Lords Sitting of 5 August 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public. — 1a. Arms (Ireland); Post Office Offences Amendment.
2a. Merchant Seamen: Fisheries (Ireland); South Sea Company.
Reported.—Slaughtering Horses; Consolidation Fund (Appriation); Spirits (Ireland); Woods and Forests Accounts; Grand Canal (Ireland); Piccadilly Improvement; Controverted Elections; Clerks to Attorneys; Salmon Fisheries (Scotland); Savings' Banks.
3a. and passed:—Militia Pay; Duchy of Cornwall Lands; Criminal Justice (Middlesex); Customs (New South Wales); Books and Engravings; Municipal Corporations.
Private. — Reported. — Tralee Navigation and Harbour; Paisley General Gas.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Redesdale, from Lichfield, and several other places, for Protection to Agriculture.—From Connty of Nottingham, for Inquiry into the Renewal of Leases by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.—From Inhabitants of Sudbury, to be allowed Expenses in employing Counsel against the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill.—By Bishop of Exeter, from Kensington, and Stone, against the Poor Law Amendment Bill.

THE POST OFFICE LAWS CONSOLIDATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL,
The Earl of Radnorsaid, the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington) would recollect that on Friday last, the Report of the Secret Committee appointed to inquire into the practice of detaining and opening letters at the Post Office was laid on the Table of the House. He much wished to know if it was the inten-

1715
tion of Her Majesty's Government to introduce, during this Session, a Parliamentary measure on the subject to which the Report referred. If the noble Duke stated that such an intention existed, he (the Earl of Radnor) would refrain from offering any observation on the subject: but if there were no such intention on the part of the Government, then he should bring forward a Bill which he had prepared on the subject, and which he then held in his hand.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid he had seen the Report of the Committee, but he was not aware that any one of Her Majesty's Servants had seen it except himself. It was, therefore, impossible, under these circumstances, to answer the question of the noble Earl as to the intention of Government to bring in any such Bill.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that after the statement of the noble Duke, he felt it to be his duty to present to their Lordships a Bill for Amending so much of an Act passed in the First Year of Her present Majesty for Consolidating the Laws relative to Offences against the Post Office, as related to the opening, detaining, or delaying of Letters, and he should move, that it be read a first time. He had prepared the Bill before; but he waited until he saw the Report of the Secret Committee, before he brought it in, and he had seen nothing in that Report calculated to induce him to alter it. The Report was in fact one of the most jejune and poor milk-and-water performances he had ever seen. He had very great respect for the noble Lords who formed the Committee; but, nevertheless, he should say that a more meagre performance than that Report he had never read. It appeared from the Report of the Secret Committee, that what he (the Earl of Radnor) suspected had actually taken place—that the letters of foreign refugees in this country had been opened at the suggestion of a foreign Government, and that such a proceeding was not adopted in order to secure the safety of the realm, but with reference to the affairs of other states. The letters were not opened for the security or the safety of this country, and he was sorry that his suspicions had been maintained by the Report. It appeared, from the last paragraph in the Report, that for a long period of time, and under different Administrations, let-
1716
ters addressed to foreign ministers, had been sent from the Post Office to the Foreign Office; but the Postmaster General had been induced to make inquiry into the matter, and finding that the proceeding was not legal, had altogether discontinued that practice since June. It should be recollected that the practice as authorised by custom, although without legal authority, only extended to cases where danger to the State was to be apprehended or prevented, but not to the objects of a Foreign Power. He should now move that the Bill to amend a portion of the existing Act, which related to the detention, &c., of letters, be read a first time.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he was not aware, that more than two persons in the House had read the Report, namely, the noble Earl and himself; and he thought the noble Earl might have postponed his observations on that Report, as well as the introduction of his Bill, until the House was more fully aware of its contents. He did not mean to follow the noble Earl through his observations, for he had already stated, on a former occasion, what he conceived was the real ground on which the question turned. With respect to the observation of the noble Earl, as to the contents of the last paragraph in the Report, he could only state that if their Lordships looked through the Journals and Records of, Parliament for 120 years, they would see that it was a practice which had been recognised by Parliament, and had been followed up with the concurrence of Parliament.
Lord Campbellsaid he had cursorily read the Report, but he could not say, that from so hasty a view of it, he was prepared to give any opinion on it; he had no doubt, however, that the Secret Committee to whom the subject had been referred had done their duty conscientiously. From the view which he had taken of the Report, he should say that legislation was indispensably necessary upon the subject. The power had been exercised by many Governments, and it could not, therefore, be said to reflect discredit upon one Government in particular. If, therefore, the Government determined on using such a power, they ought to introduce a measure on the subject; but he had no doubt that after deliberation they would abandon such a practice. He was of opinion that more harm than good

1717
would arise from it, and in after years posterity would wonder at its having been exercised.
Bill read a first time.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.
The Marquess of Clanricardepresented a petition from certain Leaseholders of Church property in the county of Nottingham, complaining of the course which had been adopted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of England and Wales with respect to the description of property which they held. The noble Marquess stated that very great misery had occurred, and was still threatened, from the course which the Commissioners had thought proper to adopt. He would put a case to their Lordships, which was not altogether an imaginary one. What would their Lordships think of a man devoted to agriculture, and who having 500 l. by him, wished to invest it? Thinking that there could be no safer investment, he wished to buy one of these leases, and having raised 1,000 l. in addition to his 500 l. (and he would find no difficulty in raising the sum, for these leases were so beneficial that they were sometimes preferred even to freehold property), he purchased the interest in one for 1,500 l. Shortly after that purchase the determination of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners with respect to these leases became publicly known; the value thus became altogether altered, and the person who lent him the 1,000 l. on mortgage foreclosed the mortgage. The interest for which he gave 1,500 l. was not worth 1,000 l., so that the unfortunate man who invested his capital lost all his money, and had no prospect before him but the workhouse. That he could assure their Lordships was not purely an imaginary case. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) thought they were no friends to the Church of England who advised the Commissioners to increase their funds, without regard to other considerations to which every individual ought to pay attention. He hoped that it would not be necessary for him to take any step with respect to this subject next Session, but he should wish to have an account of the sittings of the Ecclesiastical Commission, with the number who attended each sitting, and how many sittings the same members attended. He could state cases of great hardship in other parts of England as well as Nottingham-
1718
shire, from the course which had been adopted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—from the exercise of an arbitrary power which had been given them by Parliament. There was another objection to that power, which was, that in addition to being arbitrary, it was not uniform in its operation. The effect of the course which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners adopted was peculiarly injurious in its operation in Nottinghamshire, for wherever a farm was greatly improved, at considerable expense, the tenant was more likely to be turned out, than from a farm upon which comparatively no money was expended or improvements made.
The Bishop of Londondenied the assertion that the Commissioners had used their power unequally, and he thought it would have been better if the noble Marquess had waited until an investigation had taken place before he made those charges. That was not the first occasion on which they had been told that they were not the true friends of the Church who maintained the right of the Church to her ancient possessions—it was not the first time that such a charge had been made against those who attempted to secure to the Church the patrimony which had been left her. He was of opinion that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would have been guilty of dereliction of duty if they had not used the power which the Parliament had given them to make the most, in an honest and proper sense, of the property with the management of which they had been entrusted. He had never noticed anything on the part of the noble Marquess which was not characterised by candour and honour, and he was confident it was only from misinformation, or want of sufficient information, that he had brought forward these charges with regard to the vested rights, as they had been called, of those lessees; they only continued as long as the leases continued; they were purchased with that understanding, and he could not see any principle of justice or equity which obliged the Church to give more than the proper value. It would be inexpedient to interfere with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners managing Church property for Church purposes, when they did not interfere with the management of private trust property.
The Duke of Richmondwould remind the right rev. Prelate that a secret tribunal,

1719
such as the Commission in question, which was not called upon to report its proceedings to Parliament, must expect to have attacks made upon them. At all events, whether or not they were made in the House, they were made out of doors. He quite objected to the dictum of his right rev. Friend, that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were bound to make the most of the property entrusted to their care. He knew that if leases were put up to auction to be disposed of to the highest bidder, that although they might get the man who would promise most, they would not get the man who would pay most, and keep the property in the best order. He objected to putting an enormous mass of property under the management of a body who gave no account of their proceedings. He did not say that the Commissioners had done wrong; he did not know what they had done; but he did know that a certain number of persons had complained of the manner in which they had been treated by them. He hoped that the noble Marquess would move for a Select Committee upon the subject next Session, and that the result of such a Committee would be to alter the law, and to enact that the House should have a right to know what these Commissioners did, what were the rules on which they acted, and, generally, what were all their proceedings.
After a few words from Lord Carberry, the Marquess of Clanricarde, and Lord Wharncliffe,
The Bishop of Exeterobserved, that he understood the noble Marquess to have called upon the Commissioners to cease to act as trustees, and to use a discretion of their own in dealing with the property over which they were placed. Now, as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, he must say that he conceived it to be his duty to act as a trustee, and only as such, and his duty as a trustee was, he conceived, to make the most of the property placed under his management.
The Earl of Radnorwas astonished to have heard his noble Friend near him (the Marquess of Clanricarde), and his noble Friend on the cross benches (the Duke of Richmond), contend that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were not acting rightly in making the most of the property subjected to their charge. As trustees, he conceived that they were bound to do so.
The Earl of Besboroughhoped, that the
1720
Ecclesiastical Commissioners would have no objection to make an annual report of their proceedings to Parliament.
Petition read and ordered to lie on the Table.

RAILWAYS BILL.
Lord Wharncliffemoved the resumption of the adjourned debate on the Amendment moved after the third reading. His Lordship stated, that having fully considered the effect of the words proposed to be inserted by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) he should briefly state the course which the Government intended to pursue. An Amendment had been proposed by the right rev. Prelate near him upon the sixth Clause of the Bill, in order to do away with the compulsory enactment of the Clause upon Railway Companies to run third class trains upon Sundays. Now, the feeling of the House no doubt was this, that although it might not be desirable to compel trains to be run on the Lord's Day, yet that it would be most unjust to the humbler classes of the public if measures were to be taken under this Act which would give an undue advantage to the wealthy—which would compel the convenience of Dives to be consulted, whilst Lazarus was refused permission to travel. Now, there were certainly two reasons deserving some weight why the Clause, as it at present stood, should be made the subject of some consideration. In the first place, when this Act was originally submitted to the Proprietors of Railways they were not led to expect that anything would appear in it under which they would be compelled to run third-class carriages on Sundays; and secondly, there could be no doubt but that if these trains were run, Government Inspectors and other persons must be compelled to break into their day of rest, in order to superintend and regulate the traffic. Under these circumstances, the Government had come to this decision, that nothing should appear in the Act to compel Railway Proprietors to run trains on Sundays; but that if they did run such trains, they should be compelled to afford as much accommodation to the poor as they afforded to the wealthy. They had, therefore, prepared a Clause to be introduced by way of rider to the sixth Clause, as amended by the Bishop of London, by which Clause it would be enacted that whenever any Railway should run any train whatever upon the Sabbath

1721
Day, to such train, or to one at least of any trains so run on the day, third-class carriages should be attached. This Amendment would, he hoped, entirely meet the difficulty which had been raised to the Clause.
Lord Monteaglethought some further explanation was necessary to induce their Lordships to adopt the Bill as now proposed to be altered, instead of in the shape in which it had come up to them from the other House. The question was, whether the accommodation which, under this proviso, the Railway Companies would provide for the poorer class, would be equal in point of accommodation and cost to that which they were required to provide for the same class on week-days? As the Bill came up from the Commons third-class trains were to be provided to run at the rate of twelve miles an hour, so that the proviso now suggested, if in all other respects equal advantages were given, would be an improvement.
Lord Wharncliffedoubted whether it would be competent for their Lordships to make any regulation in the Bill in regard to fares, without infringing the privileges of the other House, by whom a Clause had been inserted to limit the rates of fares. As to the accommodation which the Railway Companies would provide for third-class passengers on Sundays, in other respects he thought they might depend that they would attach third-class carriages on the Sundays of the same description as they were required to provide on the week-days. He objected, however, to making it compulsory on the Companies to provide carriages on Sundays with a certain amount of accommodation, because if that accommodation were nearly approaching that which was given in the second-class carriages, the second-class passengers would go to the third-class carriages; and if, to prevent that, a reduction was made in the second-class fares, and an inferior description of carriage provided, the first-class passengers would resort to the second-class carriages.
Lord Monteaglethought he could undertake to show that there was no question of privilege in the matter. The Bill, as it had come up from the Commons, enacted that the Railways should provide a certain description of third-class carriages at a certain fare, and all he wished was, that the same description of carriage should be provided on the Sunday. He, for one,
1722
could not rely upon the Companies doing this, unless they were compelled by the Bill, because, as the Sunday was the day on which the greatest number of people travelled, it would be the interest of the Companies to drive them into their second-class trains.
The Earl of Mintosuggested that it would be necessary to make an alteration in the Amendment proposed by the right rev. Bishop. This was a Bill that applied to the whole Empire, and it made an exception from the other days of the year of Good Friday and Christmas Day. These were days not observed by the Church of Scotland, and it would give great offence to that country if any Bill were to pass introducing such an observance of those days in that country.
The Bishop of Londonwould meet the objection by altering the latter words of his Amendment, as follows: "and of England on Christmas Day and Good Friday."
The Earl of Dalhousiesaid, as the Bill would stand with the Amendment proposed, every Railway must run cheap carriages at the same fares as those carriages were required to run on week days, with one at least of any trains they might run on the Sunday. He was not prepared, however, to compel the Companies to run the same description of third-class carriages on the Sundays as on the week-days; as the effect would be to induce persons to defer their journeys till the Sundays, and thus, by decreasing the week-day and increasing the Sunday traffic, act injuriously and unfairly upon the Railway Companies. He, for one, had no doubt that the Railway Companies being compelled to provide a particular description of third class carriage on week-days, would, under the influence of public opinion, employ the same kind of carriage on the Sunday; but, looking at the circumstances under which the Bill had been introduced, he did not think they could, with anything like justice to the Companies, make it compulsory on them to do so.
The Earl of Wicklowdid not consider that there was any danger of interfering with the Privileges of the House of Commons in this matter. He thought it highly necessary to the practical working of this Clause, that the poor should not be subjected to higher fares or to worse accommodation on Sundays, than upon

1723
any other day of the week, and therefore, that their Lordships ought to insist that the third class carriages used on Sundays should have seats, and be roofed in from the weather.
The Marquess of Clanricardewanted to know whether, under this Clause, it would be competent for the Companies to run third class trains for third class passengers only on the Sunday.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, it would be perfectly open for the Railway Proprietors to run such third class carriages if they pleased.
The Marquess of Clanricarde: But would they in that case be compelled to put on third class carriages to some one of the first and second class trains.
Lord Wharncliffe: No.
The Earl of Dalhousiesaid, by this Clause the Railway Proprietors were not compelled to run any train on the Sunday; but if they did, they must run once a day at least, third class carriages.
Lord Monteaglewas not satisfied with the Clause, until words should be introduced which would prevent the poor man from being compelled to travel by the present incommodious third class carriages, which no one had condemned or stigmatised more strongly than the noble Earl himself. He would, therefore, move that words "with such third class carriages as third class passengers shall be conveyed on other days, viz., by carriages covered over and provided with seats," be inserted.
A noble Lordobjected to the word covered, as not sufficiently explicit. A covered carriage meant merely a carriage with a top to it, but it need not have sides.
The Marquess of Normanbywas anxious that the poor who would travel by these third class carriages should be secured the same advantages on Sundays, in respect to the stations at which the trains stopped, as they would have on work-days. He should propose to insert words compelling the trains to stop at proper intermediate stations. His opinion was, that they ought to be made to stop at all the stations.
The Earl of Dalhousiesaid, as the Clause now stood, the third class carriages would stop at all the stations at which the other carriages stopped; but he must object to giving more accommodation in this respect to third class passengers than to those who travelled by the first and
1724
second class carriages; and in the next place, if they made the trains stop at every station, they would make all the bookkeepers and other officers at those stations sacrifice their Sunday in order to attend the coming and going of the trains; so that if the noble Marquess's proposition were carried, the number of persons who would be compelled to work on the Sunday would be almost as great as that of those he was anxious to accommodate. Unless in the case of State necessity, they should not interfere to compel people to work on the Sunday.
The Marquess of Normanbyunderstood from what the noble Lord had said, that he was not now prepared to put the poor persons who travelled on railways on Sundays on the same footing with the wealthier classes who travelled on them. He was not prepared to admit any amendment providing for their accommodation, or any amendment which would tend to prevent the Companies running their trains "right through," without stopping at a single intermediate station at which passengers might choose to alight. Under these circumstances, he proposed that the Clause should be printed, and that the discussion should be adjourned until to-morrow (this day), in order that noble Lords might have time to consider how the Amendments might best be worded.
Lord Wharncliffeobjected to any further postponement.
Lord Campbellmoved that the debate be adjourned till to-morrow.
The Bishop of Londonobjected to any further adjournment, so far as his Amendment was concerned.
After some further conversation, the Amendment of the Bishop of London (with the alteration suggested by the Earl of Minto) was agreed to without a division. A new Clause, the substance of which had been stated by Lord Wharncliffe, was then brought up.
Lord Monteagleproposed as an Amendment to the Clause to insert after the word "carriages" the words "with seats and protected from the weather." He trusted their Lordships would agree to his Amendment, as the third class carriages on many railways were no better than cattle-trucks, leaving the passengers exposed to the weather to the great hazard of their health and lives.
The House then divided on the Amend-

1725
ment:—Contents 30; Not-Contents 35: Majority 5.
Then the Clause was agreed to, and the Bill passed.

STATE OF THE NAVY.
The Earl of Mintosaid, that in rising, in pursuance of the notice which he had given a few nights ago, he wished to assure their Lordships that it was with great reluctance he was induced to bring before the House and the public the state of the Navy at the present moment. If he had been less unfortunate in obtaining the information which he had sought from his noble Friend opposite on a former occasion, or if he had heard anything from any noble Lord on the other side of the House to induce him to think that Her Majesty's Government were about to increase the Naval Force of the country, he should certainly not have thought of troubling their Lordships on the subject at present. He was quite aware of the objections and the inconvenience of dealing with such a subject under the existing circumstances of the country; he was aware of the state of feverish feeling that prevailed on the other side of the water, and he well knew how desirable it was that nothing should occur in this country that would be calculated to increase that excitement, for no man valued more than he did the maintenance of peace, or attached more importance to the continuance of the best understanding with France—he held that to be one of the most important objects the Government of this country could keep in view, and as no man, he would venture to say, had laboured with more assiduity to maintain that good understanding, and few had contributed more to extend it, so their Lordships might be assured that nothing should drop from him—at least intentionally—which could in any way be calculated to give just umbrage or offence to any of the members of the French Government, or to any individual of the French people. But all the good understanding which we would cultivate must, be on terms of perfect equality, and not be based upon anything like submission, or sacrifice of the interest or the honour of this country. In calling the attention of their Lordships to the state of the Navy of this country at the present moment, he wished to say that he, for one, was no advocate for very large naval establishments during the time of peace; but when he stated that, he was sure their Lordships would go with him in thinking that there was a limit even to the
1726
most penurious economy, and that there were bounds to the confidence with which we might venture to calculate upon the continuance of peace, or upon the forbearance of foreign countries from hostilities, considering how entirely the safety and the interests of the country depended upon the protection afforded by our Navy, he hardly expected to hear any of their Lordships maintain that there could be any time of such profound peace, or at which the country could be so secure, as to render it advisable to reduce the Navy to the very low state to which it had now been brought. Confidence in the duration of peace had sometimes been disappointed, even when the circumstances of the country were such that there was no reason to anticipate any interruption of our friendly relations. Their Lordshipe would all recollect a celebrated speech of Mr. Pitt in 1792, in which he stated—and his opinion went very far to carry out the measure then in contemplation—that there was a sure prospect of the duration of peace under the then circumstances of the country:—he said it was, of course, impossible to speak with absolute certainty in such cases, but that as far as it was possible for human foresight to anticipate, he thought we might count with perfect confidence upon a long and uninterrupted peace. This was in 1792, not twelve months before the breaking out of the longest and bloodiest war in which this country had ever been engaged. At the end of 1791—in the same feeling of security, and in the belief of the impossibility of any interruption of peace—it was thought proper to reduce the Navy, not, indeed, to the extent to which it had now been reduced, but to dismantle some ships and to reduce the armament that had been prepared in the early part of 1791. These, and many other instances, might be brought forward, at least as arguments for the maintenance of the Navy in such a state as would enable us to rely upon it in the event of any unforeseen interruption of peace—even in circumstances comparatively favourable; but he would ask whether the circumstances of the times now were entirely such as to leave no ground whatever for apprehension and anxiety? He had hitherto been speaking of what would be right at a time of profound and secure peace; but he asked their Lordships to cast their eyes around, and say whether there were not circumstances occurring in various parts of the world to cause a sentiment of anxiety and uneasiness as to the interruption of peace?

1727
He did not wish to allude more particularly to circumstances to which it was impossible to refer without some degree of anxiety, but he merely said that there were questions raised which justified such a feeling. He would remind their Lordships that there were questions now pending between us and the United States of America, on which strong national feelings existed; there was also in France, on the part of a considerable portion of the people, a feeling of no amicable character towards this country, and there were questions pending between us and that country, which might materially affect the interests of both nations. Upon the events which were now taking place on the coast of Africa he did not wish to dwell: but it was impossible to look at them without at least some slight degree of apprehension:—he trusted there was no reason to fear any interruption of the existing peace: his own opinion was that it would not be interrupted; but still he said, that the state of affairs was not such in which they ought to be left, or such as would justify the Government in leaving the country entirely without defence. If anything were wanting to confirm this view, it was to be found in the present state of things in France, independently of the state of feelings of the Government or of the people. He therefore thought that without entering more particularly into details, he had said enough to show that the aspect of affairs in all parts of the world was such as to require at least some degree of preparation on the part of this country. But if he looked with some degree of uneasiness upon the state of affairs abroad, he owned his alarm was greatly increased by the tone that was adopted and the language that was made use of by Her Majesty's Government; because, whenever this subject had been mentioned, he was unable to collect from any quarter that there was the slightest intention of increasing the forces or improving the resources of the country, or placing the Navy in such a state as would enable us to contend with honour in any contest we might be brought into if a contest should unhappily become unavoidable. He was sure there was no one of their Lordships who would not agree with him, that the degree of respect, and esteem, and friendship which we could hope to obtain from other countries, must depend, more or less, upon the strength and preparation which we could exhibit. No man could suppose that a great and powerful state, fully prepared, would be liable to the same
1728
accidents or the same treatment to which a weaker country might be subject. This country ought to possess such a fleet, and in such a state of preparation as would avert many of the dangers to which we might be exposed if we were not prepared. He should now state shortly to their Lordships the present amount of our Naval Force, which he certainly thought totally inadequate to the wants of the country, even in a state of profound peace, but still more so under the circumstances to which he had alluded. The whole Navy of England at the present moment, in line-of-battle ships, consisted of nine ships-of-the-line. Of these nine ships-of-the-line, two were on a very distant station — the East Indies; one, was also on a very distant station—the West Indies; one, as he understood, was under orders to sail for another distant station—the Pacific. He had heard a short time ago that there were at home three ships of the line, one at each of the home ports, and that one, also a flag-ship, was the ship of the Rear Admiral commanding at Cork; and the ninth ship was the Mediterranean fleet, for that fleet consisted of one sail of the line. He asked their Lordships whether, under any circumstances, that was a fit state of things? Could they conceive any state of things such as to make it tolerable that the Mediterranean fleet should be reduced to one ship of the line, and the power of reinforcing it also to one ship, unless we called upon the guard ships, and left ourselves destitute of defence for the coasts of the country? He did feel strongly that this was a condition he thought the Navy of England ought never to be reduced to, and that it was a state of insecurity in which this country ought never to have been placed. In consequence of the misunderstanding which had occurred between France and Morocco, and the deep interest which we had on the shores of the latter country, he understood that a reinforcement had been sent to the Mediterranean fleet, consisting of two sail of the line—the one a 90-gun ship, and the other a first-rate; the one being the flag-ship which had been stationed at Cork, and was a disposable ship, and the other the flag-ship from Devonport. These two ships which had been sent out to the Mediterranean, with some inconsiderable frigates, in addition to the one already there, amounted to the great number of three ships-of-the-line. But we were left to supply any further demands that might

1729
arise in the Mediterranean or elsewhere, or for service upon our own coast—we were left with only two ships-of-the-line on the shore of England. He did complain of this state of things, and the more particularly as it was totally unnecessary: only the other day the Queen arrived from the Mediterranean, not having completed her full time service, with her present officers and men: she arrived when all these events were known, almost at the time of dispatching the reinforcements, and she was paid off without the slightest reason, or at least, what was equivalent, she was substituted for another ship, which was paid off, and made to replace the guard-ship at the Nore: what ground there was for such a proceeding he could not imagine, it seemed to have been done without the slightest reason, and he could look upon it as nothing more than a wanton sacrifice of the security and honour of the country. He did not wish to refer to the force on foot at the time when his noble Friend succeeded to the Admiralty, except because he wished to show that there was a force on foot sufficient to admit of a large reduction, with a view to a proper and just economy, and yet to leave a powerful and sufficient fleet in commission. There were at that time in commission twenty-six sail-of-the-line, of which seventeen were in the Mediterranean. There would, therefore, have been no difficulty in maintaining a sufficient force, and their Lordships would recollect that it was much more easy to keep up a fleet when formed, than to raise one suddenly when it was required. He was unwilling to allude to former discussions in that House when he sat on the Benches opposite, and he should only do so as far as it was necessary to enforce his own argument, that the present force was absolutely insufficient, and had been considered so by the best authorities, and by the most eminent Members of the present Government. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that great complaints were made of the want of a sufficient Naval Force in 1838 and 1839. On that occasion, his defence was, not that a Naval Force was unnecessary, not that he was indifferent to the amount of Naval Force belonging to other nations; but his answer was, "I will show you that you have a large force—as large a force as you can desire." He accordingly showed that there were then in commission no less than eighteen ships-of-the-line (double the number at present in commission), at a time of profound peace, and when there was
1730
not the slightest apprehension of its disturbance. [The Earl of Haddington: That was in 1840.] In 1838. It was not his business to defend himself at present, or to show that the Naval Establishment which he maintained was sufficient or not; but he alluded to these matters in order to invoke the authority of noble Lords on the opposite side that the present Naval Force was much too low. When he was told that the number of ships at sea in 1838 was not sufficient, he showed that there were eighteen sail-of-the-line, whereas there were now but nine, and that every description of force was much larger than at present. Another noble Friend of his, whose opinion on those matters was entitled to the greatest weight, either in that or the following year, 1839, complained that, although the existing force might be sufficient for service abroad, still it was not sufficient, as to a reserve of ships, for the defence of the country, or for any emrgency which might arise. He alluded to Lord Melville. But he had at that time six sail-of-the-line in the home ports, and two at Lisbon, which was in the home command, so that he had eight ships-of-the-line disposable for any service. Bearing in mind that these complaints had been made not by persons who would act upon any factious motives, but by such authorities as the one to which he had alluded, and the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington), who had never given utterance to a factious opinion in that House—recollecting that such authorities had pronounced the force he had mentioned inadequate to the ordinary service of the country, he desired their Lordships to compare that with the force now existing, and to say whether it was not right and reasonable that when, instead of eighteen ships-of-the-line, as in 1838, there were now only nine, he should express his great regret and apprehension at such a deplorable reduction of the Naval Force of the country. He had heard that it had been stated in another place, that although our fleet was extremely weak at present—although there were no ships in commission, yet there were many in a state of readiness, and which could be speedily sent to sea, if any demand should arise for their services. Now, he knew something of these matters, let it not be supposed that he at all countenanced the opinion which prevailed some where, there was any reluctance on the part of seamen of this country to enter into the service of the Royal Navy. It was not so. They would always run with

1731
eagerness to that service in preference to any other, and it was natural that they should do so; because there was no other service in which their condition was so good. But you could not make two men out of one. If we wanted a number of men to fit out a fleet, he asked whether it would be possible, even resorting to the assistance of the press-gang, to procure them in sufficient time. If we required 10,000 or 15,000 men fit out a large force, and were able to procure them at a moment's notice, it must follow that they must be walking about the streets out of employment. To increase the Navy to any considerable amount—if we wished to recruit good men and seamen — must be an operation of considerable time, and to effect it they must wait for the arrival of ships from abroad; although, as he admitted, to a certain degree, men would run to the service. It had been said there, he believed, or in another place, that war could not come upon us by surprise—that we should have time to prepare for it. On one side that might be so, one party might have notice and time to prepare; but, he said, of all the nations in the world we ought to be the last to rely upon such preliminary notice, because if we asked Denmark or Spain, they would tell us that war had proceeded unexpectedly from this country, and therefore if any country should unfortunately have a hostile feeling towards us, they might adopt a similar mode of procedure. There was only one point more, connected with this part of the question, to which he wished to allude. It might be said, "Oh, its all very well; you had a great many ships, but they were wretchedly manned, and good for nothing." If he was told in answer to this Motion that the ships detatched for the service of the country at the time to which he had referred were not adequately manned, or did not perform the service creditably, he should have no difficulty in satisfying their Lordships that that charge was unfounded; and convincing them, by higher authorities than any that could be produced on the other side, that they were adequately manned for any service; but unless that was stated in answer to his complaint of the present deplorable state of the navy, he should not, as he was anxious to save their Lordships' time, enter into the particulars of that part of the case. He should now go to the second part of the Motion of which he had given notice. That was only a consequence of the low state of our Navy, and he feared the low tone of the language
1732
used by the Government—he alluded to the transactions which had taken place at Tahiti. His noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs admitted that a gross outrage had been committed on the person of the British Consul, but he had endeavoured to draw a distinction which he wished he had not attempted—his noble Friend endeavoured to draw a distinction between Mr. Pritchard, as Consul, when his flag was flying, and Mr. Pritchard when his flag was hauled down. This might have been mentioned as a kind suggestion to M. Guizot, as a ground for him to take when discussing the matter; but he (Lord Minto) must protest against Mr. Pritchard being viewed in any other light than as British Consul down to the day he left the island. It was true the Sovereign to whom Mr. Pritchard was accredited was deposed, and, therefore, there was nobody to whom his credentials were available; but that Government had been deposed by an usurpation not recognised by the Government of France, and certainly not by us—a mere usurpation by the captain of a French ship, who, acting on his own authority, deposed the Queen and seized the country in the name of France. Under these circumstances Mr. Pritchard must necessarily have ceased to exercise his functions; but as far as he could acquire a character from his pretensions or his employment by the Government of this country, he maintained that the distinction relied upon by his noble Friend was not entitled to the slightest weight, because there was no man in England who must not feel that the deposition of Queen Pomare, although it suspended Mr. Pritchard's functions, did not deprive him of his character of a British functionary, any more than it took away his character of a British subject. He wished now to call their Lordships' attention to some dates connected with these transactions. He would not enter into details, but it appeared that the invasion by the French Admiral, and the establishment of the French protectorate, took place in the month of September, 1842. In March, 1843, Captain Toup Nicolas, in the Vindictive, returning from service in China, arrived with Mr. Pritchard on board at Tahiti, and restored Queen Pomare to authority. In the same month March, 1843, his noble Friend was in communication with M. Guizot, acquiescing most courteously in all the arrangements of the French Government, and in the occupation or protection of Tahiti, and receiving from M. Guizot in return, as-

1733
surances of consideration and courtesy, both for British residents in the island and for the Queen, so far as was consistent with the degree of authority which it was considered necessary to maintain. In consesequence of the view taken of the matter at home, orders appeared to have been sent out to the Admiral in the Pacific, desiring him to refrain from further interruption of the proceedings of the French, and to do no more than was necessary for the protection of British interests. Those directions must have been sent out nearly at that time, from the time when they arrived, and from the change of measures that was observable. But when there was time for our Government to order the withdrawal of the Vindictive, one of the finest ships in the service, and one fully capable of protecting our interests, there surely was time for the French Government to instruct its officers to confine themselves within those limits usually observed between two nations of peace, and to observe that courtesy which might be mutually expected. In March, 1844, a new act of violence was committed by the French. Now, he could not explain—giving, as he did, full credit to M. Guizot for his intention to avoid everything like discourtesy towards us — why, when we found time to give orders for the disposal of our vessels within six months, he should suffer a whole year to elapse without sending out any instructions sufficient to restrain the outrageous proceedings which had unhappily occurred, and which the French Government found so much difficulty in defending. He asked again, if the knowledge of such attacks having been made, the restoration of Queen Pomare, and her subsequent deposition, was not sufficient to suggest the expediency of sending out some protective force to that quarter or to have retained the Vindictive at Tahiti instead of withdrawing her, and not to trust our honour and interest to the chance visit of some small frigate, in which at last the Queen was actually forced to take refuge. He felt confident, that if a force sufficient to ensure respect had been maintained there, the transaction to which he had alluded would never have occurred. As he said before, he was perfectly satisfied that the French Government, and the French King especially, desired to maintain the best understanding with this country: but there was one thing wanting to his sense of security—he was not satisfied as to the durability of the existing French Government, he could not at all events,
1734
have such confidence in its durability as to prevent his taking, if he had the power, those precautionary steps which any Government in our position was bound to take. That the present Government of France would be durable he sincerely hoped; but not a week passed that did not furnish some grounds of anxiety on that point. He owned, too, he had not confidence in the resolution of any French Government to persevere in its own views, when it found itself opposed to the clamour of French faction. In making these observations he trusted he was saying nothing offensive to the French Government. He would now allude to the French force in the Mediterranean. They had a fleet on foot of eight sail-of-the-line, and they had four more in a state of forward equipment; so that they might soon have twelve sail of the line at sea; while, instead of the British Navy being in the condition in which it was when the late Government quitted office, the present Government have left our own shores completely defenceless, so that there was nothing to prevent the French from sweeping the Mediterranean — sweeping the Channel, and cutting off all our trade to the West Indies. God forbid he should talk of such a state of things as probable, but he talked of it as possible, at a time when the state of affairs abroad forbade us to live in blind security. Seeing, as he had done, our Navy dwindle from day to day, until it almost disappeared, he felt it his duty to call the attention of their Lordships and the public to its state, in the hope that even now his noble Friend opposite would take some steps for restoring it to that state of efficiency from which it should never have been displaced. Even at this moment he could not look at a newspaper without seeing that the progress was rapid towards reduction. It was only the other day that he saw that the Vindictive, one of the most powerful frigates, and as strong as a line-of-battle-ship, just arrived from the Pacific, was ordered to be paid off, instead of being employed, at a time when undoubtedly this country ought to have a powerful force on the coast of Africa. It must be months before a ship could be equipped to replace her. He saw another also announced to be paid off. It did appear to him as if his noble Friend was infatuated on this point, and that the very thought of ships being in service was embarrassing to his mind. He trusted that he should hear something from noble Lords opposite to satisfy the public that the Navy

1735
should no longer be left in its present inefficient state. The noble Earl then moved for—
"A Return of Her Majesty's Ships of War (other than those reserved for Harbour Duty), in Commission, on the 31st of July, 1844; And also, a Return of Her Majesty's Ships of War present at Tahiti, from the 1st of September 1842 to the latest Period to which Advices have been received; specifying the Date of the Arrival there and Departure from thence of each ship."
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that the noble Earl who had just spoken, had at the commencement of his speech taken care to impress on their Lordships the deep sense he entertained of the responsibility of bringing forward questions of a nature like the present at an inconvenient moment. The noble Earl admitted that he was aware of the inconvenience of discussing this matter at the present moment; and yet, with remarkably inconsistency, he proceeded to remark on what he called the deplorably weak state of the naval defence of this country. He (the Earl of Haddington) was also fully aware of the inconvenience at the present time of discussions of a nature like that raised by the noble Earl; and he should therefore feel it to be his duty to abstain from any observations that might add to that inconvenience, and he should therefore only ouch on such parts of the noble Earl's speech, as might be necessary for his own defence and that of the Government. The noble Earl said, that he was not friendly to large naval establishments in times of peace; but that the making such reductions as might be necessary was different from a truckless submission. He (the Earl of Haddington), not being conscious of any truckling submission, was anxious to know to what the noble Earl alluded; but the noble Earl did not proceed to particularize or give any proof of his charge, but merely said that nothing could justify the reduction of the Navy to its present amount. He (the Earl of Haddington) had a return of the number of ships in commission for the three years ending on the 1st of July, 1839, 1840, and 1844, and the result was, that, though undoubtedly the number of ships in commission in 1840 was larger by three than the number in 1844, yet the number in commission on the 1st of July, 1844, was larger by three than the number in July, 1839. He was aware that the number of line-of-battle ships in those periods bore no comparison. On the 1st
1736
of July, 1844, the number of line-of-battle ships in commission was ten, and the Malabar being paid off, there were now only nine; but at the period to which the noble Earl had alluded as being the time when we had a great fleet in the Mediterranean, a state of hostilities was existing; Acre was being bombarded, and there were sixteen or nineteen line-of-battle ships in the Mediterranean for the purpose of carrying on hostilities. But that state of things had passed away, and a state of profound peace had succeeded, therefore, to keep up now anything approaching to the amount of line-of-battle ships which were maintained at the time to which the noble Earl alluded, would have been an extravagance which no Government would have been justified in indulging in. The noble Earl said, that in 1838 there were eighteen line-of-battle ships in commission; but the document which he (the Earl of Haddington) had shown what the number was in 1839, but not in 1838. Of these eighteen, three were guard-ships, which were then manned as fifth-rates; and this reduced the eighteen to fifteen. And how were they manned? Why they formed that undermanned class of line-of-battle ships in which the noble Earl appeared to delight. That the line-of-battle ships in the Mediterranean were greatly undermanned, appeared from the statement of an eminent and gallant naval Officer in the other House. A statement had been made elsewhere, which he regretted, because he did not like the possibility of such an event being hinted at; but, nevertheless, the House of Commons had been informed by Sir C. Napier, that had we then gone to war with France, he did not hesitate to say that France would have beaten us, because of the undermanning of our fleet. That then was the state of the eighteen line-of-battle ships. Whatever might be said of the number now, they were at least well manned. In looking at the Navy Estimates for 1838, he found the number of seamen and marines voted for the service of the years 1837–38, was 22,700, besides a supplementary vote of 465 men, making a total of about 23,000. Now, when out of these his noble Friend had manned his eighteen line-of-battle ships, he could not conceive how he could have manned the remaining ships in the other parts of the world. The number of seamen and marines for the present year was 36,000. This, give him leave to say, was a large peace establishment. The Government had thought

1737
it their duty, especially after all the financial difficulties, to have no greater Naval Force afloat than was necessary for the safety of the country, and for the feeding of the foreign stations with the necessary means of defence; and the wants of those stations were, to his certain knowledge, anxiously looked to. The cessation of the Chinese war had enabled the Government to withdraw a number of vessels from China; but many of the ships sent there had not yet come home; and the necessity of sending reliefs to the foreign stations, and the double expense of bringing some ships home and sending others out, had crippled the means of supplying ships of-the-line which we might otherwise have. When the noble Earl spoke of only nine sail-of-the-line being kept up by the present Government, he seemed to wish it to be inferred that that was the maximum; amount of Navy intended to be maintained in this country in time of peace. Such was by no means the case: it was, however, the number justified by the present state of our affairs. He certainly agreed in a great deal that had fallen from the noble Earl on the subject of the line-of-battle ships, and taking a general view of the matter, he thought that there always ought to be a proportionate number of line-of-battle ships disposable; but he protested against the noble Lord holding out the idea that it was the opinion of this Government that the navy should never be more than nine sail-of-the-line in the time of peace. This was a most unfair inference to draw. The noble Earl repeated the complaint he had made the other night, that there was but one line-of-battle ship in the Mediterranean. To this he would repeat the answer he had made that night, that when they were at peace with France (he was speaking now of the time when the Estimates were framed), and when there was a probability of the continuance of that peace; it was by no means necessary in apportioning their own force for the Mediterranean, that they should consider what amount of naval force France thought it necessary to maintain there; and, as respected the French force, it must be borne in mind, that Toulon, one of their principal ports, was in the Mediterranean; and that their possession of Algiers rendered it necessary that they should keep up a sufficient fleet to maintain their possession there; and moreover it was natural to suppose, that the French might occasionally choose to exercise their fleet in the
1738
Mediterranean, and we had no right to quarrel with them for doing so. The question was, had the British Government failed to protect British interests? and he was not aware that they had left British interests unprotected. He complained of the noble Earl coming down to that House with an inconvenient speech—inconvenient not to him (the Earl of Haddington), but inconvenient as respected the foreign relations of the country, and without having made out the slightest Parliamentary case. Regarding the noble Earl's Motion, coupled with his speech, as a condemnation of the conduct of the Government, he proposed that their Lordships should meet it with a negative. The noble Earl had next endeavoured to show, but had not succeeded, that the safety of this country was hazarded by not having a larger number of line-of-battle ships afloat. The noble Earl had not succeeded in proving this, or in showing the probability or possibility of a war occurring—say with France, for instance—without "coming events casting their shadows before." Surely the noble Earl could not intend to say, that we should always maintain such a Naval Force afloat as would enable us to carry on a war at once. The two or three additional ships insisted on by the noble Earl, would not enable us to meet such a case. He could tell their Lordships, that if there should arise any probable prospect of such an event, this country was amply supplied with overwhelming means of meeting such a necessity, in a very short space of time. Then, if that were so, the Government were not paltering with the safety of the country. We betide them if they ever did! The noble Earl had made out no case; and, considering his Motion as a call upon their Lordships to join in a condemnation of the Government with respect to the state of our Naval Force, he must resist the Motion. He repeated that we were prepared with overwhelming means for meeting any crisis that might arise. We had thirty what were called advanced ships in ordinary, with all their stores and rigging and fixtures ready; and if there were men for those thirty ships, they could be at sea in an incredibly short space of tune. Nothing had to be done but to put the stores and rigging in the ships, and to man and commission them, and they could be at once away at sea. He knew well that ships of the line were not to be manned in a day; but in the event of any necessity arising, it was not to be supposed but that there

1739
would be sufficient intimation beforehand, to enable the country to man as many ships as should be wanted. In respect to the steam power of the country, our preparations had been very great indeed. The Government had not neglected to avail themselves of that new element of defence and of destruction. They were going on not only building new steamers, but also producing the means by which, when necessity arose, we could build more; great progress had been made in the steam factory at Portsmouth, and money had been voted to do the same thing at Plymouth. These, together with the dockyard at Woolwich, added most materially to the means of the country, as far as this branch of the defensive service was concerned. He repeated, that although he did not deny that the number of our line-of-battle ships was quite as few as it was fit that we should have, yet he trusted he had made out a case to show that their Lordships need not tremble for the safety of the country, if such a crisis as had been anticipated should arise. As the noble Earl had said nothing as to any other ships but line-of-battle ships, he (the Earl of Haddington) would spare their Lordships any observations on any others. But the noble Earl had proceeded to comment upon the events that had occurred at Tahiti. He had said truly, that in September 1842, the French had established what was called a Protectorate in those islands; and the noble Earl's object in bringing at that moment the question of Tahiti—the somewhat delicate question of Tahiti—under discussion, was to show that the Government, and especially the department with which he (the Earl of Haddington) was concerned, were to blame for not having had a sufficient force there to prevent the French from so establishing the Protectorate. [The Earl of Minto: I never said that.] Then, what were they to have done? [The Earl of Minto made an observation which was inaudible.] But they had not consulted our Consul, when they established the Protectorate. That was a thing which burst on the world by surprise. There had been nothing to call the attention of this country to Tahiti, before the French went there and established the Protectorate, more than to any other part of the Pacific. He must remind their Lordships, that the distances were enormous in that part of the world—that the Pacific Ocean covered nearly one-half of the globe. The Talbot frigate went to Tahiti, and stayed there till February, 1843. The Vindictive
1740
arrived on the 25th of February, with Mr. Pritchard on board. He had come from Van Diemen's Land, and was going on to Valparaiso, but Captain Nicolas, understanding from Mr. Pritchard what had occurred at Tahiti, he very properly took him on board, and took him there. The Vindictive was there from February to August. The Admiral relieved the Vindictive on the 6th of August; and the Dublin, a ship of fifty guns, arrived at Tahiti on the 3rd of September, and remained there till January, 1844. The fact was, speaking generally, that Tahiti had never been without a British force adequate to the protection of British interests. The noble Earl said, that had the Vindictive been there, these events would not have happened. But the Dublin was there when the French took possession of the sovereignty. Under the eyes of the captain of the Dublin, Dupetit Thouars did that which was disavowed by his Sovereign, and for doing which he was recalled. And he begged to remind the noble Earl, that when the servants of a Sovereign did that which was disapproved of by the Sovereign, that Sovereign was the person to visit punishment upon them, and not the servants of another power, whose interference might have embarked the civilised world in a war, the end of which it would be in vain to calculate. He apprehended that nothing could be more proper than the conduct of Captain Tucker, who commanded the Dublin. He acted with great prudence. He did not interfere at all, except by protesting against the steps that were taken. He did nothing by which he could run the risk of involving his country in war; and if the noble Earl meant to say, that the captain of the other vessel, had he been there, would have adopted a different course, and by hostilities have prevented the circumstances which occurred — [The Earl of Minto: I did not say by hostilities.] How then could he have prevented them? [The Earl of Minto said, he would have prevented the outrage on the person of Mr. Pritchard.] He did not wish to enter into the question further than to declare his belief of the impossibility of the captain preventing the outrage. He was, however, travelling out of the record as far as his department was concerned. What he had to maintain was, that we had all along had forces in the Pacific sufficient to watch over British interests, and not to interfere with the proceedings of Foreign Powers, except so far as British interests were involved.

1741
He maintained that this duty had been performed, and that British interests had not suffered, except by this violent outrage, upon which subject, considering all the circumstances, he did not mean to say a word. Upon the same ground that he had objected to the first part of the Returns moved for by the noble Earl, he should object to the rest; and, if he had detained them too long on the subject, he trusted their Lordships would attribute it to his natural wish to defend his department, and the Government generally, from the attack which had been made upon it.
The Duke of Wellington: The noble Earl opposite having adverted to some observations of mine some years ago, on the state of the Navy at the time, notwithstanding that I am quite satisfied with the defence which my noble Friend has made of his department, I must trouble your Lordships for a very few moments, in order to show you the difference between the state of things now and at the period when I made those observations. My Lords, at that period this country was engaged in a state of warfare in North America, which required, imperatively required, the assistance of a considerable fleet; also in China, also in India, and even in the Persian Gulf. Though, my Lords, I was not exactly in the service of the Government at that period, I was very much in the habit of communication with a noble Friend of mine, then at the head of the army, now, unfortunately, no more; and when he asked my opinion on any subject, I never failed to communicate it to him freely. I certainly did frequently advise my noble Friend, and consulted with him in respect of the operations of our fleets and armies at that period in all parts of the world; and, my Lords, that of which I complained then was, that being at war—engaged in extensive war—as I have stated, in three quarters of the globe, those wars were carried on with a peace establishment; the consequence of which was that the usual peace services were starved. Now, I am not going to enter into details of the number of men in the different ships, and so on; they are naval details, into which I am not competent to enter, nor will I enter into them. But we all know the number of men voted for the service; that is the criterion of the strength of the Navy—it is, in fact, the provision by the Government and the Parliament for the Naval Service of the year; and,
1742
I believe, if we compare the number of men voted in this year of peace, they will be found equal to any number of men voted at any period previous in time of peace, even considering as a period of peace the period of time extending from the year 1837 down to 1839 and 1840, during which this country was engaged in great operations in America, China, India, and the Persian Gulf. Under these circumstances, I think the noble Earl did not do me justice, when he compared the state of things with which I found fault in 1837, 1838, and 1839, with what exists at the present moment. The state of things was quite different; and, as far as I understand the condition of the Navy at the present moment, I believe that ample means exist everywhere of performing the services which ought to be performed by Her Majesty's Navy; that is, giving protection to Her Majesty's subjects in whatever quarter of the world their commerce or other concerns may carry them. I believe the noble Earl does not contend that that protection has not in any case been given. When I say given everywhere, I do not mean to advert to contingencies, so wholly out of all ordinary and reasonable calculation, as that recent transaction in the Pacific, out of the way events, carried on under circumstances protested against by this country, and disavowed by the Government of France. My Lords, those who have been guilty of those eccentricities will be responsible for them to somebody; and I conclude, as a matter of course, that that responsibility will be carried into execution, and that they will be required to account for their conduct. The noble Lord surely could not expect that large fleets were to be kept up in every corner of the world to meet such improbable contingencies as these, or that when they did occur, our officers were to be expected to begin hostilities against a national flag on account of the eccentricities of a particular individual. I will venture to say, and I have no doubt it will be found so when the matter comes to be examined into, that our fleet in the Pacific was, at the period at which these events occurred, sufficient to give full protection to Her Majesty's subjects in that quarter, under all ordinary circumstances. Whether it was sufficient at Tahiti, or any other part of those seas, is a question for the officer in command on the spot. I don't intend, my Lords, to go further into that question.

1743
Whether the gentleman who has been referred to was our Consul or not, at the time these events occurred, or whether he merited or did not merit what has happened to him, these are questions I am not going to enter into on this occasion. My noble Friend has stated what is true—that a great outrage was committed. I entertain no doubt that satisfaction will be given for that outrage, and I am sure that it is better that there should have been no naval contest there, than that there should have been any attempt made by the naval officer on the spot by a contest to prevent what has happened.
The Marquess of Clanricardethought that however weak the Navy might be, its weakness could not be greater than the answer which had been made by the noble Earl opposite to the Motion before the House. The noble Earl said, that no Parliamentary ground had been shown for the Motion; as if to make up for this alleged deficiency, the noble Earl had himself shown that there was full ground for the Motion. The noble Earl having said that the present Naval Force was proposed to Parliament at a time when we were at "profound peace" with the world, himself gave their Lordships to understand, that since the time the estimate was proposed, circumstances had changed in this respect. [The Earl of Haddington: No, no.] He was glad to hear the noble Earl say "no;" but certainly the noble Earl had said, in what seemed to him a very marked way, that the estimates were prepared when the country was "in profound peace" with the world—a manner so marked as to leave it to be implied, that since that time circumstances had occurred to threaten that "profound peace;" and, at all events, it appeared to him (the Marquess of Clanricarde) perfectly certain that, in the existing state of things, we had not a sufficient force afloat to have the effect of maintaining peace, by presenting that ready front for war, which on many occasions had prevented the having recourse to war itself. The noble Earl scarcely denied that the present Naval Force was too low; he had shown no reason at all why the line-of-battle ships had been reduced to nine; why one of these ships had been paid off. All he did say was, that nine fully-manned ships were better than a larger number under manned. Now as to the noble Earl's imputation against the system
1744
pursued by his noble Friend in respect of the manning of ships, it was generally cousidered that the so-called undermanned ships, in the time of his noble Friend's Administration, had performed their duty in the most efficient manner possible. He had been informed, on very excellent authority, that our ships at that time were more strongly manned than were Lord Nelson's when he won the battle of Trafalgar. He had been told that the ships now, very many of them, were overmanned — so much so as even to endanger the health of the crews. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) was very sorry to hear the manner in which the noble Earl referred to the affairs at Tahiti. He spoke of them as a delicate matter. What necessity was there for any delicacy in speaking of them? The facts were notorious to all the world—the agent of our Sovereign had been insulted. The Prime Minister in another place when he spoke of the matter took a proper tone, and so did the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs the other night—they did not talk of it as a delicate affair. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) could not for a moment hesitate to suppose that a proper reparation would be made, and he did not think they ought to be told not to speak on the subject because it was a delicate affair. His noble Friend was told too that he made his speech at an inconvenient moment. Why inconvenient? Inconvenient to the noble Earl it might be; but if because the establishment was too low, it was his noble Friend's duty to make his views known to Parliament, without waiting until the indefinite period, when Government might think fit to consider the discussion convenient. Was he to wait till all the mischief was done, and then say he was checked, because it was inconvenient that the smallness of our force should be known? If on the other hand, the Navy was in a strong and efficient state, surely there could be no inconvenience from making the fact known. The noble Earl said the Vindictive was at Tahiti from February to August, 1843, and that she was immediately succeeded by the Dublin; but then the Dublin also left the station in January, while these occurrences did not take place until March. Dates were important, because they showed that there was ample time to send out orders to the Captain of the Dublin, in consequence of the tone taken by the French officers at

1745
Tahiti, and he firmly believed that had the Dublin been there at that time, these occurrences would never have taken place. His noble Friend had referred to 1838, because in that year, we being at peace, he was attacked for having an insufficient force in the Mediterranean. At that time an opinion was pronounced by the noble Duke which fully applied to the present time. He observed, that we were not to compare our Navy with its state in former times, but with the increased force of other Powers; and also to bear in mind that our commerce was not only tripled, but that it was extended to ten times its former amount; and that there was no part of the earth, from the North Pole to the South, in which our commerce did not require the protection of a Naval Force. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) maintained that the Navy did not now sufficiently afford protection to our commerce. Had it been so, Tahiti would not have been trusted to a mere ketch—the Basilisk. He entirely agreed in the hope of the noble Lord, that there would be no real disturbance. No one could deplore it more than he should; but to say that what was going on on the coast of Morocco ought not to be narrowly watched, was to suppose a degree of infatuation which he could not believe possible. A fleet had been despatched to that quarter, which circumstance sufficiently showed that the Government thought it necessary to be prepared against any contingency that might arise. He repeated, that the best way of avoiding war was to be prepared for it. Government could not control affairs on distant stations, but by being prepared, they diminished the chances of war.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that his use of the word "delicate" did not apply to the outrage on Mr. Pritchard, but to the holding of an argument in Parliament on a subject which must necessarily form the subject of discussion between the two Governments. The noble Marquess said, that British commerce was endangered. He challenged him to show where it was not protected. Did he suppose it was only to be protected by line-of-battle ships?
The Marquess of Clanricarde: No; no more than in 1838.
The Earl of Hardwickesaid, that the statement of his noble Friend (the Earl of
1746
Haddington) was a statement of facts, and he was of opinion that this statement was a full answer to the noble Earl opposite. The Motion of the noble Earl would not elicit anything that was not printed already. The noble Marquess had just referred to the year 1838, but the number of men then voted was 23,000, while the number voted for the present year was nearly the largest that had been voted by Parliament in these recent years, and he could see no reason for coming down to Parliament and asking for a war-establishment, merely on account of the caprice and eccentricities of individuals in a distant part of the world, whose conduct had been disavowed as soon as known by the Government whose subjects they were. He thought his noble Friend had given ample reasons why the Naval Force should not have been larger than it was. He would not enter into the question of manning ships; many members of his profession thought that ships ought not to be short-manned; that was a very natural opinion in naval men, nor was he surprised that the noble Earl should have introduced this subject to their Lordships. The noble Earl was himself so severely hammered by the public at large, and in that House, that it was almost absolutely necessary for him to take the course he had taken in order to set himself right and appease his wounded feelings. As yet he had not heard one single soul out of doors talk of the slightest necessity for any inquiry upon this question, while it was notorious that such had been the depression of the Naval Service at the period when the noble Earl opposite was at the Admiralty, and the deficiency of the means of equipping and fitting out a fleet, that the state of public opinion absolutely compelled those who were in opposition both in that and the other House of Parliament, to bring under discussion those subjects which he admitted were always more or less inconvenient. At a very early period, when first the friends of the noble Earl took the Government of the country into their hands, they had shown the greatest anxiety to cut down the whole naval expenditure to the very lowest point, he would not say unfairly, for the purpose of inducing the public to think them a most deserving and economical Administration. Then the most extensive changes took place in the arrangements and economy of the Naval Service, and from that period downwards there had been a difficulty in meeting the views of many persons in this country with

1747
regard to the speedy equipment of a Naval Force. His noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty had stated that we had large means at command of equipping a great naval force, but there was some difficulty in immediately finding men—of all things the most important. His noble Friend was not to blame, the public opinion on that subject had changed, and he had only been compelled to adapt his opinions to the wishes and desires of the House of Commons. He had got the largest number of men that had been voted during a time of peace, and after those who were responsible for the due administration of public affairs declared that in the present state of our relations with foreign countries that force was deficient, he did not think it necessary to go to Parliament for an increase merely because there had been unfortunately some capricious or choleric exhibitions on the part of some French officers at Tahiti, for which no doubt proper reparation would be made. Putting aside this part of the question, which had been entirely answered by his noble Friend and the noble Duke, he would venture, as a naval officer to make one observation, which he felt, though with great diffidence, ought to put an end to debates of this kind. To be prepared at all times for any emergency that might arise, without materially increasing the expense, they must fall back on that system which noble Lords opposite overthrew. That system was to have an efficient force of able-bodied seamen at all times ready at command. An effective, efficient force of 10,000 or 20,000 men was formerly always kept under command of the Admiralty instead of under the Board of Customs, for the protection of the revenue; and at any moment they might be turned into any of our ships on the shortest possible notice. Such a system always enabled them to meet any emergency that could occur. Such an occasion presented itself when we were obliged to send a force to Portugal, and the equipment of a large force of line-of-battle ships was completed in so very short a space as to excite the greatest surprise in the public mind. But that system had been overthrown by Governments of more recent years, for what purpose he could not understand, and they could not be re-established after being so long quietly acquiesced in without calling for an increase of the Naval Force to an inconvenient extent. Unquestionably, with a force of 36,000 men, when the exchanges had taken place, it might be possible to increase the
1748
number of ships. He had always felt that, in addition to a disposable force such as he had described, there should be at all times a considerable disposable force of ships, to enable the Government under any particular circumstances that might suddenly arise to send out immediately ships to any foreign station. The noble Earl (the Earl of Minto) had been himself in that dilemma, and not being able to send ships from home, he was obliged to shift them from one station to another. [The Earl of Minto: No, no.] Surely the noble Earl had not forgotten the pamphlets of Captain Crawford and the "Flag Officer," drawing attention to the defenceless state of our shores, when he was at the Admiralty? He felt quite certain that the present discussion would tend to nothing but to draw public attention for a very short time to what passed in that House. His noble Friends, who were perfectly aware of all the circumstances and necessities of the State, would at all times be perfectly prepared to meet any exigency that might arise; and at the present moment he felt confident that at no period of late years had the Naval Service been in a more completely effective state—never had the home yards been better supplied, or the necessary equipments of all descriptions of ships more easily available, while the ships afloat were confessedly on all hands most efficiently and effectively manned.
The Earl of Mintoreplied. He must express his regret that such a statement had been made, as that of the noble Earl, even upon the high authority of Sir Charles Napier, that the Mediterranean Fleet had been in such a deplorable condition, that had any collision with the French taken place, the result must have been very disastrous to our arms.
The Earl of Haddingtondenied that he had referred to Sir Charles Napier as a "high authority"—he had merely quoted the statement of the gallant Commodore.
The Earl of Minto: No one could appreciate more highly than he did the great qualities of Sir Charles Napier; no one had been more ready than himself, while at the Admiralty, to employ him, and to entrust to him the discharge of any service. There was, however, a great difference between a high degree of military skill and enterprise for which that gallant Officer was so mnch distinguished, and that sober judgment in forming an opinion, and even upon a subject like this, which was purely a professional one, and he might add that

1749
good fighters were often very bad talkers. But was the Mediterranean fleet in the state in which it had been described by the noble Earl? He said that it was not. This was also the opinion of that most able and gallant officer who commanded the fleet, who had stated that he feared no consequences, and in his correspondence with him (the Earl of Minto), he expressed no doubt as to the result of any service that fleet might be called upon to perform. But had that fleet nothing to do? Had it not to perform a service of the most arduous nature, and the result of which was equally honourable to the persons engaged and to the character of the British Navy? He said that the fleet was well prepared for any service, and that the fleet was more strongly manned than any fleet which had left England during the war. If they went to a comparison of the complement of the crews of the ships engaged in the great actions during the last war, and those of the force which was in the Mediterranean, it would be found that the number of men was greater in the latter. He should, however, explain that the only ships which could be compared with those employed in the last war was the second class of the then rates, namely, the 74 and 76 gun-ships. All the other classes of-line-of-battle ships in the Navy were much larger than the same classes were during the war, but the class which he had just named was exactly the same with a class extensively employed during the war. In Lord St. Vincent's action, on the 14th of February, there were five seventy-fours, and the crews of all were borne on board each of them—that was not only the complements on the ships' books, but persons taken out of prizes, &c.—was on the average 575 men. In Lord Duncan's action, the average number of men on board this class of ships was 554. At the battle of Trafalgar the complements of the second class of the third rates—in the larger vessels 625, and in the smaller 563. The average complement, therefore, of each of the sixteen vessels of this class engaged in this action was 598. In the Mediterranean fleet under Sir R. Stopford there were seventeen ships of the line. In addition, however, to the complements of the various ships there were 775 marines, divided between the seventeen ships; this gave an average reinforcement of forty-five marines to each ship. They now came to the complement of the same class of ships as those he had referred to as having been engaged at Trafalgar.
1750
Sir Robert Stopford was ordered to increase the crews of his ships by entering men as freely as possible, and in addition every fresh ship sent out from England to join that fleet took out a number of supernumaries, which he would not take into account. The larger class of ships of this rate in the Mediterranean fleet were the Cambridge, the Revenge, and the Implacable. In the first of these vessels the complement of the crew was 598, to which, if the forty-five marines be added, the number would be 643.* The Revenge had the same number, and the Implacable had a crew of 570 men and forty-five marines, making together 615. The average number of men on board this class of ships was therefore 633, while in the great victory of Lord Nelson the average number for the same class was 625. Of the smaller class of third rates in the Mediterranean, namely, the Hastings, the Benbow, and the Edinburgh, the crews were 540 men and forty-five marines, making together 585. This was twenty-seven more men on board each of this class of ships than there were in similar ships in Lord Nelson's action. The result was that the average of all the seventy-fours in Sir R. Stopford's fleet was 610 men. In Lord Nelson's great action, 598. It appeared, then, that there was a stronger complement on board the ships in the Mediterranean fleet than there was during the war. As for the assertion that the present class of ships required more men to work them than those that were placed in the same class during the war, he could only observe, that certainly the armament was lighter as regarded the weight of the guns, and also the work in the ship was much less than before. Take, for instance, the Captain, 74, in 1797. Her weight of guns was 3,310 cwt., while in the Edinburgh, the same class-ship as the Captain, the weight of guns was 3,120 cwt., making a difference of nine tons and-a-half in favour of the modern ships, with such greatly improved armaments. This was equivalent to the weight of two guns, and of twenty-four men to work them. The weight of shot for a broadside in the old ships was 740, and in the new ships 1,230. As for reducing the number of men on board-ships in time of peace, he was not to blame for having introduced this practice, for it had always been the custom to make reductions in the peace complements of ships as com-
* The figures in the different reports are very confused.

1751
pared with the war complements. For his own part he had always allowed larger peace complements than any of his predecessors. As for the present mode of manning ships, he happened to know that great inconvenience had arisen from over-crowding the crews on board the smaller line-of-battle-ships. He was satisfied that considerable inconvenience would arise from this proceeding, and he feared that the opinions of those able and distinguished officers, Sir T. Hardy, Sir R. Stopford, and Sir W. Parker, coincided with his own. He held in his hand a communication from the last named officer, pointing out the evils which would arise in persisting in this practice. [The noble Earl read the document.] He would not attempt to answer the noble Earl who spoke last, who had made a very able diversion in the debate, by making an attack upon him, at which, however, he did not feel in the slightest degree hurt. The noble Earl complained of the reductions that had been made in the Navy, and described them as being most pernicious. He (the Earl of Minto) was fully aware of this; and the last blow given to the Navy of this country was when Lord de Grey was First Lord of the Admiralty. But immediately he was appointed to the Admiralty he found the Navy Stores to have been reduced to the lowest ebb, and he instantly went to work to refill our great arsenals. He trusted that they would never see the Navy reduced to the state which it was in 1835. He would only add, that he was surprised that his Motion was resisted. He had met with the greatest difficulties in obtaining any information respecting the Navy. Whenever he had put a question on the subject he was met with the complaint that he had not given notice, and now that he had given notice he was told that it must be resisted, as it implied a censure on the Board of Admiralty. He did not think that this reluctance to give information manifested any great confidence in the state of the Navy.
The Earl of Haddingtonobserved, that he had only quoted the opinion of Sir C. Napier as to the manning the ships, not to express any concurrence in his opinion of the result. The noble Earl said that Sir C. Napier was a good fighter, but not the best person to decide a question of this kind. Now he (the Earl of Haddington) should have thought that that class of officers were the most likely to give a sound judgment on such a point. Certainly, the feeling must have been very strong to
1752
induce that gallant Officer to express such an opinion.
On Question, Resolved in the Negative.

LAW COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord Campbellmoved the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned Debate on the Amendment moved after the Third Reading of the Law Courts (Ireland) Bill. The object of his Amendment was, that the patronage of the offices in the Courts of Law in Ireland should be transferred from the Lord Lieutenant to the Chief Judges of each Court.
The Duke of Richmondthought that the Irish Judges would rather be without this patronage. He thought that it was most desirable that the Judges should be kept aloof from any matter of this kind.
Lord Campbellremarked that the patronage to the offices in the several Courts of Justice in England rested with the Chief Justice in each Court, and by giving the patronage of these offices in Ireland to the Crown an invidious distinction was drawn between the Judges of the two countries. He had received communications from several of the Irish Judges, expressing their approval of the Amendment which he had proposed.
The Earl of Wicklowpresumed that the noble Duke, entertaining the opinions which he did, would move for leave to bring in a Bill to take away this description of patronage from the English Chief Justices and give it to the Crown. He hoped that this Amendment would be agreed to, as it was another step to assimilate the practice in the Courts of the two countries.
The Lord Chancellorremarked, that so far from the Irish Judges regarding the bestowing this description of patronage on them in an invidious light, he knew that it was directly the reverse from communications which he had received from them.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad no doubt but that the fact was as stated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, as to the feelings of the Judges. The question before the House was, whether this was a proper course to take. He had been Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for four years, and had often been called upon to exercise patronage in connection with the Irish Courts of Justice, and he should at once say, if the Judges of those Courts were anxious to receive this patronage, any Lord Lieutenant would very gladly part with it. He had ever been of opinion that

1753
this description of patronage should rest with the Judges of the respective Courts, and as it was another step to assimilate the practice of the two countries, he should support the Motion.
The Duke of Richmondobserved that he was perfectly ready to support a measure to take away this description of patronage from the English Judges. He objected to leave this patronage to the Judges, who for any indiscreet exercise of it might be attacked in Parliament.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the Irish Judges felt that they were not on a footing of equality with the English Judges. They felt as if it were thought that they were not competent to be entrusted with the exercise of a species of patronage which ever belonged to English Judges.
The Earl of Fortescuecordially concurred in all that had been said by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Normanby) near him. He did not see that the Judges in Ireland were likely to make a worse exercise of this patronage than the Judges in England. He thought that in every instance it would be much better to leave the Judges to appoint the officers of their own Courts.
Amendments agreed to. Bill passed.

POOR LAW.
Lord Wharncliffe, in moving that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, proceeded to explain the principal alterations made by it in the existing law. The first he should notice was that respecting bastardy—a subject which was one of the most difficult for legislation that could well be conceived. There was no doubt that the law as it stood at present on that subject was most unsatisfactory, and that the evils which it had given rise to, without, in point of fact, relieving the wants and distresses of those poor women who were the object of it, were so great and the proceedings on the part of the overseers often so shameful and disgusting, that some alteration was deemed to be absolutely necessary. He was one of those who had thought that if the evil of bastardy was to be corrected at all, it must be by improvement in the conduct and behaviour of the women, and for this purpose it was recommended by the Poor Law Commissioners, that the whole burthen of supporting the bastard child should fall upon the mother, under the idea that it would tend to enforce chastity upon the part of the woman. But in that he, and those who
1754
brought in the Bastardy Clauses of the present Act, were deceived; for, though in some parts of the country bastardy had decreased, it had on the whole increased. Some alteration was therefore necessary. Under the existing law a woman, after being delivered of a child, might apply to a Justice of the Peace, or rather upon her application to the parish for relief, the parish officer would take her to a Justice of the Peace, who was empowered to issue an order to summon the alleged father before him, and on his appearing might issue an order for the payment of a certain maintenance; but the power of enforcing him to pay a certain sum for that purpose was quite inoperative. If he refused to pay, there was no means of compelling him. Before that alteration was made the order could only be obtained at Quarter Sessions. The Clauses so enacting had been drawn by him; his impression at that time being that the fear and shame of being brought before the Quarter Sessions would be an incentive to women to take better care of themselves. He also inserted a provision that no man should be deemed to be the father of a child without coroborative evidence; because he had seen great abuses arise from the absence of such testimony. They at the same time could not conceal from themselves that there was a cruelty in not providing the woman with some effectual remedy, or with the means of supporting her child; and the question was how that remedy could be given without affecting the poor. They had accordingly come to the conclusion, that the best way to act would be to disconnect the matter entirely, to make it no longer a business of the overseers or persons connected with the Poor, but to give to the woman a summary means of obtaining from the putative father a certain amount of relief for the child. The present Bill enabled the woman to go before a Magistrate when pregnant, or after the delivery of the child, to swear to the circumstance, and to name the father. The Magistrate, upon being satisfied, not only, however, on the oath of the woman, but on other evidence, that the man named was the putative father of the child, could make an order against him for a sum not exceeding 5s. per week for the first six weeks after her confinement, and after that 2s. 6d. per week, the non-payment of which upon proper investigation would incur imprisonment. But the woman must herself go and make her complaint before the Magistrate, from whom, if

1755
she thought proper, she might obtain an order against the putative father for the payment of the money—the money to be paid to her, and not to the overseer. It was, in fact, not to go to the relief of the poor at all, nor was the mother herself to receive relief unless as a destitute person would in any other case. He thought that the effect of obliging the woman to go herself before the Magistrate was better than to have her led as heretofore by the overseer. If she did feel she had a right to receive something from the father of the child, she could go and complain, as in any other case, upon which a Magistrate would decide. The Bill also gave an appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions, in which case also the woman must give not only her own evidence, but adduce corroborative evidence also. The next point related to apprenticeships, with which many evils were connected. By this Bill all compulsory apprenticeships were done away with. Then came several Clauses on the subject of voting for the Guardians of the Poor. That brought him to the 25th Clause, which provided for the relief of married women, in certain cases subject to the conditions on which it was to be granted to widows. The principle of the Bill was, that old and able-bodied persons might receive relief out of the workhouse. A proper understanding between the Boards of Guardians would prevent any abuse of this relaxation. If, in manufacturing and populous places, which were liable to great and sudden fluctuations in trade, they refused to apply the labour test, the people might starve—it was quite a mistake to say that people who were driven from one trade had only to turn to another; and the fact of the Commissioners being unable to enforce their order against outdoor relief in such cases showed it to be so. Some alteration was also required to correct the evil arising from the necessity of sending persons back to their own districts. In manufacturing counties the labourers were constantly changing, as from Lancashire into Yorkshire. He thought great advantage would arise from the relieving officers of the different Unions communicating with each other in reference to the parties seeking relief. The Clause relating to the burial of paupers was an improvement. He next came to the appointment of district auditors, which he thought a very great improvement. Experience had proved that when the matter of accounts was under the guidance of the overseers solely, the most improper practices pre-
1756
vailed. The introduction of auditors to audit accounts had had the best effect in producing regularity in accounts, and the saving of considerable sums of money to parishes. The new Clauses would establish what were called district auditors, so that instead of each Union having an auditor, a certain number of parishes would have them, and they would be spread over a greater space. A very important part of the Bill was the formation of district schools. An experiment had been made which showed in an extraordinary degree and satisfactory manner the advantages of such establishments. Not many years had passed since a district school consisting of children from a great number of parishes in London was established at Norwood; a very different kind of institution from those where children were farmed at so much per head, and where they were both ill-taught and ill-tended. He had never been so much pleased as he had been with his visit to the establishment at Norwood. Their Lordships might there have seen children whose very features seemed to indicate the miserable and vicious condition from which they had been removed, happy and desirous of receiving instruction; and they were instructed not only in reading, writing, and so forth, but in industrial pursuits of several kinds. If their Lordships had not visited the Norwood school, he recommended them to do so, and then they would discover what good effects could be produced by small means. An object of this Bill was, that in populous districts not exceeding fifteen miles from one part to another, there should be established a school under a Board constituted for the purpose. He apprehended that this would lead to very great benefit to the poor themselves, and to their unfortunate children, many of whom, if left to themselves, must sink in ignorance and vice; but they would now have an opportunity of being properly educated and made good citizens. There were other clauses forming what were called district asylums. Their Lordships must have seen day after day in the newspapers statements that various persons had been found wandering about without any visible means of subsistence; these asylums were proposed as places in which such unfortunate people should be accommodated for a short time previous to their settlement being fixed in their respective parishes. There was another most important clause for making the unions smaller. He believed that a great mistake was at

1757
first committed under the New Poor Law in making the unions too large. This Bill gave permission to separate parishes from Unions without consent of Boards of Guardians. Such, generally, were the objects of the Bill—a Bill which he knew was much objected to, as indeed the amended Poor Law Act had been continually. The amended law had been the object of great vituperation on the part of certain persons in this country; but he could not help thinking that those persons had forgotten the evils of the old law. He thought also that they estimated too lightly the difficulty of dealing with this subject. In this country there were different classes of men among the lower orders; persons employed in a thousand different ways. In one part of the land there were manufacturers; in another, agriculturists; and in another, a mixture of both—it was most difficult indeed to suit all descriptions of persons, three or more, of which the mass of the population consisted. But the framers of the New Poor Law and its supporters had been charged with inhumanity. He must say from experience that under the new system the poor were infinitely better off than under the old law. Let their Lordships look only at the question of medical relief. It was stated that the medical officers under the new law were too ill-paid, and therefore they did not attend to the poor. He must say that the medical officers took much greater care than ever they did before—some one or two might be underpaid, and not take sufficient care of the poor, but under the Old Poor Law, if poor persons were suddenly attacked with illness they were left unattended; and if their constitutions were sufficiently strong to bring them through the attack they might get better. With respect to relief given under the new law, he must say that any one who had seen the effects of the system under the present relieving-officers must admit that the new law was better than the old, when it was always a sort of contest and argument between the poor and the overseer as to whether they were fit objects for relief or not; and the only resource was to go before a justice, who in point of fact knew nothing at all of the case, or whether or not it was a fit one for relief. Now, if the Board of Guardians ordered relief, the poor man was sure to get it. But how long did he wait under the old law? If once their Lordships consented to return to that state of things when the parishes themselves would
1758
manage their own poor, the same difficulties would be thrown in the way of obtaining relief. Now the relieving officer was compelled to go his rounds on a certain day, and the allowances were punctually delivered, and the poor were sure to receive them. That in itself was a great relief to the poor. A great deal had been said about relief for the aged. As far as his experience went, he believed that the aged were much better treated under the present law than under the old one. He had never seen in the Board of Guardians which he had attended, nor had he heard of, any indisposition to give relief to the really destitute poor, nor was there any disposition to drive them into the workhouse, unless the Guardians were convinced that it would be better for them to go there. A great deal had been made of the separation of a man from his wife and family; and that had been spoken of as a new regulation. Why, in all well regulated workhouses under the old law the same rule existed: indeed, it was utterly impossible that the inmates of a workhouse should not submit to some regulation of that kind. There might have been instances, and they would arise, in which he would not say cruelty, but at least improper conduct, towards the poor had taken place. But, generally speaking, the practice had been satisfactory as far as respected the old and the married. The first were far better off than under the old law; and the others were in no worse condition than if they had remained under the old law. A great deal had been said also upon the Board for the management of the law. Speaking on the authority of the best information, as well as his own experience, he must say that he was as fully convinced as that he stood before their Lordships, that the existence of a Board in London whose business it was to manage the Poor Law and to correct the improper conduct of the persons who executed that law, was the greatest security that the poor could have that they would be treated in a proper manner. He felt called upon to make these declarations in consequence of the constant attempts which were made to cry down a particular law, which he thought, so far from deserving the reproaches cast upon it, deserved the reverse. It was the duty of an honest man, and more particularly of any man in a public situation, feeling himself in any way responsible for the alterations made in the law, to come forward on such an occasion as the present, and to state his conviction that the present

1759
Poor Law, so far from having inflicted wrong and evil upon the poor, had in point of fact worked great good for them. If he was asked what was the best possible mode of managing the poor, his only answer was, that although ready to admit that there had been cases of hardship, every one of which was now sure to be known, yet he should be glad to know, for he had never yet heard, what other scheme was to be put in the place of the present one, by which the situation of the poor would be bettered? The new law was undoubtedly proposed upon the best information, after great care and attention, by some men, and supported by others of different politics, whose joint object was, undoubtedly, to make a law that should be such as not only to give satisfaction to the public in general, but which should be more suited to the condition of the people requiring relief. He thought it became him, in his situation, openly to state his opinions upon this subject, because he could not help seeing that there was a constant attempt to cry down those who supported the New Poor Law, and who were anxious to ameliorate the condition of the poor.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, he was anxious to offer some observations to their Lordships upon the present occasion, because he had been Chairman of a Board of Guardians from the first operation of the new Law, and he believed that no man had been more personally abused than he for taking that office. With regard to the numerous attacks against the Board of Guardians of which he was Chairman, he would only briefly say that every one published in the newspapers was untrue. They very often took up one particular part of a question,—a little truth,—and then argued upon it; they said frequently that the Guardians separated to a great extent, the inmates of the workhouse. He could declare that there was not a man of good character in that workhouse who had not an opportunity of seeing his wife and children three or four times every week if he wished. It had also been stated, that the old people were ordered to go into the house instead of having relief given to them out of it. He never knew an instance in which that had been done, except in one case; a very amiable and charitable lady applied to and canvassed the Board of Guardians to give out-door relief to an individual. The Board felt that if once they permitted a canvass such as that to take place, they would show to the paupers of
1760
the district that if they had friends with power and influence they would be better off than those who had none. Consequently the Board refused to give out-door relief in that case for a time, but afterwards, when the effect of the canvass had gone off, they gave out-door relief as before. With respect to the first Clause in the present Bill, proposing an alteration of the bastardy Clause, he confessed that he had thought the Clause in the new Act a good one; but he was not prepared to vote against this Amendment, because after reading the Return on their Lordships' Table he saw that in some districts, and more especially in the manufacturing districts, bastardy was on the increase. He was, therefore, willing to try whether this Amendment might not prevent such increase. He was not opposed to the Clause for affording relief to widows, for, even now, he knew that widows were relieved out of their unions. With a proper communication between the officers of different unions, the plan might work well, the object being, not to give relief to a person leading an immoral life or earning large wages. He agreed with his noble Friend that great advantage would arise from making the unions smaller. He had always thought that the Poor Law Commissioners had made the unions much too large in size; because, if he understood anything of the principle of the Poor Law Bill, he thought that every pauper should have it in his or her power to go before the Board of Guardians to make a complaint, which could hardly be possible if they had fifteen or sixteen miles to go to the Board, and the same distance to return home. He was happy to find, therefore, that the size of the unions was to be reduced; but he thought that the Poor Law Commissioners should give notice to the Boards of Guardians, before parishes were severed from unions. There were other points in the Bill to which he would not more minutely advert. But he thought that there ought to be some alteration with regard to the visitations of Assistant Commissioners. It was generally felt in the country that they visited unions for the purpose of screwing the law a little tighter. He wished to see a body of officers appointed who should visit the various workhouses, and see what accommodation they afforded, and how the inmates were treated, and report accordingly to the Government; and that they should make their visits without notice, and without the control or interference of

1761
the Guardians or the officers of the Union. He should prefer that those reports should be made without the knowledge of the Guardians. This he regarded as one of the most important features and one of the most important Amendments of the present law. There were, however, several other important things which he thought should be inserted in the present Law. He alluded in the first place to a case which was not unfrequently brought before the Magistrates at Quarter Sessions. At present, if a man, or a woman, or a boy ran away from the workhouse, that individual was charged with felony for taking away the clothes. Now, he denied when they ran away from the workhouse in that manner and took their clothing with them that that act was felony, even though it might be regarded in that light by the Law. Whoever heard of a deserter from Her Majesty's service, taking away his regimentals with him, being tried for stealing the Queen's jacket? The thing was absurd, yet he knew it was the Law. He wished to have it provided by the present Bill that that act should not be punishable as a felony, but that there should be some punishment attached to the offence of running away, which punishment should be applied. Another case of what appeared to him to be one of extreme hardship to the poor in an agricultural parish he would state to the House. Suppose a poor man—a woodcutter—in a parish was taken ill and became unable to work. It was impossible for such a one to pay 10 s. or 12 s. a-week for a surgeon; he must apply to the Board of Guardians for medical aid, and if he received it, the Law, as it at present stood, declared that medical aid was to be regarded as relief, and that the person receiving it was liable to be removed to the parish to which he belonged. That, in his (the Duke of Richmond's) opinion, was an injustice. He thought they should not, for having granted mere medical aid alone, remove the pauper the moment he recovered back to his own parish. He trusted that his noble Friend the President of the Council would have no objection to the insertion of a Clause in the Bill to abolish that principle in the existing law. There was yet another point to which he wished to refer, and it was one which he approached with considerable delicacy. He regarded the medical officers of Unions as highly efficient, diligent, and respectable men. In his own Union he knew that they were very closely
1762
watched; and he knew, also, that they did their duty to the poor in such a manner as entitled them to the highest credit. It must be remembered, however, that the medical officers received a certain fixed sum annually for the performance of their duties, and that they received, in addition, a further sum for fractures and operations. Now, he (the Duke of Richmond) was far from imagining it for a moment, as he was sure any one of their Lordships would be—but might not the people suppose that operations might sometimes be performed, for the sake of the extra fee, which really were not required? He was of opinion that no operation should be performed in a workhouse without first calling in and obtaining the concurrence of another surgeon in the proceeding; and he thought, indeed, that no operation should be performed in a workhouse if there were a county hospital in which it could be undertaken. By the present law, however, parishes were not allowed by the Commissioners to subscribe to the county hospital. Any noble Lord or other person might individually subscribe and give orders for admission to the hospital, but from the parish that right was withheld. In his opinion that restriction upon parishes should be removed, or at all events, contracts should be made with the officers of the county hospital to take in cases which could be better attended to there than in the infirmary wards of the workhouse. That part of the proposed Bill which had reference to the apprenticeship of pauper children he looked upon as an improvement in the existing law; but it did not go far enough, for he was strongly of opinion that all settlement by apprenticeship should be done away with — that a boy should not gain a settlement by his apprenticeship. There was another enactment in the present law which he thought inflicted a great hardship upon the poor, and which he would illustrate by a case with which he was acquainted. A girl of 17, who was in service in Brighton, caught the scarlet fever. Her mistress sent to her mother to take her home. Her mother resided in Brighton, but belonged to a parish thirty miles off. She was afraid to take the girl into her house on account of the contagion. The girl went before the Guardians, who gave her a suspended order. She was taken to her parish in a cart, where the Guardians offered to take her into the workhouse, and to provide her with a place when she should recover. She replied that

1763
she was very much obliged to them, but that her mistress had kept her place open for her, and that she wished to go back to Brighton. The Guardians, however, had no means of sending her back to Brighton, so they entered into a subscription on her behalf, and the overseer was actually paid for taking her back. These unfortunately were not cases of very rare, but of very frequent occurrence, more especially in towns where Local Acts were in force; yet this Bill did not propose to get rid of Local Acts, or of Gilbert's Acts. He would not say much of Gilbert's Acts, but he did say that if they were better than this Act the whole of the country should be under Gilbert's Acts. If, on the contrary, this Act were superior to Gilbert's Acts, then let the whole of the country be put under it, despite the clamour of a few persons, whose end was to gain a short-lived popularity; and certainly such popularity could not be very lasting, for the people in the end would be sure to find out the motives which urged them to adopt such a course. By the present law, in case of any infectious disease breaking out in a workhouse, it was the duty of the Guardians to appoint a visiting Committee, who were to visit persons attacked with the malady. The Committee, no doubt, did usually perform their duties conscientiously, but it could not be denied that in some cases their duties were neglected; and he would put it to their Lordships whether it would not be far better, instead of constituting this visiting Committee, that they should appoint some consulting physician or experienced surgeon with whom the duty and the responsibility should rest? He wished also to call the attention of his noble Friend to a provision in the Bill which for the first time recognized a Petty Session as a Court. Two justices meeting and dining together formed a Petty Session, but had never been considered to form a Court. He merely alluded to this, in the hope that his noble Friend would reconsider the point. On the whole, he regarded the proposed Bill as a very great improvement upon the law as it now stood. He entirely concurred with his noble Friend that the present Poor Law had been a great amelioration of the old law, but he thought that the law might still require amendment. It had always appeared to him that the worst part of the old law was that it contained enactments which had never been acted on, and all he wished was that before long such further amendments might be introduced
1764
into the present law as would make it advantageous that it should be acted on to the very letter. To make it more stringent than it now was he was sure none of their Lordships wished; for himself, he felt that the Poor Law had been advantageous to the better class of poor, though he did not doubt that it gave dissatisfaction to those idle loose paupers who were wont to hang about the house of the overseer, forcing him to give them money to which they were not entitled. To such as those he doubted not that the present Bill had given great dissatisfaction; but he felt bound to say that the less palatable a measure of this character would be to them, the more beneficial it would likely be to the honest, sober, industrious, but unfortunate poor.
Earl Fortescuewould not at so late an hour of the evening detain their Lordships with any lengthened observations; but he was anxious to express the entire concurrence which he felt in all that had been said by the noble Duke who had just sat down, as well as by his noble Friend the President of the Council, with reference to the good effects which had generally resulted from the operation of the Poor Law as it at present stood. He was quite satisfied that whilst it had removed from relief out of the poor-rates a vast number of the idle and undeserving who extorted from the fears of the overseers that to which they were not justly entitled, it had given a more liberal amount of relief to all those objects who were truly deserving of charity and aid. He was happy also to state that he considered all the alterations proposed in the present law, with a few exceptions, to be improvements. If he could not express much confidence with respect to the Bastardy Clause, yet he must admit that the law, as it now stood, had not produced that good effect which he, in common with many others, had expected from it. He was not, therefore, disposed to oppose the proposed change in that Clause, he only hoped it might prove in its working to be a real improvement upon the existing law. To the 26th Clause, which gave the power of granting permanent relief to widows out of the Union to which they belonged, he felt a greater objection than had yet been urged to it. It appeared to him to be the establishment of a new principle in the law to compel Guardians to give relief to persons at a distance from their Union, and over whom they had no

1765
surveillance whatever. It was a painful thing to oppose any relaxation of the law, more especially when he felt satisfied that it was brought forward with the kindest and most humane motives; but believing, as he did, that the present law had worked beneficially, and that in all cases of great hardship, the Commissioners were willing to exercise the power which they had of granting relief, he should wish so to modify the Clause, limiting the relief to be granted to widows to twelve months alter their widowhood. He would not take up the time of the House by pressing this recommendation unless he found that there was a pretty general concurrence in his views; but if there should be such concurrence, he should be very willing, on going into Committee, to introduce such a provision as he referred to. He could not conclude without expressing his entire concurrence in the praise which had been bestowed by the noble Lord, the President of the Council, and by the noble Duke who had preceded him, upon the constitution of the Board of Commissioners at Somerset-house. He must say, that he considered the Gentlemen who composed that Board to be entitled, by the ability, temper, and humanity which they had shown in the discharge of their duties, to the gratitude of the poor and to the confidence of the public at large. He was the more anxious to say thus much in their favour, knowing how universally they had been made the subject of attack out of doors, whilst they had not been so stoutly defended within as they deserved.
The Earl of Hardwickethought it could not be denied that their Lordships were a very fitting assembly to discuss this matter, for he believed that there were to be found amongst their Lordships not less than eighty-three Chairmen of Boards of Guardians. The knowledge which they must bring to bear upon the subject—the deep feeling which they must have for the poor, and for those who lived about them, must render them more peculiarly fitting than perhaps any other body in the country to legislate upon this important subject. Unquestionably, he should have liked to make some remarks upon the opinions which had been promulgated with respect to this law for some years past. All he would now say, however, was, that spite of the most powerful resistance from a certain portion of the press,—spite of the excitement which had been attempted to be got up in
1766
some parts of the country for political purposes—spite of all that—and despite, too, the assemblies of people got up on various occasions in the county in which he lived, by those who were anxious to oppose the law by every means in their power, yet he would say, that from the humbler classes of society in the agricultural districts he had never heard a word which had not clearly evinced to him, that there was upon their part a confident feeling that this was a law which would work for their ultimate benefit, and which would tend to place them in a better position than they had ever been in before. He contended, that it had done this—that the poor of this country were in a better condition than they had ever been in since the commencement of this country as a country, or since their existence as a people. When he had heard statements as to the olden times in England, and the happiness which the poor man then enjoyed, he set about to discover and to find out what really was the fact upon that subject, and he spoke to aged persons, and asked them to compare their present state and condition with their more youthful days, and to tell him whether they were happier now than then. When he had taken occasion to propose such a question to aged people, the invariable reply which he had met with was, that they considered they had great reason to congratulate themselves upon their present state and condition. Such was shortly the result of his opinion with regard to this law; and he must say that to the general practical working of it he had never heard any other language held among the poor, but that it tended to ameliorate their condition, and would tend to their ultimate relief and benefit. He held in his hand a Report of the state and condition of the labouring classes, made some years ago before this law was passed. Every noble Lord must remember the state and condition of his own part of the country at that time, the discontent which existed between the farmer and the labourer, the allowances made to the poor, and the wages paid out of the rates; all these things tended to produce a state and condition of the people of the most alarming character. He could only say, that when he first became possessed of property, just as this law was being introduced, he was asked by the farmers and gentlemen of his neighbourhood, "What are we to do? We are in an alarming condition." This law came into operation, and things

1767
were totally changed; the poor, contrary to what they had done, respected the middle classes. How came that about? There must have been some good reason for it. It had been asserted, and with great power and force, too, that the state of the law as it now existed had a tendency to grind and oppress the poor, and to lower the rate of wages. He felt bound to say that if this law were worked in that way it would have that effect. If bad people would work it in that way, there was no Poor Law that could be passed, but might be made to grind the poor and hurt their feelings; but was such the disposition of the people of England? One of the modes of grinding the poor that he had heard of was this:—A labourer came to a Board of Guardians and said he was in want; it was the custom of some Boards of Guardians, and of the Board over which he presided, to inquire of the labourer, "Have you tried to get work?"—"Yes." "Very well; if so, you must prove it. You must test that fact; here, take this paper, and get it signed by the farmers that you have applied to them for work, to enable you to show us that you have tried to get work." He admitted that that practice might have been made a very great evil—that that instrument might be used in this way—that the labourer might go from farmer to farmer and be refused work until he came to one who would offer him work at a very low price. But that man might come to the Board and say, he had been refused work except by Mr. So-and-so, who had offered him work at such a low price, that he could not take it; and, he would ask their Lordships, would the Board refuse relief in such a case? If it would, that would be a grinding law. But if the labourer would enter into the spirit of the law, he would know that at the Board of Guardians was his surest protection. He might state that he had refused wages at such an amount, and he (the Earl of Hardwicke) contended that that Board of Guardians, if it did not consider that man in a state and condition to be taken out of the labour market altogether, and throw his support on the parish would not do its duty. He (the Earl of Hardwicke) contended that the law was a humane one; and that if the labourer when in necessity would go with his family into the workhouse for a short period, he would find that the parishes would be unable to support any system of low wages which forced him into the workhouse, and the law would thus be
1768
the means of raising the wages of the labouring class. He would not proceed further on this subject at that time of night, but must address himself to one or two Clauses of the Bill. He had no objection to the Amendments generally; they unquestionably were Amendments of the Law. He concurred in all the Bastardy Clauses except one—the fifth—the one which made money payable to the mother of the bastard. That was a very serious question, and on discussing it formerly they had considered this very point as fatal in itself;—that the practice of paying the mother encouraged the offence and begot more bastards, till the mother was enabled to support herself on the price of her own prostitution. He was borne out in this view by a very valuable paper written by Sir Edmund Head on this subject. He said,
"Whatever the enactment be which is most effective in checking bastardy, to that we must look as checking infanticide.…On the other hand, the law which holds out to a woman the prospect of maintenance for her bastard, or holds out the hope of a tardy marriage from compulsion not from affection, that law may be said to promote bastardy, and among its consequences, infanticide."
The old law held out to a woman having a bastard this encouragement—
"Your oath shall compel any man to relieve you of your burthen, and while it gives you the privileges of a wife, it may do more—it may get you a husband."
He did hope that this principle would not be re-established. It would be much better, in his opinion, to make the money payable to the parish from the father, and that the parish upon the application of the mother should support her. The only other Clause to which he objected was with regard to district schools. Certainly his noble Friend (Lord Wharncliffe) had been very much pleased with Norwood; he had no doubt that school was admirably conducted, but these district schools required some consideration, for in many parts of this country the whole of the schools were maintained by the landlords themselves. If they made any system of relief or education so excellent and expensive, they would have a falling off in charity. People would not pay at both ends, and they would have a falling off in their charitable institutions. The Poor Law Bill should not have that effect at all, it should rather be a disagreeable bill than an agreeable one; and they ought only to take care that relief was given to parties in distress, and

1769
not interfere with charitable institutions; for the moment they did so those institutions would break down. He had a strong objection to the taxing of the people by the Poor Law Commissioners for carrying out their own views. He thought that a great evil. They would create an odium against the Poor Law altogether, if they allowed the Poor Law Commissioners to come down and tax the people where they had an interest in doing so. But he would put this case:—Suppose a pauper who had five children sent them to the asylum or to the district school, and went into the workhouse himself. The pauper would probably find work or would say that he had done so, and would quit the workhouse, leaving his children in the district school. They might have some difficulty in finding the father, and what in that case was to become of the children? According to the principle that had been laid down, the father must support his family if he was able do so, and the children ought therefore to be no longer retained in the school. They must recollect that the maintenance of the children in the school would be attended with great expense to the parish, It was not his intention to propose any Amendment; but he must say that he thought they ought to have had more time allowed for the consideration of this Bill. He wished it had been possible to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, in order that its enactments might have been carefully considered and digested. He would not, at this late period of the evening, trespass further upon their Lordships' time, and he begged to thank them for the patience with which they had listened to the few observations he had addressed to them.
Lord Lytteltonconcurred with the noble Earl who had just sat down, in regretting that this Bill had not been brought before the House at an earlier period of the Session. They had not had time afforded them to give due consideration to the measure, still less to consider the Amendments which had been suggested by some noble Lords. There was one point to which the noble Lord had called attention, on which he (Lord Lyttelton) wished to correct him, as to the Board of Guardians not being allowed to subscribe to charities or hospitals. He believed that in many cases that was done. He agreed in many of the observations made by the noble Earl who had just sat down, as to the general question, and especially in his remarks on the subject of district
1770
schools. That was one of the points which, in his (Lord Lyttelton's) opinion, required most careful attention and deliberation. He might observe, that the noble Lord who had introduced this Bill had stated that those schools were to be established only in the most populous districts; and that, he believed, was the general understanding. At this late period of the Session, and especially at this late hour of the night, he would not occupy their Lordships' time by any lengthened observations on this subject; but he could not but feel some regret that any necessity had existed for introducing a Bill of this nature, for the "relaxation," as it was called of the existing law. He was not disposed to deny that some necessity might exist for the introduction of this measure, and rather than the people should be subjected to sufferings which might be relieved by this Bill, it was, undoubtedly, advisable that recourse should be had to such a measure. At the same time he believed that the tendency of the existing law was, unquestionably, to remove from the minds of the poor the idea that the poor's rate was the proper and legitimate source to which they ought to look for support and maintenance. He was not prepared to oppose the present Bill, though it was his intention to propose some few amendments in Committee.
The Earl of Stradbrokesaid, that since the adoption of the present Poor Law Act in 1834, he had been Chairman of a Board of Guardians, and he could state with the utmost confidence, that that Act had had a most beneficial effect in all the Unions that had come under his observation. The principal Clauses in the present Bill, were those relating to bastardy. It had been correctly stated by the noble Lord, the President of the Council (Lord Wharncliffe) that, previously to the adoption of the New Poor Law Act in 1834, the gaols of this country were filled with men who had been committed by Magistrates for non-payment of bastardy orders. Under the present Bill the reputed fathers of bastard children were liable to the same misfortune—to the penalty of three months' imprisonment. In fact, they were now going back to the old Saw, and this he thought a valid reason for opposing the present Bill. He understood that this Clause was introduced under the supposition that bastardy was extending. He had taken some pains to inquire into this

1771
subject in the neighbourhood in which he resided, and he could assure their Lordships, that since the adoption of the present Poor Law, bastardy had greatly decreased; but, if their Lordships agreed to this Bill, which allowed the payment of money to the mothers of bastard children, for the maintenance of such children, its certain effect would be to increase bastardy. It was already known that a Bill of this nature was likely to be adopted, and he could assure their Lordships, from information he had received from different parts of the country, that there had been great rejoicing among a certain class of people in anticipation of receiving what they called their pay. He could state—and he was sure that many noble Lords, who were Chairmen of the Board of Guardians, could confirm his assertion—that, since the adoption of the New Poor Law, a great stimulus had been given to employment. Considerable objection had been urged to the separation of husband and wife, which was enforced under the present law; but, if noble Lords would read the Reports which had been made on the subject of the Poor Law, they would find that in workhouses under the operation of Gilbert's Act, and of Local Acts, where no such separation took place, the greatest vice and immorality existed. Had time allowed, there were several other points to which he wished to have adverted; but he would not trespass farther upon their Lordships' attention.
The Bishop of Exetermoved that the debate be now adjourned.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, he would not detain their Lordships many minutes. He entirely agreed in the observation of his noble Friend, who had spoken early in this debate, with respect to the working of the present Poor Law, and he considered that great praise was due to the Commissioners for the manner in which they had carried the measure into operation. He thought, when such warm eulogies had been passed upon the present law, some praise was also due to those persons by whom that law was introduced. A noble Friend of his, who, he regretted to say, seldom attended in that House, and also a noble and learned Friend of his not now present, were, he conceived entitled to the gratitude of their Lordships for their advocacy and support of the existing law. He had not obtruded himself upon their Lordships for
1772
the mere sake of making this declaration, but because he wished to protest most strongly against the bastardy Clauses in the Bill now before the House. He believed that the original Poor Law Amendment Bill, as it came from the House of Commons, contained no bastardy Clause; and in that respect it was conformable with the Report of the Commissioners, on whose recommendation that Act was founded. He thought it was most prudent to leave that matter untouched—to leave to women the preservation of their own virtue, without any legislative enactment on the subject. He thought so at the time, and he still continued to think so. The only part of the New Poor Law which had not acted well had been the bastardy Clauses; all the other parts of that measure had worked satisfactorily, the bastardy Clauses alone had not done so. They had been altered once or twice in the interval, and they were about to undergo a fresh change. The first mode in which they were carried into effect was, by suffering the woman to swear her child before she was delivered; then she was suffered to receive money in person from the father; and, lastly, resort was had to imprisonment in gaol if the money was not paid. All those conditions having been abolished were again to be revived; women were to be allowed to swear to the father whilst yet pregnant; she was also to be suffered to receive money of him directly, and he was to be sent to goal if he did not pay. Those were all of them admitted grievances of the Old Poor Law, and yet they were about to put the present law into the state in which it formerly was. He should not be able to attend the Committee on the Bill; but, if he had been able to be present, he should have said "Non Content" to every one of the Bastardy Clauses, and have voted for leaving the law in that respect exactly as it was at present.
The Marquess of Normanbycould not allow the question of adjournment to be put without giving his cordial assent to the assertion of the noble Lord on the opposite side, who had stated that it was a positive injustice to their Lordships' House to bring in a Bill of the magnitude and important character of the measure on the Table, and expect it to be passed in three or four days. He would not say more at that moment, as he had already given notice of his intention at the meet-

1773
ing of the House to-morrow (this day) to call their Lordships' attention to the state of public business; at the same time, he must say, that he had much rather the right rev. Prelate had postponed his Motion, as a little more time would thereby have been afforded for the discussion, at the same time, being of the same opinion with the right rev. Prelate, he could not but say "Content" to his Motion.
Motion for Adjournment of debate put.
Lord Wharncliffehoped, that the right rev. Prelate would not persevere in his Motion for an adjournment of the debate, as rather than postpone the present Bill until another Session he would consent that the sitting of the House should be prolonged—their Lordships might sit on Wednesday, and even on Saturday, or, if necessary, into next week, in order to give the Bill the consideration they might deem needful. The Bill was of very great importance, and he trusted that it would be suffered to proceed that evening.
A noble Lord: Why not go into Committee pro formâ?
Lord Wharncliffe: With respect to the observation that the Bill had been introduced at a very late period of the Session, he regretted that circumstance as much as any of their Lordships, and could only attribute it to the pressure of business, occasioned by the numerous Bills demanding the attention of the other House wherein it originated, and also to the measure itself having taken up so much time during the discussions upon it in the Lower House. If their Lordships took the Bill into consideration, the alterations deemed necessary might be made, and it would be then passed this Session, and he begged to recall to the recollection of the House the fact that the present was the third or fourth Session that the question of amending the Poor Law Bill had been before Parliament.
Lord Campbellcould not understand why the Bill had not been brought into that House first, as if it had begun there, the eighty-three of their Lordships, who sat as Chairmen of Boards of Guardians could then have taken care of the interests of the poor, and have introduced such modifications of the present law as would have answered all the objects effected by the present Bill. He repeated he could not comprehend why the Bill had not been begun in their Lordships' House.
Lord Wharnciffesuggested that the
1774
Bill contained several money Clauses, which their Lordships were not competent to originate.
Lord Campbell: Then why not omit the money Clauses, which were in no respect essential to the Amendments and alterations effected by the Bill.
The Earl of Shaftesburyagain put the question of adjournment, and declared the Contents to have it.
Lord Wharncliffe: The Non-contents have it. We want the Bill to go into Committee. I shall divide.
The Motion, for adjournment was however, withdrawn (by leave of the House) and the House went into Committee.
Lord Wharncliffesuggested to the Bishop of Exeter that they might go through the unobjectionable Clauses.
The Bishop of Exeter'sobjection to proceeding was simply this, that he had no time to consider the measure at all. He would not undertake to say which Clauses of the Bill were objectionable or which were not; but this he would say, that there were few of the Clauses which did not require consideration, and that a New Poor Law Amendment Bill ought to have proceeded upon a very different principle from that which formed the basis of the Bill now under discussion. At the same time, he would not say that the measure was not one to which he ought to give his support. All he said was, that he required more time to consider it.
The Preamble of the Bill was then postponed, and the House resumed.
House adjourned.