Sitting of 14 May 1823

FOREIGN WOOL TAX—SIR J. SINCLAIR'S PETITION AGAINST THE REPEAL OF.
Sir J. Sebrightpresented a petition from sir J. Sinclair, praying that the duties on foreign wool might not be repealed. He stated, that the petitioner felt convinced that if he could have an opportunity of exhibiting to the House the fine cloths which he had caused to be manufactured from English wool, it would go a great way towards convincing them how needless the importation of foreign wool was. It had been proposed to him to bring down a piece of cloth with the petition, and to cause it to be laid upon the table, for the inspection of members. To this he had replied, that the proposition was not a regular one. But there was another course, to which there could be no objection, and that was, for the petition to present him with a coat of the nest cloth made from English wool, in which' costume he would appear before the House on presenting the petition. The proposition being, acceded to, he was enabled to appear before them, as they now beheld him, and he trusted in no very discreditable condition. He begged leave to bring up the petition; and when he had committed it to the care of the House, he should wait a reasonable time in the lobby, to give those gentlemen who wished to satisfy, themselves upon the subject, an opportunity for examination.
Ordered to lie on the table.

SHERIFF OF DUBLIN—INQUIRY INTO HIS CONDUCT.
The House having again resolved itself into a committee to inquire into the conduct of the sheriff of Dublin, sir Robert Heron in the chair,
Mr. William Lewis was called in and examined
By Colonel Barry.—What is your situation?—I am an attorney by profession.
Do you recollect going shortly after the riots to the gaol of Newgate?—I do. I Was called upon to go to the gaol of Newgate, to see if I could identify any of the prisoners that were in custody for the riot at the theatre.
Who went with you?—Major Tandy. I was shown the yard in which the prisoners were. I did not point out any person there, that threw the rattle form but I did point out the person of a man, who answered the description of the person, that I thought threw the rattle from the gallery.
Did you ever afterwards hear who that per son was?—I never saw until I saw it in the papers at Shrewsbury.
It was not George Graham?—I do not know that it was not George Graham.
You did not point out a. person that you thought was the person who threw the, rattle?—I did in this way; the man that I though threw the rattle, was a man dressed in a particular garb, and the dress of that man answered my view of him in the gallery; but I could not identify his person.
Were you told afterwards, that that was not the man?—I was not I was told that he was not then a prisoner.
Do you recollect afterwards being shown Graham?—I believe I do.
And you did not identify him?—Certainly not.
Do you now take upon yourself to say, that the man you pointed out to the under goler, was the man who threw the rattle?—I do not.
Do you now undertake to say, that George Graham was not the man who threw the rattle?—I do not.
Mr. Joseph Henry Moore, called in; and further examined
By Mr. Brownlow.—Did you attend the grand jury in January last, under the impression, that bills of capital indictment were to be preferred before you?—Public rumour spoke to that effect, and I knew nothing to the contrary, until the counsel for the crown stated, that bills would not be sent up capitally the general impression was so, certainly.
Were you aware that certain prisoners were committed capitally, for the play-house riot?—Such was the public report of the legal proceedings; I knew nothing until I heard it declared by the judge, that it had been withdrawn in a negative kind of way; I can answer that the court declared that the capital charge had been withdrawn. Until after the counsel for the crown declared that it was withdrawn, my impression was, that we were to try a capital offence.
Were not the jury sworn before the counsel for the crown stated that?—I cannot undertake

241
to say whether it was before or after, but I believe after.
Did you attend in court under that impression?—Certainly I did.
The right hon. William Conyngham Plunkett was further examined in his place,
By Colonel Barry.—Do you recollect the petit juries that were impanelled for the trials of the ribbon-men, in the beginning of November term last?—I recollect that there were petit juries impanelled for the trial of some ribbon-men, but I do not recollect who they were.
Do you recollect whether you challenged on the part of the crown, any, or how many, of the persons so on the panel?—I am almost certain there were challenges made on the part of the crown; how many, I cannot recollect.
Do you recollect the name of Barrett Wadden?—I recollect his name perfectly.
Do you recollect that he was the only challenge made on the part of the crown on that occasion?—I do not recollect that his name was called; I did not recollect having heard his name till the present occasion.
You stated on a former day, that you had seen the rules and regulations and extracts from the books of the Orange societies, would you have the goodness to state whether it was previous to, or subsequent to, the riot at the theatre, that you saw those extracts?—Certainly subsequent; I never had communication with the person from whom I received them, till long subsequent to the riot at the theatre.
John Crosby, Graves, esq. called in; and further examined
By Colonel Barrry.—Were not you examined before the grand jury, as a witness upon the bills of indictment sent up in January last?—I was.
What was the conduct of the grand jury to you; did they behave with courtesy and fairness to you in your examination?—I conceive so, certainly.
They showed no disrespect or impatience during your examination?—Certainly not.
Have the goodness to state any thing which comes within the question put to you?—On going into the grand-jury room, a statement was made to me; "it is unnecessary to interrogate you, Mr. Graves; you will have the goodness to state what evidence you think material which you can give." I did make such a statement of the facts within my knowledge, and the jury heard them with courtesy and politeness.
Do you recollect, at any period subsequent to the 4th of November, the persons that were around the statue being dispersed by the military, and some persons being wounded in that transaction?—I recollect hearing of the circumstance.
Have you any doubt that some persons dressing the statue were dispersed by military force* without any orders from the civil power?
242
—I heard so, I have no reason to disbelieve it.
Do not you conceive that would be an additional cause of irritation?—I certainly should contemplate it as one;
Have you ever seen the almanack for the year 1823?—I have or rather the chronicle which is placed at the close of the almanack; it is bound up with the almanack.
A sort of annals of Dublin?—Yes.
That is furnished to the different offices at the expense of government, is it not?—It is. It is stated to be published by authority.
Did you ever see the account of the business of the theatre, as affixed to those annals as published by authority?—I did see two versions. One of the copies contained one reading of it, and another another, varying in the phrase. I recollect one stating that on the night of the riot at the theatre, a heavy piece of timber, and another stating that a heavy log of wood, was thrown at his excellency.
What did it say besides the piece of wood?—A quart bottle, I believe.
Did it not state a certain description of persons it was thrown by?—Assassins, I think.
And they added that he providentially escaped its taking effect?—I think that was the statement.
You were at the theatre that night?—Yes.
Did you see such a heavy piece of timber, or heavy log of wood thrown at the lord lieutenant on that night?—No; I believe that occurrence, whatever it was, took place while I was in the act of taking Mr. Forbes, whom I had apprehended by myself and another magistrate in conjunction with me, from the theatre, to the watch house; I believe it occurred just in that interval, I did not see it.
Do you believe there was ever such a thing thrown?—I do believe a piece of timber; as to the weight of it, I have a pretty correct notion, but I can have no doubt that a piece of timber was thrown; I saw it produced upon the trial, and I saw it in the police-office.
Did it deserve the appellation of a heavy log of timber?—I think that was an exaggeration. I saw it in the police-office, and then measured it. It was precisely the head of such a rattle, as is bought in the toy-shops to go to a masquerade; less than a watchman's rattle, it weighed eight ounces and a half.
Was it proposed to you at any time, or in any place, to sign any informations respecting the persons who were accused of rioting at the theatre, or of conspiring to kill and murder the lord lieutenant, without having the "informant before you, or without examining him as to the facts staled in his information?—No; it never was proposed to us to swear those informations at all, until subsequently to the committals, when we had the witnesses before us, and when we were directed to have the witnesses before us in the first instance; we had, at the police-office, before us, in the ordi-

243
nary course, Several witnesses appear, who had made informations before us in the ordinary course; they were taken in the usual Way, the party was attested to them, and the jurat subscribed by the magistrate, and the party bound over to prosecute, but there were other witnesses who went to the castle, who did not come to the police-office, who made statements which were taken in the shape of notes, but some of them attested by a magistrate, but we did not see them at all, till they were sent down to us to be attested, in the shape of informations; the witnesses were then brought before us, and interrogated as to the facts; they then ultimately subscribed them, and were bound over to attend the commission.
Are you to be understood, there were no informations before the committals?—I have I stated, that there were some informations in the police-office, one of the principal ones against Forbes I had myself signed; others were sworn before other magistrates; but there was a great body of other examinations not at all before us.
Did you, in any case, refuse or decline to sign any information on any account?—No.
Any committal?—I stated the facts, with respect to the committals, upon the last occasion; I did put over on another magistrate in my office the duty of signing the committal, for the reasons which I stated on my last examination; and in point of fact, I did not sign any committal.
Was it proposed to you at any time, or in any place, to sign any informations respecting the persons who were accused of rioting at the theatre, or of conspiring to kill and murder the lord lieutenant, without having the informant before you, or without examining him as to the facts stated in his information?—I have before said no.
Were you ever called upon to attest any information which you were not suffered to read?—No.
By Mr. J. Daly.—You were at the theatre on the night of the riot?—Yes.
When you were there, were you inclined to believe there was any attempt at assassination?—I can state the facts that I saw, I did not see the bottle till it was held up; it was held up, and there was a cry of shame; T did not see the fact of the bottle striking, that circum stance induced me to leave the part of the house where I was, intending to go the gallery to from, whence the bottle was thrown; in so doing, I observed that the noise and disturbance, the riot as I considered it, extended to the boxes, in those boxes I apprehended an individual, one of three in the act of using whistles; I took that individual to the watch house, and it was during my absence from the house, that the rattle, the piece of timber was thrown.
While you were, at the theatre, did you conceive there, was a plan or a plot for assassination?—No.
You were absent at the time the rattle was
244
thrown?—I conceive so, for when I came back I heard a voice addressing the house from the middle gallery, adverting to that circumstance as having taken place; and it did not take place before I left the house.
By Sir J. Newport.—How long have you been in the magistracy?—Between eight and nine years.
Have you ever known any disturbance occasioned on the ceremonies of dressing the statue, by firing off guns and pistols in the streets, and alarming the inhabitants of College-green and its vicinity?—I have reason to know that the thing took place, that there was noise and letting off of guns; and confusion, and a crowd of people assembled, some of whom felt disapprobation, and come approbation.
Were any of the depositions laid before the grand jury?—I believe not; they are not, according to the existing law, laid before the grand jury unless they are called for, which was not the case here.
Did you see any of the placards that were thrown about the theatre?—I did.
What was printed on those placards?—A magistrate sitting in the box in which I did, alderman Darley, left the box, on an intimation of what appeared on one of those placards, and went up with a view to ascertain who bad distributed them; that he failed in; he came down, and showed me three of them; on one of them there is printed, "No Popery;" on another, "The Protestants want Talbot, as the Papists have got all-but;" and "Fleming though he has got the mace, may find it hard to hold his place;" another was, "Ex-governor of the bantams must change his morning-tone."
By Dr. Lushington.—During the eight or nine years you have been a magistrate, did yon ever receive orders to prevent any riot or disturbance on the day on which the statue has been usually dressed?—I have not received them, but such orders have been given.
Do you know that any riot or disturbance ever took place on the day when the statue was dressed?—Nothing that I know of, of any importance, until the July immediately preceding its being discontinued; I did hear of such a thing occurring on July 1822, that there was something of riot, a good deal of confusion and one or two persons hurt.
Christopher Galloghly called in; and examined
By Colonel Barry.—What is your situation—A peace officer attached to the head police-office in Dublin.
Were you a witness before the grand jury, in January 1823?—I was.
How did the grand jury conduct themselves towards you when under examination?—As I conceive, as a grand jury ought to do.
Was it with civility and patience?—Yes.
They heard your whole story?—Yes.
Did anything whatever offensive happen to

245
you, while you were in the room?—Certainly not.
Did you see much of the riot we have heard so much of?—No, I did not.
You apprehended some of the rioters?—Yes, I was with alderman Darley, when he apprehended Henry Handwich. There was a great deal of noise in the gallery, and some said that Handwich should not go; others said that Handwich must go; Handwich said he would go with alderman Darley.
Had you ever any conversation about the bottle, of which so much has been said?—I had; I was placed outside of the theatre with other peace officers; Crosby, a peace-officer, came and said, there was a bottle thrown; I proceeded with Crosby and Irwine to the gallery, and we mentioned that we heard a bottle was thrown, they all said that no such thing was thrown from that quarter of the house. I mentioned to Handwich, surely no person would be so daring, as to throw about at the representative of majesty; Handwich said, "no person there would throw it;" I replied, "if you had seen any person I conceive it was your duty to take him into custody;" and several said, they would have taken any person into custody, that they had seen throw the bottle.
William Irwine called in; and examined
By Colonel Barry.—Do you belong to the police-office?—Yes.
Were you a witness before the grand jury, in January 1823?—I was.
How were you treated, when you were brought into the grand jury room?—With civility, as gentlemanly conduct as could be.
The House resumed. The chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

STATE OF NEWFOUNDLAND.
Mr. Hume, in pursuance of his notice, rose to call the attention of the House to the State of the Colony of Newfoundland. The subject was one of very considerable importance, and lie hoped to be able to convince the House of the necessity of giving immediate attention to it. His object was to obtain a committee to inquire into the present state of the revenues, fisheries and laws of that island, which had been much neglected of late. A bill had been passed (49 Geo. 3, c. 26) for the establishment of a supreme court of justice, and, as far as the enactments had been carried into effect, had been productive of good; but its jurisdiction and benefits were limited, and the anomalous system of surrogate courts was allowed to continue in the other parts of the colony, although the inhabitants had memorialized the government, and peti-
246
tioned both Houses of Parliament against it. The hon. under-secretary (Mr. Wilmot) had some time ago, obtained leave to bring in a bill to regulate the affairs of the colony. But, when asked upon what information this House could legislate, there being no kind of information respecting the colony before them, except what is contained in petitions presented two years ago, the hon. secretary referred them to Reeves History of Newfoundland, written 20 years ago, for the facts relating to it and he (Mr. Hume) could, after reference to that work, assure the House, that it furnished ample grounds for instituting an inquiry into the situation of that colony.
The House was not, perhaps, aware of the size and importance of the colony. In extent, it was larger than Ireland, and contained a population of from 90 to 100,000 souls. The state of its courts of justice, and the administration of the laws, was by no means suited for so large a population. It was an anomaly which ought not to exist in any British colony. The island had been compared to a ship of war, and not improperly, under the command of an admiral, who was the governor, and the offices under him entrusted to captains, lieutenants, and masters of the navy. The proclamation of the admiral on many occasions became laws, executed at the discretion of his officers. This system had originated when the colony was in a different state from the present one. Whilst the population consisted of individuals who only resorted to it in the summer season for the purposes of fishing, and returned to this country in the winter I it might have been proper, in the absence of civil judges, to give the commanding naval officer, and the officers under him, the power of settling disputes which too frequently arose amongst the fishermen. But the case was now very different. There was now a numerous population who remained on the island all the year, and their number was likely to increase if sufficient protection should be afforded', them. It was indeed matter of surprise, that the British government should so long have allowed the inhabitants of that island to be so circumstanced. He had examined the system—if system it could be called—both as regarded the laws to be administered, and the manner in which they are administered. He found it to be temporising, without any regular plan, and chiefly left to the discretion of the

247
admiral and the officers he appoints. He did not wish to cast: any improper reflection on the officers of the navy; but every person who knew what the general education of naval officers was, must admit, that it did not fit them for the exercise of that discrimination and patience so essential in the administration of justice. Their education was of a different cast, fitting them more for absolute command, and for prompt decision in the enforcing their orders. They were habituated to an arbitrary and summary system, which, however useful in a ship, was neither necessary or agreeable any where else. The evils arising out of this system had been set forth in a memorial from the inhabitants of the colony to his majesty's government, and in petitions to both louses of Parliament. They stated, that in the neighbouring British colonies of America and everywhere else, the judgment-seat is filled by gentlemen of professional education, and previous experience at the bar; but, in Newfoundland, the administration of justice is confided chiefly to the hands of captains, lieutenants, and even masters in the navy. The officers of such ships of war as are on the station are invested with surrogate commissions immediately on their arrival, and sent in the character of judges on maritime circuits to expound the laws of England: that under those circumstances the petitioners had little chance of obtaining justice. When the petition was presented to the House, on May 28th, 1821, an hon. member (sir Isaac Coffin) stated, "that he had himself been a surrogate. The mode of proceeding was, whenever the surrogate or admiral went on shore at any of the settlements, he took a boatswain's mate with him; and when any of the persons engaged in the fishery was brought before him for any offence, he ordered him a dozen lashes, and then sent him back again on board his fishing-boat. That was the law in his time." This he (Mr. Hume) believed to be still the practice in the remote parts of the colony; and was it, he would ask, possible, that any thing like justice could be obtained, or satisfaction exist, under such an arbitrary system of proceedings?
From such proceedings he excepted St. John's, where a regular court had been established under the 49th of the late king, and he believed that much benefit had been; derived by the colony from the valuable services of Mr. Francis Forbes,
248
who had been chief judge in that court. Indeed, the advantages which had been enjoyed by those within the jurisdiction of Mr. Forbes had induced the inhabitants of the other districts of the island to wish for the abolition of the surrogate courts, and the extension of the powers of the supreme court. One of his reasons for proposing the appointment of a committee at the present time was, that it might have the advantage of Mr. Forbes's evidence on the state of the colony, which his residence and observation there had enabled him so well to give. Mr. Forbes was now in England, and preparing to proceed, as judge, to another colony, and it was very important to the efficient administration of justice in Newfoundland, that its present condition should be explained by such men as Mr. Forbes. He should be able to show, by evidence before the committee, that the proceedings of the supreme court under Mr. Forbes had given satisfaction to the colony, whilst the proceedings of the surrogates were the reverse. It was a reflection on his majesty's government, that such a system had been so long permitted there, as the abuses were numerous and most mischievous. In one of these courts, for example, he was informed, that he should be able to prove, that near 30 suits had been carried on by one brother as plaintiff before his brother, a surrogate, and that the verdicts were all in favour of the plaintiff, though, as he was informed, contrary to law and justice. The name of the judge was Carter, and he wished to establish these facts by so respectable a witness as Mr. Forbes. He would also establish, by the evidence of the governor, admiral sir Charles Hamilton, who was now in England, and by Mr. Forbes, many extraordinary proceedings which had officially come to their knowledge; and which were of importance to be known by this House before they could, with propriety, legislate to remedy the existing abuses.
The trials in the supreme court in November 1820, of Philip Butler and James Landergan, versus David Bushan, esq. and rev. John Leigh, surrogates, shewed the severity exercised by them on the inhabitants, by flogging for trifling offences. The verdict of one jury was, "The jury, in finding a verdict for the defendants, cannot allow this opportunity to pass, without expressing their abhorence of such an unmerciful and cruel, pu-

249
nishment, for so trifling an offence, as that which has been inflicted upon the unfortunate plaintiff in this action."
An equal disregard to property and to public opinion, was often shown by the surrogates, and one example would suffice. A planter of the name of John Houlahan, was charged before the surrogate court of Fenyland for debt, and judgment given against him to the full amount of the claim. Mr. Robert Carter, the judge, instead of notifying to him, in the usual way, the order of the court, and that execution against his property would be levied, proceeded himself on the same morning that he gave judgment, to the estate of Mr. Houlahan, a distance of 20 miles from his own court, attended by Mr. Morrison a magistrate. The deputy sheriff attended, and, at 11 o'clock gave notice that the sale of Mr. Houlahan's, estate and cattle would take place at 12 o'clock, to satisfy the award of the Court; and one of the conditions of sale was ready money at 4 o'clock—a most unusual condition of sale, and supposed to have been made with the intention of preventing bidders at the sale. If a committee was appointed, he should be able to prove, from the official statement in his hand, that owing to the want of due notice, and the conditions of sale, the cattle and property sold for one-fourth of their value; and that Mr. Robert Carter the surrogate, who directed these extraordinary proceedings, actually bought 10 of the 16 lots exposed to sale—that Mr. Morrison the magistrate, who accompanied him, purchased the largest lot, the plantation, for 56 l. 10 s. when its estimated value was about 200 l. That in this manner, the property of Mr. Houlahan, which was estimated worth 300 or 400 l. sold for 83 l. nett. This was a specimen of the manner in which justice was administered in the surrogate courts; and constituted as they were, it was in their power to ruin any man, under the forms of laws, and in the name of justice.
A bill was now before parliament, to amend the constitution of these courts, but the House ought not to proceed without entering into a full investigation of the subject before a committee, and thoroughly considering whether the alterations proposed would remedy the grievances which existed. These grounds, however, were not the only grounds on which he wished for inquiry, He was ready to prove, that the government of
250
Newfoundland was carried on at an enormous expense, and that its revenues were not brought to the public credit, and administered in the best and most economical manner. At present, there were five or six vessels of war of different rates stationed at a great expense at Newfoundland, for no other purpose, in time of peace, that he (Mr. H.) could discover, except to give the admiral the allowances of governor, and to allow him to appoint the commanders, officers, and surrogates, with extra allowances. The admiralty thereby had also a plea for extending their patronage by promotion, which would be found to have been considerable on that station. The colonists wished to have instead of these naval judges, a resident civil government in the island; and he was certain that, in the committee, he should be enabled to prove that such a government would not only be less expensive to the country, but also more beneficial to it, and to the colony, than the present system. Indeed an alteration in that system was absolutely necessary by the change that had taken place in the colony. Its population had risen from a few thousands to near 100,000 souls, and its commerce had also increased in proportion. Its exports has exceeded two millions, and its imports half that amount of British manufactures, in one year. Upwards of 460 ships actually entered the port of St. John's in the year 1820. The colony would have been of much greater importance, if the laws and restrictions which have been in force had not interfered with their fishery and trade, and checked their prosperity. The acts of the 10th and 11th of William the 3rd, and the 15th and 26th of George 3rd, professedly to protect, had done much injury to the colony; and such a consideration ought to induce this House, without further delay, to ascertain whether what he had stated was true or not. He was prepared to prove, that the recent treaty with America, aided by the 4th of Geo. 4th, which imposed a duty on flour and bread imported into Newfoundland had nearly ruined the colony. The disadvantages under which the inhabitants of the colony now laboured were such, that the Americans and others would destroy the fishery—they would outfish us on our own shores. No wheat was grown in the island, and as the Americans had their provisions cheap, it was obviously our duty to make provisions as cheap as pos-

251
sible in the colony, to enable the Inhabitants to compete with them. So impolitic, however, were the acts which imposed a duly on all flour and provisions imported; and so vexatious were the regulations, that the price of provisions had been increased as the trade decayed; and the Americans were even allowed to fish in parts where our people were prohibited.
If the arguments which he (Mr. H.) had urged were not sufficient to induce the House to institute the inquiry proposed, he trusted that it would pay attention to the request of the inhabitants, set forth in a petition laid on the table, by his hon. friend (sir J. Mackintosh) the member for Knaresborough. The inhabitants complained in that petition, and in a memorial to the king, of the want of a colonial legislature, to which they had a better title, than Prince Edward's Island, where the population was not half that of Newfoundland. It was well known, that the British merchants who traded with the colony, were averse to their having a legislative assembly, which the inhabitants considered necessary to protect their interests; and he (Mr. H.) was convinced, that these conflicting interests could be best inquired into before a committee. The inhabitants complained of the surrogate courts, whose acts had been already explained—that men were reduced, in one day, from affluence and comfort, to poverty and wretchedness, by the arbitrary laws of 'these courts—that they were taxed without being represented, which was the right of all British subjects. They declared, that they laboured under restrictions most prejudicial to the cultivation of the soil:—that sir Charles Hamilton had compelled many of the inhabitants to pay fines for the renewal of their leases, long before the leases expired:—that the revenues of the island amounted to 16 or 18,000 l., and, if properly applied, would defray all the expenses of a civil government, and render it unnecessary to call on England annually, to pay the expenses of the government, as it now did. He did not believe that the accounts of the revenue were transmitted to the Audit Office from Newfoundland, as from other colonies, which required the immediate attention of this House.
Under all these circumstances, and at the present time when it was so desirable to lessen the public expenditure, he (Mr. H.) trusted, that no opposition would be
252
made to the motion with which Ike intended to conclude, and in which he was willing to make any modification, if objections were only made to the form.—The hon. member then moved, "That a select committee be appointed to take into consideration the state of the fisheries, the revenue, the laws, and the administration of justice in the island of Newfoundland, and to report the evidence taken, and their opinion, to the House."
Mr. Wilmotdeclared his intention of opposing the motion for a committee, because the reasons on which the hon. I member for Aberdeen had proposed it were incorrect in point of fact. With regard to the surrogate courts, he had himself brought in a bill to amend their constitution, and had stated in bringing it in, that it was his intention at a future stage of it, to propose a clause to extend the jurisdiction of the supreme court, and only to use the surrogate courts at those places which were at a distance from the town in which it held its sittings. The hon. member for Aberdeen had said, that Newfoundland had as good a claim to a separate civil government as Prince Edward's Island. In that argument he did not think the hon. member had been very fortunate; for he believed that at present the inhabitants of Prince Edward's Island, were desirous of being released from the shackles of a local legislature. Besides, there were circumstances in Newfoundland to prevent such a legislature from being established. There were no roads in the island; and, in winter, there was no communication with the capital except by sea, which was not at all times free from danger. In summer, all persons of property on the island—and those were the individuals out of which the local legislature, if it ever existed, must be selected—were busily engaged in carrying on the fishery.—The hon. gentleman proceeded generally to contend, that in no view had a case been made out for a committee. With respect to the hon. member's specific charges of abuse, if they had been put into a tangible shape, he (Mr. W.) might have been prepared to answer them. As for the fees complained of in the sheriff's court, there was a regular table of them. Why had not the hon. member made a motion for papers? The fishery treaties might, or might not, be objectionable; but if they were faulty, a committee was not the course to set them right. The hon. member complained, and

253
with some show of justice, that the proclamation of the governor should be the law of the country; but this, if it had been the case, was the case no longer. Another ground of complaint was the restrictions upon cultivating the soil. These restrictions existed in a very slight, if in any, degree. The hon. gentleman, after protesting against the throwing out of charges loosely, and upon light evidence, against a man of sir Charles Hamilton's character, declare, that for all the evils which were capable of being removed, the bill which he was about to introduce would prove a remedy. That bill had been got up under the advice of the late chief justice of Newfoundland, and upon suggestions made by a committee of the inhabitants of that colony. Better authority, he thought, the hon. member for Aberdeen could not himself desire.
Mr. M. A. Taylorsaid, that although he entertained the highest respect for the character of sir Charles Hamilton, he would nevertheless give his vote in favour of the present motion. He must confess, that, in the whole course of his parliamentary experience, he had never known a case that called more strongly for a committee. Every fact stated by the hon. member for Aberdeen had been admitted. And how had he been answered? Why, the hon. secretary, in substance, had said, "Oh, I know that the grievances you mention exist, but trust to me for the remedy." Trust to the hon. secretary, who had not long filled his present office, and who, in the course of the next session intended to produce a bill for removing the evils that now oppressed the island He was not totally ignorant of the state of Newfoundland. He had been the representative for Poole in three parliaments, and in that character had become acquainted with many circumstances illustrative of the state of the island, its government, and resources. Its inhabitants had once been nearly reduced to starvation; and the present lord Bexley, then chancellor of the exchequer, had been obliged to send them food for their support. As to the "administration of justice, be knew that, in many instances, midshipmen of seventeen years of age had been appointed surrogates. The hon. secretary had asked, why the hon. member for Aberdeen did not make a motion for papers on every one of the grounds of complaint? Now, really, the hon. member had made a sufficient number of motions;
254
but if he were to follow the advice of the I hon. secretary, he would leave all his former exertions at an infinite distance. The hon. secretary had insinuated, that the House should examine the proposed bill first, and if they disliked it, go into a committee of inquiry afterwards. Now, common sense pointed out inquiry, before the House went into the consideration of the bill. Mr. Forbes, the late chief justice, had been alluded to, and as that gentleman was now in this country, his opinion might be obtained by means of a committee. The island had been notoriously ill-managed. Latterly, perhaps, it might have improved; but the House should know why its trade had been trifled with. The Americans were stated to I possess advantages by treaty. Now, a I committee would enable the House to know whence those advantages arose, and how they might be prevented from affecting the inhabitants of the island. The hon. secretary had made out, if possible, a stronger case for inquiry than the hon. member for Aberdeen; and therefore, on every principle of justice and policy, the motion should be acceded to.
Captain Gordonreprobated the bringing of charges forward against officers, who were not present to defend themselves.
Mr. Brightthought it possible that all the charges might not be proved; but he knew enough of the colony to induce him to support inquiry. He would not ask, whether this or that officer had acted improperly, but whether the system: wag liable to abuse? Of the state of the colony very little was known in this country. I Further information ought, therefore, to be afforded. He would banish, the names of all the parties from this motion, and would ask, not who had committed wrong, but what wrong had been committed? He hoped the hon. member for Aberdeen I would not allow the bill to pass, without I again bringing forward the question of inquiry.
Mr. Butterworthsupported the motion.
Sir J. Newportsaid, that the House would have to decide whether the intended bill was likely to be beneficial or otherwise to the island. To enable them to do this, every possible information ought to be laid before them.
Mr. Hume, in reply, maintained that nothing be had advanced had been answered: and asked, whether an, inquiry was to be refused where the interests of, more than 800,000 subjects were concerned?

255
He had not made one charge until he had examined broth mea and documents as to its truth. He did mot pledge himself to support local legislation; but he wished for a committee of inquiry, in order to do ample justice to the claims of a very large body of individuals, and to benefit this country by assisting the commerce and supporting the interests of her colonies.
The Mouse divided: Ayes27, Noes 42.

List of the Minority.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Rice, T. S.

Blake, sir F.

Ricardo, D.

Bullerworth, J.

Robarts, col.

Creevey, T.

Rickford, W.

Denman, T.

Russell, lord J.

Ebrington, visc.

Scarlett, J.

Folkestone, lord

Stanley, lord

Gurney, H.

Taylor, M. A.

Glenorchy, lord

Whitbread, S. C.

Leader, W.

Whitmore, W. W.

Marjoribanks, S.

Wood, M.

Monck, J. B.

Wilson, W. W. C.

Maberly, W. L.

TELLERS.

Newport, sir J.

Hume, J.

Palmer, C. F.

Bright, H.