created great excitement in the colonial legislature, and that an animated discussion took place on the subject. The Governor was asked whether he had furnished the information contained in Earl Grey's statement, and he replied that he had not; and more-over that he always furnished Earl Grey with correct information, as it was his duty to do, with respect to every thing that took place in the colony. The statement of Earl Grey to which he referred was as follows:—
"He had also seen it stated in the local newspapers, that on the east coast of Demerara, where a contemplated reduction of 25 per cent in wages had taken place, it had been met cheerfully and in perfect good humour by the negroes, who would submit to the reduction of wages when they saw it was necessary; but who, when they saw the planters anxiously competing for their labour, would endeavour to get the last farthing they could obtain. The consequence of that reduction was, that at once, and without the expense of immigration, the colony obtained the advantage of an increase of one-fourth to its working population. If that were the case, would any man tell him that the system of protection was to the advantage of the planter? He (Earl Grey) held, on the contrary, that if protection were admissible on the grounds of the general interests of the country, it would be for the interest of the planter himself that we should adhere to the wise determination which Parliament came to in 1846."
Now, the colonists were naturally indignant at this statement, when they knew that there was not one single word of truth in it. Indeed, it was proved in the Committee, that at the very time Earl Grey made that statement, he had a despatch from the Governor of British Guiana four days in his possession, which despatch arrived by the same packet as the newspaper he had quoted, and informed him that as matters then stood in the colony, half the estates would be thrown out of cultivation, unless the prices of labour were reduced. That despatch also contained an enclosure respecting a tour of the Colonial Secretary, for the purpose of inducing the labourers to return to their work, but which did not specify a single instance of success. When this subject was last discussed in that House, he (Mr. Baillie) was accused of using harsh language in speaking of Earl Grey with reference to the statement he had made to the House of Lords. He therefore felt himself called upon before the
938
Committee to justify the language he then used. He told the Committee that if in their opinion his charge against Earl Grey was not clearly and fairly proved, he hoped, in justice to Earl Grey, they would pass a resolution to that effect; but if in their opinion the charge was fairly proved, he trusted they would, in justice to him, pass the following resolution, which he had prepared:—
"That additional difficulties in the arrangement of this dispute have been engendered by the statements made by Earl Grey on the 8th of February, 1848, announcing to Parliament, on the authority of a colonial newspaper, that the most satisfactory arrangements as to labour actually existed in British Guiana between the employers and the employed; it having been proved to your Committee that Earl Grey was at that very time in possession of despatches which had arrived by the same packet as the newspaper in question from the Governor of the colony (of which, however, be made no mention) stating that, as matters stood on the 31st of December, 1847, half the estates of the colony must go out of cultivation."
Upon that resolution the Committee declined to express any opinion, although it must be admitted it contained a grave charge against the Secretary of State. He invited the Committee to state whether in their opinion the charge was true; and not a single Member ventured to say that he did not believe it to be true. In fact, no person answered him when he made his statement. He had, therefore, felt it to be his duty to bring the case before the House. He asked the House what would be their feelings if a Member of the Government—say the Secretary of State for the Home Department—were to receive a despateh from the Poor Law commissioners for Ireland, informing him that in the union of Castlebar there had been 8,000 deaths from famine; and if, after receiving that despatch, a debate should take place on the subject, and the right hon. Gentleman should get up and say that he had received a most satisfactory communication with respect to the state of Ireland; that he had just seen a copy of a Castlebar newspaper, in which he had found a paragraph stating, that in consequence of the success of their free-trade measures, famine had been banished from the country, that provisions were abundant, and that the poor were all well fed, at little cost to the proprietors of the soil—if the Secretary of State for the Home Department were, under such circumstances, to make such a statement to the House, what would be the feelings and opinions of hon. Members on the subject? Would

939
they think that confidence should be any longer placed in such a Minister, or that he should continue to be intrusted with the lives and fortunes of Her Majesty's subjects? And yet the case he had stated to the House with regard to the Secretary of State for the Colonies was exactly parallel—the only difference being, that in the case of Ireland the people were represented in that House, whereas, in the other case, the people were inhabitants of a distant colony who were not represented at all. He said before, that the Committee refused to adopt his resolutions. Indeed, they rejected both the resolutions which he proposed, and the resolutions which were proposed by the Under Secretary for the Colonies. [Mr. HAWES: My resolutions were never proposed at all.] He (Mr. Baillie) believed that they were submitted and afterwards withdrawn. By way, he supposed, of getting out of the difficulty in which the Committee were placed, one Member proposed to adopt the resolutions of Sir R. Peel, even before they were drawn up. The Committee, however, did not listen to that proposal, and the resolutions were fairly laid before the Committee before they were adopted. He begged to remind the House that the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose was of deep importance to the interests of the colony; it involved the question of self-government; the question whether the colonists should in future be allowed to manage their own financial affairs, or whether the Colonial Office should be allowed to interfere as heretofore, and not only dictate to them on that subject, but actually use their great and powerful influence in order to compel their acquiescence. England had of late rendered her name odious by her conduct in foreign affairs in almost every country of Europe. She had exhibited an arrogant desire to interfere and dictate in the internal affairs of the weaker and less powerful countries of Europe; whilst, at the same time, she exhibited an anxious desire not to take offence from the powerful and the strong. Witness her conduct with regard to Spain, Portugal, and Naples, and her conduct with respect to France, Prussia, and the United States. He begged the Government not to teach the colonies that they were acting a similar part in their dealings with them; that they had been compelled to grant to the threats of the people of Canada—the powerful and the strong—the enjoyment of those rights and privileges which they re-
940
fused to the prayers and remonstrances of the humble and the weak; and that if they—the colonists—would obtain redress for the evils which they laboured under, they could not hope to obtain their object by an appeal to the justice of the House of Commons, as in this instance, but by an appeal to arms, as in the case of Canada,
MR. HAWESsaid, he was relieved from the necessity of going at great length or much detail into the question which the hon. Member for Montrose had brought before the House, because he and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire had had an opportunity of bringing all those charges and complaints before a Committee of that House, to the appointment of which the Government offered no opposition in any respect—to which every facility was offered by them, and every possible document calculated to aid them, in the possession of the Colonial Office, freely and spontaneously given. Having made these charges and complaints—none of them conceived in a spirit of much charity—they found themselves in a minority in the Committee; and when they found that to be the case, they thought it necessary to obtain the opinion of the House in opposition to the report of the Committee. If the case was to rest entirely on the statements of the hon. Member for Montrose and of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, he (Mr. Hawes) might be apprehensive of the result; but statements so void of accuracy and so little calculated to give the House correct information, it had not been his fortune often to hear. After they had sat for months on the Committee, and had heard all the evidence, they seemed to have left it with precisely the same opinions, and not to have imbibed a particle of information from the inquiry. Had either hon. Gentlemen stated the origin of the dispute to the House, or the grounds stated by the colony for asking the Government to alter an Act of Parliament? for in that light an act of the Court of Policy (the competent legislature of the colony) was clearly to be considered. That act of the Court of Policy established a civil list, not to the amount of 39,000 l., as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose stated, but, in point of fact, to a considerably smaller amount. Every statement he (Mr. Hawes) made on this point on a former occasion, had been fully borne out by evidence; and he should take the liberty to repeat it. The civil list was nominally 39,000 l.; but of that 4,500 l. was, he was

941
sorry to say, paid out of the imperial treasury; a reduction of 1,009 l was to be made for pensions which had fallen in, and a further reduction of 9,000 l. for charges on account of the ecclesiastical establishment, which ought to be paid out of the colonial revenue, so that, in effect, the whole of the civil list was not more than 24,000 or 25,000 l. The charge for the clergy was placed on the civil list by the colony, as the Committee papers showed sent to the Home Government. The revenue of the colony was not less than 227,000 l. a year; and out of that revenue a civil list of the above amount was set aside by the Court of Policy for the payment of the officers who conducted the government of the colony. The origin of the dispute was certain resolutions of the Court of Policy, to which the hon. Member for Inverness-shire had referred. He was anxious to call the attention of the House to them, that they might thoroughly understand the course that the dispute had run, and the conduct of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to it. These resolutions stated—he gave the substance of them—that the colony was solely agricultural, and dependent on the markets of Europe. That, in consequence of the competition from slave-grown sugar, to which they had been exposed by the measures of the Imperial Parliament, the value of their property had declined. On the first objection they grounded the necessity of reducing the civil list. They went on to say, the revenue was declining, the colony impoverished, and that they were unable to pay the civil list as it was imposed on them. The first question the House had to ask was, whether the civil list had been embodied in an Act of the Court of Policy; and, if so, was it excessive; and was the colony in that state of decline, and its revenues so fallen, as to justify a reduction? Would it be believed by those who had heard the statements of those two hon. Gentlemen—such close allies on this question—so remarkably consistent in opinion on all matters connected with protection to sugar—that in evidence before the Committee, out of the mouths of their own witnesses it was plainly and un-deniably stated the revenue of the colony up to last year had not fallen at all; but, on the contrary, had rather increased? If the state of the revenue formed no just ground for reducing the civil list, and if it was shown in evidence by adverse witnesses
942
that the revenue had not fallen, what pretence could there be to justify the decision at which they were asked to arrive? To that view of the case there was no answer. Had the revenue declined? No. Did the Act of Parliament, gradually diminishing the protective duties on sugar, justify a reduction of the civil list? Certainly not. The hon. Gentleman declared his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies refused to make any reduction when it was first proposed. They must have spent their time most unprofitably in the Committee, and either they had not heard or had forgotten the despatches which had been road. [Mr. BAILLIE: I said, he refused at first.] He would quote an extract from the first despatch of his noble Friend in February, which would not bear out that statement. It stated, and truly, that the object of the civil list, voluntarily renewed in 1844, was to place the servants of the Crown beyond the reach of circumstances calculated to affect their incomes; and that the Government having effected that object, left six-sevenths of the revenue of the colony to be dealt with by the Combined Court. His noble Friend stated, that he was not aware of any circumstances in the present state of the colony which could justify the Crown in reducing the salaries which had been secured by the civil list. If there were any circumstances to justify a reduction, Earl Grey would not refuse it. He (Earl Grey) then went on to show the revenue had been increasing yearly up to 1846, and that there was no reason to suppose there had been any decline up to September, 1848, when the supplies were stopped. Earl Grey had dealt with the case fairly. But was that all his noble Friend had done? In a subsequent despatch, he distinctly gave his assent to reductions of salary as vacancies occurred; and since then he had stated that, though his present impressions were, that the finances of the colony were not in a condition to render reductions necessary, and that the salaries were not too high, the reasons for a different conclusion should receive his most careful consideration. What conclusion had the Committee come to? Had they, after hearing all the evidence, and all hon. Gentlemen could say, declared the salaries should be reduced, or that the pledge given to the servants of the Crown should be abandoned? Quite the contrary; they took precisely the same grounds as his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, and

943
declared it was not competent to the Combined Court to alter the civil list. Their report was clear and distinct on that point; they stated—
"Upon a review of the several circumstances above adverted to, your Committee is of opinion that the Crown is entitled (if considerations of good faith and of public policy require it) to insist upon an adherence to the civil list arrangement made in 1844 for the full period for which the civil list was granted, and that no attempt to set aside that arrangement, either by direct or indirect means, can be justified."
He wished to know the difference between the conclusion to which the Committee had come after full inquiry, and that of his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies. Was it no justification of his noble Friend, in having decided on the best information before him that the civil list should not be reduced on the ground assigned, that a Committee of the House, after a long and laborious investigation, had arrived at a precisely similar result? When the hon. Gentleman said he (Mr. Hawes) had abandoned his resolutions, he begged to say that they were never proposed to the Committee, though printed for consideration; for having heard from the most distinguished Member of the Committee—one beyond all doubt entitled to the greatest weight—resolutions he (Mr. Hawes) preferred to his own, he at once adopted them, and he was quite ready to bear any blame which might attach to him for having preferred to follow the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, rather than the hon. Members for Montrose and Inverness-shire. When the Committee presented their report, his noble Friend immediately sent a despatch, dated June 1, 1849, to Governor Barkly, of which the following was an extract:—
"Having thus expressed to you the views which I have been led to take of the proceedings adopted by yourself and the Combined Court on the understanding that the question concerning the civil list should be left in statu quo pending the inquiry before a Committee of the House of Commons, I now take the earliest opportunity after the report of that Committee having been made to the House, of transmitting to you a copy of their report, and requesting that you will lay it before the Combined Court. I trust that the Combined Court will receive the decision of the Committee as to the rights of the Crown under the civil list ordinance as determining that question, and that they will join with me in a cordial desire that all differences out of it should be forgotten. I can assure them that they will find on my part the utmost solicitude to co-operate with them in acting upon the views of the Committee as to the necessity of economy which are entirely in accordance with my own, as expressed in my despatches) and in making such arrangements as may most contri-
944
bute to the future prosperity of the colony, and most tend to the obliteration of any personal feelings which may have been excited in the course of these unfortunate discussions."
That was the principle upon which Earl Grey proposed to act; and he thought himself entitled to remind the House that the Committee of Inquiry did report in the teeth of the opinions expressed and the statements made as well by the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, as by the hon. Member for Montrose and of those who supported them throughout that inquiry. Then, again, there was a point of some importance on which he thought that Earl Grey had been somewhat unfairly attacked, and that related to the opinions which he entertained on the subject of economy. It would be a gross misrepresentation to describe Earl Grey as unfavourable to economy. There had been no case of wise economy which had not at all times commanded his cordial and earnest support. But then his opponents, not content with imputing to him a want of economy, charged him with inconsistency for having pursued one course with reference to Trinidad, and quite another in the case of British Guiana. It was said that he granted that redress to the former which he refused to the latter; and this was contended for as warmly as if there subsisted any analogy between the one and the other, when the two cases were wholly different, inasmuch as no guarantee whatever had been given to the officers employed in the civil establishments at Trinidad—no security had been given to them for the continuance of their offices and salaries during a period of ten years. There was no legislative Act establishing a civil list. Lord Harris, with the wisdom and ability which distinguished his government, did certainly propose the reduction of pub-lie expenditure in Trinidad, and he having made to Earl Grey a proposition recommending a change of that nature, and having supported his advice by statements and reasonings of much weight. Earl Grey concurred with him, and reduction was sanctioned; the main feature of the Trinidad case being that the expenditure exceeded the income, while in British Guiana the case was the reverse—the income was equal to the expenditure. The cases were not only different, but there was not the slightest resemblance between the two. He regretted that the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, and likewise the hon. Member for Montrose, had spoken of

945
a breach of faith having been committed, as any man with the least information on the subject must have known that there existed not a shadow of foundation for any such charge. The evidence entirely negatived the allegation. In the report on the table, and in the evidence appended to it, they would find the most ample proofs that all the idle talk about breach of faith was mere misrepresentation; and let it be remembered that the evidence by which that charge had been answered was the evidence of witnessess not brought forward by him, but by the Gentleman who wanted to make out a case of grievance. [It was understood that Mr. BAILLIE denied this.] Well, he begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon if he imputed anything of that sort without sufficient foundation; but if it had not been done by him, the hon. Member for Montrose must have been the person to whom the Committee was indebted for getting up that part of the evidence. From that part of the evidence then before him, to which he wished to direct the attention of the House—he meant the evidence given by Mr. Sandbach—nothing could be more manifest than that, so far from the colony having any the least reason to complain of a breach of faith, it was the Crown that had to complain of a breach of faith. If any conditions were made, those conditions had been by the Government completely fulfilled. Money had been paid, and loans had been effected to promote emigration; but the book on which he laid his hand clearly and most distinctly showed that there never had been, at any time, the least breach of faith on the part of the Crown. But the hon. Member for Montrose was very candid in one part of his speech; for he admitted that, before the Act of 1846 respecting sugar, there was on that article a protecting duty, and that now British Guiana, by reason of the prospective loss of that protecting duty, was not able to meet her engagements, or, in other words, was not able to pay her civil list; and the hon. Member said this, because he believed that the existence of protecting duties was necessary for the purpose of enabling the inhabitants of British Guiana to maintain their civil list at the point at which they had undertaken that it should be preserved. According to him, it was necessary that they should raise the price of sugar to consumers in England, in order to maintain the revenue
946
of British Guiana. But what was the real state of the facts? Protection had been prospectively only withdrawn by an Act of the Imperial Parliament. And was that a ground for saying that a solemn compact was to be broken? If it could be shown that the expenditure of the colony exceeded the income of the colony, then there might be a case for the reduction of salaries. The hon. Member for Montrose said, because the sugar of British Guiana was low in price, that therefore they must commit a breach of faith with the officers of that colony. Were public officers to be rewarded upon principles which were to be regulated by the prices of commodities? If so, then all salaries must be governed by the Price Current. If it could be shown, as be conceived it had been shown, that the colony was not bankrupt—that the revenue was not declining—surely every ground for reduction, when that reduction involved a breach of faith, had been completely cut away from those who proposed it. If it were thought that 25,000 l. was too great an amount for the civil list for such a colony, then let it at the proper time be fixed at a sum under that amount; but if they proceeded upon economical principles alone, let them remember that the people of British Guiana had themselves a control over six-sevenths of their whole revenue. The revenue of the colony amounted, in round numbers, to 227,000 l, and the colonists would have done better in looking after the expenditure which was under their own control, than in getting up a mischievous, reckless, and injurious quarrel for the purpose of embarrassing the Government in revenge of the Act of 1846. They never considered what could be effected in the way of economy in respect to the money under their own control. He stated that on the authority of Sir H. Light and Lieutenant Governor Walker. So far from the trade of the colony having declined, the production of sugar had actually increased since 1846. If he took from the year 1845 to 1848 inclusive, it appeared that an average of 28,500 tons of sugar had been produced annually in the first three years, and that 32,000 tons was the average for the years 1847 and 1848. This did not look like that impoverishment of the colony which had been spoken of. Upon another subject adverted to by the hon. Member for Montrose, Governor Barkly, finding that the Court of Policy was a mere oligarchical

947
body, which possessed very little influence in the colony, and elected by very small constituencies, with a very high franchise, had with singular propriety introduced a measure, which became necessary in consequence of the stoppage of the supplies, for extending the constituency. The constituency at present did not amount to more than 700 or 800. Under the new measure it would be increased considerably. Was there anything wrong, then, in looking forward to the support of a more popularly constituted body for the support of the civil list? If it was so supported hereafter, would it not be a proof that the colony was not on the side of the Court of Policy? Governor Barkly, so far from being unwilling that his own salary should be reduced, declared in his very first speech that he should be sorry if his own salary stood in the way of those reductions. The struggle, therefore, was the mere struggle of a party to uphold their influence in the colony. The hon. Member for Inverness-shire had alluded to the part which he took in Committee in reference to a statement made by Earl Grey in the House of Lords. Here, again, the main fact was kept out of sight, namely, that Earl Grey spoke from information obtained from a local newspaper, which bore date two or three days after the despatch of the Governor. The statement was, that in a particular district the labourers had returned to their work, and were, in fact, working at a reduction of 25 per cent; and Earl Grey, in arguing that if wages were reduced, it was tantamount to an increase in the number of labourers, referred to the case stated in the newspapers as an example. The hon. Member also said, the Government had made the immigration ordinance a bribe for the civil list. In that case an accidental phrase had been caught hold of—Governor Light having only really stated in his evidence that the colonists had declared that they would grant anything in their power to obtain immigrants; but added, Q. 98, which the hon. Member abstained from quoting, "That I can hardly suppose that you would imagine I should bribe those under me for the sake of a civil list." It had been said that it was a breach of faith not to allow the colonists to procure labour from any part of the world. The Member for Montrose was in favour of what was termed free trade in labour; but there was evidence in the papers that what the colonists
948
meant was, that they should be at liberty to go to the slave coast of Africa. If by free trade in labour was meant liberty to buy men from the slave coast, he confessed that he was opposed to it, and he believed a majority of that House were also opposed to it. It had been said that this report was the report of the right hon. Member for Tamworth. Now, he was most desirous of doing justice to his hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire. He begged to say that that part of the report which went to reform the constitution of British Guiana, and extend the franchise, was entirely due to that hon. Gentleman; and he was happy to inform him that at this moment the Colonial Office and the Government were acting in the spirit of its recommendation; and he trusted that before long they would see a Franchise Bill pass which would secure a more extended constitution, and a more enlightened and efficient body of representatives in that colony.
MR. J. STUARTthen moved the adjournment of the debate.
MR. HUMEsaid, he rose principally to refute a calumny of the grossest kind. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies said that by free trade in labour was meant the use of slave labour. He utterly denied that such was the case. That was the only thing in the hon. Gentleman's speech which he thought worthy of notice. The alleged facts were admitted. The hon. Gentleman had chosen to term an act of policy an act which the law officers of the Crown had declared to be of no value whatever, those functionaries having declared that the colonists were right in the course which they had pursued. He wished to see the colonists in the enjoyment of responsible government, and no longer in leading strings. If a rebellion took place, there would be immediate concessions.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he wished the House merely to know what they were to divide upon. An adjournment of the debate had been moved by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newark. The fact was, that the public time was very important just now, and that this debate had only commenced at half-past nine o'clock. There was a general understanding in the House that every Member of the Committee was anxious to make a very long speech, and, therefore, it was deemed expedient that they did come to a

949
conclusion as soon as possible. Now, he thought the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend an extremely convenient one, and the House had better accede to the proposition without dividing upon it. As yet there had been a debate of only three hours upon this important question. It would lead to a very prolonged discussion, and, therefore, he felt that it had better be adjourned.
SIR J. W. HOGGwas quite satisfied that the House should go to a division upon the speech of the hon. Under Secretary. It had not yet been mentioned in the course of this debate that the report which was carried was so carried by a majority of 8 to 3; and that the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose was rejected by a majority of 10 to 4.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."
The House divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 94: Majority 77.
Original Question put, and negatived.
The House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.