Sitting of 19 February 1828

CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.
Mr. Hume, in presenting three petitions from the county of Cavan, praying for Catholic Emancipation, took occasion to enlarge upon the folly of continuing the distinctions which arise from religious opinions.
Sir John Brydgescondemned the practice indulged in by hon. gentlemen, of haranguing upon the subject of every petition they presented to the House.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, he had seen many useful measures carried, and many injurious acts got rid of, by means of the harangues of which the hon. member complained.
Mr. Wallaceaddressed the House for the first time. He said it was desirable that the fullest information should be given on every subject connected with the distresses of Ireland, and the manifold evils which grew out of those distresses. Things could not go on in the way in which they now were in Ireland; and every occasion should be taken both "in season and out of season," of expatiating on the wrongs of that country, and the urgent necessity of redressing them. He could not, therefore, concur in the observation of the hon. baronet, that these petitions should be presented in silence.
572
The presentation of petitions was a proper and constitutional one for expressing the opinions of members on the subjects to which they referred. If the House was not reminded of the evils complained of, they might forget them. The mere laying of petitions on the table could answer no beneficial purpose.

STAMP DUTY ON RECEIPTS.
Mr. Humepresented a petition from Brechin, complaining of the Two-penny Stamp Duty, which brought an inconsiderable revenue, was unequal in its operation, and attended with vexatious litigation. The petitioners also complained of the legacy duty, which was attended in its operation with great inequality and hardship. When a poor person died—a person, for instance, who might not have more than 20 l.—it was necessary that all the articles about him, even to the night-cap and old shoes of the deceased, should be taxed by this act, for the repeal of which, the petitioners now prayed. Again; a man who might have assets to the amount of 1,500 l., though he owed that sum, and even more, yet, before those assets could be touched, they were subjected to the duty of 60 l. The petitioners also complained of a practice that prevailed in Scotland, that no person could institute a suit for the recovery of any sum above two guineas, without being subjected to a duty of 4s. 6d. All these duties were levied with great hardship, and the amount which they brought in to the revenue, would be more than compensated by the reduction of one useless regiment of cavalry, or of infantry.
Mr. Brightconcurred in opinion, that these small duties on stamps were unproductive to the revenue, and extremely vexatious on the poorer classes. He considered them more vexatious in their operation than the Salt-tax. One of the hardships was, that the Stamp-office hired informers, to discover those who infringed the Statute.
Mr. Sykessaid, that the law upon this subject was extremely oppressive to the population of the town which he represented. He thought it a severe hardship that the Stamp-office should advertize for informers in the manner which they notoriously did. He hoped the legislature would direct its attention to the subject, in reference to which he had some petitions to present.
Mr. Baringsaid, that informers were

573
the only means which the legislature had of enforcing the observance of the laws which it enacted. But for these informers the law would be evaded, and their services were required in order to prevent the more harsh and oppressive course of intruding on private families. However severely the penalties might sometimes be felt, those penalties protected the honest trader from the one who violated the law.
Ordered to lie on the table.

IRISH SUB-LETTING ACT.
Mr. Villiers Stuartpresented a petition from Waterford against the Sub-letting Act. He thought it might be amended although it was grounded on a right principle.
Mr. Brownlowpanegyrized the Landlord and Tenant bill, which, he contended, was calculated to produce great benefit to Ireland. One great benefit which would arise from it was, that it would prevent that under-letting of small portions of land, which had been found so injurious.
Sir H. Parnellalso defended the Landlord and Tenant bill, and was ready to avow the share he had taken in its formation. He hoped the House would at length take the real state of Ireland into its consideration, and by getting rid of nostrums, adopt some sound principle of internal management, by which the industry of the country would be fairly stimulated.
Mr. J. Grattanwas not opposed to the principle of the Landlord and Tenant bill, but he thought time ought to be given to the people of Ireland to become acquainted with the nature of its operation. With respect to emigration, he for one should oppose himself to the raising of a loan of a million, as had been recommended, for the purpose of sending eighty thousand of the Irish people to Canada. Remedies of a different nature ought to be provided for the evils existing in that unhappy country.
Mr. G. Moorethought it would be too much to say that the misery to which Ireland was reduced by the existence of her large unemployed population, was to be traced to this act. The House ought to take into their consideration the best means of redressing the evils under which that population suffered for want of employment: and they would then be conferring a real benefit on Ireland.
General Hartthought that the super-
574
abundant population of Ireland without employment was the great evil of Ireland.
Mr. Wallacewas of opinion, that several provisions of the act were very objectionable. It seemed to him that it must have been passed without the legislature having given due consideration to the state of that country. He would not set up the opinion of any man, however well informed, against a proof of practical inconvenience; and it seemed to him that the practical inconveniences resulting from this act were numerous.
Mr. L. Fostersaid, he differed from the learned gentleman respecting the inconveniences to be suffered from this act, and must put a different construction upon its clauses.
Mr. W. Lambsaid, there never was an act for which there had been so unanimous and long-continued a call as for some measure of this nature. Let hon. gentlemen read all the volumes written on the condition of Ireland, statistical and political; let them read all the various, able, and elaborate, speeches delivered on the condition of that country; let them read all the ample minutes of inquiry made before committees of both Houses, and they would find that the attention of parliament had been most peculiarly directed to the consideration of this practice of sub-letting, and of minutely sub-dividing, land. There could be no doubt it had originated chiefly in the circumstances of the country; and its abuses had been greatly aggravated, by the causes which had been adverted to. Nor could it be doubted that it was one of the great sources of the miseries of the unemployed population of that country. Still, it must be admitted, that great and sudden changes could not be safely made in matters deeply affecting the mass of the people. It was impossible to bring them over suddenly to changes in their laws, however pernicious in their principle or results. Any attempt to interfere with those feelings and habits, would necessarily be attended with considerable murmuring and discontent. He should be most happy in taking an opportunity of fully considering the subject. If it was possible to make any modification of the provisions of this act perfectly consistent with its main principle and object, it would be the duty of parliament to do so.
Ordered to lie on the table.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS.
Mr. Robert Gordonrose, in pursuance of the instructions of the Committee, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to Amend the Law for the Regulation of Lunatic Asylums. At the latter end of the last session, he had obtained a committee to inquire into the state of the Lunatic Asylums in the neighbourhood of the metropolis. That committee had been attended very diligently by the members, and the result of the evidence was such as fully justified him in every assertion he had made in moving for it. He would venture to repeat what he had before said on this subject; namely, that in the present state of the law, an individual possessing a great income might, with much more ease than the House could suppose, be imprisoned on the false pretence of insanity, at the instance of some person acting from malicious or interested motives. Whoever had read the report of the committee would see it perfectly established in evidence, that there was a great deal too much facility in granting certificates to the keepers of Lunatic Asylums. The only provision of the law against the false imprisonment of any individual, under the plea of insanity, was, that the keeper of a lunatic hospital could not receive any person as a lunatic into his establishment, without an accompanying certificate, signed by a physician, surgeon, or apothecary; and he begged the House to observe, that the term apothecary was, in this act, interpreted to mean merely a seller of drugs; so that any dealer in drugs had the right of signing a certificate, consigning any person to imprisonment whom he deemed to be insane. Nay, the very apprentice of this man, as soon as his indentures had expired, might, by his signature to a certificate, consign any person, under the pretence of insanity, to all the miseries of the mad-house. This certificate was granted previously to the person being received into this shocking receptacle of deranged humanity; so that it might sometimes happen, that this ignorant practitioner would see a person labouring under the delirium of a fever, or the hallucination occasioned by opium, and grant a certificate under which the unfortunate sufferer might, for months afterwards, remain immured amidst the horrors of a mad-house. There could be no doubt that it was the business of the legislature to prevent, as far as possible,
576
any risk of persons being improperly confined, and all the witnesses had agreed, that some new enactment was necessary to regulate the mode of granting certificates.
He next begged to call the attention of the House to the manner in which those who were the proper objects of this system of coercion were treated in Lunatic Asylums, with the view to their recovery. He would state a case. He would suppose that of any individual belonging to some parish about twenty miles from the metropolis; so that the distance would necessarily render very rare the visits of the clergyman and of his own friends or relatives. He would place him at the White House in Bethnal-Green. He took that house, because it was kept by Mr. Warburton, who had under his care half the lunatic paupers within the bills of mortality, including those of the parishes of St. Mary-la-bonne and St. George, Hanover-square, of which latter he (Mr. Gordon) was a vestryman. He would place this supposed lunatic, then, in Mr. Warburton's establishment at Bethnal-Green. What probability, he would ask, was there that his malady would be removed by the curative process followed in that place? He would appeal to the returns to the inquiries made by lord Robert Seymour, from the clergymen of the different parishes in the county of Middlesex. He would appeal to the evidence of the committee, to prove that no attempt was made of any curative process for the mental malady. He would then ask, what chance there was of improving the bodily health of the patient? From the defective skill of the medical attendants, it was evident that no care was taken, of his bodily health. The House would be surprised to learn, that in a hospital comprising four hundred patients, they only received the attendance of one medical person. This was a Mr. Dunstan, who, however, attended but every other day, for an hour or two at a time. He was also the surgeon of St. Luke's hospital, and he attended all Mr. Warburton's other establishments, besides having a fair share of private practice. This was the scale of medical attendance on the wretched sufferers; one surgeon for an hour or two every other day, to take charge of the health of four hundred patients. As a proof how little attention was paid to their medical treatment, he held in his hand one of those slips of

577
paper which every member of the committee would so readily recollect. It appeared; from this paper, that out of these four; hundred persons, in May last, eight only were under the treatment of medicine. It was clearly established by the evidence of those who were most acquainted with the subject, that they considered insanity as a disorder which might be removed by medical treatment, or moral care.
But, if this was the case of the unfortunate patient as to his mind and body, what was his condition as to general accommodation? In this house of Mr. Warburton, there was no attempt at classification. Suppose the patient whose case he had imagined was one of that class who were passed into the crib-room, what was his situation? He was placed in a box six feet long, covered with straw, and Chained down both by the arms and the legs. In this state he was left the whole night through, without attendance or assistance, or the possibility of either. One of the witnesses had been very indignant, because it had been stated, in one of the reports, that sixteen of these unfortunate persons had been confined all night in one of these wretched rooms. What really was the fact? It turned out that the number was not sixteen, but fifteen; and these fifteen were confined in a room twenty-six feet long. In these cribs they lay insensible to the calls of nature, and were left to wallow all night in their own filth !—In Bethlem and St. Luke's Hospitals the lunatics in good health were kept in separate cells. But if these unhappy patients of Mr. Warburton suffered thus during the week, what was their condition on Sunday? "E'en Sunday shone no Sabbath day to them !" They were confined in this horrible place from Saturday night until Monday morning: fifteen human beings lay wallowing in their filth ! throughout the whole of Sunday ! It was attempted by Mr. Warburton and his witnesses to contradict this statement, which was originally made by a patient who had recovered, and gave evidence before the committee. Mr. Warburton complained of the introduction of evidence of this kind, and begged that he might himself be examined, and his assistants also. They were all examined as he desired; but what was the result? Every word of the charge was fully confirmed from the mouths of his own witnesses. At the end of the inquiry into this part of the subject,
578
no doubt existed on the mind of the committee, that it had been the custom of Mr. Warburton's house to confine these lunatics throughout every Sunday. There was evidence also given, descriptive of the mode in which they were treated on the Monday morning. In a state of nudity, covered with sores and ordure, they were carried into the yard, and plunged suddenly into cold water, even when ice was swimming on the pails. In this situation, with little attention bestowed on him, and no benefit from medicine, the individual, whose case he had supposed, was on the point of falling under the evils-that pressed upon him. At last his health failed. He was then removed to the infirmary.—It was impossible with the strongest language to describe the horrors of this place. Could the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department believe, that this infirmary in Mr. Warburton's house was a room not known to exist by the medical attendants sent into it by several families who had patients there? When it was found out—what was the condition in which it was discovered to be? He would read the description in the language of the witnesses. The hon. gentleman then read a passage stating, "that the air of the infirmary was so highly oppressive that the witnesses could not breathe." It also represented as disgusting in the highest degree, the horrible exhalations of excrementitious matter arising from the patients. Mr. Warburton had attempted to deny these facts also; but they were incontestably established. He felt it his duty to state, that it appeared by the minutes of the evidence of the physicians and others before the committee, that however bad Warburton's house might be, it was good, as compared with others of the same kind, if not much better than many of them. It might at least be taken as a fair sample of what these houses were. Mr. Warburton had been permitted to read all the evidence against him, and to bring forward his own witnesses to rebut it. The report had made no statement respecting him which was not confirmed by his own witnesses. Mr. Dunstan, his medical attendant, visited the patients every other day. Mr. Warburton himself came only twice a week, for about an hour, or an hour and a half each time. He had so many establishments, that though he stated in his evidence, that he thought he knew the mode of curing madness better.

579
than any other individual, he acknowledged that his time was so occupied, that it would not permit him to investigate the cases of the persons placed under his care. As a sample of Mr. Warburton's witnesses, he would take Mr. Cordell, who used to act as the occasional assistant of Mr. Dunstan. This person was asked by a member of the committee, whether he only went occasionally? He stated, that he did not attend regularly. He was next asked, whether any register was kept of the state of the patients? He replied, "Yes, we have the most perfect register you can conceive; it is an account of the treatment and condition of every patient, moral and medical; it is for accuracy and neatness, a perfect pattern. We can trace the illness of every patient for six or seven years, and we can find a statement of every prescription written for him, and every circumstance attending the progress of his malady." Would the House believe, that there was not a word of truth in this statement? Could they believe that it was wholly false? Yet so it was. The next day the committee sent for Mr. Dunstan, and requested him to bring this book. He replied, there was no such thing in existence. Mr. Dunstan was required to attend in person. Cordell's evidence was read over to him. He said there was no such register as Cordell had described; that the whole statement was perfectly inaccurate. The committee then sent for Cordell, and read over to him what had taken place. He was afterwards asked, whether the committee were to understand that his statement was altogether incorrect? His reply was, "It is very probable." He was then pressed to say, whether the committee should believe the evidence he had given that day, or on the Saturday before? Cordell coolly replied, "All I told you the other day was inaccurate: it was false from beginning to end." He added, that the story of the great book was all his own invention. The committee, finding themselves placed in rather an awkward situation by this conduct, intended at first to have submitted the case to the House, and called upon it to interfere and visit its wrath on the offending party. But as there remained only a few days of the session, they borrowed a little of the Speaker's authority, and, after keeping Cordell in duress for two or three days, they severely reprimanded and discharged him. The
580
circumstances did not appear on the minutes of the committee; and he had mentioned it, as he was otherwise afraid that Cordell's character would not be known as it deserved to be. They had not harassed Mr. Dunstan or his assistant, Cordell, much with questions, as it was evidently useless.—He could not refrain from quoting one other sample of the conduct of Mr. Warburton's establishment. In September last, an inquest was held on the body of a patient who had died there. Through my hon. friend, Mr. Spring Rice, then Under Secretary of State, he obtained a copy of the coroner's report. In the inquiry before the committee, it appeared beyond all doubt, there were no sick stores in the infirmary, and no medical attendance except that of Dunstan every other day; and when he could not attend, that of a young man, about twenty years of age, the celebrated Mr. Cordell. In his evidence, Mr. Warburton asserted roundly, that every possible attention was shown to the patients, to whom he said sago, arrow-root, wine, and light puddings, were administered as they needed them. The committee asked the superintendant of this establishment, if he had any bills for the sago and other articles provided for the sick? He stated in reply, that he had no bill, as he had always paid ready money for every thing he bought, and that the course was to enter all he laid out in one sum as sundries. His (Mr. Gordon's) impression of this evidence was, that it was false, the whole of it. At least it could not be true to the extent stated by the witness. It was impossible to believe that Mr. Warburton would allow any manager, in so large an establishment, to lay out what he pleased, and keep no books.
The hon. gentleman then adverted to some considerations with which he had opened his speech. He had pointed out the great difficulty and danger of the existing law; first, as to the certificate of insanity; secondly, as to the treatment of the lunatic in confinement, supposing him to be properly confined; and thirdly, if, through the interposition of Divine Providence, he should regain his senses, the much greater difficulty he would experience in regaining his freedom, and returning again into society. He knew of no process that could be effectual for this purpose, if it was the interest of the keeper, or any body else acting with him, to continue the im-

581
prisonment. He, perhaps, should be told, that the party aggrieved might apply for a writ of habeas corpus. Laying aside the cost of this proceeding, how could the individual in confinement make his complaint in the first instance, if he was treated as a lunatic? The law at present directed, that five physicians should visit these houses and keep a register of their proceedings. He would narrate one instance, to show how this duty of supervision was performed, which had reached him through his hon. friend, the member for Portsmouth (Mr. F. Baring). A married lady, named Pettingall was, in May, 1825, confined as a lunatic, but she did not appear to the Committee of Magistrates to be then labouring under insanity; and it also appeared, that she had not exhibited any marks of insanity for twelve months. Under these circumstances, they directed a communication to be made to her husband. About the same time in 1827, she was still reported to be conducting herself with propriety, but the husband had taken no notice of the application for her release. When the committee met, they learned, on inquiry, from the medical attendant, Dr. Bright, that the husband had refused to liberate her, because he said she was a troublesome woman, and not fit to be at large—" There," he added, "she shall remain." When he (Mr. Gordon) came to town at the end of November, he sent for Dr. Bright, to ascertain whether Mrs. Pettingall was still in confinement. He found that the doctor had remonstrated in vain with her husband. As he considered the lady perfectly sane, he gave notice, that if she was not immediately liberated, he would move for a writ of Habeas Corpus at his own expense; and it was not till five days before the meeting of parliament, that she was finally released.
He then reverted to the state of the existing law. By the 14th of George 3rd, c. 49, a license to keep a house for the reception of lunatics could only be granted by five commissioners, to be appointed for that purpose by the College of Physicians. These commissioners were bound to visit each of these houses once a year, and if they found any thing improper, they were directed to place a card in the censors' room, stating what they had discovered to be incorrect. Unfortunately, this provision had never been attended to in practice; at least since 1800. The excuse for this negligence was, that the complaint
582
to the censors did no good, and was therefore as well abandoned. The only regulation of the law, for the protection of these unfortunate beings, was thus violated. When he first entered on this subject, he had naturally asked, as the commissioners had omitted the duty prescribed by law, what else they had substituted? If they had not acted according to the letter of the law, he hoped they had done nothing against its spirit. But he found, on further inquiry, that they had done nothing—literally and strictly nothing. Sure he was that, if any thing was communicated to the right hon. gentleman opposite, representing that great abuses existed in some department of the state, and that the law was not sufficient to suppress them— if any such communication was made to him or to any other member of parliament, they would feel it their duty to take some steps to amend this defect in the law, and especially if they had found abuses of the gross and disgusting nature he had laid open that evening.
The hon. gentleman then referred to the minutes of the physicians, as to some of these houses. Holt's house was represented as very disorderly and dirty. In another, twenty patients were together in one small room, the air of which was close and offensive. In another, two patients were found lying in an outhouse, and three others chained down by the arms, wrists, and legs. Their wrists were blistered, and their persons covered only by rags. One female was the only servant they had to attend to them. Was this a system to be tolerated? He was not speaking of the practice in a distant part of the country, but actually within five miles of London. Had he not, then, made out a sufficient case to justify him in asking for an alteration of the law? He begged the House to consent to it for the sake of the wretched beings, whose serious afflictions had fallen on them by the visitation of Providence, and who were suffering daily and hourly torments which no tongue could describe. If there were any who considered this a pseudo-philanthropy, he would reply, that it was a pursuit as worthy and as much called-for as the exertions that had been made for many-years to improve the state of the gaols. No class of sufferers could have stronger claims on our sympathy and kindness than, that which he had brought under the attention, of the House. He would not feel

583
desirous that the bill should be brought in, if it had not been carefully and duly considered. It had been shewn, within the last six months, to two Secretaries of State, and four Under Secretaries, previous to the return of the right hon. gentleman to office; and they had all viewed it with approbation. Within the last two days, he had placed it in the hands of the highest law authority in the kingdom, who had promised to give his assistance in removing all obstacles to its success. He earnestly trusted that parliament would not relax its efforts on a subject, so interesting to humanity. He knew, that to endeavour to correct abuses or redress grievances, was no very agreeable or easy task; as those who undertook it found so many private interests and personal feelings arranged against them. Many of the abuses which he had described as belonging to Mr. Warburton's house, were three months before the committee had been appointed; and he believed that many of them had since been remedied. The public attention had been excited, and the public asylums for the reception of pauper lunatics had been much ameliorated. He could not sit down without alluding to the splendid liberality of a gentleman, Mr. F. J. Browne, who for a quarter of a century had represented the county of Dorset in that House; that gentleman had given a manor-house to the county for the reception of lunatics, and had sunk a sum of money in the funds for the purpose of providing it an annual income for its support. He thanked the House, in behalf of himself and of those whose cause he was advocating, for the attention it had paid to him; and he trusted that the time was fast approaching, when England would emulate the example of the continent on this subject. In Holland, in France, in Italy, and even in Spain (meanly as we thought of that country), there were establishments existing for the reception of lunatics, which, to those of this country who had visited them, had been the subject of their envy and admiration. The hon. member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill "to consolidate and amend the several acts, respecting County Lunatic Asylums, to facilitate the erection of County Lunatic Asylums, and to improve the treatment of Pauper and Criminal Lunatics."
Lord Ashleyseconded the motion; but his lordship spoke in so low a tone, that he was nearly inaudible in the gallery.
584
He alluded to the evidence given before the committee, to prove that it was highly necessary that something should be done relative to the treatment of Pauper Lunatics; and he cited several cases that had come within his own knowledge, which clearly proved that the present system was greatly defective.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that he did not think that the hon. gentleman had done justice to the feelings of the House, when he had supposed that his motion would be treated with the slightest inattention; for he was sure that it must not only be impressed with the importance of the question, but also feel grateful to the hon. gentleman for having taken it up; especially as he must have devoted his time to it from a feeling of pure philanthropy; and he thought that a more important subject could not have been chosen, though it was not one calculated for display. During the summer, he had paid some attention to the report that had been made by the committee; and though he had not himself taken any part in the present bill, he trusted that the hon. gentleman would introduce it on such a principle that it would execute itself; for, unless that should be the case, there would be danger that, in the course of fifteen or twenty years, when the public attention was no longer excited, the same abuses as those now complained of would creep in. There could not be a question, that unless the asylums for pauper lunatics were well conducted, they would be a curse rather than a blessing; and that it would be infinitely better to have none at all, than such as would only offer temptations to send unfortunate creatures to them. There were cases in which the patient was merely somewhat troublesome, and it was much better that such as these should be abroad; it being preferable to leave them in the custody of their relations, than to lock them up in mad-houses. That mildness of treatment might produce the best effects was to be seen from the manner in which the house in St. George's fields was conducted. Patients had been removed thither, after being chained to the wall for nine years at the other place, and brought to quiet and tranquillity by the pursuing of a milder course. Unless, therefore, these asylums were well regulated, they were the greatest curses that could exist. But he wished to suggest to the hon. gentleman, that there might be danger in the

585
establishment of a permanent Board of Commissioners. It was human nature, that daily and weekly visits to such scenes should harden men's hearts; and he thefore thought that it would be infinitely better, instead of a permanent board being established, that every six months new physicians and new visitors should be appointed.
Mr. R. Gordonsaid, he proposed that they should be appointed annually.
Mr. Peelwas afraid that the old members would be sure to be re-appointed, unless it was positively enacted that new physicians and visitors should be appointed twice a year.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that when he was younger he had paid much attention to this subject, and had visited all the madhouses round London, by which he had been eye-witness of the great abuses practised. He was therefore rejoiced at the prospect of alteration. He trusted that no house, however respectable, would be exempted from the operation of the bill; and that those which stood highest in reputation, would forego any privilege, in order that the act might be completely carried into effect.
Mr. R. Gordonsaid, it was the object of his bill to place the matter entirely under the direction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATION—MINISTERIAL EXPLANATIONS.
The Marquis of Londonderry, on presenting a Petition from the Roman Catholics of Londonderry, praying for the repeal of the Laws against them, said, he had heard,

563
with extreme surprise, a question put a few nights ago, to the noble duke at the head of the government, as to whether or not he intended to bring forward any measure for the relief of the Catholics. This surprised him very much, when he recollected that the noble lords opposite had been nine months at the head of the government, and had never ventured to propose any measure of this nature to parliament. They had then found out, that it was not the season for promoting the cause of the Catholics; and though they had been so long clothed with the outward and visible signs of authority, they had not taken one step, in favour of the Catholics. But, hardly ten days after his noble friend had taken office, he was asked, whether he had any measure to bring forward? In his opinion this was only done to excite the intemperance of the Catholics. He lamented the conduct of the Catholics, and he hoped some legislative measures would be adopted to prevent the continuance of the acts of the Catholic Association. They collected the Catholic rent, which amounted to five or six hundred pounds a week. Such sums were not collected for any good purpose, and could not serve the cause of the Catholics. They could only hope for success by the progress of opinion in this country: and to promote that, they must act with patience, resignation, and obedience, to the laws. By this alone could their object be ultimately obtained, and not by violence and disorder.
On the motion of adjournment,
Lord Goderichrose, and said:—It is with great pain, I can assure your lordships, I feel myself under the necessity of again calling your lordships' attention to a personal subject, with reference to the topic on which I addressed your lordships in the course of last week. In what I then threw out, I was anxious not to say any thing that might offend the feelings, or affect the character, of any individual. My object was to justify my own conduct and not to complain of, or to make out a case against, others. I had no wish to reflect on any individuals, or say any thing but to state the whole truth, the plain truth, and nothing but the truth. How, my lords, could I state, for I had no motives to state, what was not absolutely necessary to make your lordships acquainted with the truth? If the observations to which I allude had only re-
564
flected on my fitness to fill the office which I lately held, I should have passed them by in silence; but I cannot forbear to say something, because, if the imputations cast upon me be true, they would make me ashamed to show my face before your lordships. It is now imputed to me, that what I stated to his majesty was a false pretence; that I had a covert design to dissolve the government, and that I acted from some profound calculation. I should have thought, my lords, that what the world knew of me would have been sufficient to save me from any imputation of this kind; and I can hardly believe that such imputation has been made; but if it has, there can be no justification for such conduct. My lords, it is imputed to me, that I went down to his majesty with a statement that was not correct; and that the immediate cause which led to the precarious situation of the government was not that which I stated it to be. If the immediate cause was not the resignation of the chancellor of the Exchequer as I stated it to be, then am I the basest of mankind. But it is impossible I could be guilty of such baseness. When I wrote to the chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the committee, I told him in the plainest terms what was the opinion of my right hon. friend. I stated that he considered it impossible for him not to acquiesce in the nomination of the chairman of the Finance Committee, which had been the subject of discussion. My right hon. friend stated, that if the decision should be against that nomination, he would resign; and I stated also that the resignation of the Secretary of State would dissolve the government. I added to this, that his own resignation would, in all probability, be attended with the same consequences. How, then, could the right hon. gentleman state—how could any man state—that I went down to his majesty with a false pretence, to procure the dissolution of the government? Whether my proceeding was right or wrong is, perhaps, of little consequence, but the statement which I made was the sole ground of my actions; and I defy any man to say that I acted from any other. I went on the following day; I have letters here, my lords, which will prove this to your lordships, and they are at your service. On the next day I stated my opinion to the right hon. gentleman. I recommended him to reconsider his decision

565
I told him I could not accede to his opinion. I urged him not to take the step he contemplated. He said he would take it; and I foresaw the consequences. I added, that we owed it to ourselves, to our king, and the country, not to break up the government, unless it was absolutely necessary. It was our duty, I said, to meet parliament and wait its decision. All this proved ineffectual. The right hon. gentleman referred to his original letter, in which he said he would resign, unless the nomination was changed. What ground, then, was there for the declaration, that I went to his majesty with a false pretence? I say that the conduct of the right hon. gentleman was the immediate cause of the dissolution of the government. These were the motives for my conduct; and it is not possible for any person justly to impute to me any other. It was with me a conclusive reason that there was a tender of a resignation, and it is an imputation made against me that this did not take place. Your lordships will also have seen it represented—though I cannot say whether correctly or not—but that there existed a design, a plot, to break up the government. My lords, who entertained it? When was it concocted? I positively deny that I knew any thing of it; and I deny that any person, as far as I know, had any such design. I will not say that circumstances had not occurred which might make the government not receive the countenance and support of parliament; but that there was a design to alter or change the government, or to break it up, is a most gratuitous assumption. It is not necessary for me, however, to trouble your lordships with a repetition of all the topics I before adverted to; in doing which, I might, with a view only to defend myself, introduce new matter for discussion, and new matter for controversy in both Houses of parliament. If what has been imputed to me had only affected my character as a minister, I should not have said one word; but I felt that I should not have done justice to my character as a gentleman, if 1 had not stated to your lordships, that I am incapable of going with a false pretence to impose upon the king—that I am incapable of betraying my sovereign; as, at least in appearance, is imputed to me.
The Earl of Carlislesaid, he thought it his duty, having been connected with the
566
late government, to say one word in corroboration of what had just fallen from his noble friend. It was with the greatest surprise that he had heard that it had been stated, in another place, that the difference of opinion between two right hon. gentlemen had not been the cause of the dissolution of the late government; no other cause was assigned at the time in his hearing, and he confessed himself entirely ignorant of any mysterious knowledge of secret machinery and secret intrigue, employed in the dissolution of that government. The cause which had been stated by his noble friend was, as far as his information extended, the real and immediate cause of that event. He felt that his noble friend needed not the vindication of his testimony and assurance; he considered him utterly incapable of palming a spurious, and if spurious, a dishonest and dishonourable, cause of action upon his colleagues and his sovereign.—Under these circumstances, it was scarcely necessary to corroborate the statement of his noble friend.
Being upon his legs, and as explanations were the order of the day, he begged the House to allow him to offer a few words in explanation of his own conduct. He assured noble lords, that it was with great reluctance that he obtruded upon them any observations that applied almost exclusively to himself; but he was, in some measure, relieved from the difficulty, by referring to a document, not indeed regularly before their lordships, but which had been frequently quoted, in the course of the late discussions. He meant a speech purporting to have been lately made at Liverpool; no part of that speech was more correct than that which represented him to have been an old and personal friend of a right hon. gentleman now unfortunately no more. It was a friendship that existed from a very early date of their respective lives; it continued amidst the fluctuations and differences, the jars and contentions, of political life, steady and uninterrupted: it was a friendship, the remembrance of which he should cherish to the latest period of his existence. He would not now dwell upon the manner in which his departed friend had been persecuted when alive, nor on the political rancour with which he had been assailed: even death conferred no immunity, the grave to him was no sanctuary. He had heard, with great regret, a noble lord

567
(Ellenborough) describe him as "a dangerous minister." If he was dangerous, it was a danger which the people who supported and encouraged him, the sovereign who selected and protected him, wilfully and deliberately incurred; if he was a dangerous minister it was a danger not felt by those states of Europe that enjoyed the benefits of free institutions: it was a danger not felt by a great power that did not possess that advantage, but whose esteem he had conciliated, in a most important and useful degree.
But he had been led away, by the mention of the right hon. gentleman, from the explanation of his own conduct. The existence of the friendship to which he had just referred rendered him, at the time of the formation of the late government, a proper channel of communication between his right hon. friend and his noble friend (lord Lansdowne). The result of that negotiation was, as is well known, the accession of his noble friend to the late cabinet. Upon the dissolution of the late government, and the formation of the present, under the auspices of the noble duke, the existence of that friendship placed him in rather a different position from that occupied by the noble marquis. He would not enter into the detail of transactions connected with the formation of the government in which he was at all personally concerned; but he must say, that considering that he had been instrumental in promoting the accession of the noble marquis to the late government—considering his upright and manly conduct—considering how much he approved of his political principle and the tenour of his political life—he could not reconcile to his private feeling, or his sense of public duty, the separation of his political fate from that of the noble marquis. He had retired, therefore, but with no feelings of disappointment, or mortification. He retired, on the contrary, impressed with a deep sense of the gracious condescendance of his sovereign, and to the noble duke, now at the head of the government, he had to offer his grateful acknowledgments, for the conduct he had held with regard to him. He apologized to the House for having obtruded upon them any detail of a matter personal to himself; but he thought that any one who had occupied a public station, if the occasion justified or required it, should not hesitate to lay before them, the mo-
568
tives and principles which had guided and regulated his public conduct.
The Earl of Morleysaid, that reference having been made, by his noble friend who had just sat down, to the principles and ministry of the great statesman whose loss was so generally lamented, he was desirous of offering a few observations to the House. He was the more anxious to do so, as he was in that House certainly the first adherent of that right hon. gentleman; and further, because it had appeared, from a former debate, that some difference of opinion existed amongst those who had been connected with Mr. Canning, as to the line of conduct which it was, under existing circumstances, most accordant with their honour and consistency to adopt. Various theories had, at different times, been maintained, as to the support which those selected by the Crown to conduct its affairs were, upon general grounds, entitled to claim from their lordships, and the other branch of the legislature. Some appeared to think, that the measures of the executive government ought to be received with confidence, whilst others contended that watchfulness and distrust should mark the conduct of Parliament. Without entering into such disquisitions, he felt confident that he expressed the general sentiment of the country when he said, that at no time were the wants of a fixed and settled government more urgent—at no time were the dangers and inconveniences likely to arise from further changes more imminent.
The state of our external relations—the position of our domestic affairs—the harassed state of the public mind, consequent upon the events of the last twelve months; and (if it was permitted to make such a reference) the protracted anxieties which had been endured—the moral courage and the singleness of heart and purpose which had been manifested in the highest quarter of the realm—all pointed to this conclusion. He had, therefore, he difficulty in saying, that having advertence to the general situation of affairs, he had, à, priori, a wish to afford his humble support to his majesty's present servants; and he had therefore only had to ask himself, whether there was any thing arising out of his unvarying connexion, political and personal, with the late Mr. Canning, which ought to lead him to withhold such support; and it was upon the maturest reflection that he had come to the decision that there was nothing,

569
either of a public or private nature connected with his late right hon. friend, which ought to lead him to resist the bias which he had described, or to do otherwise than express his cordial concurrence with those, who, under the present circumstances of the country, had not thought it their duty to relinquish the service of the king. What, he would ask, were the principal political topics of the present time? What the measures on which the friends and adherents of Mr. Canning would be justified in expressing their mistrust of the noble duke and his colleagues?
The transactions in the East of Europe —the affairs of Portugal—the new States of South America—the Corn-bill—the Finances, and the Catholic question. These were the principal matters now pending, and on none of them, he contended, was there any just ground of mistrust of the conduct and intentions of the new ministry. He conceived the Protocol signed at St. Petersburg, and the Greek treaty of the 6th July last, had one and the same object—the pacification of Greece. There were some shades of difference between them; the principle, however, was the same.—The noble duke at the head of the administration had negociated and signed the former, and a few days ago distinctly intimated to their lordships his intentions of giving full execution to the latter, both in its letter and spirit.—Where, therefore, could there be any ground of apprehension as to the conduct of the government on this important subject. The affairs of Portugal were in train of execution, and drawing to their consummation. Had the noble duke withheld from parliament his sentiments as to the system adopted towards Portugal by his right hon. friend, still there could have been no just grounds of uneasiness as to the conduct which would now be pursued. It will, however, be in the recollection of the House that, in the autumn of 1826, when our troops were embarking for the Tagus, the noble duke had in his place in that House, expressed in the most distinct and explicit manner, his approbation of that measure and of the principles on which it was founded.
Under present circumstances, the retracing the steps taken towards the New States of South America would be impossible. The noble duke, however, had lately told the House, that the mode in which those States had been recognized was, in his opinion, most judicious; and the period
570
at which the recognition was made was equally well chosen.—Having reference to the votes of the other House of parliament now upon their lordships' table, and to the appointment of a Finance Committee by that assembly, no doubt could be entertained of the intentions of government as to the institution of a full, free, and most impartial, inquiry into the state of the national finances, with a view to all practical retrenchment.—With regard to the Corn-bill and the Catholic question, the noble duke had also spoken. With respect to the last he had intimated that in future the patronage of government should be impartially distributed, and that recantations of sentiments favourable to the Catholics would no longer be expected, as has heretofore been conceived to be the case, from those who wish to advance themselves in the two learned professions. Should this line of policy be adhered to, the friends of the Catholic question need be under no apprehension as to its ultimate result.
He would now consider how far there was any thing connected with matters purely personal which ought to lead the friends of Mr. Canning to oppose the existing government. He would not enter into the question, whether private feelings ought to regulate public conduct; allowing, however, that the keeping alive deep-rooted and ancient animosities was a duty imperative upon friends and adherents—admitting that inveterate and irreconcilable feuds were to be considered as a sacred inheritance—yet still he maintained, that it was open to the friends of Mr. Canning, without impugning such anti-social doctrines, to support the present government. In truth, to this case no such doctrines applied; no such ancient and inveterate hostility existed between his right hon. friend and his majesty's present servants—was it necessary that he should refer to the ardent zeal, to the indefatigable courage, with which his right hon. friend had both in and out of office so long co-operated with the noble duke in the great peninsular cause, where the noble duke had obtained such immortal glory?—Need he refer to the identity of counsel which led to the signature of the Greek Protocol at St. Petersburg.—To the many years in which they sat amicably in the same cabinet, and to the earnestness with which up to the latest period of his life, Mr. Canning had been desirous of seeing the command of the army resumed by the noble duke.

571
Again, the right hon. gentleman, holding the seals of the Home Department, had publicly declared last year, that with the single exception of the Catholic question, there was a complete unity of opinion between himself and Mr. Canning. With respect to his noble friend below him (lord Bathurst), he was confident that he must know that, up to a late period, any thing but animosity had been felt by Mr. Canning towards him.—He concurred in what had just fallen from his noble friend who spoke last, as to the opinion expressed the other night by one member of his majesty's government (lord Ellenborough). That noble lord had further declared, that he could not understand what the principles of Mr. Canning were; but he thought that the friends of that right hon. gentleman would not, by supporting the ministry; in any way compromise those principles, merely on the ground of the noble lord's not being able to understand them.
The House then adjourned.