Lords Sitting of 27 January 1840

SOCIALISM.
Lord Broughamheld in his hand a petition from Mr. Owen, in which he expressed his desire that the body of which he had been the founder-

567
the Socialists—and the principles which they profess, should be inquired into by the House. That petition had been in his possession since Friday last, but as he had been late in arriving at the House, and as the Right Rev. Prelate (Exeter) had commenced his address, he, on that occasion, had no opportunity of presenting it. He had another petition from the same gentleman, which had been placed in his hands since. He did not know whether, in point of form, it could be received. He had but little doubt that it could not however; but still he felt bound to state its contents to their Lordships. He of course knew that no allusion could be made to any thing done, or any speech made, in the House, and that the public were supposed only to be acquainted with the conduct of the different Members, or the acts of the House as a body, by means of the printed and published votes. But still he thought that the petition, though it referred to the report of words used in the House on the other night, might be brought under their Lordships notice. The petitioner stated that his views regarding the general stale of society, and the means which he proposed for its amelioration, had been- misrepresented in the newspapers of Saturday and Sunday; that these misrepresentations purported to be the language which had fallen from a noble Member of that House; that, being published in all the newspapers, they had gone forth to every quarter of the globe where the English language was known; and that he claimed as an English subject, to be heard in reply to such misrepresentations, and prayed for a full and fair inquiry into the principles which he professed, in order that his defence might be as widely circulated as the unfounded charge which had been made against him—that his whole system might be honestly and fairly laid open, and that the world might know the whole truth. He had forgotten one circumstance when he addressed a few words to the House on Friday. The petitioner was not only a person whose whole character for humanity was extremely alien and averse to all those principles with which he was charged, but he was a man who advocated only the most peaceful changes. Not only so, but he was bound to state that, when Mr. Wilberforce, in the other House, vouched for his respectability and character for philanthropy, he had stated that
568
Mr. Owen had such a regard for the propagation of his principles, which he thought entirely for the benefit of the human race, that he had reduced a very large fortune to a small one, and this was a strong test of his sincerity; and that his philanthropy was so great that he had spent more than any hundred individuals, however charitable they might be, had spent during the course of their lives. When the British and Foreign School Society was first established, he immediately transmitted a donation of 1,000 l., which was much more than the most magnificent gift they had received; and to show that his philanthropy was not sectarian, about twelve months after, when the National School Society was established, he immediately transmitted the munificent donation of 500 l. Such a person as Mr. Owen, whatever might be the peculiarity of his views, ought, he thought, to receive credit for sincerity and honest intentions, after having spent scores of thousands of pounds in acts of indisputable charity, in the doing of which he could not possibly have an interested motive. Often as that gentleman had been attacked, he had never before alluded to the injustice which had been done him; but he now deemed it his duty to set himself right with the public, and he did so without the least regard to the consequences. For the discharge of this part of his duty, he knew that he should be attacked in every variety of way, and be exposed to every sort of abuse for the next twelve months. He might be called an Owenite, he might be said to favour the views, and to agree with the principles of the Socialists, from which their Lordships knew he entirely dissented; but in doing an act of strict justice to an injured individual, he cared little for the abuse of slanderers.
The Bishop of Exeterwas not likely to know what would be brought forward by the noble and learned Lord, and he had not expected that the subject concerning which he had presented a petition the other night would be received. He knew that it had reference to the speech which he had had the honour of addressing to their Lordships on Friday. He could not enter again into the discussion, but he wished that the noble and learned Lord would take the course of moving in a committee for inquiring into the whole facts of the case. He had stated to the House

569
the reason why he had not taken upon him that duty. The reason was that he wished to avoid a course which might savour too much of an inquisitorial character, that it was not right to act the part of a grand jury. Having presented a petition against the system, and having felt it to be his duty to stigmatise, in the strongest language, the character and conduct of its advocates, such might appear to be the case if a motion for a committee came from him. But the case was very different with the noble and learned Lord who had presented a petition from the parties affected by the inquiry. He could not move for it himself, but he would joyfully concur in such a motion coming from the noble Lord. The goodness or morality of Mr. Owen's character he had not said any thing against. The noble Lord had stated two facts—two splendid facts in favour of the character of that gentleman. In short, he had said that he was ruined by his liberality and his eagerness to promote the good of others. He trusted that it was so. No one could more rejoice at a circumstance exhibiting in so strong a light, kindness of heart, and benevolence of disposition. He had, however, heard the character of Mr. Owen represented under very different circumstances on many most important points, and had been informed that the ruin of his finances had not been caused by the reason so charitably assigned by the noble Lord. He would abstain from discussing the character of Mr. Owen, but he thought it only justice that the facts of the case should be fully inquired into, and he hoped that the noble Lord would make a motion to that effect.
Lord Broughamsaid as to the "ruin" of Mr. Owen's finances, which had been alluded to by the right rev. Prelate, he had made use of no such term. Mr. Owen was not a ruined man. He had never said that he was—he never thought so, and it would be a most injurious thing to go forth that such was the fact. He had never even mentioned it, and he would just show how accurate people were in making such statements. Now, what he said was this, that Mr. Owen had reduced a large fortune to a moderate fortune;—but was every one ruined who had only a moderate fortune? If so he was ruined. The right rev. Prelate, who was a zealous, faithful, active servant of the Church, had only a
570
moderate fortune, and, therefore, according to that interpretation, he was a ruined man. The man who once possessed a fortune of twenty-two thousand pounds a year, and now had only one or two thousand, would have a reduced fortune—would have a moderate fortune—and yet he could not be called a ruined man. All he had said was, that Mr. Owen had very much reduced his fortune, but this statement as to the "ruin" of his finances showed how accurate people were who were very zealous. The right rev. Prelate said also that he had heard a very different account of the causes of the reduction of his fortune. Now there was no doubt that Mr. Owen had a great many enemies, and that envy and malice had worked their spite on him, as on all good and great men. But he was acquainted with the whole circumstances of the pecuniary and commercial transactions in which Mr. Owen had been engaged, and knew very well the source from which the false statements came. He ought perhaps to move for a committee of inquiry, and, considering the part he had taken, and the petition he had presented, it almost seemed the proper course. He thought, however, that enough had been said in vindication of Mr. Owen. It would go forth that he denied the charge against him, and, what was better, challenged inquiry. He had, moreover, borne testimony to his character, and he thought it better to let it rest at the point where it now stood. He should be very unwilling to promote an inquiry that would have a tendency to propagate the knowledge of such extremely bad, and, in his opinion, dangerous doctrines, since even such absurdities might find converts among the uninstracted part of the community, and particularly those labouring under distress, when they promised to relieve their sufferings and remove their distresses. That would be the effect of such proceedings being circulated in all the various channels of public information.
The Bishop of Exeterproceeded to say that he had a petition numerously and respectably signed from the inhabitants of the town of Huddersfield, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, strongly pressing upon the House the necessity of instituting such inquiry, and taking such steps as might seem desirable for the protection of religion, morality, social and domestic happiness, and the rights of property, and

571
in moving it should be upon the table, he begged leave to state that, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble Lord, and also the noble Marquess on a former occasion, he thought it necessary that something more should be done. He did not assent to the opinion that they should abstain from the prosecution of crime, because it would be the means of publishing it to the world. If he thought greater danger would result from such an inquiry he should be content not to act a vindictive part against the propagators of such monstrous doctrines—but he felt it absolutely necessary to take some steps to vindicate justice and the morals and religion of the people. He was not speaking on light foundation, for he had that morning received a letter from Hampshire, giving an account of horrible and chilling blasphemies uttered at a Socialist meeting, in the neighbourhood of a place where they had lately purchased a farm of 500 acres to try their experiments. The right rev. Prelate read the letter alluded to, which was written by a clergyman, "of the highest respectability, and towards whom he entertained the highest respect," in which an account is given of a visit paid to the Socialist meeting by the writer, accompanied by a magistrate of the county, and of the obscenity and blasphemy there used. This letter was not a solitary one. He had this morning received several containing similar accounts. Now these things, he thought, called for immediate inquiry, and, considering what had been stated by her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and the noble Lord, he would to-night give notice of a motion after the petition had been laid upon the table
Lord Broughamsaid that he only wished to make one remark. The right rev. Prelate laboured under a grievous mistake if he had understood him to lay down as an abstract principle, that the prosecution of crime should never be undertaken in consequence of the increased publicity which would necessarily be given to them by such proceedings. He also did not understand the noble Marquess at the head of the Home Department to have laid down a proposition in the abstract so absurd, as that in no case should publications or pernicious principles be made the subject of prosecution, for fear of increasing the publicity. In many cases, though the present publicity might be increased,
572
eventually, the spread of the poisonous principles might be prevented. His objection also was not so much to prosecution as to going on in irregular debates on the subject in that House.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, he felt the inexpediency of irregular debating, and he would at once therefore give notice that he would move an address to the Crown to take steps to prosecute persons who were, or might be, guilty. He would not and could not be expected to state the precise words; but the effect would be to interpose its protection on behalf of religion and morality, against the horrible blasphemies of Socialism.
Motion to be made on the 3rd of February.

BUENOS AYRES.—
Viscount Strangfordbegged to remind the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Administration of the promise which he had given the other night, to answer the question then put to him respecting the arrival of an authorised agent at Paris from the Government, of Monte Video.
Viscount Melbourne—All the answer I can give is, that the agent from that Government has arrived in Paris, but of what intelligence or what propositions he is the bearer I cannot tell.
Viscount Strangfordsaid, that he was then to understand that the noble Viscount and his colleagues know absolutely nothing at all respecting the objects of this agent's mission to Paris. For the present, he would only say that he had lately read, in a very amusing periodical, a description of a society of good-humoured, jovial gentlemen, who met in this town, under the name of the "Wide-awake Club." It was quite clear that the noble Viscount did not belong to that club. It was quite clear also that, if he or his colleagues were to seek admittance there, they would stand a chance of being grievously blackballed, on the score of want of qualification; for assuredly they are not wide awake, but very far from it. What he now asked the noble Viscount was, when the Government were aware that, at this present moment, the city of Monte Video and its dependencies were actually in the military possession of French troops?
Viscount Melbourne—Yes, we are aware of that.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that he was

573
desirous of making a few remarks on the blockade which was now being carried on, and he thought that the importance of the subject would warrant him in detaining for a short period the time of their Lordships. He thought that that blockade was utterly unjustifiable, and quite incompatible with the established principles of the law of nations and the practices of England. He had always understood that the right of blockade was strictly a belligerent right—that the proceeding was strictly belligerent, put in force only by belligerent parties. Now the noble Viscount opposite and all their Lordships must know, that France was at war with Buenos Ayres. With a nation which considered itself injured, after claiming redress, the usual practice was to order reprisals. Reprisals—whether to a just or unjust extent he need not stop to consider—were usually made in cases where injuries had been inflicted, or parties accused. France had ordered no reprisals, but a blockade was immediately commenced, and the injurious effects of this blockade were really felt by this country and not by Buenos Ayres. It was said to be injurious to French commerce as well as to British commerce, and so it was as far as it went. But consider the difference between British and French commerce. The French have, comparatively speaking, no commerce with Buenos Ayres, but the British commerce with those provinces is of enormous amount. If the Government of France, in fact, entertained the project of acting in a manner the most injurious to this country with the least risk to themselves, they could not have carried their wishes into effect more successfully than in the line of conduct which they adopted towards Buenos Ayres. They acted in direct opposition to the law of nations, and there was only one case in which a similar course had been adopted, and that case had been furnished by the noble Viscount. He alluded to the notification of the blockade of the ports of Columbia. That was announced during the recess, and it was his intention at the time to bring it before the House. The blockade was raised in two or three weeks. Parliament met, and its attention was occupied with other subjects, and nothing was done. With that single exception, not any case i had occurred where a blockade had been raised in such a manner and under such circumstances. The blockade of Buenos
574
Ayres had now continued two years, and the noble Viscount at the head of the Government gave them no hope of its termination. He would not enter into the question as to the justice of the dispute, but he certainly thought that the French Government, in the prosecution of their claims, ought not to have had recourse to a system so injurious to this country. If this resolution had been made and this conduct pursued by a despotic Government, what complaints would have been heard, what shouts would have rung from one end of the country to the other. Would it not then, indeed, have been said that this proceeding was unequivocal proof of determined hostility to England? And, though such proceeding had been adopted by a liberal and enlightened Government, yet he could not, nevertheless, look with complacency on such disregard of British merchants—such contempt for British interests. The blockade was established by a friendly State, but if it were to produce such results—results the most hostile to British commerce and British interests—a friendship on these terms must prove seriously injurious. He would not detain the House any longer, but he trusted that the noble Viscount (Melbourne) would state directly to the French, the injury inflicted on the commerce of the country.
Viscount Melbourne—The noble Earl is wrong if he supposes that either I or any other of her Majesty's present Administration are indifferent to the commercial interests of the country, or have not paid proper attention to the topic to which he had alluded, and the consequences necessarily resulting from it. The occupation of the French is, and always was intended to be, temporary, and was originally instituted for the purpose of protecting all the inhabitants of the place—British and otherwise—who would have been exposed to the utmost inconvenience and cruelties but for this proceeding. I admit that some injury is done by the blockade to British commerce. I feel quite as strongly as the noble Earl does, or as any noble Lord can, than such injury is great, though it is perhaps unavoidable. No opportunity has been lost by the Administration of expressing to the French Government our solicitude and anxiety upon the subject, and I have done my best offices to put a stop to these hostilities. I did not, in answer to the question put to me the other

575
night by the noble Viscount, and will not express a hope, for I do not believe that a speedy termination can possibly be given to this dispute, and I will never excite hopes which there is not a probability will be fulfilled. The House and the country would only be disappointed if the termination were longer than they expected, and only increased regret will be caused by the expression of too sanguine a hope. The noble Lord says that the blockade is unjustifiable, and that it ought only to be a belligerent proceeding. It is to all intents and purposes a declaration of war, and the nation against whom it is directed might treat it as such it' they chose. But it was entirely in the discretion of that nation, and, if it do not adopt that course, it must be left to do as it likes. All the inconvenience and evil to which we are exposed, I trust will be brought to a speedy termination.
Lord Colchesterpointed out the advantages resulting to Great Britain from the continuance and preservation of our commerce with Buenos Ayres. From the position of different ports, and our intercourse with the inhabitants, the injury done to our merchants by the existing blockade was very great. Our commerce with the province was most extensive, and our interests were receiving the most serious injury. He trusted that her Majesty's Government would do all in their power to remedy so great an evil.

NATURALIZATION OF PRINCE ALBERT.—
The Lord Chancellormoved the second reading of Prince Albert's Naturalization Bill, and, in doing so, he would refer their Lordships to the bill which had passed the legislature previous to the marriage of Prince Leopold and the Princess Charlotte. The House must recollect that her Royal Highness and her consort were in a different situation from the parties alluded to in the present bill. It was obvious, that if the Princess Charlotte had become Sovereign of this realm, some alterations would have been made with respect to the precedency of the Prince, who would then be the consort of the reigning Queen. The noble and learned Lord, after referring to the precedents in the cases of the marriage of Mary and Philip, and Queen Anne and Prince George of Denmark, said, that it would only be necessary for him to refer to the principal provision of the bill, which was this:—"For and during the term of
576
his (Prince Albert's)life, to take precedence in rank after her Majesty, in Parliament and elsewhere, as her Majesty may think fit and proper, any law, statute, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding."
The Duke of Wellington:—My Lords, I certainly am not at all inclined to discuss this measure, or to give it any opposition, at the present moment. It is too serious a matter to be taken into the consideration of the House on the short notice which we have had of the nature of this bill. The noble and learned Lord lays this bill on the table on Friday night, after a debate, and the bill is entitled "An Act for the Naturalization of his Serene Highness the Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg and Gotha." I asked the noble and learned Lord when he intended to read the bill a second time, because I understood that it was a bill which meant no more than its title indicated. I thought it was a bill entirely consequent upon the other bill which passed both Houses last week, and which is now the law of the land. The noble and learned Lord said, that he intended to move the second reading on Monday, but he said not one word regarding the precedency, which is the important point in the bill. A noble Friend of mine looked at the title of the bill as I was walking out of the House, and he told me that it was nothing more than a bill of naturalization. The consequence was, I had no knowledge of the real contents of the bill. I had no idea of its contents until a noble Friend sent me a copy. My noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) I am sure would not be absent on this occasion if he had any idea that the bill related to anything beyond mere naturalization. As this is the case, I hope your Lordships will receive the proposition I am about to make to you, to adjourn this debate to some day in the course of the week, to give noble Lords an opportunity of really looking into the subject. Besides, there is something very extraordinary in the title of the bill; it is not the same as the title of the bill in the case of Prince Leopold's marriage. It is also very desirable that it should be known precisely what is intended to be done, for the words in the clause are very large indeed—"For and during the term of his natural life, to take precedence in rank after her Majesty, in Parliament and elsewhere, as her Majesty may think fit and proper, any law, statute, or custom to the contrary not with-

577
standing." I move, my Lords, that this debate be adjourned lo Friday next.
Viscount Melbourne: It would certainly be more desirable, and more conformable to former precedents, if this bill was passed without delay. The noble Duke objects, that its title does not state the fact that it is to provide for the precedence of Prince Albert. This omission, I believe, was accidental, but I don't think it of any great consequence, nor as at all depriving noble Lords of any information as to the substance of this measure, because it is perfectly clear that a naturalization bill must fix the rank and station of Prince Albert; otherwise he would have no rank or station whatever; a precedent which I presume Parliament is not desirous to establish. The noble Duke complains that my noble and learned Friend did not make the explanations the other night which he offered to-night. The proper time for such remarks is on the second reading of the bill, and this opportunity my noble and learned Friend had availed himself of. The noble Duke says that he and other noble Lords require further time for the consideration of this subject. I think it would be somewhat better if a more expeditious course were taken; but unquestionably this bill differs in form from other bills, as the case differs from other cases; and it does give her Majesty an ability to bestow on Prince Albert a higher station than that assigned to Prince George of Denmark, or Prince Leopold. The reason for the difference in these cases is to be looked for in the relative situation of the parties. As to the marriage of the Princess Charlotte, I believe the Prince Regent as well as that Princess were quite conscious that the arrangement then made was a temporary one, and that changes must speedily have been proposed to Parliament on the subject. I believe there is pretty good evidence, that such was the feeling of the parties to that transaction. The noble Duke seems anxious to know how the power about to be conferred by this Act is to be exercised. I have no hesitation in saying, that it will be acted upon to the full extent bestowed by Parliament. It is intended, if Parliament should give that power, to raise Prince Albert to a station next to that of the Queen; and this arrangement, however it may be opposed by others, has not been objected to by those peculiarly interested in point of rank. The noble Duke has moved, that the debate
578
be adjourned. I think that rather an ungracious course. I am of opinion it would be better to read the bill a second time, and reserve any objections for the next stage of the measure, when of course it would be perfectly open to any noble Lord to enter into a discussion of its merits. That is the course I propose. I am sorry that any objection was taken, or difficulty raised on this question; but I still feel it desirable to have it fully canvassed.
The Duke of Wellington: I repeat, that not a word is mentioned in the title of this bill as to the precedence of Prince Albeit, though every other naturalisation bill referred lo the subject of the rank of the Prince who was to be allied in marriage to the Queen.
Viscount Melbourne: But the rank was always fixed by the Naturalization Bill.
The Duke of Wellington: Yes, and the precedence was always mentioned in the title; but nobody could have a notion from the title of this bill, that such a subject was included in it.
Lord Broughamcould bear testimony to the fact, that his noble and learned Friend left town at one o'clock to day, under the impression, that this bill was a mere matter of course. He quite agreed, that it was very unpleasant to have such a measure not expedited as much as possible, but for this the House was not to blame, but the framers of the measure. The question which arose was of great novelty in a constitutional point of view, as this measure conferred a precedence new in amount, and in a totally new way. In former bills the precise precedence of the Prince was fixed. This bill at once naturalized Prince Albert, and enabled her Majesty to affix him any rank she chose. He had a constitutional objection to such a course. It ought to be taken by Parliament, and not by the Crown. In his humble apprehension, it must be much more gratifying to the illustrious individual about to be united in marriage to the Queen, of whom he spoke with the highest respect, to have his rank conferred by the Parliament, which consisted of the Queen as well as the Lords and Commons, but of the Lords and Commons as well as of the Queen. When the Princess Charlotte married, she was heir presumptive to the Throne. The grandfather of the Princess was in an unfortunate state of mind, totally past recovery. Her father was King to all intents and purposes. He had been

579
separated from his wife for years and years, and consequently there was not the least chance of any further issue. There was this remarkable feature also in that case, which clearly proved, that the Princess was considered as the heir apparent; and as it was connected with that department over which his noble Friend (Viscount Melbourne) had a control, he wondered he did not bear it in mind. What did Parliament do? It fixed 50,000 l. a-year on her husband. Would any man living believe, that such a sum would be given to any other than the husband of the heir apparent? It was really a joke to say so. He should not enter into a discussion of this subject at present, merely premising, that he should not be in the slightest degree swayed by the fact, that no objection was taken to this step by the illustrious persons affected by it in point of rank. The matter was probably put to them in such a way that their delicacy would not permit them to oppose the arrangement which was proposed. Observe, too, that an infant's assent (that of the son of the King of Hanover) was necessary to be gained to this proposal. His noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor), conversant with courts of equity, would feel the force of this objection. Prince Albert would not only have precedence of the Dukes of the royal blood, but of the Prince of Wales. Suppose (which God forbid !) that the Queen had paid the debt of nature before any issue of the approaching marriage was born, we should have a King and a Prince of Wales, while Prince Albert would be placed in the anomalous position of a foreign naturalized Prince, the husband of a deceased Queen, with a higher rank than the Prince of Wales. He should support the noble Duke's motion.
The Lord Chancellor: This bill gave her Majesty the power of fixing the rank of Prince Albert, as that on the marriage of the Princess Charlotte conferred on the reigning Monarch the power of assigning a rank to Prince Leopold next to the Dukes of the blood royal. The omission of reference to the subject of precedence in the title of this bill was purely accidental; and he found, by looking at the Acts, that the noble Duke was quite right in asserting, that this point was noticed in the titles of former naturalization bills. He apprehended, that noble Lords had no objection to passing a naturalization
580
bill; and he, therefore, hoped, that the second reading would be passed, while the discussion on the matter alluded to could be reserved.
Lord Broughamsaid, that under the clause the words were so wide, that the Queen might create Prince Albert King Consort. It was distinctly laid down by Lord Coke, that the Monarch of this country could create or invent any new title except the King of any portion of the country. If the noble Duke pressed his motion he should vote with him; but he was sure, that it was not the intention of the noble Duke to throw any captious obstacles in the way of the progress of the bill.
The Duke of Wellington: My Lords, I do not wish to discuss the principle of the measure. I think, however, that I was justified in making this application to your Lordships in consequence of the unfortunate arrangement in the title. But the noble and learned Lord asks, why not agree to the second reading, and make the objections in the committee? That is exactly the thing that ought not to be done. I do not think, that the House is now in a state to be able to come to a decision on the second reading of the bill. I object to the principle of the bill, but I will not go into a discussion on the present occasion. I propose, therefore, that this debate be adjourned. To-morrow will be too early a day to fix, and, as Thursday is generally considered a holiday, I must move, that this debate be adjourned to Friday.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that he must object to giving a foreign Prince precedence over the blood royal. The noble Viscount said, that the illustrious persons next interested had not shown any disinclination to the proposed course. He wished to ask if the noble Viscount was sure of the fact as regarded an illustrious person not now in this country? He believed that he was summoned to this Parliament as the Duke of Cumberland.
Viscount Melbourne: I did not mean to speak for the King of Hanover.
Debate adjourned.