Lords Sitting of 8 August 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—3a. and passed:—Poor Law Amendment; Duchy of Cornwall Assessionable Manors; Grand Jury Presentments (Dublin); Fisheries (Ireland); Arms (Ireland); Protection of Purchasers, etc. (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Marquess of Clanricarde, from City of York, for Inquiry into the State of Ireland.—From Guardians of Nenagh Union, for Exemption from charges upon the Union for Government Advances for Rebuilding the Workhouse.—By Marquess of Clanricarde,
1912
from Leeds, for restoring the people of Tahiti to the possession of their Civil Rights and Religious Freedom.—From Bydwellty, and Rhymney, for the Establishment of Local Courts.

MISSIONARIES AT TAHITI.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he had thought it right on the preceding evening, to give notice of the Petition which he was about to present to their Lordships, not only on account of the importance of the subject to which it related, but also with reference to the public feeling and opinion that prevailed, connected with the late proceedings at Tahiti. It was not, however, his intention in discharging this duty, to say anything that could provoke discussion in relation to those proceedings. The petition was agreed to at a public meeting held in the borough of Leeds, on the 5th of August, and purported to be the petition of the undersigned friends of the Protestant Missions residing in that borough. The noble Marquess then read the petition in which the petitioners stated, that the Missionaries had directed their attention to the South Sea Islands about fifty years ago, and had laboured most successfully in that part of the world. They complained of the recent conduct of the French at Tahiti, which they considered to have been most unjust; they deprecated all hostile feeling between the two countries, but they at the same time condemned the measures that had been adopted at Tahiti as being totally unworthy of the French nation, the petitioners prayed their Lordships to adopt such measures as they might think fit to secure due protection for the Protestant Mission at Tahiti. He had thought it necessary that the petitioners should speak for themselves—he was sure that the prayer of their petition, in which he entirely concurred, would be attended to. With respect to the proceedings at Tahiti, he could not but say that he felt most strongly that the gentleman (Mr. Pritchard) who had been so harshly treated had not, at the time, in any manner, forfeited that position which, as a British subject, he had a right to claim. He did not think that any temporary or unauthorized resignation of his functions deprived him of his fair and just claims to the protection of the Government. He did most sincerely trust and hope when those to whom this petition referred had their grievances and apprehensions thus stated to the House, that no future conduct on their part might add

1913
to any difficulties that now existed between the two countries. They must feel that the benefits of civilization, and the extension of the blessings of religion, depended on the continuance of peace; and he confidently and earnestly hoped that peace would be maintained at any price short of the sacrifice of national honour. And he was sure that was a price which this country would never be disposed to pay for it, much to be desired as it was. If they did so, if they made such a sacrifice, they would ultimately find that whilst they achieved a seeming good, they would by that means deprive themselves of all the security and advantages of real peace—that security and those advantages which could only be founded on the mutual respect of nations.
The Earl of Aberdeen, said the noble Marquess in presenting this petition had not thought it his duty to enter into any lengthened remarks on the recent transactions that had taken place at Tahiti. Yet, nevertheless, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) wished to offer a few observations connected with the petition itself, which had reference to those transactions. Many of their Lordships would recollect, that early in the last Session of Parliament, when they first heard of the establishment of the French in Tahiti, a noble Friend of his (the Marquess of Lansdowne), who was not then in his place, and who had formerly been President of the Council, had put some questions to him on the subject; and had then stated that he did not regard with any jealous feeling the establishment of the French in the Pacific, and the extension of their system of colonization in that sea; but he expressed an anxious wish that British interests might be properly protected, and, above all, that the security and freedom of the missionaries employed in Tahiti should be provided for. In answer to the noble Marquess who had put the question, he said that in those opinions he entirely concurred, and he could assure him that the Government had received all the guarantees which they could possibly demand, with respect to their perfect freedom, and security in the exercise of their functions, of the British mission established in Tahiti; and of such others as might also seek those countries as the scene of their labours. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) afterwards laid on the Table of the House a correspondence with the French Government on the subject; and,
1914
such of their Lordships as might have taken the trouble of perusing that correspondence, would, he believed, be disposed to admit, that under all the circumstances, it was satisfactory. Now, from that day to this, Her Majesty's Government had received no complaint whatever from any of the missionaries established at Tahiti; and at the last interview which he had had with the heads of the London Missionary Society, on putting a question to them on this subject, they assured him that they had no complaint whatever to make as to the treatment of the missionaries by the French authorities in Tahiti. They, indeed, deprecated the establishment of the French authority at Tahiti, but stated that they had no complaint to make with respect to their conduct towards the missionaries. He, therefore, took it for granted, that in regard to that part at least of the subject in which his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) expressed the greatest interest (a feeling in which he entirely concurred), he took it, he said, for granted, that on that point, there was no ground for complaint; and he might add, still further, that in some communications between the French Government and Her Majesty's Government, the former referred, in terms of eulogy and of special approbation, to the endeavours of the missionaries to preserve tranquillity in those islands. Therefore, he repeated, he took it for granted, that they had no reason to complain—that no grounds of complaint had been given to them. If they had, those grounds of complaint certainly had not reached Her Majesty's Government. Having said thus much, he thought it prudent to follow the example of the noble Marquess who had presented this petition, in not being tempted to say more on the recent outrage that had taken place at Tahiti. He must, however, observe that whether the gentleman to whom allusion had been made was or was not a Consul at the moment when that event occurred, made in his mind very little difference. He looked upon that individual as a subject of the British Crown, and, therefore, entitled to that protection and treatment which, as a British subject, he had a right to claim. The question, whether a person could resign and denude himself of his official character and functions, was a question between him and his own Government, and not between him and the Government to which he was accredited. He knew not how a foreign Government could

1915
do otherwise than take the declaration of an individual in such a capacity as to whether he continued to possess, or ceased to posses the authority which at one time he professed to hold. That, however, was a question which made no material difference in his mind as to the character of the transaction, or as to the course to be followed. He did not understand the noble Marquess opposite to bring any charge or accusation against the Government, or against him (the Earl of Aberdeen). He must say, that in that House he had not heard any censure with respect to any part of the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government. Had any Motion with that view been brought forward, he would have been quite ready to meet it. In another place, he believed, they had not been quite so fortunate; at the same time, nothing of a very formidable nature had been brought against them; for, when "the head and front of their offending" consisted in measures which had received the thanks and approbation of both Houses of Parliament, the attack was not likely to be felt very deeply. The noble Marquess had expressed a hope, and he had no doubt the noble Lord was sincere in that expression, that neither that event to which his petition referred, nor any other, would endanger the continuance of the existing peace; but he (Lord Aberdeen) had also heard the noble Marquess say something about the honour of the country, and the necessity for maintaining that honour. He concurred entirely in the sentiment thus expressed; and he thought that if peace was not preserved in a manner entirely conformable to the honour of the country, it would be purchased at too great a sacrifice. But let noble Lords only look at the language that had recently passed between the public organs of France and England. Both parties accused each other of a desire to commence aggressions or to insult each other, and the organs which habitually advocated the views of the noble Marquess and his party had accused the Ministers of making base concessions, which had lowered the consequence of England in the eyes of Europe. Only let their Lordships look at the language of the French press also, and they would find that the writers there accused their Ministers likewise of base subservience to the English Government. In Spain, which was a great source of accusation and of irritation, the French writers described their Ministers to be acting in a manner
1916
entirely subservient to the intrigues of English diplomacy. The accusation was altogether untrue; but it was not more so than those brought against the Cabinet of which he (Lord Aberdeen) was a Member; and, moreover, he would say, that in his opinion, the French writers did not believe one word of what they were saying in giving vent to these imputations, though he could not say the same of the writers in this country. He would not assert of them that they put as little credit in their statements and anticipations as those to whom he had referred abroad; he would rather assert, that in England the people and the press shared the opinions expressed on this subject by the noble Marquess. That was not the case, however, in France. He knew there was a war party there which desired to push matters to extremity; but the war party in England was rather, in his opinion, confined to hostilities against the Bench on which he sat. He was aware that it was necessary to proceed with the utmost caution; and he was strongly impressed with the belief that the justice and the moderation—and he used the word "justice" in its most emphatic sense, because the term "moderation" might be misapplied—the justice and moderation of the demands of England led him to entertain a sanguine hope that the present subjects of discussion between the two countries would not lead to any disastrous consequences.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he would not reply upon the general topics to which the noble Earl had adverted, after the express declaration made by him that silence was the best course to be pursued. He must not, however, upon that account be supposed to acquiesce in the whole of the policy which the noble Earl had stated to be that which he had acted upon. He begged, however, to express his particular satisfaction with the manner in which the noble Earl had treated the particular question which formed the subject of the petition presented by him.
The Marquess of Clanricardeso entirely agreed in the view taken by his noble Friend of the speech made by the noble Earl, that he would not make any remarks on it; though be could not help complaining that the noble Earl's remarks on the war party in France, almost implied that in this country Ministers were not altogether in a fit state of preparation for the attempts of those foolish and wicked

1917
people who in France were termed the war party. He would take the present opportunity of putting a question to the noble Earl, which related in some degree to the topics tinder consideration, namely, with reference to that unfortunate class of persons who were so unlucky as to be the creditors of the Spanish Government. In the year 1834, the Spanish Minister, Count Toreno, put the claims of the foreign creditors of the Spanish Government in such a train of settlement as led them to indulge in hopes of their being, at no very distant period, practically settled. The creditors were divided into three classes, namely, into holders of active, passive, and deferred debt. It was then stipulated that certain portions of their claims should be immediately converted into active bonds, and that the remainder should be styled passive and deferred debt, to be gradually converted also into active bonds (or bonds bearing interest), in a gradual though certain progression, so that in the course of about eight years from that date (1834) the whole debt would be thus converted. Now, he needed hardly to observe, that no such conversion had ever taken place; and he begged to ask the noble Earl whether he had any reason to hold out hopes to these unfortunate persons that the foreign creditors of Spain would hereafter be treated in any better manner than they hitherto had been? He was quite aware that he had no right to call upon the Government to make any declaration on this subject, for the speculators in foreign loans entered into such transactions entirely at their own risk. Yet, although the Government would be to blame to encourage such dealings, he should be sorry to see a state of things established, that the opinions of the Government of this country with respect to loans of this description were disregarded and exercised no influence upon the Ministers and people of Spain; and he therefore wished the noble Earl to say if he could hold out any expectations on the subject.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that the transaction referred to by the noble Marquess was one of those operations in Spanish finance which, promising at first the most complete success, led afterwards to disappointment and failure. He would not hold out any greater hopes that those prospects would be realized than those which had been indulged in when they were originally entertained in 1834. The
1918
noble Marquess had justly described the course which the Government was called upon to pursue with respect to such transactions. He had very truly said that the present was not to be considered in the light of an engagement to which the British Government was any party. And he had also truly promised that no influence which the Government could fairly exercise would be neglected to be used on behalf of those British subjects who were creditors of Spain. In fact, there had been no reluctance on the part of Her Majesty's Government to endeavour to produce an effect in this respect on that of Spain, nor would such exertion be spared in future. But their success depended entirely on the view which the Ministry of Spain took of the interests of the country, and the chances of reimbursement to the holders of Spanish bonds rested more upon that contingency than upon the interference of any foreign Government in the way in which such interference could be made by either the British or any other Governments. The actual Finance Minister of Spain was a man much more likely to be actuated and guided by honourable views of the engagements of his Government than any of his immediate predecessors in office, and to that circumstance he would rather encourage the noble Marquess to look for hopes on behalf of the creditors of Spain than to any efforts which Her Majesty's Government could make in that respect. But he would willingly assure the noble Marquess that within the limits which he had himself prescribed—for to hold out any hopes that the influence of the British Government would be exerted in the matter would be to add the security of England to that of Spain on these bonds—but within those limits, he repeated, he (Lord Aberdeen) would assure the noble Marquess that all that could fairly be done should be done, and the interests in question should not be lost sight of.

POOR LAW.
Lord Wharncliffemoved that this Bill be read a third time, which was agreed to.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Lord Teynhambegged to draw their Lordships' attention to a Clause which he had to propose, relative to the alterations introduced by the bastardy Clauses of the present Bill into the Poor Law. The subject was one to which he had already drawn their Lordships' attention, by pre-

1919
senting a petition last year from a Board of Guardians, relative to the regulations enforced towards women in a state of pregnancy at the Union Workhouses. There were several classes of persons to whom these regulations were equally applicable, and in all cases alike. On the one hand, there was a number of poor creatures, who were already contaminated by their constant contact with the debased and the profligate; on the other hand, there were some to whom it would be an act of kindness as well as of Christian charity, to remove them from the scene of their temptation and guilt, and from the constant associations of that nature to which such contact exposed them. Whether this was to be best effected by the entire removal of these unfortunate creatures from the workhouse, he would not say. And thirdly, there was a class of women, who came within the operation of the law in question, who had never, up to the moment when they were thus situated, been found in contaminated or habitually vicious company. Now, nothing, in his opinion, could be more lamentable, than for young women who had committed a first offence of this kind, probably through inexperience or weakness, to find themselves condemned to pass their days and nights, whilst undergoing the consequences of their folly or guilt, in such contaminating society as that to which he had referred. Nothing could be better, in his opinion, or more calculated to recal these young women to a sense of shame and to the paths of virtue, than to restore them to their mother's care. If their Lordships took the same view of the case that he did, they would probably agree to the Clause which he had to propose; and he must in defence of it observe, that there was universally to be observed a distinction between the first offence of the nature to which it referred, and every subsequent lapse of that kind. The course which he proposed would restore the character of young women who might have the folly to commit the crime referred to; and in further justification of the views which he had so imperfectly explained, he must refer their Lordships to the contents of the petition from an extensive parish, which he had presented on a former occasion. The noble Lord concluded by moving a Clause, which enacted that out-of-door relief should be given to young
1920
unmarried women in a state of pregnancy, in all cases where that was the first occasion upon which relief of that nature, or upon such a ground, was required.
Lord Wharncliffeobjected to the Clause, and described it as another branch of the out-door relief part of the Poor Law Bill. If any case of real hardship, such as the noble Lord contemplated to afford some mitigation or relief to, were to come under the notice of the Boards of Guardians, there was, he would venture to assert most confidently, no doubt whatever, that in all such cases the Guardians would, upon application to the Commissioners, obtain permission to administer out-of-door relief; he therefore objected to the Clause as wholly unnecessary.
Clause negatived.
Lord Teynhambegged to trouble their Lordships again, whilst he stated the object of a second Clause which he had to propose, to the effect that whenever it should be necessary for a married pauper to quit his wife and family, for the purpose of seeking work out of his own immediate neighbourhood, it should be lawful for the Board of Guardians to administer relief to the wife and family of such pauper during his temporary absence. The subject of the Clause which he had just read to their Lordships was one not unworthy of their deepest consideration. On looking at the Returns relative to the number of the vagrant poor, and their committals for having deserted their families, he found that no fewer than 3,930 persons had been so committed, out of whom, the number of those who, it appeared, had left their homes and families with the bonâ fide intention of seeking; work, and of providing for them by their labour, was no less than 3,591. These persons had been considered as equally guilty—many of them, being honest and well-intentioned, industrious labourers, had been punished; the fact of their having left home being construed into an act of vagrancy, and themselves in consequence treated as rogues and vagabonds—and some of them had been accused of absconding with the view of deserting for a permanency their wives and children. What was the effect of such treatment? It was to place a man in the highest degree praiseworthy on the same level in point of guilt and of punishment, with one of the wickedest of human beings. A man loving and cherishing his wife and

1921
family is thrown out of employment, he leaves them for another neighbourhood, in order to find work, and to give them that, subsistence which he cannot procure at home. Having no friends, and being deprived of all resources, he sees the Union Workhouse before him, and he goes away from home to seek for work. This man, acting in the praiseworthy way he had described, and stimulated by the most laudable motives, stood in the situation of a culprit, as far as the Poor Law was concerned. He found himself classed as a person absconding from his family, and charged with an intention never to return to it; and it was frequently, too often he might say, found, that whilst every feeling in such a man's breast was a right and proper one, he was placed in the same category with the guilty person who deserted his family, and punished as such. It was found, practically speaking, that one labouring man was really and truly criminal in this respect, whilst another was only nominally apparently so; and yet the same measure of punishment was awarded to both, for they were confounded together in the eye of the law. If the Amendment which he had to propose were to be adopted, there would be none of the stringency of the Vagrant Act taken away; it would still retain all its force, and persons really culpable, would still be liable to punishment. But what he desired to introduce into the present Bill was an enactment, by which those who could prove to the satisfaction of the Board of Guardians that they intended to provide for the subsistence of their families, by leaving their homes in search of work, and that they had a fair prospect of procuring work by so absenting themselves, should be relieved from the stigma to which they were at present subjected, in consequence of such laudable exertion. And that consideration led him to make another reflection upon the subject, and to ask their Lordships how many labouring men there might not be who, dreading such a charge, or suffering under the consequences of it, would not rather stay at home and remain in idleness at the expense of the parish, than, by leaving their families in search of work, expose themselves to an accusation of that nature. On the grounds, therefore, stated by him, though he was aware the Amendment might be resisted—as, indeed, there might be grounds alleged for resisting
1922
every suggestion—he begged to move the Clause to which he had referred in his opening remarks.
Lord Wharncliffeobjected to the Clause, because it held out a premium to those persons who should hereafter abscond from their families. If the labourer out of work was honest and industrious, and bore a trustworthy character, there would be no difficulty whatever in finding him work in his own parish.
Clause negatived. Bill passed.

COUNTY CORONERS BILL.
Lord Wharncliffemoved that this House do not insist upon their objections to the Commons' Amendments of the County Coroners Bill, respecting the mileage.
Lord Beaumonthoped the House would, not agree with the Commons' Amendments. The Bill, in its present state, had "job" written upon the face of it.
The Marquess of Normanbysupported the Amendments.
Their Lordships divided on Question, "not to insist:"—Content 14; Not Content 14.
The numbers being equal, it was (according to ancient rule), resolved in the negative.*
House adjourned.