Sitting of 18 March 1817

WELCH JUDGES.
Mr. Calcraft Mr. Calcraft moved for a writ for the Election of a member to serve in the present parliament for the bo-

1167
rough of Bridport, in the room of Mr. Serjeant Best, who, since his election, had accepted the office of second Justice, of the great sessions of Wales.
Sir S. Romillytook that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the distinction made between the English and Welch judges with regard to the capacity of sitting in that House. The constituents of the learned serjeant himself had nothing to complain of, as it remained for them to determine whether their representative was likely to be as attentive to their interests as before his acceptance of this office; but the point was of great constitutional importance: and he had never been able to understand at what period this difference between English and Welch judges originated. The latter had duties equally arduous, although not so frequently exercised, as those of the former: they had to sit in judgment in cases affecting the property, reputation, and lives of his majesty's subjects. The due exercise of their functions required the same general qualifications, the same impartiality of character, and the same abstinence from party conflicts. He was, he confessed, at a loss to determine how such an irregularity could have ever been allowed by the constitution. The fact, however, unfortunately was, that they were considered not professional, but political offices; and were, he had reason to believe, not in the gift of the lord chancellor but of the first lord of the treasury. These observations were evidently not directed against the recent appointment of the learned Serjeant, whose great practice and long experience fully qualified him for the situation. Whatever regret, however, the House might feel at the absence of his talents, he did not think it could be attended with much surprise. It count not have failed to have attracted notice, that the hon. and learned serjeant had some time since changed his original seat on the opposition benches, for one which might be regarded as neutral territory; and that he had subsequently removed to one which was not only nearer to, but was the very threshold of the treasury. The House, he thought, was bound to take into its consideration the propriety of suffering any man to unite in himself the characters of a member of parliament and of a judge. In point of practical consequence, it was undeniable, that those hon. members generally placed implicit confidence in the ministers of the Crown. He had heard of many visionary projects for parliamentary reform,
1168
and he was sorry that such ideas had been entertained; but of practical and moderate reform, he had always been a supporter both in the House and before he had the honour to enter it; nor could he imagine any plan of reform more practical and moderate, or one calculated to give more general satisfaction, than the rendering ineligible those persons whose offices necessarily made them dependent on the ministers of the crown, and more especially all those who held judicial appointments.
Mr. Abercrombiewas desirous of asking for information with respect to certain legal proceedings in the county palatine of Chester. He recollected to have heard his hon. and learned friend who had just spoken, when a new writ was moved for on the occasion of the present attorney-general being appointed to the office of chief justice of Chester, pointing out the possibility of his being called upon to sit judicially upon cases which it had been his duty to prosecute as attorney-general. If what he had heard was to be relied on, this conflict of duties had now arrived. He understood that several persons had been arrested within the jurisdiction of his court, and were about to be tried for offences against the state, which must have come under his cognizance as attorney-general. It was, he conceived, impossible that the hon. and learned gentleman should preside at those trials; and the result of this must be the loss to the state of his services, or the inconvenience of appointing a special commission. In the one case he supposed the duty must fall on the attorney-general of the duchy of Cornwall (Mr. serjeant Best); but he remembered an instance in which a former attorney-general of Cornwall (Mr. Adam) had deemed it becoming to resign that office on his appointment to a judgeship. However liable he might be to misconstruction in these remarks, he felt that it was impossible to be too anxious on so important a principle of the constitution; and he could assure the House, that he was at the same time expressing sentiments which were generally entertained by the profession to which he belonged.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that the hon. and learned gentleman was completely mistaken in supposing that any thing so indecent could be committed as that he, the king's attorney-general should direct prosecutions which he should afterwards try in his capacity as chief justice of Chester. If there were persons in custody in Ches-

1169
ter, he was quite certain he should not hear a syllable upon the subject (except what might be matter of public notoriety), till he arrived there. In the last sessions at Chester, several persons were tried for a conspiracy, but of which conspiracy he knew nothing, until the matter was opened before him by the indictment; and the same course would be pursued on the present occasion, if the fact should be as stated by the hon. and learned gentleman. He should consider himself, or any other individual, unworthy to hold a situation under the Crown, if he could advise prosecutions, which were subsequently to be tried by himself. Were such a necessity inevitable, he should hold himself bound to resign one or other of the offices.
Mr. Ponsonhysaid, that the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman had proved beyond the possibility of doubt, that the two offices of attorney-general and of chief justice of Chester were incompatible. He could not, in fact, do his duty in the one capacity, but by neglecting it in the other; he could not execute his functions as chief justice of Chester without foregoing his duty as attorney-general. The principle was extremely wrong, and contrary to the direct nature and spirit of the constitution, that any person exercising judicial functions should have a seat in the House of Commons. He was surprised how the practice could have existed so long and if no other individual took the matter up, he would after the Easter holidays, propose a motion for disqualifying such persons.
Sir S. Romillyobserved, that since the hon. and learned gentleman had been chief justice of Chester, some causes had been tried in which the Crown had a great interest relating to Delamere forest; the hon. and learned gentleman very properly abstained from sitting, and they were tried by one of the puisne judges, but the consequence was, that the Crown did not have the assistance which it ought to have had from the hon. and learned gentleman's talents.
The motion was then agreed to.

MOTION RELATING TO LOTTERIES.
The Hon. Mr. Lytteltonrose, in pursuance of his notice, to call the attention of the House to the dangerous, immoral, and fraudulent measure so long established in this country as a financial arrangement, of raising money upon the people by way of lotteries. The prejudices that prevailed against a subject of this kind as well as
1170
against any other which proposed any thing that the gentlemen opposite were pleased to call "innovation," were very strong at this moment; indeed, he lamented to say, that there was a great inattention on the part of persons both within and without that House to every thing morally and politically connected with the means of raising of money. It was necessary, no doubt, that money should be raised to support the expenses of the state; but the utmost jealousy should be entertained by the people, and particularly by those who represented them in that House, that no taxes should be imposed that could be avoided, and more especially, that no mode of taxation should be adopted which would lead to the destruction of the morals of the community. It could not have escaped the notice of almost every gentleman, that it was usual to consider this subject as a sort of joke. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, and those who sat beside him, had been used to say, "You only find fault with the lottery puff's;" this excited a laugh, and then the matter dropped These lottery puffs were considered merely as so much nonsense which every body saw through and not as having any injurious tendency. He was fully persuaded, therefore, it must be the effect of evidence that would get the better of the habitual prejudice on this subject. Amongst the different expedients that were resorted to for raising money, it was said, that the lottery was the only one to which the people cheerfully assented, because it was a voluntary, and not a compulsory tax which could not be said of any other tax; but what had the two committees, who were appointed at different periods, to inquire into the consequences of this species of taxation reported to the House? They had stated, that this system was radically vicious; that it was as improvident as it was immoral; and, in the last place, that the manner of raising the money was, on all accounts, objectionable. There could be no doubt, that it produced every species of fraud and irregularity that could be imagined. He held in his hand a report, stating the gross amount of the revenue; and it appeared that the whole annual sum derived from this source, on an average of the last five years, did not exceed 550,000 l. He believed, however, that this estimate was a good deal more than the lottery really produced in most years; but certainly, in the last year, it could not

1171
be rated higher than 500,000 l. This sum was raised on the public at a very enormous expense; the cost and charge of raising it amounting to 570,000 l.; so that, in fact, the expense of its collection was greater in amount than the sum it brought into the exchequer. By the terms of the last lottery, a ticket, originally worth 10 l., was sold to the public at 23 l.: and the sum distributed into prizes was so unequal, that four men were plundered to make one rich. Nothing could justify such a system as that pursued by the public contractors. The scheme of the lottery now about to be drawn, had been published in the London Gazette, and this made the sixth lottery within twelve months. If the right hon. gentleman did actually set his signature to that scheme, if he had really been guilty of that gross imposture and deception on the public which the scheme disclosed, he knew not in what parliamentary terms he could sufficiently reprobate his conduct. He trusted, however, that the exposure of this fraudulent scheme would have some effect on the public, if it had none on the virtuous mind of the right hon. gentleman. The chance of any great prize was about 71 to 1. The prizes, two of which were stated as at 40,000 l., two of 20,000 l., were not prizes in money but in stock; so that the grand total of prizes apparently (and no doubt so stated for the purpose of deception), was full 220,000 l., but in hard money amounted to no more than 108,000 l.; and the worst of all was, that these great prizes were not convertible even into cash, but were to be kept in reserve, in part, to purchase shares in another subsequent lottery. By such false representations, many persons were induced to speculate in lotteries; and as the lottery contractors were too well aware of their own interest, to publish any thing that would tend to undeceive the public, they never permitted them to see the supplementary part of the scheme in the daily papers, so that none but persons fortunate enough to see the Gazette itself, were ever aware of the true state of the lottery. There were great numbers of very ignorant and illiterate people in the country, who might be induced to part with their money in this scheme; but as they were not aware that the contractors published a supplementary plan in the Gazette, they were unable to form any opinion as to the folly and madness of risking their hard-earned wages in this abominable speculation. But this de-
1172
testable scheme of fraud made its appearance in the Gazette, and was actually recommended by the chancellor of the exchequer and the lords of the treasury—a scheme so exceedingly dishonest, and the approval of it so extremely unjustifiable, that every gentleman, in his private transactions, would be ashamed of putting his name to it. And yet, in the Gazette of that day, he found the following notice attached to the foot of the scheme:—
"After our hearty commendations, having considered the above scheme of the fifth and supplementary lotteries, to be drawn pursuant to the provisions of an act of 56 Geo. 3d, we do hereby signify to you our consent and approbation of the said scheme.
"Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, the 11 th day of March, 1817.

"N. VANSITTART,

"C. GRANT, junior,

"G. W. ODELL."

The right hon. gentleman had taken some pains in promoting religious societies; he had attended Bible meetings, and made some eloquent speeches on religion and morality; he had professed the most lively interest for the comforts of the poor. But what did all this amount to? What would the House of Commons think, what could the people think, what could the right hon. gentleman himself think, of these gambling speculations? Did these fraudulent schemes accord with those pure notions of morality, of which he had for so many years been the advocate? But the House must not countenance such frauds; and as they could not expect to have another chancellor of the exchequer of such nice moral feeling, it was a strong argument against granting lotteries at present. With respect to the mode of drawing the lottery, nothing could be more mischievous than to employ boys who belonged to one of our noblest establishments, and who were thus brought up in the habit of witnessing gambling. The lottery, too, had been sometimes drawn by night; the persons appointed by government as inspectors having previously received an excellent dinner, at the expense of the contractors, by which they were, as he understood, frequently reduced to a state very little short of beastly drunkenness! He had heard the chancellor of the exchequer last year admit, that gambling was a vice, which, however, could not be exterminated, and that, on this ground, as much profit

1173
should be drawn from it as possible. "God grant," he had then said, "that the vice was exterminated; but since it cannot be so, let us not refuse to take the 500,000 l.!" Now this was a most singular way of arguing, especially for the right hon. gentleman; and he wished to know on what scheme of morality he could reconcile his conduct, in this point, to his conscience as a Christian, or his duty as his majesty's chancellor of the exchequer. He (Mr. Lyttelton) denied, however, that the spirit of gambling was inherent in the people; and if a passion for gambling did exist in any part of the community at present, it had been created and promoted by the lotteries. The distresses arising from this species of gambling were not a matter of notoriety. Few in that House were acquainted with the real condition of the people. They read a lottery puff, laughed at it, and knew nothing more of its consequences than that some friend of their's might have been silly enough to purchase a share which turned up a blank; but they were little aware of the vast numbers of poor people who were grossly cheated out of their money. This system of lotteries was attended by one other disadvantage to the moral character of the nation, namely, the encouragement of informers. The abuses consequent on the employment of that class of persons, were of the grossest description, and subjected the secretary of lotteries to so many disagreeable circumstances, that, without meaning to make any personal allusion to the individual at present holding the office, he was assured, if that situation should become vacant, the right hon. gentleman opposite would find much difficulty in procuring a barrister of any character to accept of it. The preamble of the act for the suppression of little goes, about which so much noise had been made, applied in every respect to the great goes; for they, too, were subversive of morality, and tended to plunder the people of considerable sums of money by fraudulent misrepresentations; and against such an evil, the argument built on the increase or diminution of the revenue was very feeble. During the discussions on this question, in the last session, the chancellor of the exchequer had said, that the state lotteries were conducted on so magnificent a scale, that it was difficult, nay, almost impossible, for poor persons to adventure even in the purchase of a sixteenth, and, therefore, that they could not be exten-
1174
sively injurious to them; but to him (Mr. Lyttelton) it appeared by no means impossible, that a poor man might scrape together 1l. 12 s. for that purpose; and if he could not do this honestly, a strong temptation existed, to make up the sum by a little roguery; a circumstance, the frequent occurrence of which was stated in one of the reports of a committee of that House on the subject. The difficulty, too, was met by the formation of clubs, for the purpose of purchasing sixteenths, by which means poor people were enabled to embark their little savings in the state gambling-house, under the sanction and "hearty commendation" of the chancellor of the exchequer. If this were a disadvantage to the country, in prosperous circumstances, what must be the consequences during the present state of general distress, when the parish rates had been so far increased in every part of the country? And if those burthens on the industrious were still farther aggravated by this baneful system of licensed gaming, the country had a right to exclaim against it. In the present wretched state of the country, what an evil it was, that missionaries should be dispatched throughout the kingdom to tempt the poor, by every description of fallacious enticement, to enter into this species of gambling! The inevitable consequence was, that many were thrown on the parish, and the poor-rates were considerably increased. By the city of London, in a petition to that House, the lottery was declared to be a nuisance. He had, some time ago, in consequence of the notice which he had given on this subject, received a letter from the active and most exemplary magistrate who now presided over the metropolis, who thanked him for the step which he was about to take, and told him, that he was thoroughly persuaded of the injurious effects of lotteries, the mischiefs of which were daily increasing. This opinion, proceeding from such high authority, and from one possessing so much local knowledge, ought to have considerable weight. In fact, he was persuaded, that if it were practicable to collect them, the sentiments of every wise and good man throughout the empire, would be found inimical to lotteries. There was one cause which no doubt produced a great deal of the tenacity that had appeared on the part of government on this subject. The lottery was the source of considerable patronage. There

1175
were in the gift of the Crown, as connected with lotteries, four places of 500 l. a year; five places of 850 l. a year; one place of 300 l. a year; one place of 230 l. year; twenty-one places of 200 l. a year; and six places of from 100 l. to 150 l. a year, being in the whole upwards of thirty offices of considerable value, a great portion of which were sinecures. In Ireland, also there was a first commissioner (sir A. Alexander), with 300 l. a year; 4 commissioners with each 200 l. a year; 2 certifying commissioners with each 100 l. a year; 2 comptrollers with each 100 l.; a stamp master (Mr.Thompson), with 242 l. a year (who had been about 16years absent from Ireland); two clerks, with 60 l. a year; and two clerks with 50 l. a year: making, in the whole, the annual sum of 2,112 l. although no lottery had been drawn in Ireland for sixteen years. This appeared a most shameful abuse, and required serious explanation. Every fresh consideration of the subject impressed on his mind a still deeper conviction of the importance of it. The system was radically bad and injurious; and he felt convinced, that if he could succeed in removing it, he would be doing an essential service to his country. It sickened the very heart to see the condition in which the poor of the country at present were. He did not state this as a charge against his majesty's government (it had been brought on by a war, unnecessary in its origin, and extravagant in its prosecution) but as an imperative call on them to remove every thing calculated to increase the distresses of the lower classes. On all sides, the government was now called on to make retrenchment; but when he saw that the retrenchment he proposed was one which would combine the suppression of a great evil with an advantage to the revenue of the country, he did hope that it would not meet with a rejection from the House. To abolish lotteries would be to combine a present good to the poor with no very remote benefit to the finances. It was true, that in the first instance, the 500,000 l. raised by the lottery must be found elsewhere, but he would much rather see it taken fairly and honourably out of the pockets of the people, than obtained in the present insidious and mischievous manner. The state was to be saved, but of this he was convinced, that it was not to be saved by such crooked means. Under these impressions, it was his intention to move three resolutions, similar to those
1176
which he had proposed last year, but somewhat softened in their tendency; as his object was not censure of the past, but the prevention for the future, of a repetition of the evil. Those Resolutions were as follows:—

1. "That, by the establishment of State Lotteries, a spirit of gambling is encouraged and provoked, which abates the moral strength of the state, and must ultimately diminish its financial resources.

2. "That such Lotteries are attended with peculiar evils, which the severest regulations have failed to extinguish, and which have been repressed only by laws, whose provisions are arbitrary and unconstitutional, and their enforcement liable to the greatest abuse.

3. "That this House therefore will no longer authorize the establishment of State Lotteries, under any system of regulation whatever."

The first Resolution being put,
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose to impress on the House the important truth, that on the preservation of what remained of the public income of the county, the security of the empire depended. If they did not most seriously weigh every proposition, the tendency of which was to reduce that income, the situation of the country must speedily become most alarming. There was little of novelty in the speech made by the hon. gentleman, and he trusted therefore that the House would come to the same decision upon the proposition as they had done upon that brought forward by the hon. gentleman last year. With respect to the objections urged by the hon. gentleman against the details of the measure, they had no bearing on the principle of it. There was nothing immoral and illegal in the principle, unless all games of chance were prima facie to be so considered; a doctrine which very few, even of the most severe moralists would maintain. If games of chance were in any case to be considered lawful and innocent, they ought surely not to be held otherwise when they were rendered subservient to the benefit of the state. If it was allowed that games of chance were at all lawful, they could not certainly be in a more unobjectionable shape than under the regulation of state lotteries. It was certainly true that there were a few-instances of persons in very desperate circumstances rendering their situation worse by venturing in the lottery; but if there were no state lottery, persons of that

1177
disposition would not want means of ruining themselves. He had never argued (as it had been alleged of him) that private vices might be made public virtues. Parliament had not been neglectful of its duty in correcting the evils attendant on the details of lotteries. It would be recollected, that many years ago there were two principal evils objected to in lotteries. One was the almost infinite divisibility of tickets, which gave to the poorest of the people an opportunity of purchasing a share; the other was, the extension of the time of drawing to forty or fifty days; affording the greatest encouragement to illegal insurances. Some remains of this latter practice might possibly yet exist, but they could not be to a very great extent. One question for the House to determine was, if the suppression of lotteries would not tend to increase the mischiefs of that very species of gaming against which the observations of the hon. gentleman were chiefly directed. The maintenance of the lottery kept up an establishment, active in checking little-goes, and private gambling of that description, by which, were it not thus much diminished, the unwary would be still more frequently entrapped. The difficulty also that at present existed in preventing the sale of tickets for foreign lotteries would be materially increased. They would be bought by thousands if the home lottery were ever to be destroyed to make way for them. The hon. gentleman had been pleased to say, that if he (the chancellor of the exchequer) had to look for a secretary to the lottery, he could not find any gentleman at the bar of credit and talents who would accept the situation. It certainly had not been his lot to be under the necessity of looking for a successor to the gentleman who now filled that office very much to his (the chancellor's) satisfaction; but he had no doubt, if a vacancy in that office was to occur, he could find many among his old friends at the bar who would be glad to fill it, who would fill it creditably—as creditably and as beneficially for the public service as it was now filled by the individual who so respectably filled it. Mr. Perceval, who would be suspected by no man pf a disposition to make his appointments from men without credit and talents, had chosen the gentleman who was the present secretary, and had found him highly qualified in every respect for the office. A disagreeable office in some points it certainly was, bringing the individual
1178
who held it into contact with people of a very mean and disagreeable description, the persons giving informations, and the persons against whom informations were given, being almost exclusively in the lowest walks of life; but this was an inconvenience common to several branches of the legal profession. It was a fact, however, that of all the individuals who had acted as informers on this subject, only one had ever been convicted of false allegations. When the hon. gentleman asserted that the patronage of the lottery was a principal cause of its continuance on the part of government, he ought to have had the candour to add that that patronage had been greatly diminished. Mr. Perceval (all of whose actions proceeded on the impulse either of private morality or of public honour), reduced the number of the commissioners of the lottery from 42 to 28. There was this objection to a further reduction of the number, namely, that the persons who engaged in the lottery had a great jealousy on the subject, and if they saw a small number of commissioners would imagine that some unfair practices were resorted to. The present commissioners were all gentlemen of high character, and they seldom met except on their public duty. Much less could he applaud the candour of the hon. gentleman in his observations on the Irish lottery. It was true, as the hon. gentleman stated, that no lottery had been drawn in Ireland for 16 years; it having been deemed inexpedient to have two lotteries drawn in the empire at the same time, and the suppression of the lottery in Ireland having been considered one of the sacrifices which government was bound to make for the welfare of that country, as its effect in that country had been much more pernicious than in England. The Irish lottery having ceased, the persons employed in it had since received only that allowance to which it was considered they were entitled as a compensation for the loss of their situations. Whenever a vacancy occurred it was not filled up, so that the establishment would soon become extinct. The hon. gentleman's statement as to the expense of the lottery to the public was erroneous; if the tickets were all sold indeed a larger sum might be paid by the public than ever came into the coffers of the state; but this was not the case, and lottery contractors seldom gained much by their bargains, though they had on some occasions been losers. But the trea-

1179
sury had limited the price of tickets to 19 l. 10 s. because too much had sometimes been asked. Neither was the present scheme so unfavourable as the hon. gentleman, had represented: the price of stocks might rise, and tickets would then be more valuable. So far from the chance in the present scheme being as low as 4 to 1, as the hon. gentleman, alleged, the price of a ticket was 19 l. 10 s., and the lowest sum that had been assigned for its value was 8l., so that the chance did not seem to be more than five to two. As to the employment of the Christ Church boys to draw the lottery, he really did not see so much objection to it as the hon. gentleman expressed. It was an ancient usage, with which it was not for the treasury to interfere. The governors of Christ's Hospital were well known to be very zealous for the character of those who were educated there, and if they thought the practice detrimental, they would assuredly put an end to it. But really he could not discover how the spirit of gambling was encouraged in a boy, by merely employing him as a machine to draw the tickets out of the wheel. Much stress had been laid by the hon. gentleman on the opinion expressed by the city of London on this subject. Their scruples, however, had seized them but lately. It was but a few years ago, since they procured the passing of an act for the purpose of disposing by lottery of houses built by them in the course of improvement. The hon. gentleman talked of the exaggerated value ascribed to the prizes in the state lottery, but what was that to the exaggeration used in the city lottery? He had an opportunity of knowing that one of the principle prizes in the city lottery, a house valued at 25,000 l. was actually sold by auction for 7,500 l. On the whole, the practical question for the House to determine was, whether a certain revenue of 500,000 l. not levied by constraint, but being the voluntary contribution of those by whom it was furnished, was to be lightly given up? The hon. gentleman had dwelt much on the distress existing in the country. Did he think that any addition to the present taxes of 500,000 l. a year could be made, without materially increasing that distress? Would not the mischief arising from any such attempt be much greater than the evil resulting from the lottery? Those who thought that it would be so, would vote with him against the hon. gentleman's resolutions.
Sir Samuel Romillygreatly lamented
1180
that the chancellor of the exchequer should have ridiculed the altered opinions of the city of London: they were more worthy of being adopted than ridiculed. In his opinion, the right hon. gentleman should have been forward to follow the example of that great corporation. Sir Samuel admitted that the country could at present but badly afford to relinquish any source of revenue, but he contended it could just as badly afford to relinquish the morals of its lower orders. Even admitting that lotteries produced a very large revenue, he asked how much revenue was lost by taking away from the lower orders those habits of sober industry which were so essential to the well-being of the state, and so conducive to the production of legitimate revenue? The loss so sustained must be considerable; but the great injury was, the reducing to poverty and to the work-house many who, but for lotteries, would be giving to their families and their country the benefit of assiduous industry and untainted morals. He had no hesitation in saying, that lotteries greatly contributed to the increased amount of the poor's-rates. The right hon. gentleman took a most mistaken view of the subject, in supposing that the love of purchasing lottery tickets was a natural appetite. It was no such thing. It was an unnatural and artificial appetite; and, in the view of the present subject, one created by the most active efforts, and excited by the most powerful stimulants which ingenuity could devise. The state lottery afforded a multiplication of allurements and inducements to the spirit of gaming, which was an evil that increased and extended itself with great rapidity. The right hon. gentleman admitted, that having lotteries in different places was calculated to promote a spirit of gaming, and that gaming was one of those habits which a multiplication of lotteries necessarily tended to encourage. Then why did he sanction such a multiplication of lotteries as to permit six in a single year? Even the contractors themselves acknowledged that they had scarce time to recover from the effects of one lottery before they were assailed by another. Mr. Bish, who was examined before the committee in 1812, said, "Formerly there was but one lottery in the course of a year, but they are now so frequent, that the public have not recovered from one lottery, before another is drawn." This was what a dealer in the lottery said; and, from this it ap-

1181
peared, that no time was given to suffer the moral feelings of the people to take their natural course, and to throw aside this expensive and vicious propensity. It signified little what the feelings of those disinterested gentlemen, the contractors, might be upon such occasions, but it signified much to reflect what injury the morals of the people must sustain, when they were not permitted to recover from the effects of one lottery before they were endangered by the temptations of another. It was true, that now no lottery was drawn any where except in London, but its effects spread into every town—nay in to every village throughout the kingdom; where persons were employed in posting up bills to attract poor miserable creatures, and inflame them with the hope of sudden wealth. He regretted that the report of a committee of that House, made in 1808, had not now been reprinted, as it detailed a great number of facts which, in his opinion, would greatly assist the House in its decision upon the present subject. It stated, from the most unexceptionable testimony given before the committee, that when once the drawing of a lottery began, all trade ceased. Carts, covered with seductive bills, were driven about in all directions, in order to delude weak-minded persons to believe that they would get uncounted wealth, if once they tried their fortune. Butchers, bakers, and all other tradesmen were deserted by their usual customers—no trade was then carried on with spirit, but pawnbroking, in which the women always took a most active part, adding to the small pittance of their husband's earnings all the money which could be raised by pledging their furniture and their clothes, and those of their children, and then purchasing shares in the lottery. Some of the witnesses spoke strongly of the heart-breaking scenes of misery they had seen—of the total loss of all domestic comforts occasioned—of families converted from sociality into strife—of husbands driven to despair, and running away and leaving their families on the parish—of numbers, through this fatal propensity, being driven to madhouses, and of many suicides committed. The ordinary of Newgate stated, that, by the confessions of individual criminals, a large proportion of them traced their ill-fate to practices in the lottery. Merchants clerks, and apprenti-
1182
ces, young men of decent habits, were seduced frequently first to venture their own money, and then to risk that of their employers, until at length they were insensibly led to crimes, which brought upon them the punishment of an ignominious death. It was not enough to ascribe the evils to the former insurances; they still continued, from the temptation and seductions, to buy shares. Not only other poorer classes, but private soldiers were drawn in and ruined. The nature of these allurements might be seen in the advertisement in the newspapers, which contained the strongest moral poison, and the most diabolical arts to seduce even boys. Under the title of "Christmas boxes," one of them stated, that a careful lad had not spent his money in amusements, but ventured in the lottery by buying two sixteenths; that thereby he got a capital prize, and had become an opulent merchant in London. Another said, that a poor public-house lad had gained 1,200 l., and was living in retirement; but that now 2,809 l. might be acquired for a similar chance. Another stated, the milk-woman had come in for a little of the cream of the lottery by a sixteenth share of a prize of 20,000 l. Another, under the title of "military success," was addressed to the soldiers, respecting a supplementary lottery; and they were told, that officers had got 2,500 l. and 200 l., and privates 600 l. In distributing the lottery bills, selections were made of those most likely to purchase, namely, of boys, of women, and of those in the lower orders, for none but such could be made dupes to so palpable a fraud as the lottery. The chancellor of the exchequer might laugh at all this, and treat the opinions of others contemptuoushy. Knowing the private virtues of that right hon. gentleman, he must say, that his conduct excited his astonishment. He could not exactly tell what to make of the seeming incongruity of the right hon. gentleman's appearance on one day, taking the lead in a bible society, and on another, meeting a set of lottery contractors. The matter seemed unaccountable. It would be good for persons holding high stations, which gave them so much influence over the condition of their fellow creatures, to see personally the miseries of others. If the right hon. gentleman entered the poor houses, he would see the numbers of miserable diseased and squalid objects; in the madhouses he would see the agonizing wretches; and in

1183
dungeons he would find honest unfortunate individuals of whom a great part had been reduced to the lowest state of human woe by the temptations of the lotteries. Many, after spending all they had of their own, and all they could borrow, became at last victims to public justice. These results were proved. Could the right hon. gentleman see these things, it was not in his nature to render it possible for him to persevere. It was to be hoped the House would redeem its character. The restrictions on the lottery were quite insufficient. It was easy to understand that there might exist great evils which could not be suppressed. In natural vices we could only correct, but in the lottery we created the vice, and why should we seek to give partial alleviation in a case in which a perfect cure might be effected? It was no answer to the hon. gentleman's motion to say that the evil had decreased. In fact he (sir S. R.) thought the evil had increased; and that, if it should appear less this year, it might arise only from want of means in the public. He should not, however, be surprised if the lottery trade increased even in the present year, for distressed persons were led to sacrifice what remained to them by vain hopes. He could have nothing new to offer in objection to lotteries: the evils were well known; and he could only repeat objections formerly stated. He trusted his hon. friend would persevere. If he did not, he (sir S. R.) would: and the chancellor of the exchequer should hear all the objections re-stated, whenever he might think proper to propose a measure so injurious to the best interests of the country.
Mr. J. W. Wardobserved, that it was a serious question how to supply the sum of 500,000 l. to the revenue, if it were deducted by refusing the lottery. In balancing the evils, it might appear better to continue the system at present than to impose 500,000 l. of fresh taxes. He was ready however, to admit that a lottery, as an ordinary resource, was a shameful one for a moral and religious nation. It was injurious to the principles and practice of industry and economy. If it was thought a great object of finance to get one pound to the treasury, which cost the payer two, he could only say it was a very injurious contrivance. But the principle was as bad in finance as it was execrable in morality. Saving banks, he thought, were excellent institutions, but so long as lotteries were
1184
tolerated, the advantages of saving banks might be greatly abused, and besides, there was gross inconsistency in the legislature tolerating lotteries and instituting saving banks. It was as if they said to the people, in approving the saving banks, "be industrious and frugal," and in allowing lotteries, "when you have collected a little money by economy, and by the sale of your clothes and furniture, and every thing you can convert into cash, go and purchase a share in the lottery, which may bring you uncounted wealth, and enable you to be as drunk and as lazy as you please for the rest of your lives." This was really the spirit of the language. It reminded one of the choice of Hercules. Vice and Virtue were both represented. The people were asked for two things quite contrary to each other. Scarcely any gambler who understood calculations would attend to the lottery allurements. Even a prize often did more harm than good to a poor man. Frequently nothing was worse for him than to lift him into a sudden wealth. He would think his new-gotten wealth would never be at an end, like Gil Blas and the 40 ducats. An old proverb said, "Lightly come, lightly go." So it was very likely to be with lottery money. It was observed, respecting the propensity to gambling, that it went on in the intervals between the lotteries by means of little-goes and other contrivances. So it did, because the feeling went on, arising out of the system which made gambling an habitual object, and therefore the spirit was increased. So much had been so ably said on the subject, that he should not proceed further upon it; but he wished to explain the nature of his vote. He would ask any gentleman to show him any other preferable mode, under all circumstances, for the service of the year, by which the 500,000 l. were to be obtained? Unless that could be done, he should not think himself inconsistent in the vote he should give. He could wish that the end of lotteries was looked to by the chancellor of the exchequer; and he thought that their abolition was a boon which the government ought to grant to the country, when a sufficient degree of prosperity enabled them to dispense with the revenue which lotteries produced.
Mr. Wilberforceexpressed great surprise that the hon. gentleman who had just spoken did not mean to yield to the force of his own arguments; and that he should

1185
have concluded an able speech against the lottery system, by a declaration that he would vote in favour of that system. That the House, for the mere reason of he money so levied, should consent to continue those dreadful evils—evils which he feared were yearly increasing, would appear to him very strange; but it was above all extraordinary, that those who voted in favour of the system, should, at the same time that they declared their resolution to give such a vote, confess that there was nothing to be said in defence of that system. If he entertained a hope that the system would ultimately be abolished, it gave him much cause to fear whether that hone was well founded, when he heard members of whose principles and talents he thought so highly as of those of his hon. friend who spoke last, claiming the complacencies of virtue for a speech against the evils of the system, and then voting in favour of it. Was it not extremely inconsistent for any one at the time those evils were acknowledged, to vote for their continuance? In such conduct, principle and practice were directly at variance. The arguments used for the lottery might be brought to justify other practices; such as the farming of the public stews, by which perhaps 500,000 l. might be obtained. It was surprising to hear virtue maintained, and wickedness allowed and encouraged at the same time; I or to hear of the taking a profitable commission on vice. It was high time to put an end to a system which had so long been a disgrace to the parliament and the country. The principle of the system might license any other kind of immorality. It promoted dispositions adverse to every sort of domestic or national comfort and virtue. Would any of the hon. members who supported the continuance of the lotlery like to have a servant who had a propensity to gambling of that description? It was directly adverse to the principles and objects of our national education. It tended to render even our best benefits poisonous. While the system continued, It might almost be made matter of doubt whether we should establish institutions to pat a little money into a poor man's hand; for the saving banks would give him the: means of buying lottery shares, which, by their failure, would render him miserable. Let hon. gentlemen visit the poor houses, and mad houses, and gaols, and he believed no man would have nerves strong enough to resist the impression of what he might
1186
see there. The lottery annually sowed the seeds of the gambling principle. It was most unjustly called a voluntary contribution. Voluntary! From persons who, in this gambling, were leading themselves perhaps to the gallows! Every real friend the man had in the world was looking at him with concern, and all his dearest relatives and connexions trying, in vain probably, to dissuade him from it; but the poor unfortunate creature was seduced; and this was called his voluntary contribution! After the attacks made upon it, it was impossible this system could remain, for it could not be justified.
Lord Castlereaghfelt with the hon. and learned gentleman opposite, that the question had been so often discussed, and the arguments so strongly impressed on the minds of gentlemen that it was unnecessary for him to travel over it in detail. It would give him great satisfaction, if the situation of the country would allow his majesty's ministers to give up any tax that went, even indirectly, to debase the morals of the people. But this was not the only branch of revenue which his hon. friend (Mr. Wilberforce) would find it very easy to inveigh against as having a tendency unfavourable to morals. There were many taxes that bore heavily on all ranks of society particularly on the lowest ranks; and it would be very easy for a gentleman possessed of his hon. friend's eloquence, to dwell on the privations which they occasioned as a ground for their removal. He might descant on the misery, the crimes, the immorality, that arose out of the consumption of many articles, that produced a considerable portion of revenue. They ought to look to the present state of the country, and consider if they could afford to give up any portion of the revenue, before they indulged too strongly those feelings, the principle of which was hostile not merely, to the lottery, but to many other sources of revenue. If this were a thing malum in se, the legislature ought to interpose ' undoubtedly. But if the evil were to be found merely in its effects, and not in itself, the fair question then was, whether the quantum of good which resulted from it did not exceed the quantum of mischief. Gentlemen ought not to act precipitately—they ought not to remove this source of revenue until they considered whether the present public receipts were more than sufficient for the expenditure. They were

1187
exceedingly eloquent and astute in directing his right hon. friend to abandon certain portions of revenue—but he doubted whether they would be equally willing and equally capable to point out to him new sources of taxation—and he strongly deprecated any attempt, at present, to shake the system of the revenue, by the adoption of speculative opinions. In the attack made on the lottery, one of the great weapons was exaggeration—and those rhetorical pictures which had been drawn of the miseries brought upon private families by gambling in the lottery, applied to the system as it was carried on many years ago, when insurance was allowed, and before the other improvements in it had been made by the legislature.—The same was the case with Mr. Colquhoun's opinion on the subject. The hon. and learned gentleman said, that the lottery system was carried on to a six-fold extent. The fact was, that formerly one lottery contained as many tickets as the six which were usually drawn at present; and the drawing of that lottery lasted about forty-five days—during which period the greatest not and confusion prevailed. At present the lotteries were drawn at six periods of the year, and took up, in the whole, only 12 days. By this change the insurances were cut up. He was not an advocate for the lottery, but he was yet to find why the statesmen of the present day were expected to be more virtuous than those who had preceded them—and who had, for many years, tolerated the lottery as an honourable and beneficial source of revenue. The poor were not the chief purchasers in the lottery. One-sixth of the lottery was sold in whole tickets—and a great proportion of it in halves and quarters, which the poor were unable to buy. He did not call on gentlemen to determine in their own minds, that lotteries were intended to be permanent in this country. He should be glad to dispense with all sorts of resources that could be made the subject of controversy on a moral principle. But he called on them to consider whether the state of the country would admit of such a subtraction of revenue, particularly when the taxes proposed to make up the deficiency would probably be as objectionable as that which had been removed. If the house listened to the arguments of gentlemen, and took away 500,000 l., of revenue, they would find as many criticisms on any substitutes that could be proposed; and thus they might
1188
open a door to shake the system of our finances to its very foundation. He would therefore move the previous question.
Lord A. Hamiltoncontended, that the numerous mischiefs arising from lotteries had been proved over and over again in that House. They were subjected to the charge of all the evils of gaming. Was the country really reduced to so low an ebb as to cause ministers to bargain and sell its vices?—for the lottery was nothing else. If our finances were in such a distressed state under the noble lord's and his colleagues auspices, their conduct must have occasioned it. There was not one instance in all the reports that could palliate any of the facts stated by his hon. friend, of the evils and bad policy of lotteries, in any shape. The sum total that could be said in favour of them was this—"We want revenue, and revenue we must have, even at the expense of the morals and character of the people, and, what is of more consequence, the character of parliament."
Mr. Morlandwas of opinion, that lotteries occasioned a vast deal of mischief; and that if we abolished lotteries, other countries would be found to follow our example. The mischiefs of lotteries in Paris, were greater even than here. A writer, who had recently published a volume of travels, particularly stated, that the lotteries in Paris had produced the most dreadful effects. He was told by a person connected with one of those gambling establishments, that the lotteries occasioned, in Paris, 100 instances of suicide in the course of the year. The king of Spain, it seemed amongst the other extraordinary acts of his reign, had instituted a lottery on the English plan.—He did not choose to imitate any of our beneficial establishments—he would not introduce toleration, or trial by jury, or any other useful and praise-worthy system—nothing but a lottery would please him. The lottery was now extended to the most remote villages. He had seen lottery invitations stuck up, directing applications to the post-masters in the neighbourhood. It was certainly curious, at the time of the assizes, to hear the clerk, in court, reading the king's proclamation against gambling and other vices, while his majesty's post-master outside of the door was tempting the people to a gambling speculation, by representing himself as an authorized vender of lottery tickets and shares.
Mr. Thompsonadmitted, that it was of

1189
great importance that the revenue should be encouraged; but he thought that the lotteries materially injured the revenue by their frequent recurrence. A very intelligent man had given his evidence, that during the sale of lottery shares, the bakers, the butchers, and other tradesmen, complained that they could get no money from the lower orders of people; and that the wives of poor persons were drawn into these miserable schemes to the ruin of the interests and happiness of their families. Even Mr. Bish said, that the six lotteries outrun the public, and gave them no time to breathe, though they kept them in perpetual expectation. Mr. Hale had given strong facts of the distresses, from the lotteries in Spital-fields. There was no such thing as a fair lottery; they were nothing but cheats and frauds upon the public, and the injury that the country suffered by their destroying the moral bonds and ties of society, was only known to those who were acquainted with the state of the poor. He was proud to see the happy connexion now existing between the rich and the poor, and the laudable benevolence of the former to the latter. This was bringing things to their proper sphere; but we never could expect purity of principle to exist where temptations of so strong a nature were held out to gambling. He remembered reading of the Jesuits permitting old women to gamble, and afterwards restraining them from so doing, as they purloined money from their husbands. If you could persuade a man that gaming was no crime, he was, in his opinion, fit for the commission of any crime whatever. The reports made by committees of that House, abounded with instances to show that the infatuation of the lottery constantly induced servants, clerks, and others, to rob their employers.
Mr. Bennetdeclared, in opposition to what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, that innocent persons had frequently suffered in consequence of false informations being laid against them under the lottery acts. He particularly alluded to the case of two sisters whom he had seen in the house of correction for perjury, and who, he had no doubt, had been the cause of much mischief to many innocent persons.
Mr. Lytteltonin reply, denied both the moral principle and policy of lotteries, which tended to choke up the springs of industry. He was glad, however, to hear that the principle of the thing was given
1190
up by its advocates, who only tolerated the immoral practice as a matter of necessity. But he would say, "If you must have money, raise it by borrowing, or any other means, rather than by swindling."
The House then divided;

For the previous question

72

Against it

26

Majority

—46

List of the Minority.

Abercrombie, hon. J.

Thompson, Thos.

Calcraft, J.

Plunkett, rt. hon. W.

Grenfel, P.

Webb, Thos.

Lambton, J.

Butterworth, Jos.

Baring, sir T.

Babington, Thos.

Hamilton, lord A.

Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.

Barnet, J.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Brougham, H.

Gipps, G.

Monck, sir C.

Macdonald, J.

Phillimore, Jos.

Upton, hon. G.

Martin, J.

Rashleigh, C.

Bernard, S. M.

Tellers.

Sharp, Rich.

Romilly, sir S.

Wilberforce, Wm.

Lyttelton, hon. W.

Guise, sir Wm.

TRINIDAD.
Mr. Broughamwished to know if the right hon. gentleman opposite would have any objection to inform the House whether the proclamations issued by the governor of Trinidad were put forth upon his authority alone, or in consequence of instructions received from his government at home? He also wished to know whether any information could be communicated respecting our relations with the Spanish and Portuguese ports of South America, in possession of what were called the insurgents? It was a question of great importance to our merchants. He had heard that the Spanish government had agreed to cede Monte Video to Portugal, in exchange for Olivenza. Now, he maintained that Monte Video did not belong to Spain, but to the independent party; or, as they were sometimes improperly called, the revolted settlements, which had conquered it before the restoration of Ferdinand; and that therefore Ferdinand could have no right to dispose of it. Be this as it might, he understood, that a force of 10,000 Portuguese troops were now under the walls of the place; and this was of the more importance, as they were said to have been handed over, in a complete state of discipline and equipment by lord Beresford, to the Portuguese commander. He did not know whether our funds had also been employed in the preparation of this force, but he considered the intelligence to be of a very ominous nature.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the hon. and learned gentleman had better move for the production of any papers he might wish on the latter subject when his noble friend was present, to whose department the subjects referred to more particularly belonged.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he should have thought, if any thing had been done with regard to such matters, it would have been known to all the cabinet ministers. However, he should move to-morrow for the production of any correspondence that might have taken place. Meanwhile, he should content himself with moving "That an humble address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, copies of all proclamations, issued by the governor of Trinidad, since the 1st of January 1814, touching the intercourse with South America."
Mr. A. Brownesaid, he was very happy to find his hon. and learned friend applying his great talents to the consideration of the little politics of Trinidad; and as they had the misfortune of contending with him on questions of great colonial policy, he was rejoiced that they should now have the benefit of his exertions in investigating the evils of the internal government of that island. Those evils would be found to be of a serious nature; in addition to the restriction of all intercourse with the Spanish main, which was a great source of their prosperity, and indeed of their daily subsistence, they had to contend with the evils of a despotic government, which was under no sort of local check or control; and they had the still deeper evil of a privation of British laws, and the strange anomaly of living under a Spanish code of laws administered by a British judge.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, this was a question that could be more properly answered by his noble friend, with whose department the subject was connected.
Mr. Ponsonbydid not wish to embarrass the right hon. gentleman, but this he would repeat again and again, with a loud voice, that England had in no foreign quarter of the globe, so strong an interest as in South America. It had been asserted in another place, that this government had interfered with the United States, as to the conduct its citizens ought to pursue with respect to the Spanish provinces. It was of the utmost importance that the truth of
1192
this statement should be ascertained; and he did expect to receive a direct answer on that subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermust again observe, that this matter belonged to the department of his noble friend, who was not then present.
Mr. Bennetbore his testimony to the good conduct of the governor.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, he should not then take upon himself to trouble the House with any opinion, whether it would be more advisable that Trinidad should be under Spanish or British laws; but he would confidently say, that the laws of that island would never be administered with greater justice than they were by the individual now at the head of it.
Mr. Marryat,from his connexion with Trinidad, could not refrain from stating, that the present form of government was the subject of loud complaint, and that in addition to the general evils which had been stated, he had been informed, that the governor had refused to give an asylum to some of the Spanish insurgents, who had fled thither for protection, and had sent them back, where they were all murdered; and that British hospitality had been actually sold in that island.
Mr. A. Browne,in explanation, said, that he did not intend the slightest imputation on the distinguished judge of the island. On the contrary, he was convinced that he discharged the difficult duties of his situation with great honour to himself and great advantage to the community.
Mr. Broughamconcurred in this explanation as far as it related to the judge of the island.
The motion was agreed to.

PERSONAL TREATMENT OF BUONAPARTE AT ST. HELENA.
Lord Hollandrose, pursuant to notice, to move for papers connected with the personal treatment of Napoleon Buonaparté at St. Helena. Humanity alone might justify this motion referring as it did to the individual who had in so extraordinary a manner been exiled to the island of St. Helena: but his chief, if not his only motive for bringing the subject under their lordships' consideration was, to rescue the character of parliament, of the Crown, and of the country, from the stain which must attach to it if any harsh or ungenerous treatment had been resorted to with respect to it. He certainly felt, however, that the cause might suffer from being undertaken by himself, differing so widely as he did from his majesty's government both on questions of general policy, foreign and domestic, and on the particular policy which they had pursued in the detention and exile of Napoleon Buonaparté. He felt it necessary, therefore, before he proceeded to state the grounds of his motion distinctly to disclaim any intention at the present moment of renewing the discussion on that policy. However proper it might be on other occasions to agitate that topic, it was his wish that it should have no connexion with his present motion. It was not with the vain hope that he could produce any alteration in the principles of policy on which ministers had acted with reference to the detention of Buonaparté, that he made this motion; and as little was it with the view of incul-
1138
pating the conduct of the gallant officer who was governor of St. Helena, and with many of whose good qualities he had the good fortune to be personally acquainted. It was not his intention to call on their lordships to change that plan of policy which they had been pleased to sanction respecting the detention of Buonaparté in his exile. Though he still retained all the opinions which he had formerly expressed on that paint, he was not such a coxcomb as to suppose that after parliament had sanctioned the policy of ministers, and after the faith of the Crown and of the country was pledged to the proceeding, he was not such a coxcomb as to imagine that he could effect any change in it; the more especially when he considered that the opinion of the country (as he admitted that it did) went along with ministers on the subject. It was with no such intention that he brought forward his motion; and he disclaimed any such intention, not because there would be any thing in it of which any one ought to be ashamed, but simply for the reasons, which he had already stated. As to any other motives that might be insinuated against him, if his character and conduct were not sufficient to shield him from such imputations, certainly nothing that he could say would have an effect for that purpose. Trusting however that the character which he bore among their lordships would be a sufficient defence from such imputations, he felt himself fully authorized in treating them with the contempt which they merited. He had further to declare, that no hostility to ministers—he did not use the word hostility in an invidious sense, but meant fair political hostility,—was the cause of his bringing this subject before their lordships. Had he concurred with them in the policy of detaining Buonaparté, instead of disapproving, as he did, of that policy, it would not only have been consistent in him, but it would have been still more incumbent on him to bring forward this motion.
Having said thus much to guard himself from misrepresentation on a subject on which misrepresentation would be so apt to go forth, he would proceed to state the relation in which Napoleon Buonaparté stood with respect to this country and its government, and the ground of the measures adopted with respect to that personage, as represented by ministers themselves at the time the act relative to him was passed; and as they were understood

1139
by the people. To use the language of the legislature itself then, Buonaparté was so detained and so exiled, on the principle of necessity; because it was necessary for the tranquillity of Europe, and, through the tranquillity of Europe, for the safety of this country, that he should be thus detained. Owing, it was said, to the character of the man, and to the events which had occurred in Europe, it became necessary that this extraordinary person should be detained in this extraordinary manner; and an act of parliament was passed for that purpose; parliament in passing it undoubtedly never contemplating that any more severity was to be used than was actually required for the purposes of safety. In justice to ministers themselves, and especially to the noble earl at the head of the colonial department, he must admit that they stated the proceeding as a matter of necessity.
If, then, the detention of Napoleon Buonaparté was a matter of necessity, necessity, as it had been well said on another occasion by the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, must limit what necessity had created; and it became incumbent on ministers to show that beyond this necessity they had not proceeded. In stating necessity as the ground of detaining Napoleon Buonaparté, the statement had been accompanied by the observation that the spot in which he was to be detained, had been chosen for this among other reasons,—that there a greater degree of personal liberty might without danger be allowed him. In other respects St. Helena was ill-chosen for this purpose; as the choice was attended by considerable inconveniences, and by an expense of from one to two hundred thousand pounds a year. He might be mistaken as to the precise sum; but unquestionably the expense of the custody of Buonaparté was considerably greater at St. Helena than it would have been in most other situations. If it were at all necessary therefore to impose harsh restrictions on this individual, St. Helena must, after all, have been very ill chosen. But, it ought to be kept in mind, that the act of keeping him there was the act, not only of the executive government, but also of the legislature. Parliament was a party to it; and it therefore became the duty of parliament, if, contrary to its intention, the personage so detained met with-any unnecessarily harsh treatment in his'confmement,—and he further contended, that if rumours and reports were in cir-
1140
culation, attended with any degree of plausibility, and calculated to produce in this country, in Europe, and on posterity, the impression that unnecessarily harsh and cruel treatment had been resorted to, it became the duty of parliament to investigate the facts, and to ascertain whether those rumours were or were not well founded; in order that if not true, they might be contradicted; and that if truer measures might be adopted, without a moment's delay, to apply the proper remedy, if such reports and rumours were allowed to remain uncontradicted, when thus plausibly introduced to public notice; the opinion of this country, of Europe, and of posterity would be that they were not without foundation, and a deep stain would rest on the character of the British nation.
What, then, were the reports to which he had alluded? And why had he not till now brought forward the subject? He admitted that such reports had reached him in the course of the last three or four months from a variety of quarters. It was a matter of notoriety that he had opposed the detention of Buonaparté and had entered his protest against it in their lordships journals. For these, and for other personal reasons, it was perhaps natural that complaints respecting the treatment of that individual should reach him sooner than they did the public in general. No doubt many communications on the subject had been made to him; and from whatever quarters they came, he did not think that in a matter where the justice and character of the country was concerned, he ought to have shut his ears against such communications; but as long as they appeared to him to be destitute of real ground of authenticity, he did not think himself called upon to bring them in this way before their lordships. But when, in addition to these rumours, a paper fell into his hands, containing the same complaints, and purporting to have been written by general count Montholon, and addressed by him to the governor of St. Helena, by the order and direction of Buonaparté—a paper which at that time he had reason to believe, would be made public, and which had been since made public—he then thought that the complaints had assumed a shape which rendered it necessary to call their lordships attention to the subject. He certainly lamented the publication of such

1141
in parliament that publication might have been accompanied with the refutation which he trusted they would receive. God forbid they should be found to deserve implicit credit. He hoped that they would meet with the fullest and most complete contradiction: but they did appear to him to have assumed a shape which, if they remained uncontradicted, would in the opinion of the people of this country, in the opinion of Europe, and in that of posterity, afford ground for believing that harsh, cruel, and unjust usage had been experienced by Napoleon Buonaparté in his confinement; and thus a deep and indelible stain might, in history, be fixed upon the character of the British nation. He had, therefore, brought the matter before their lordships, that such reports, if untrue, might be promptly contradicted; and, if true, that no time might be lost in correcting the abuse.
He would now state what the reports were; and if the facts were as represented in these reports, he contended, that they did exceed the limits of that necessity upon which the legislature was induced to pass the act. First, then, with respect to the liberty allowed to Buonaparté, as to the several parts of the island itself; the letter of Count Montholon stated, that a very considerable restriction had lately taken place. The climate of the island, as had been often asserted when the bill was in progress, was in general, he believed, good: but that was not the case with the higher grounds, to which Buonaparté was said to be confined; the dampness of which was calculated materially to aggravate the evil of confinement; and the restriction lately resorted to was, in that respect, a severe hardship; for the hours fit for exercise in such a situation were those during which no ingress nor egress was permitted to or from the house at Longwood. One of two things must, therefore, follow—either that St. Helena was very ill chosen as the place of detention; or that Buonaparté was confined with unnecessary rigour. Another restriction which certainly was not in contemplation when the act passed, was stated in the letter of count Montholon, namely, that Napoleon Buonaparté was not permitted to receive such books, journals, newspapers, and public prints, nor to subscribe for such publications, as he thought proper. He was utterly at a loss
1142
to imagine what reason could exist for refusing to Buonaparté the permission of obtaining such journals as he wanted, in order to afford him information respecting recent events; nor could he regard such a restriction, if it existed, in any other light than as a needless aggravation of the calamities of the prisoner. To a person with the prospect of a long life, it was a most cruel and unnecessary hardship; and if there had been no other complaint than this alone, it ought to be contradicted, or the proper remedy applied.
Another more important complaint was, however, stated, and one in which the subjects of this country were deeply concerned, especially at the present period, when ministers had been invested with such extraordinary powers, namely, the intercepting of any sealed communications from Buonaparté to the great and illustrious person at the head of the government, acting in the name and on the behalf of his majesty. Was is it to be endured, that persons placed in confinement should not have the means of forwarding their complaints to their sovereign, or that when, possibly the subject matter of that complaint might involve the conduct of the individual in whose custody they were placed, that individual should have the power of inspecting the contents of the letter, and that thus in consequence the treatment of the prisoner might be rendered more harsh and vexatious? He knew of no law under which such an authority was derived. In his view of this proceeding, it was an improper and illegal interference with the royal prerogative. No one would accuse him of having any wish to extend the prerogative beyond its due limits; but the prerogative, within its just limits, was granted for the benefit of the public; and in this country, where imprisonment was regarded with such horror, that to a prisoner confined for life without trial, the law never contemplating the case, had afforded no remedy; a prisoner confined in this manner would surely be considered as entitled to every degree of humanity consistent with his situation; and no one had aright to withhold from the Crown any application for mercy or pardon. It might, however, be said, that some rule or point of etiquette was opposed to communications sealed up; but, as to that matter, there was nothing to prevent the sovereign from exercising his own judgment. If a person in Buonaparté's situation wished to apply to the sovereign, it might be for the

1143
purpose of complaining of the individual under whose charge he was placed; and to say, that he should be compelled to send only an open paper, when the very person to transmit it might perhaps be the person complained of, would be monstrous and unjust. It ought also to be recollected, that the foundation of the detention was necessity and danger to this country. Now, where could be the danger to this country, or the necessity for the purposes of detention, in permitting a sealed letter to be conveyed to the sovereign? If such were the rule—for it could not be law, that applications by sealed letters could not be made to the throne—such a letter might, at least, be sent to the secretary of state unopened and unexamined. This was a most important subject with reference to the subjects of this country. All prisoners were entitled to solicit the clemency of the Crown with a view to the mitigation of their situation, and in no quarter could they possibly receive a more benevolent attention than from the illustrious personage now at the head of the government. If, then, the governor of St. Helena was instructed to permit no sealed communication to the sovereign to pass through his hands, it was an infringement of the royal prerogative. He admitted, however, that an unrestrained and indiscriminate intercourse with other persons was not compatible with the safe custody of a person confined for the resaons given for the detention of Buonaparté, but it appeared to him, that even that principle was carried too far, if the report, were true, especially as the restraint went to deprive Buonaparté of the gratification of reading such publications as he thought proper.
It was a great hardship also, and one which was not contemplated at the time of passing the act, that Buonaparté was deprived of the means of communicating facts connected with his public life. If he were unrestrained in this respect, he might make communications which would shake some of the grounds on which the act was passed; and it was certainly a great hardship, that in a country where it had been much the fashion to load him with obloquy, he should be deprived of all remedy, and should not be allowed the means even of refuting calumny. This was not necessary for the tranquillity of Europe. He recollected, that he recommended, when the bill was in progress that Buonaparté should have the power of
1144
bringing a civil action, but the bill passed without giving him that advantage. If this restraint was intended to prevent his giving an account of the events of his extraordinary life, the restraint was an injury not merely to him, but to the public and to posterity; though, if it should be proved that the restraint was necessary for his safe custody, that inconvenience must be submitted to.
He now came to another subject of complaint, namely, the curtailing of the expense of Buonaparté's establishment. It might perhaps be said, "Do you, who have been preaching up economy and retrenchment complain of the diminution of expense?" His answer was, that he did not wish that sixpence should be expended in this way. He disapproved of the detention altogether. But the statement made by count Montholon was, that the expense being 20,000 l., this country declared that it could afford no more than 8,000 l., and that Buonaparté himself must find the other 12,000 l. It might be said, that 8,000 l. was amply sufficient; and so it probably would be in any other situation; but at St. Helena, if the report was correct, even 20,000 l. was hardly sufficient. And here he could not help just remarking, though it was rather out of his way, that even while Buonaparté was at Elba, the question whether he ought not to be sent to St. Helena was discussed at the congress of Vienna. He believed, at least, that the point was there mentioned and discussed; and he knew that out of the congress, it was stated to have been there mentioned, and discussed even at that time. That, however, was beside his present purpose. But if an extraordinary expense was necessary, it should be kept in view, that it was owing to the place where Buonaparté was confined; and it was unworthy of a great country, first to say, "I will place you in a situation where a great expense is necessary;" and then to come like a beggar and say, "You must your-self be at the greater part of that expense." He had been astonished when he saw this complaint, and had been inclined to discredit it, as he was now; but it came in such a shape, that it was necessary to mention it; and if it could be contradicted, that was a strong argument for his motion.
In bringing these statements before their lordships, he did not mention them as facts within his knowledge, or even as statements which he believed to be true

1145
but they had been laid before the public, I and, if not true, it was proper that they should be contradicted; for any harshness; of treatment, beyond what was necessary for the safe custody of the person, would be a stain on the character of the country. The best mode of proceeding would be to investigate the facts. When a clamour was raised in 1798 or 1799, respecting our treatment of prisoners of war, Mr. Pitt moved for a committee to investigate the facts, contradicted the statements, and extinguished that calumnious report through-out all Europe. This was what he now recommended. If the reports were untrue, let them be contradicted; if true, their lordships would express their disapprobation of the conduct which had been adopted, and apply the remedy. However they might now flatter themselves by aspersions on Napoleon, the judgment of posterity might not be the same on that subject. For instance, there could be no doubt that Mary queen of Scots was in the time of Elizabeth most dangerous to the country; and yet, who that had a heart alive to the dictates of integrity and humanity did not wish to obliterate from the page of history the cruel and harsh treatment of that queen? Who was there, with a just sense of the glory of the reign of the illustrious Elizabeth, that did not lament, not the unjust (for unjust it was not) but the harsh and ungenerous treatment of Mary? It would not be considered by posterity, whether Buonaparté had been justly punished for his crimes, but whether Great Britain had acted in that generous manner which became a great country. These were the views which they took of the past, and such would be the view which history would take of their conduct.
Such, then, were the grounds of his motion. It was made for the purpose of ascertaining how the facts really stood—to give an opportunity for contradicting the rumours which had gone abroad, if they were unfounded; and for applying the proper remedy, if they were true. If their lordships would acquiesce in the motion, end the reports should be contradicted, he would rejoice for the sake of the House, for the sake of the country, of parliament, and even of the noble lords opposite, particularly the noble earl at the head of the treasury; for, however they might have differed on political questions, the sense of friendship was not by that circumstance so deadened in his breast, that he could see, without pain, an immoral character
1146
fixed upon any administration of which he was at the head. He ought to apologize for having taken up so much of their lordship's time; but he trusted that, in speaking upon a subject as to which misrepresentations were so likely to arise, it would not be considered as improper in him to have stated at some length the grounds of his proceedings, and the motives by which he was actuated. He would conclude by moving an address to the Prince Regent, that he would be graciously pleased to order to be laid on their lordships table—1st, Copies of all instructions to the governor or governors of St. Helena, as to the personal treatment of Napoleon Buonaparté. 2d, Extracts of all such parts of the correspondence as had passed between Napoleon Buonaparté and the secretary of state, relative to the expenses of Buonaparté's establishment. 3d, Copies of such letters or applications of Buonaparté to the governor or governors of St. Helena, with the answers of the governor, as had been received by the secretary of state. 4th, Copies of all such dispatches as had been transmitted to the secretary of state relative to the intercourse claimed by Napoleon Buonaparté to be allowed between his place of residence and other parts of the island, with any remarks by Napoleon on that subject. 5th, Copies of any dispatches to the secretary of state relative to applications by Napoleon Buonaparté to the Prince Regent. Some of those who had chosen to follow the fortunes of Buonaparté had children; and it had been stated, that their parents had manifested an anxiety to have the means of religious instruction for these children, but that there was no clergyman of their persuasion in the island: and therefore, he moved, 6thly, for copies of all dispatches from the governor of St. Helena to the secretary of state, respecting any application by the persons in question, on the subject of religious instruction for themselves or their children.
The first of these motions being put,
Earl Bathurstrose. He said, that in part, he agreed with the noble mover's observation, that an opinion respecting the justice or injustice of the detention of Napoleon Buonaparté should have no effect on the discussion of the present question. He had no hesitation in agreeing with the noble lord, that those who considered the detention of Napoleon Buonaparté not only necessary, but just, might object to the mode of that detention;

1147
but, on the other hand, he doubted whether those who objected to that detention altogether, could with a proper degree of impartiality consider the propriety of the mode of detention. The noble lord had recorded on the Journals his protest against the detention of this individual, as being contrary to the principles of justice and humanity. Holding such an opinion, it was hardly to be conceived that the noble mover could discuss with a due degree of impartiality the restrictions imposed upon this prisoner, while he conceived restrictions of any kind so ever to be inhumane and unjustifiable.
The noble mover had laid the foundation of his motion partly on a paper written by order of Napoleon, and signed Count Montholon, and partly on rumours which had reached him from other quarters. It was not his (Earl B.'s) intention to reply to these rumours, any more than to a paper signed by a man named Santini, to which no credit whatever was due. It was creditable to the noble lord, that he had not made that paper the foundation of his remarks, for no one looking at it for a moment, could fail to perceive that it was full of the grossest misrepresentations. He should therefore look upon that publication as disavowed, and totally unworthy of attention, and should confine his remarks to that paper which certainly was authentic, and which was signed by the Count de Montholon. He should first show to their lordships what the instructions to sir Hudson Lowe were, and he should then show that all the complaints contained in that paper written by order of Napoleon Buonaparté, either arose out of the due execution of those instructions (the nature of which was well known to Buonaparté himself), or were misrepresentations of facts, or were direct and absolute falsehoods. In the first place, as to the instructions to sir Hudson Lowe their lordships had been long in possession of these instructions, for when admiral Cockburn went out to St. Helena, instructions were given him which would apply to him while he remained there, and which would also apply to his successor after his departure. These instructions had been published on the continent, whence they had found their way to the papers in this country. That authentic copy had been long before their lordships, and it was the general opinion they contained nothing improper, considering the end for which they were drawn up. Those instructions considered Napoleon as
1148
a prisoner of war, and consequently laid down this general rule, that all restrictions should be imposed which were necessary to secure detention, but that no restrictions should be imposed which were not necessary to that detention. This principle he was prepared to show had actuated all the instructions from his majesty's government, and all the steps which sir Hudson Lowe had taken in pursuance of those instructions. Up to this moment he was prepared also to state there had been no substantive alteration of those instructions. All the communications from the government to St. Helena had been rather in the way of explanation than instructions, and whatever change had taken place, either in the explanation of the instructions, or the execution of them, were to the benefit of the person who was the subject of it. He should classify the complaints made respecting the treatment of the individual, and should then read what parts of the instruction applied to the several heads of those complaints. The complaints which had been made, might be reduced under two heads—1st, Restrictions as to the communication of the prisoner with others, either in writing or personally; and 2d, those complaints which applied to the personal treatment, of the individual himself. In the first place, as to communications with others by writing, the noble mover had stated that there was an utter impossibility of his communicating with his wife and child, or relations. Now he (earl B.) should read the part of the instructions which referred to all communication in writing with the individual in question. The instructions were these—
"All letters addressed to the general, or to persons in his suite, must be delivered to the admiral or the governor, (as the case may be), who will read them before they are delivered to those to whom they are addressed.—Letters written by the general or his suite are subject to the same rule.—No letter that comes to St. Helena, except through the secretary of state, must be communicated to the general or his attendants, if it be written by a person not residing on the island; and all letters addressed to persons not living on the island, must go under cover to the secretary of state.—It will be clearly expressed to the general, that the governor and admiral are strictly commanded to inform his majesty's government of all the wishes and representations which the ge-

1149
neral may desire to address to it. In this respect, they need not use any precaution; but the paper in which such request or representation is written, must be communicated to them open, that they may read it, and accompany it with such observations as they may think necessary."
Thus, then, when Napolean Buonaparté represented that it was impossible for him to write to those to whom he wished to write, it was not true. If he meant to say, that he could not write without those letters being opened, that was merely in conformity to the instructions which had been delivered to the governor. But he had no right to represent that as an absolute prohibition, which was only optional. The next complaint was, that he had not received letters from his relations and friends in Europe, and that it was impossible for him to receive them. This was not true—It was not impossible for any of his relations and friends to communicate with him, if they chose to send their letters to the secretary of state, where they would be opened, and afterwards undoubtedly would be forwarded to him. But there was one preliminary to his receiving letters from his friends, which was, that his friends should write to him, and the fact was, that only one of his relations had written to him—namely, his brother Joseph, whose letter reached the office in October last, where it was opened, and immediately forwarded to him. Another complaint of the same nasure was, that he was not permitted to send a sealed letter to the Prince Regent. Of course, sir Hudson Lowe, if any application had been made to him, would have obeyed the instructions which had been read to their lordships; but, in point of fact, no application had been made to sir Hudson Lowe on that subject. An application had indeed been made to sir G. Cockburn, he believed from count Bertrand, to know, whether if a letter were written by the emperor to the Prince Regent, he would undertake to deliver it without suffering it to be opened by any person. Sir G. Cockburn, of course, could give no such assurance; but all that he could do was, to communicate the substance of his instructions respecting letters written by general Buonaparté, and then leave him to his judgment how he might act. Since that time, no farther application of that nature had been received.— In directing that any complaint against the conduct of the governor towards ge-
1150
neral Buonaparté, sent to the government in this country, should be left open, there was not any discretion remaining with the governor, whether he would or not transmit it; but at the same time, he was allowed to enter into an explanation of the allegations contained in the letter. The object of this regulation was, on the one hand, to protect the governor against frivolous charges; arid, on the other hand, if any grave charge could be adduced, to insure relief sooner than would otherwise be possible, because it would not be necessary to send back to St. Helena to inquire into the truth of it, before steps could be taken to remove the inconvenience complained of. It was in that sense that this part of the instructions had been taken by general Buonaparté, as might be inferred from a letter of sir G. Cockburn to him, of which he should read a passage. The passage ran to this effect:—"I have no hesitation in agreeing with you, that the spirit which influenced his majesty's government in this part of their instructions, was the desire of speedily remedying any inconvenience you might have to complain of: but though the spirit is favourable to you, they do not lose sight of the circumstance, that is due in justice to me and my successors, to prevent any complaint against us from being known in Europe for six months, without being accompanied by any observation from us."—Now it was clear, that, as the governor was bound to send every charge against him to Europe, general Buonaparté had no reason whatever to complain. As to the sealed letters to the Prince Regent, he could only say, that if sir G. Cockburn or sir Hudson Lowe had thought fit to allow any such letters to come to Europe sealed up, he (earl B.) should have felt it to be his duty to open them. He agreed with the noble mover, that if he had prevented any such letters from reaching his royal highness, he should have been guilty of a base and unwarrantable breach of duty; but at the same time, in this country, where the ministers were responsible for the acts of the sovereign, he did not know how he could discharge his duty, if he did not make himself acquainted with the nature of such communications.
The next complaint of general Buonaparté was, that when he had requested to have some books from Europe, those which referred to modern times had been kept back. The fact was this:—Soon

1151
after his arrival at St. Helena, he expressed a wish for some books to complete his library, and a list was made out by general Buonaparté himself, and transmitted to this country. This list was sent to an eminent French bookseller in this town, with orders to supply such of the books as he had, and to obtain the rest from other booksellers. As several of the books were not to be obtained in London, the bookseller was desired to write to Paris for them. He accordingly obtained some of them from Paris, but others of them could not be obtained; those which could not be procured were principally on military subjects. These books, to the amount of 13 or 1,400 l. worth (which the letter called "a few books"), were sent, with an explanation of the circumstances which prevented the others from having been sent. This anxiety to attend to the wishes of the individual in question, was not at all taken, I in the paper he had referred to, as an excuse for the omission. A complaint, connected with this, was, that newspapers had been withheld. As to this, he should say, that if the noble mover thought that general Buonaparté should be furnished with all the journals he required, he (earl B.) had a different sense of the course which it was proper for him to pursue. And this opinion was grounded on the knowledge, that attempts had been made, through the medium of newspapers, to hold communication with Napoleon.
The next complaint was, that he was not allowed to open a correspondence with a bookseller. Now this was not true, unless it meant that that correspondence could not be carried on under sealed letters; for there was no reason for preventing that correspondence, unless it was carried on in that particular manner. It was also said, that he could not correspond even with his banker or agent. Now it was, in point of fact, open to him to enter upon any such correspondence under the restrictions he had mentioned; and there was no reason why a letter to a banker should be sent sealed up. He (earl B.) did not deny that, on a correspondence between friends, the necessity of sending letters open was a most severe restriction, because it was impossible to consign to paper the warm effusions of the heart, under the consciousness that it would be subject to the cold eye of an inspector. But this, surely, did not apply to a correspondence with a banker. Who had ever heard of an affectionate draught on a
1152
banking-house, or a tender order for the sale of stock?
He now came to the most important charge, which was, that the letters sent by general Buonaparté, or persons of his suite, were read by subaltern officers on the island. This was not true. Sir Hudson Lowe had exercised the trust reposed in him with the utmost delicacy; and when any letters were transmitted through his hands, had never permitted any individual, however confidential, to see them, whether they were addressed to individuals at home or at St. Helena. It was difficult to know on what such general charges were founded, but the following occurrence was the only one which he could conceive to have any reference to it:—When Napoleon and his suite were first sent out to St. Helena, from the haste in which the ships sailed, they were left in want of many necessaries, such as linen, and other articles of that kind. It was judged that great inconvenience might be felt, if they were obliged to wait till they could send to this country for them, and accordingly a considerable quantity of such articles were sent out in anticipation of their wants. It so happened, that about the time when these articles arrived, Las Cases wrote a letter to Europe, which of course came under the inspection of sir Hudson Lowe, who found that it contained an order for some of those very articles which had been sent out. Sir Hudson Lowe then wrote to Las Cases to inform him, that he had those articles which he had ordered, and which were much at his service; and observed, that it would not perhaps be necessary to send the letter, or that he might now omit that order. Las Cases returned an answer full of reproaches to sir Hudson Lowe, for his presumption in reading a letter directed to a lady, and for offering him articles out of a common stock, when he knew that he had been solely supported by the emperor. Thus was sir Hudson Lowe treated, for his endeavours to accommodate these intractable people, and such was the only foundation for this part of the charge.
The next complaint was in these, words:—"Letters have arrived at St. Helena for general officers in the suite of the emperor—they were broken open and transmitted to you; but you refused to communicate them, because they had not been received through the channel of the English minister. They had to travel back 4,000 leagues, and these officers en-

1153
dured the mortification of knowing, that there existed on the island accounts of their wives, their parents, and their children, of which they could not be informed in less than six months. The heart revolts at such treatment!" Now this was a direct falsehood, for which there was not the smallest foundation. Sir Hudson Lowe, on seeing this passage in the letter, wrote to Montholon, saying there was no foundation for this charge, and calling on him to adduce any one instance. No instances had been given, no answer had been returned, and the reason was this, that the assertion was absolutely false. Indeed, in the voluminous papers which had been transmitted from St. Helena, nothing was more painfully disgusting than the utter indifference to truth shown throughout.
Having said thus much as to the restriction on communication by letter with general Buonaparté, he should proceed to the complaints of restraints on his personal intercourse with others. He should read the part of the instructions which referred to this subject, and which had been a year and a half before the country, and to which no objection had ever been made. The words were these:—"When ships arrive, and as long as the}' are in sight, the general must remain confined within the boundary where sentinels are placed. During this interval, all intercourse with the inhabitants is forbidden."
Such was the letter of the instruction, but the execution of it had been very liberal; persons who arrived at the island were, on procuring a pass from the governor or admiral, permitted to go up to Longwood, but to prevent the privacy of the general from being broken in upon by the curiosity of individuals, they were prevented from going to Longwood, unless they obtained the previous consent of count Bertrand, or some of the individuals near his person. The complaint that all intercourse with the inhabitants was prevented was untrue. It was true that the inhabitants could not approach him without a pass, but there was no instance in which a pass had been refused, or that any had been prevented from going to him, but those who had been detected in attempting to approach him in disguise, or in false characters. It had been also said that he had been prevented from having any intercourse with the officers of the garrison. There was no foundation for this. He had on one occasion entered
1154
into conversation with an officer of the 53d regiment, in which he bestowed high praises upon that regiment and its officers (none of which could be too high for their deserts), and then expressed a regret that all intercourse with them was interdicted him. The officer assured him that no such interdiction existed, at which he expressed some surprise, but since that time he had not more frequent communication with them than he had previously, when he supposed the prohibition which he so much lamented, to have existed.
He had thus answered the complaints of restrictions on the communication of Buonaparté with individuals either by letter or personally, and he should next advert to the charges respecting his personal treatment. The instructions on this subject were these: "The general must always be attended by an officer appointed by the admiral or the governor, as the case may be. If the general is allowed to go beyond the boundary where the sentinels are placed, he must be accompanied by one orderly man at least." Now the practice had been, that during the first period of his confinement he had a ciroumference of no less than twelve miles, in. which he might ride or walk without the attendance of any officer, and that range was not reduced till it had been found that he had abused that confidence reposed in him by tampering with the inhabitants. That range was now reduced to eight miles instead of twelve, and within that boundary he might at present walk without the attendance of any officer. Beyond those limits he might go over any part of the island, attended by an officer of rank not lower than a captain in the army. On this ground, therefore, it could not be objected that there was an unreasonable degree of restraint.
The next complaint which the noble mover had urged was, that general Buonarparté could not move out of his house at the only time when exercise was healthy in that climate. Now the fact was, that though he had not free passage through the island after sun set, he might at any hours walk in his garden. Sentinels were stationed there after sun set, and he expressed his dislike to walk when he was: thus watched. Sir H. Lowe, with every desire to attend to his wishes, after that fixed the sentinels in places where they would not look on him. Would their lordships wish these sentinels to be removed altogether just at the time when it was most likely

1155
that he should escape? Let them suppose for a moment, that instead of debating on the motion of the noble lord, that intelligence was brought them by Sir Hudson Lowe that general Buonaparté had actually escaped. Let them suppose, that instead of sitting to discuss whether a little more or little less restriction should be imposed, that they had thus to examine sir Hudson Lowe at their bar. How and when did he escape?— In the early part of the evening, and from his garden. Had his garden no sentinels?—The sentinels were removed. Why were they removed?—General Buonaparté desired it—they were hurtful to his feelings, they were then removed, and thus was he enabled to escape. What would their lordships think of such an answer? He begged them to consider the situation of sir Hudson Lowe—in what a painful and invidious station he was placed. If general Buonaparté escaped, the character and fortune of sir Hudson Lowe were ruined for ever.
It was now said in the Memorial, that the residence pitched upon for general Buonaparté was unpleasant and unwholesome. He could only say, that this was not the general account of that place. It had formerly been the house of the lieutenant-governor, and it was not the custom for lieutenant-governors to choose the most unpleasant and unwholesome spots. Neither had this been the former opinion of general Buonaparté himself. When the general had first been sent there, it was left to the discretion of sir G. Cockburn to fix on a residence for him, with only one exception, namely, the house of the governor. That choice was to be directed by a view to the safe custody, and as far as was consistent with that, by the consideration due to his comfort. Soon after his landing, general Buonaparté rode out with sir George Cockburn, till he reached Long-wood, with which, at first sight, he was so much captivated, that he wished to remain there, and not to go back to the town. He was told that it would be impossible so soon to remove the lieutenant-governor's family. He then wished a tent to be erected, which it was also represented would much incommode the lieutenant-governor, but he was assured that the occupants should be removed as soon as possible. As they returned they came to a house prettily situated, which belonged to Mr. Balcombe, near which a detached room had been built. General Buonaparté expressed a wish to occupy that
1156
room, and after sir G. Cockburn had in vain endeavoured to dissuade him from it, he took up his abode there for the time. It was but two days after, however, that his attendants complained of this harsh usage, as they termed it, in placing the emperor in a single room. This was the manner in which the compliance of sir G. Cockburn was received. So many alterations were made at Longwood, that general Buonaparté remained in that room two months. Constant improvements or alterations were made at Longwood, suggested by himself or his suite, which delayed his removal; for the fact was, that he was unwilling to remove from Mr. Balcombe's, on account of the facility of communication with the town. During his residence there he was circumscribed to a small garden, beyond which he never moved without a guard; he did not, however, at that time, make any complaint; but he now, for the first time, complained of restrictions on his liberty, when he was allowed to range within a circuit of eight miles, if he pleased unattended. When the prisoners were first sent to St. Helena, orders were given to send out a frame for the purpose of constructing a house for general Buonaparté. When the materials arrived, sir H. Lowe wrote to the general, whether he would like to have a new house erected, or additions made to the old one. He received no answer; in two or three weeks he went to the general to endeavour to obtain a decision from him. The general at last answered, that if he were to answer him officially he should say, "build a new house;" but as that must take five or six years, and as he knew that in two or three years either the administration in this country would be overturned, or a change would take place in the government of France, and in either case he should be released, he was privately of opinion that addition should be made to Longwood. As this was all the answer sir Hudson Lowe could get, he proceeded to make alterations in the present house. General Buonaparté then objected to this, though it was done by hiso own desire, and for the purpose of lodging his attendants. He (earl B.) did not object to general Buonaparté's choice either of the new house or the old one, or between alterations and no alterations, but he objected to this—that every attempt to render his residence convenient was made the foundation of a charge against the governor, and that he watched the moment when an attention was paid to his wishes, to

1157
make that very attention a source of complaint.
He should now advert to the subject of the expense bestowed on the maintenance of this individual; but he should previously mention the rumour that St. Helena had been mentioned at the Congress of Vienna, as a place to which Buonaparté might be removed from Elba. This was really one of those rumours from foreigners to which the noble lord lent too ready an ear——
Lord Holland"I have not received this information from foreigners alone."
Earl Bathurst.It was of no consequence whence the intimation came. It was altogether groundless. There was no mention at the congress of such a proposition. As to the expense of the establishment of general Buonaparté at St. Helena, it had been at first from the want of arrangements for regular supplies, unavoidably great; but it had always been in contemplation when those arrangements were made that the expenditure should be considerably reduced. The permanent expense of the establishment of Buonaparté had from the first been fixed at 8,000 l. a year, though it was of course contemplated that the first year would much exceed that expense. In fixing that allowance, the government had been somewhat guided by the expenses which the governor of the island had been found to have incurred. That governor was paid by the India company; his salary was 1,800 l. a year, and his table expenses were paid, as he was bound to receive and entertain all the passengers in the company's ships touching at the island. Those table expenses had been found on an average of years to be 4,700 l. a year, in all 6,500 l. which was regarded as a fair criterion of the expense of supporting an establishment on that island. As general Buonapartè was not subject to those expenses which the governor had been obliged to incur, 8,000 l. a year was deemed a fair allowance; that estimate, it was to be remembered had been given in to the other House of Parliament as the probable expense of that establishment, and the instructions of sir H. Lowe on this subject were founded on it. This sum was considered sufficient to provide general Buonapartè with all that could be considered as suitable for a person in his situation. Instructions were, however, transmitted to the governor, informing him if it required more for the support of general
1158
Buonaparté than what had been considered sufficient for that purpose, if he thought any additional luxury necessary beyond what could be provided for the sum fixed in this country, his majesty's ministers were inclined to allow it. Sir Hudson Lowe, in answer, said he thought the establishment of general Buonaparté could not be suitably provided for under 12,000 l. a year. An intimation was immediately given that the sum of 12,000 l. was agreed to by his majesty's ministers. If their lordships considered this too small a sum for the expenses of general Buonaparté, he only wished them to recollect that sir H. Lowe himself was only allowed 12,000 l. for himself and his staff, and all his other expenses, of whatever nature they might be. A fortnight after the receipt of the letter from this country, general Buonaparté entered into a negociation with sir Hudson Lowe, in which he undertook to furnish the whole of his expenditure, amounting to 17 or 18,000 l. himself, if he had permission to correspond with any banker, provided the letters were allowed to be sealed, and provided all the money so received should be wholly at his disposal; and so confident was lie that he had this money at his command, that he offered at once to draw for it, and he assured sir Hudson Lowe that he might advance the money with safety, because he had no doubt that his draught would be accepted. In stating this, he did not mean to say, that because general Buonaparté possessed funds, and even large funds, that therefore the government of this country ought to make him pay for the expenses of his establishment out of these funds; but he said this, that having given him so high an allowance as 12,000 l. a year (such an allowance as they gave to their own governor, who was exposed to great expenses, and who had to receive the visits of the inhabitants, and of the commissioners of the allied powers) if this sum was sufficient for the governor, it was sufficient for general Buonaparté; and, if he wished for more than this, it ought to come out of the funds, and large funds, at his own disposal.
There was one other point which he should notice, as it related to a statement in a publication formerly mentioned by him—that one bottle of wine a day only, was allowed for each person, and that if this allowance was drunk by any of the individuals on the establishment—he could get no more. In order to ascertain the

1159
expenditure of any establishment, it was usual to calculate on a certain quantity of such things as were used for each individual, per day. It was by no means intended, that the same quantity should always be drank by each individual. With respect to the calculation of one bottle per day, for each person, it was one which would be considered in this country as not an unfair one—this was the allowance for the king's table. A bottle a day, for each person, was considered by the officers of the British army as sufficient for the supply of their messes—sufficient for themselves, and for such company as might be invited to their mess: it was not usual to allow more one day with another to any person in the prime of life. But to show how liberally the allowance to general Buonaparté was calculated, he should read to their lordships an extract from the estimate for his table, in which this very article of wine was minutely specified. There was an allowance of strong and of weak wine. The quantity of weak wine was 84 bottles in the course of the fortnight; but he should put that out of the question, and merely state the quantity of the other description of wine. Of that better sort of wine, there was no less than 266 bottles, in one fortnight, applicable, wholly and entirely to general Buonaparté and his attendants. The particulars were—7 bottles of Constantia (or 14 pint bottles), 14 bottles of Champaign, 21 bottles of Vin de Grave, 84 bottles of Teneriffe, and 140 bottles of Claret. In all 266 bottles. The number of persons connected with general Buonaparté, excluding those of tender age, amounted to nine, so that there was an allowance of nineteen bottles in one day for ten persons; and taking one day with another, the allowance might be considered two bottles a day for each grown person; which he was sure was as much as would satisfy the noble lord's wishes either for himself or for any person in whom he was interested. In addition to this quantity of wine, forty-two bottles of porter were allowed every fortnight, being at the rate of three to each individual. From this statement he was convinced that their lordships would see there was no reason to corn-lain of an inadequate or scanty supply. Indeed, on the consideration of the whole case, he felt convinced, that the House would perceive no severity, no harshness, nothing but the enforcement of restrictions necessary for the safe custody of our pri-
1160
soner. Those persons who were placed under his control, had behaved in the most insolent manner towards the governor; and if their lordships were willing to lend an ear to every complaint proceeding from them, there would be no end of their complaining. The governor could not support his authority, or execute his duty, in keeping these persons in his power, with fewer restrictions than he had enforced, or with greater lenity than he had shown. It might be made a question, whether this person was to be detained at all; but if he was to be detained, proper means ought to be taken to secure him, and proper vigilance employed to prevent his escape; nor should any mistaken compassion be allowed to influence us to depart from this cautious and prudent course. It would be most unjust to throw a heavy responsibility on the governor, and at the same time prevent him from enforcing such measures as the secure detention of his prisoner demanded from him. If by our negligence Buonaparté were allowed to escape, we should not only incur the censure of those who now called for a relaxation of vigilance and restraint, but our conduct would be liable to misrepresentation throughout Europe: it would be asserted, that we intended to allow his enlargement for some purposes of out own; and we should be accused of acting under the most detestable hypocrisy, in first conveying him to that distant station, and in pretending to place him under restrictions, while we really wished his escape. Seeing, therefore, no ground whatever for the motion, he would give it his decided opposition.
The Marquis of Buckinghamcontended, that no one could hesitate to give his noble friend, who brought forward this motion, the greatest credit for good intentions and upright views. Nobody who knew the pure and honourable mind of his noble friend could for a moment doubt the integrity of his motives, or the laudable nature of the object which he proposed to accomplish: notwithstanding this, he (Lord B.) lamented that his noble friend had taken his present course, because he was afraid that his motives, honourable as they were, might be misrepresented, and his conduct lead to misconception both in this country and over Europe. He confessed that he himself did not come to the consideration of the subject with any of the feelings of his noble friend, or perhaps with those feelings that he ought to entertain. He

1161
was willing to allow that he did not possess a mind entirely unbiassed; for, be it error, be it prejudice, or any feeling less defensible, he acknowledged that he could not bring himself to view this person or his fate without considering him as the most bitter and rancorous enemy that this country ever had. The question, in this case, was confined within narrow limits. The policy of his imprisonment was now not before the House: that had already been decided on. If imprisoned it was plain that he must be under restrictions of some kind or another, sufficient to guard against his escape. Would any person say that these restrictions were more than necessary for their object? Would any one say that he could be kept in safe custody without them? He (lord B.) did not believe so. For the unnecessary severity of these restrictions we had the authority of a paper signed Montholon. This paper was filled with complaints and accusations. Against it we now had the evidence of his majesty's ministers; who, in a case of this kind, might be expected to be cautious, deliberate, and guarded in their statements. Which was the House to believe—the ministers of the Crown, with all their responsibility upon them, and speaking from the most minute information—or this prejudiced individual? He could not hesitate for a moment. He did not think that ministers could be disbelieved; he did not see that it was possible to doubt their statements. He felt, that the paper which they had been called upon to answer was an additional insult to this country: proceeding from a person who had so often tried to insult it. He stated, "that he was not the prisoner of England;" that he had not surrendered to us, but that he repaired voluntarily and freely to England, to place himself under its laws, and to enjoy its liberties. He stated, that he had the option of surrendering himself either to Austria, Russia, or Prussia; and he invidiously insinuated that he would have found in any of those states a more honourable reception, greater kindness, or more justice, than with us. This he asserted with the recollection of his former history before his eyes. Had he tried the experiment he could not have found it successful. In Austria, instead of protection, he must have met with the deep rooted recollection of broken treaties, and of wanton aggression—the trace of the ruin he had created, and the hatred of the people whom he had insulted. Had
1162
he sought an asylum in Russia, he would have found that the injustice of his invasion, and the burning of Moscow, were not forgotten by the inhabitants: and had he endeavoured to take refuge in Prussia, he would have been execrated as the person who had plundered the kingdom, and insulted its beautiful queen. He stated, that if he had surrendered to the House of Lorraine, "the emperor would have recollected the relations which religion and nature have formed between a father and a son; that he would have recollected that he restored him at Luneville, at Vienna, and had received protestations of his good-will at Dresden; that the emperor Alexander would have recollected the ties of friendship contracted at Tilsit, and during ten years of correspondence; and that upon his surrender to the king of Prussia, he would have recollected the protestations of attachment and sentiments of gratitude that he testified to him in 1812." But leaving out of his view all those who owed him such obligations, he chose to surrender himself to this country, and his demand on our generosity was certainly great, considering the grounds on which they were made, and the relation in which he stood to us. He had restored, according to his own declaration, their crowns to the sovereigns of each of the countries which he renounced, giving the preference to this; and what was the price he exacted from them for this kindness? Why, that they should join him in an alliance against that very country in which he took refuge, and which he afterwards abused. He now appealed to our feelings of compassion and justice, by telling us what stock of merits he had laid up with those whom he had prevailed upon to become our enemies, but to whom he did not choose to surrender; and adduced, as claims on our kindness, treaties that enforced the continental system against us, and were intended for our commercial annihilation. Considering that there was no ground for the present motion, considering the production of the papers as perfectly uncalled for and unnecessary, he would join the noble secretary in opposing the motion of his noble friend. He was of opinion that this person should be kept in close confinement, and that every restriction should be enforced, and every degree of vigilance exercised, that should be found necessary for that purpose. The severe and close durance to which general Buonaparté was subjected was not dictated by motives of

1163
revenge, but of security; and he considered any measure justifiable which was necessary to prevent that man from again breaking loose and throwing Europe into agitation. It was a piece of political justice that we owed to Europe and the world. It taught a political lesson that should never be forgotten in this country or any other.
The Earl of Darnleydid not feel that hostility towards the individual under confinement at St. Helena, professed by the noble marquis; and though he agreed with him that they were called on to take such measures as the security of his person demanded, still it was their duty to see that no unnecessary severity was used towards him. Feeling an anxiety for the character of the country, which was affected by the reports in circulation on this subject, he could not but be pleased that his noble friend had brought forward the present motion, which had afforded an opportunity to the noble earl opposite to make the candid and able statement by which the allegations on which the motion was founded were certainly entirely refuted. After the facts disclosed by the noble secretary of state, he did not think that his noble friend ought to press his motion any farther.
Lord Hollandthought the charges were of such a kind and of such magnitude, that in opposition to one of his noble friends, he must persist in thinking that they called for contradiction; and, in opposition to the other, that they were not yet sufficiently contradicted. That contradiction ought to rest, not on the declaration of a minister, but on documentary evidence. He could not accept, therefore the compliments of the former to his motives, while he lamented his conduct; nor the thanks of the latter, for the statements which he had given the noble secretary an opportunity of making, while he did not think that statement satisfactory. He was not disposed to pay much attention to the construction that might be put on his motives: both because he was conscious of their rectitude, and because, in obeying them, he was convinced he had done an essential service to his country. No praise on the goodness of the intentions by which he was actuated would make him surrender the impression of the service he had accomplished. He rejoiced that he had made a motion which produced a contradiction of charges that were injurious to the honour of the country. He should
1164
rejoice still more that documents were produced to disprove abuses; or if his exertions would tend, if they existed, to correct them. Whatever might be the result of their lordships deliberation, he enjoyed the satisfaction of thinking, that there was one individual in the country who could not hear imputations on our national character without calling for inquiry, and giving an opportunity of showing their unfounded nature.
The noble secretary had said, that those who were adverse to the confinement of Buonaparté at St. Helena, must necessarily be biassed in judging of the degree of restraint necessary for his safe custody. The noble secretary should at least give an opportunity of deciding whether too great severity had been used, by producing the documents he had moved for. He (lord H.) neither approved of the spirit of that speech, nor was convinced by its arguments. It seemed throughout to support the motion it was intended to oppose. The noble earl had contradicted the reports on which the motion proceeded, but would not produce evidence, to refute them. The noble secretary seemed to think, that the motion was one of censure, and not of inquiry—one that assumed the facts as true, instead of one that called for information. He had, therefore, answered his statements as charges, and not as grounds for examination. He (lord H.) moved for papers. What did the noble secretary do? Instead of producing them to parliament, he read his own justification from them by extracts, while he refused to lay the documents themselves on the table of the House. This was the most extraordinary and unjustifiable conduct that ever existed; a mode of proceeding which, till within these ten or twelve years, was completely unknown—that a minister should make use of documents not before the House, which he had an opportunity of quoting, stretching, or garbling at his pleasure. How did the noble secretary answer the charges? He refused the papers; and, as a man of wit and pleasantry, instead of allowing the justification of the absent to be heard, he cracked jokes upon an individual, whose character and person were in his power. If this was his glory, if this was his triumph, he did not envy him his feelings, or his taste.
The noble secretary had denied the papers, on the allegation that it would be six months before they could be obtained

1165
from St. Helena; and during all that time the imputations against the government would remain uncontradicted; but what would he say to Buonaparté's situation, against whom the noble secretary had not only stated things that could not be contradicted, but whom, in his absence and in captivity he had made the subject of ill-timed pleasantry. The whole tenour of the noble earl's speech showed the propriety of the present motion. He (lord Holland) never stated that the accounts were true; and indeed he knew nothing about the statements that had been published, except that they were confirmed by private accounts from other quarters. He only said that they required contradiction; and however much he might admire the speech of the noble earl, he did not think the contradiction contained in it equal to a contradiction by documents. If the charges were light and trivial, why did the noble secretary take such pains to refute them? And if they were serious, why did he not give the means of rendering that refutation most effectual, by producing the papers? The contradiction ought not to rest on the breath of the noble lord.
He was not entitled, from the source whence he had received his information, to lay his authorities before the House; but notwithstanding the noble lord's assertion, he still believed that the sending of Buonaparté to St. Helena was a subject of discussion with the congress of Vienna. He had been told this circumstance before the battle of Waterloo, and he believed Buonaparté himself had heard of it. Gentlemen might think this very pleasant; they might think, perhaps, that Buonaparté had set such a rumour afloat merely from a wish to suggest it to congress? Was it not more probable that he mentioned it only after having had reason to suppose that such an arrangement was in contemplation? This however, was a point on which he would not enlarge, as it had no reference to his present motion, neither had his motion any reference to the Memorial of Montholon, or the other papers in publication. All that he wanted was, recorded documents against those rumours that affected the character of the country: all that he got was a speech of the noble lord instead of papers. This speech might probably be as convincing to his (lord Holland's) mind and the House as the papers themselves; but it could not be equally convincing to Europe and pos-
1166
terity. Would posterity and the world look upon statements from the mouth of the noble lord as of equal authority with parliamentary documents, although substantially they might be the same?
The only ground on which papers could be refused was, that the charges were too trivial to deserve inquiry. He was far from thinking them of such a nature; they appeared to him to be of the greatest importance; and he could by no means agree in what seemed to be the sentiments of his noble friend, that now Buonaparté was sent to St. Helena, it was of no consequence how he was treated. His noble friend had alluded to Austria, Prussia and Russia, as states in which he could not find an asylum; but (and it was another ground of the present motion) he should not be surprised if a foreign power, affecting popularity, should make a remonstrance on the subject of his treatment. The speech of the noble earl would not be so good an answer to such a remonstrance as the papers; still less would it be as good if Buonaparté should happen to expire while these rumours were yet in existence. The noble earl had dwelt with much pleasantry on a person who was absent, and could not defend himself; and had taken up the defence of sir Hudson Lowe, as one who was exposed to the plots and insolence of his prisoner on the island, and to the suspicions of the people at home. Even the strictest confinement of his captive could not, it seems, relieve his fears; indeed he probably would be "afraid of this gunpowder Percy, though he were dead." Looking at it as a point of taste and feeling, he could not admire the attempt to turn into ridicule the ebullitions even of ill-humour in one so circumstanced, for, God knew ill-humour might be pardoned in a man who had met such dreadful reverses; and, however successful such an attempt might be, he should be sorry to have produced an effect by such means. He still adhered to the propriety of his motion, as he had seen and heard nothing to make it unnecessary.
The motion was negatived without a division.