Lords Sitting of 18 July 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Unclaimed Stock and Dividends; Geological Survey; Bills of Exchange, etc.; Criminal Jurisdiction of Assistant Barristers (Ireland); Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland).
2a. Waste Lands (Australia); Apprehension of Offenders; Field Gardens; Loan Societies; Highway Rates.
3°. and passed:—Foreign Lotteries; High Constables.
Private.—1a. Gravesend and Rochester Railway; Yoker Road (No. 2); South Eastern Railway (Greenwich Extension); Dublin Pipe Water.
2a. Earl of Powis's (or Robinson's) Estate; Brighton and Chichester Railway (Portsmouth Extension); Guildford, Chichester, and Portsmouth Railway; Glasgow, Barr-head, and Neilston Direct Railway.
Reported.—West London Railway Extension and Lease; Westminster Improvement; Marsh's (or Coxhead's) Estate; Newport and Pontypool Railway; Monmouth and Hereford Railway; South Wales Railway; Marquess of Donegall's Estate.
3a. and passed:—Follett's Estate; Duke of Bridgewater's Trustees' Estate; Aberdare Railway; Norwich and Brandon Railway (Diss and Dereham Branches); Saint Helen's Improvement; Winchester College Estate; Liverpool and Bury Railway (Bolton, Wigan, and Liverpool Railway and Bury Extension).

DISTURBANCES IN LEITRIM.
The Marquess of Clanricardepresented a petition from magistrates, resident gentry, and inhabitants of the county of Leitrim, setting forth the disturbed condition of the county, and praying for the adoption of measures for the protection of life and property. The petition suggested that the law which granted compensation to be levied on the county or barony, in case of malicious injury being done to a particular description of property, should be extended to all kinds of property, and also to injury inflicted on the person. It appeared from the newspapers that 500 l. had been awarded as compensation to the widow of Mr. Booth by the grand jury. He had
652
not been aware that that could be done; but, if not, the law ought to be altered; it would impose a considerable check on such outrages, and be an inducement to the respectable neighbours to prevent crime or apprehend the murderer. The noble Marquess then said, that he would proceed to ask the Government, pursuant to notice, what course they meant to pursue with regard to Mr. Watson, a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant of the county of Antrim? It had been thought proper not to renew the Party Processions Act, which expired a few weeks ago; and on the 23rd of June a meeting was held in Lisburne, attended by 300 masters of Orange lodges, and presided over by Mr. Watson—a most respectable gentleman, and extremely popular in his neighbourhood, but whose conduct in his public and official capacity, must not therefore go unnoticed. Resolutions were passed at that meeting, and signed by him, to reorganize the Orange institutions in the county, and to meet On one of the July anniversaries, and march in procession to the parish church, where a sermon was to be preached on the occasion. Now, magistrates were dismissed very unceremoniously in 1843 for attending Repeal meetings or subscribing to the Repeal Association. At no one Repeal meeting had there been any serious affray, still less any loss of life; but this had not been the Case with the Orange meetings, with respect to which there had been over and over again cases in which magistrates had been called upon to act. He did not approve of the dismissal of the Repeal magistrates; he deemed it unconstitutional and unjust, and he believed at the time it would be one-sided; but, at any rate, it showed the wish of Government to discountenance Repeal and Repeal meetings. It was said that this was done because Parliament had disapproved the object of the Repeal meetings; but what did the Act which had just expired show, except that both Houses of Parliament and the Crown had serious objections to the Orange processions? The meetings in the one case also were held for the purpose of petitioning Parliament, but in the other case there was no such object. He had, however, deemed it unwise to dismiss the Repeal magistrates, because, in the first place, it gave countenance to the opinion that men acting as magistrates were liable to be influenced in their judical duties by

653
their political opinions; and in the next place, it removed from the Bench those who held opinions in unison with the mass of the population, and was calculated to throw suspicion on the administration of justice. He feared that the Government had overlooked this gentleman, whose case was more flagrant than the others, and had taken no step on the information he had given that he was about to reorganize the Orange societies and the Orange processions. In a letter addressed to this gentleman by a noble Marquess (the Marquess of Londonderry), he in the strongest way deprecated the opinions advanced in the resolutions, and had given his reasons against the course proposed. What he now wanted to know was, whether the Government, after they had taken upon themselves the responsibility of doing away with the Act, which applied only to one party, had made any arrangements in its stead — whether they had paid the same attention as the noble Marquess to this matter — whether they had taken any steps to rebuke this gentleman for what he had done in reference to these proceedings, and had dismissed him from the commission of the peace? His formal question was, whether there had been any correspondence with Mr. Watson, or any steps taken to remove him from the commission of the peace, in consequence of what took place at Lisburne on the 23rd of June last?
Lord Stanleywas sorry the noble Marquess had thought it necessary to enter into any discussion of various events which had no material bearing on the present case. He regretted that the noble Marquess should have brought under the consideration of their Lordships the conduct of the Government with regard to those who had promoted or attended Repeal meetings; and he hoped it would not be thought disrespectful if he declined to follow him into preceding events, or into the question of the repeal of an Act which the noble Marquess admitted to have been one-sided. He would not, however, conceal from the noble Marquess, or from the House, that Her Majesty's Government had seen with the deepest regret, and, he would add, with no inconsiderable disappointment, the manner in which the Orange societies had, with ill-judgment, so imprudently and so recklessly acted: neglecting altogether due caution, and forgetful of the friendly spirit in which
654
Her Majesty's Government had withdrawn the prohibition of the Act of Parliament, and disregarding also the admonitions addressed to them in every direction by those among themselves who were entitled to the greatest confidence and respect. It was a melancholy picture of the state of Ireland, that so large a portion of the population of both parties, or rather factions, should be bent so much on exasperating and aggravating those animosities which it had been the object of that and of the preceding Governments to allay. So long as both parties in Ireland persisted in their determination to treat with hostility their opponents, it was a hopeless effort for the Government or the State to improve the condition of a country torn by this unhappy violence. Her Majesty's Government, he repeated, had seen with the deepest regret what had recently taken place. He would not vindicate or palliate the course which had been pursued; but he ventured to remind the noble Marquess, that the fact of processions of one description being unattended with any violence, and that processions of another description led to affrays, did not show that any greater amount of blame was attributable to the latter party, because for an affray to take place there must be two parties. The processions of the Repealers, however aggravating and annoying the provocation might be, had been borne in silence, while the Orange processions had not met with similar forbearance on the part of their political opponents; so that the blame was not wholly on one party because the processions of that party led to affrays which the others did not. He would not now discuss the merits of the particular case which was now in a course of judicial investigation: he only wished he might express a hope that in the course of this investigation all matters would receive an impartial, as well as a judicial inquiry With respect to this gentleman—if the facts were as reported to Her Majesty's Government—they would deeply regret that a gentleman, in other respects of high worth and respectability, should have been so misguided as to lend his name and his character—and the higher the name the greater was the evil—to this display of party feeling and animosity. The noble Marquess, however, was wrong in supposing that no steps had been taken by Her Majesty's Government with respect to this gentleman. He would not say that he

655
would be removed from the commission of the peace; but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had directed the attention of the Lord Lieutenant to the proceeding; subsequently there had been communications between his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on the subject, and he had reason to believe, though he was not certain of the fact, that the gentleman had been called upon to explain, and that upon consideration the matter would be dealt with as should be deemed best. He trusted that the noble Marquess would not call for a premature declaration of the course which Her Majesty's Government would pursue. The subject had not escaped their attention; they had viewed the occurrences with the deepest regret, and he hoped the noble Marquess did not express his own supposition when he doubted whether Her Majesty's Government would act with anything except impartiality with respect to similar offences committed by different bodies.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that with respect to the character of this individual, for a number of years he had occupied the highest position in the county, and that he possessed great popularity, and that up to this period, though he was a party man, his conduct as a magistrate had been most proper. He confessed that he had seen the resolutions passed at the meeting in question with regret, and had written his strong impressions against them. His noble Friend (the Earl of Roden) and others had also urged the Orange societies to take heed, as it was very easy for Parliament to re-enact the law against them; and he must say he did not believe that the great majority of the Orangemen, or the Protestants of Ireland, had taken part in these proceedings. The excuse of this gentleman was, that 15,000 men had marched in peace and tranquillity, and there had been no disturbance. This was in his own neighbourhood. With regard to the occurrences at Armagh, it was a lamentable story, and he was strongly of opinion that there were errors on both sides. He asked the Government to consider whether it would be wise and just to punish this venerable gentleman; he had been mistaken, but it would do mischief in that part of the country if anything were done against him. He believed that the speech
656
of the noble Lord would do more good than any dismissal of magistrates, or than any resort to violent measures. For an individual so respectable great allowance should be made, though he had been misguided. In his opinion, if they would leave Ireland to herself she would right herself better than if they ripped up every occurrence, irritating one person, without conciliating the good will of the other. He had been the consistent friend of Ireland throughout; he trusted that he would always remain so; and he had given to these societies his best counsel and advice.
Subject at an end.

SYRIA.
Lord Beaumontrose to move, in compliance with the Notice he had given, an humble Address to Her Majesty, that she would be graciously pleased to allow to be laid before their Lordships certain Papers and Correspondence regarding the recent events in Syria. His object in moving for these Papers was, that their Lordships might have a continuation of the Papers and Correspondence furnished to the House in 1841, so that the whole subject might be laid before them in so complete a form as to enable them to draw a correct judgment of the great question in the Levant, which for some time threatened to involve Europe in war, and which, he feared, still contained the germs of future disturbance to the peace of Europe, and was the constant cause of jealousy and recrimination between England and France. He did not think that he should be wasting their Lordships' time if he dwelt for a few minutes on the actual state of affairs in Syria, as that question had been the subject of debate on two distinct occasions in the Chamber of Deputies in Paris; and such opinions had been expressed in the course of those debates as would, if acted upon, tend to interrupt any good understanding which might still exist between England and France on the subject; nor did he think the noble Earl would regret the opportunity being offered him of giving some explanation on this question, as the most injurious accusations had been brought against English agents in the East, and no attempt had been made to contradict them in the Chambers in Paris. The Papers furnished in 1841 to the House brought the history of this question down to the period when the Porte, aided by all the great European Powers, except France, had succeeded in recovering from the usurpation of Mahomet

657
Ali the province of Syria, together with the other dependencies in Asia which had been overrun by the arms of its powerful vassal; and it was at that period, or immediately subsequent to it, that the Great Powers signed the Protocol of the 10th of July, and invited France to reunite herself to the European Compact. France accepted the invitation, and signed the Protocol of the 10th of July on the 13th of the same month. From that time, France was considered as having abandoned her isolated position, and agreed to act in concert with the other Powers. If they followed her subsequent conduct, and attended to her present professions, they would see how far she had realized these expectations, or how far she had disappointed the hopes founded on them. On recovering Syria, the Sultan had to consult how he should govern his newly-restored Province. Under the Emir Bechir (its old form of government previous to the Egyptian occupation), civil wars, bloodshed, confusion, and scenes similar to those they now deplored, were familiar. Chief fought against chief, and feudal system and feudal strife were the characteristics of the Lebanon: to such a system of government the Porte ought not to have returned, nor could the European Powers advisedly recommend it. France alone seemed to have desired it, but the Porte resisted, and resisted with success. Defeated in this object, France next demanded a separation of the two people who inhabited the Lebanon; or, to use the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in France, instead of a purely Turkish and Mussulman ruled the establishment of nationality in the mountain. In this, and in the subsequent steps of the proceedings, she seemed to have taken the chief part in counselling the Divan, and to have been successful in her recommendations. A separate government was given to the Druse and Maronite people; but, not content with this, France required that even in the mixed districts and villages, the same principle should be carried out, and, consequently, the Druse were to be subject to Druse magistrates, and the Maronite to Maronite magistrates. This was adopted, and each people were to have kaimacans or vekils of their own. France having been the chief party in establishing this form of government, she ought, in reason to have allowed the system to have had a fair trial; but, instead of so doing, she professed to consider the plan as only temporary, and raised hopes and discontent by saying that she expected to obtain more
658
privileges for the Maronites in the mountain. The Porte sought to establish municipal privileges instead of the feudal ones, and to place Lebanon on the same footing as the rest of the Pashalic; but, buoyed up by the conduct of France, and the language of her Minister, the Shahab family hoped to regain the authority they had lost. Intrigue followed intrigue, and a moment's repose was never allowed to the Government of Syria to try fairly the new principle adopted there. Constant outbreaks occurred; but if the Porte had been allowed to act independently, these outbreaks would soon have been suppressed; and if Omar Pasha, who was sent out to replace the Emir Bechir in the mountain, had been allowed to remain, we should have never heard of the war between Druse and Maronite. Unfortunately, the Porte was not allowed to act with a strong hand, and suppress revolt; but in an attempt to give a demi-independence and self-government to the two people who occupied the mountain, old feuds were revived, and the war broke out, which led to the late disgraceful scenes of bloodshed and cruelty. While alluding to the lamentations of France over these bloody scenes, and the indignation and sympathy she tried to excite on the occasion, saying that civilization and common charity imposed on Europe the necessity of interfering to stop such cruel occurences—all of which, by the by, she attributed to the suggestions of the British Consul, and the instructions of the English Government—while alluding to the outcry raised in France on this subject, he (Lord Beaumont) could not refrain from reflecting, that at the very same time, in a province which France claimed as her own, a scene had been enacted which surpassed in horror all the inventions of romances, and which, if we did not know it to be true, we would believe to be the monstrous production of the frenzied imagination of some new and unequalled compiler of horrors. Returning, however, from this digression to the subject immediately before the House, he would briefly recapitulate the events of the last few months. On the 30th of April, the Maronites, urged on by the intrigues of the Shahab family and the promises of France, had invaded the territory of the Druses; the Druses retaliated, and then commenced a species of civil war in the mixed districts, during which the cruelties alluded to had taken place. The Druses got the upper hand, when the Turkish authorities interfered, and an armistice was forced upon the

659
belligerents. Such being the present state of Lebanon, and the renewal of such scenes as had been described being more than probable, it behoved them to consider well what were the conduct and policy of France. From the speeches of M. Guizot, and the debates which had recently taken place in the Chamber of Deputies, he (Lord Beaumont) gathered that it was the intention of France to separate herself from the other Powers in this question, and act singly in the affairs of Syria; she claimed, on the ground of some obsolete Treaties, the exclusive right to protect the Christians of Mount Lebanon—a claim which could not hold good in respect of the Maronites, inasmuch as at the time the supposed Treaties were made, the Maronites were not in communion with Rome. France had already one man of war on the coast, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs declared that orders had been given to two others to join her. If the discontent of the mountaineers was fomented by foreign intrigue, and the insurrection of the Maronites fed by the assistance of France, there could be no hope that the Porte would be able to restore peace in the Lebanon, and put down, with a strong hand, those who dared to break it. For his own part, he (Lord Beaumont) thought it was the duty of this country to strengthen the sovereign power of Turkey, instead of attempting to diminish it in Syria; and he considered the noble Earl called on to do his utmost to persuade France not to act singly in this case, but forego her presumed right of exclusive protection of the Maronites, and join cordially with England in obtaining equal justice to Druse and Maronite, which could only be secured by establishing in full force the supreme authority of the lawful Sovereign of both populations—the Sultan. He felt he had now said enough to justify the Motion for Papers; but he should feel disappointed if the noble Earl, when he acceded to it, should not avail himself of the opportunity of explaining the intentions of Government, and also of contradicting the aspersions cast upon Colonel Rose in the French Chambers. The noble Lord concluded by moving for the Correspondence regarding Syria since 1842.
The Earl of Aberdeen: The Papers to which the noble Lord has referred, were moved for some time ago in the House of Commons. There is, of course, therefore, no objection to their being laid on the Table of your Lordships' House. Being
660
very voluminous, it has required some time to prepare them; they are not yet quite ready; I hope that in the course of a few days they will be; and, when they are ready, I shall be happy to furnish them to the noble Lord and the House. The provinces to which the noble Lord has referred are undoubtedly in a very disturbed state—confusion, bloodshed, and anarchy have prevailed in them for some time past to a lamentable extent. I will not say that I give any credit to that which, however, I must tell the noble Lord, is generally believed in the country itself — that the Turkish Government is the sole cause of the warfare which has been carried on between these two people, the Maronites and the Druses. It is generally believed that the Porte, being unable to govern them with a strong hand, seeks to have the power of doing so by means of setting one against the other, and thus weakening both. Now, I do not believe that. I believe that the confusion that prevails is only the result of Turkish apathy and misrule, which are but too common in many of their provinces, and not to any such diabolical plan as that which is supposed to exist. It is true that the French Government have assumed a general protectorship over all Christians in the Levant, founding their right to do so on old Treaties and capitulations, from, I believe, the time of Francis I. I shall not enter into the question of the right which the French Government may have to exercise this protection; but, at all events, in the present case they must submit to share it with us, inasmuch as we are bound by positive engagement to attend to the condition of the population of this province. Before the expulsion of the Egyptians, the Turkish Government entered into an agreement with Her Majesty's Ambassador, that in the event of the province being recovered, the inhabitants should recover their former privileges, and that their condition should be improved. We are, therefore, bound by an obligation to see that their condition is so far improved as to fulfil the pledge which was offered by the Turkish Government. As for seeing good government established in that or any other province of the Turkish empire, I am not very sanguine. But there may be a spirit of improvement encouraged, and in this case we are under the necessity of seeing that the Turkish Government fulfils its engagement. Otherwise I do not wish to interfere in the details of the government of this province, except where some very flagrant outrage is

661
committed, with which common humanity and a regard for our fellow Christians should call for our immediate intervention. Generally speaking, I fear, it would be a vain attempt, indeed, to establish anything like such a government as would be satisfactory to ourselves and the public in any province; but in this province we are compelled to interest ourselves, in consequence of the engagement into which we have entered. It has happened in this and in other provinces where there are two parties, that one has been supposed to be an English, and the other a French party, and thus we are set in a sort of opposition to each other, quite contrary, as I believe, to the intention of both Governments; for I believe the object of the French Government is precisely that of the English Government, viz., without reference to Maronites or Druses, to see something like order, tranquillity, and peace, established in the country. There is no sort of foundation for the notion which the noble Lord seems to entertain, of the French Government intending to withdraw itself from its alliance in this case with the other Powers. The noble Lord should recollect that the Five Great Powers of Europe are acting together at Constantinople and in the provinces, by their Consuls: and, although in a case of such difficulty, and where there are such various interests, it is possible that a difference of opinion may more or less prevail, as to what may be the best mode of restoring peace to this unhappy country, I should say that, generally, there has been concert between all the Powers respecting the measures which ought to be pursued; and there is no reason to suppose that on the part of France, or of any other Government, there is any wish not to act in concert. I think it is quite unnecessary to occupy your Lordships' time any more on this subject. It appeared to me to be quite unnecessary to refer to the debates in the French Chambers upon the subject. Gentlemen there say what they please, as we take the liberty of doing here. But I do not feel myself bound to answer accusations which were made without any foundation whatever. I have not seen any report of the debate to which the noble Lord has referred, and I am not aware that any authority has been given by the French Government to such accusations; and, therefore, it is quite unnecessary to occupy your Lordships time by adverting to them. But I will say that there have been accusations made against the English Consul
662
General in Syria which are not only most unfounded, but are without even a shadow of foundation; for, although it is generally supposed that England has espoused the cause of the Druses, and France has taken the Maronites under its protection, yet, to show how little truth there is in that opinion, I may mention that, very recently, Colonel Rose, Her Majesty's Consul, having been informed that a body of Maronites were in prison and in danger of losing their lives and property, got up at twelve o'clock at night, mounted his horse, and proceeded on a long and difficult march to the place where these people were confined. He found 600 persons, men, women, and children, and by his exertions and the influence he exercised, at the head of a considerable column, under a burning sun, in a two days' march, he brought them safely to Beyrout, and thus liberated these Maronites from danger in which they were placed. Therefore, your Lordships see that, though other gentlemen may write moving and pathetic despatches, the English Consul General exposed himself to actual fatigue and to some danger in rescuing these persons, who approached him with an appeal requiring his aid as their friend. This is the only feeling upon which I should always wish to see English agents act. While others indulge in eloquent descriptions of the sympathy they felt, yet so long as the English agent did the sufferers real service, I think your Lordships will be satisfied with the comparison which his conduct may bear with any other friendly Power. Such was the manner in which Colonel Rose acted towards the Maronites. And as to supporting the Druses against the Maronites, and encouraging their destruction by the Druses, that must clearly be an absurd imputation, hardly worthy of refutation. But so far from the Druses being protected by us, so far as I am aware of any motive that could influence our conduct, it would be most natural for us to protect the Maronites; they are Christians and Roman Catholics; they are persons who have many claims upon us, and who acted zealously in support of our measures in freeing the country from the Egyptians, whereas the Druses have no claim upon us whatever. Their religion is neither Christian nor Mahomedan; it is some superstition which nobody knows anything about; some say it is the worship of the Golden Calf; but, be that as it may, the others are certainly Christians, and deserving of our sympathy. But our object

663
is to establish justice; that whether Christians or Druses, justice may be administered without partiality, or predilection, or interference with the Turkish Government. I hope we shall never do that which will not be justifiable towards an independent State, as it is our object to obtain the improvement of the condition of the people with as little interference as possible with the sovereign rights of an independent State—a State which, however imperfect may be its government and its condition in many respects, we have an interest in preserving and strengthening by all the means in our power. As there is no objection to produce the Papers, I do not see that it is necessary for me to trouble your Lordships any further.
Lord Beaumontsaid, he wished the noble Earl had read the debate in the French Chamber, because he would have seen that M. Guizot did not abandon the principle of acting alone, and was prepared to act in favour of the Maronites; and that there was a difference of opinion between England and France, not as to the object, but as to the remedy. He was, however, glad he had given the noble Earl an opportunity of making the statement which their Lordships had heard.
Motion agreed to.

WASTE LANDS (AUSTRALIA) BILL.
Lord Stanleymoved the Second Reading of the Waste Lands (Australia) Bill, in doing which the noble Lord explained the state of the law as it stood at present in the Australian Colonies with reference to waste lands. One object of the Bill was to authorize the Governor of New South Wales to grant leases of waste lands within or without the limits of the Colony, on the same terms as the other lands were disposed of, namely, by auction. It was proposed, however, to restrict the leases to twenty-one years at the outside. The produce of the revenue to be derived under the Bill was to be applied in part to raise a fund for the encouragement of immigration of free labourers;—but this regarded New South Wales only. In Australia there was no want of capital, but there was a deficiency of labour. In Van Diemen's Land, on the other hand, there was a superabundance of labour seeking for employment. This, resulted, in great part, from the excess of convict labour. We, moreover, imposed a heavy tax upon the Colony on account of the convicts we sent
664
there. The expense incurred there for police and gaols, was 36,000 l. per annum, whilst the rest of the expenditure was only 70,000 l.; thus one-third of the whole expenditure of the Colony was entirely taken up by the police and the gaols. It was proposed by this Bill to retransfer to this country the proceeds of land sales, which had dwindled down to almost nothing; to take into the hands of the Government the proceeds of the sales of lands, after they had been improved by convict labour, and to release the Colony from the gaol and police expenses. It was proposed to allow the best-conducted convicts to become renters of Government land in Van Diemen's Land: whereas in New South Wales, the object was to give a certain permanency of tenure, and enable the free occupier to surround himself with some of the comforts of life. He (Lord Stanley) believed the Bill would be found satisfactory to many of those who had presented petitions to Parliament.
The Marquess of Lansdownewas not prepared to oppose the Bill in its present stage. He thought a case might be made out for legislative interference. But when entering upon so large a subject, he considered it was absolutely necessary that the noble Lord should make out a case of most urgent necessity before their Lordships consented to pass a Bill of this nature, especially as they were now coming to the close of the Session, and when many important measures, which had undergone great consideration, had already been deferred to another period. Many of the clauses of this Bill might be of value, and among the rest, he thought the system of granting licenses for the occupation of waste lands might be attended with beneficial effects; but there were provisions in the Bill, giving to the Governor such arbitrary powers, that he was entirely opposed to them. By the 6th Clause, persons who had already occupied parts of the waste lands under licenses, were to be made liable, at the pleasure of the Governor, to an amount of taxation almost indefinite, assuming the shape of an agistment tax. It authorized a tax upon cattle, paying a certain sum per year for every horse, sheep, and head of horned cattle depastured upon the waste lands which Her Majesty's Privy Council or the Governor might decide upon. To this he most strongly objected. Their Lordships were aware of the effect of a law of agist-

665
ment in Ireland; and he thought it would be a rash, inconsiderate, and ill-judged measure to introduce into Australia. He wished to impress it upon their Lordships, that they were now, in fact, laying the foundation of a principle of property which would affect two thousand miles of territory and vast millions of acres of land, and that without giving the measure such consideration as its importance demanded, and which if brought on early in the next Session it would of course obtain.
Lord Stanleyobserved, that the noble Marquess seemed to suppose that the license conferred a permanent right upon the party obtaining it. But that was not the case. It was an annual license to pasture stock.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: Was it not a license to occupy?
Lord Stanley: No; it was merely a license to depasture stock within a certain district. The Governor was at the present moment perfectly free to fix from year to year the amount to be paid by each party obtaining a license.
Lord Monteagleobjected to the 6th and 13th Clauses, which he believed had excited the greatest possible apprehension and alarm. He objected to their provisions as perfectly without precedent. In 1842, an Act was passed regulating the sale of Colonial property; but the proposed Bill, which extended to the whole of the Australian Colonies, suspended the operation of the existing Statute law of the land so long as any Colony should continue to be a place to which felons might be conveyed for punishment. The noble Lord stated that he meant it to apply only to Van Diemen's Land; but an Order in Council, by sending even as few as ten felons to New Zealand, or any other Colony, would extend the provisions at once to those places.
Lord Stanleyexplained, that the Bill could not apply to any existing Colonies, as their charters would not permit the sending of felons there; but if new Colonies should be established, and it should be deemed necessary to found new penal settlements in such places, but for the provision referred to, those Colonies would be subject to the old Land Sales Act.
Lord Monteagle, in continuation, expressed his regret that the Bill had been introduced at so late a period of the Session, not only on public grounds, but also for the sake of the noble Lord himself. It
666
was clearly impossible, at this period of the Session, the measure could be well considered; and it was more than probable that, if considered, it would not be satisfactory.
Lord Polwarthexpressed a hope that the provision which made some amends to Van Diemen's Land for the expense incurred by gaols and police might also be extended to Australia.
Bill read 2a.

FOREIGN LOTTERIES BILL.
Moved that the Bill be now read 3a.
Lord Monteaglesaid, he wished to have a clause inserted which should provide for and insist upon the enforcement of the law with regard to the publication of notices in newspapers relative to foreign lotteries. As all newspapers and periodicals came under the inspection of the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes, he was of opinion that that body should be entrusted with the enforcement of the law in this respect, and he should propose the insertion of some such clause as the following:
"Be it enacted, that whenever it shall appear to the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes, from the inspection of newspapers and periodicals, that there has been inserted any advertisement or notice of foreign lotteries, they shall take the necessary proceedings to enforce the law."
Though he wished, however, to have a clause inserted, he should be satisfied if the noble Lord would give him an assurance that the law was to be enforced, and that these great frauds and nuisances should be put down by the strong hand of the law.
Lord Stanleyassured the noble Lord that it was not intended that the law should become a dead letter in this respect. He did not think it would be necessary to introduce a clause; but he would take care that such instructions should be given as should secure the enforcement of the law to its fullest extent.
Bill read 3a.

FIELD GARDENS' BILL.
The Duke of Richmondmoved the Second Reading of this Bill.
The Earl of Radnorobjected to the Bill, both in principle and detail. He wished to know whether the Government approved or not of such a measure, as in the former case it ought to be left to the

667
hands of some noble Lord on the Treasury Bench, or not brought forward at all.
Lord Stanleydefended the Bill both in its principle, and against the objections urged by the noble Earl. The noble Lord said that the noble Earl might judge from what he had said, whether he and his (Lord Stanley's) Colleagues in office, did or did not approve of the Bill.
Bill was then read a second time.
House adjourned.
The following Protest against the Second Reading of the Field Gardens Bill was entered on the Journals:—

1. Because by this Bill there may be established in every parish in the kingdom a Board endowed with corporate privileges, irresponsible, and armed with powers which may be used for purposes of favouritism on the one hand, or of oppression on the other.

2. Because the objects of this Bill, purporting to be subsidiary to the provisions for the relief of the poor, under divers Acts of Parliament, are, in truth, in direct contravention to their principle.

3. Because, as in each parish, where the provisions of this Bill shall be adopted, the field-wardens will be wholly unconnected with those of every other, and uncontrolled by any superior power, it cannot be doubted that in process of time there will be introduced in different parishes a diversity of practice, which will lead to heart-burnings, discontent, and confusion.

4. Because the provisions of this Bill, if carried out in the fairest and most equitable manner, will necessarily aggravate the acknowledged evils resulting from the present law of settlement.

5. Because its unavoidable tendency is to promote early and improvident marriages, and to give an unnatural stimulus to the increase of population, already superabundant in the agricultural districts.

6. Because the necessary consequence will be the lowering of the wages of the agricultural labourer.

7. Because the provisions of this Bill lead to the indefinite increase of holdings and divisions of land, and thus to many of the evils which now press so severely on the people of Ireland.

8. Because they are in accordance with an opinion much in vogue, but which I think false in itself, and injurious to the people; founded on an unfair estimate of their intelligence and spirit, and (if acted upon) tending to lower their independence, and to degrade their moral condition, viz., that they cannot manage their own concerns, but must be cared for, overlooked, and directed by others, their superiors perhaps in fortune, but I believe by no means superior to them in virtue, natural intelligence, or public spirit.

668

9. Because if I am mistaken in this character of the people, and their comparative worth, the evil ought to be cured by good example and education; and will only be aggravated by such measures as those contemplated by the present Bill.

RADNOR.