Sitting of 22 August 1831

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time; Canadian Revenue.
Petitions presented. By Sir JOHN JOHNSTONE, from the Trustees of the Poor, Wakefield, against the Settlement of the Poor Bill. By Mr. CORRY, from the Minister and Inhabitants of Aughaloo for continuing the Grant to the Kildare Street Society.

CASE OF MR. AND MRS. DEACLE.
Colonel Evansrose to present a Petition from Thomas and Caroline Deacle, of Marwell, Hants. The gallant Member said, that it would be in the recollection of the House, that he had, on a former occasion, brought the petitioners' case before the House, when he moved for copies of the proceedings in two trials, in one of which the petitioners were defendants, and in the other of which they were the plaintiffs, and Mr. Bingham Baring and others were defendants. On that occasion he stated distinctly, that he had no knowledge whatever of the case, except what he had gathered from statements in the public papers. He also declared, that he was totally unacquainted with any of the parties, and had studiously avoided having any intercourse with them, in order that his mind might not be biassed by ex parte statements. It was his opinion, that the circumstances of the case, as they were detailed in the public papers, were sufficiently grave to demand inquiry, not so much with respect to the interests of individuals, as because they involved a serious question respecting the liberty of the subject, and magisterial authority. It certainly appeared to him, that the interest of the individuals concerned, as well as of the magistracy throughout the country, required that the documents which he moved for should have been granted, and he was not prepared for the course which the debate took on that occasion. Though he had avoided ex parte statements, other members were not so abstinent, and ex parte statements were made from the documents which he moved for, and the greater part of the discussion was criminatory of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle. The petitioners now came forward to represent, that they had suffered serious injury from the statements which were made in the House on that occasion, and they had consequently requested him to bring before the House the petition

381
which he now held in his hand, for the purpose of affording them an opportunity of vindicating their characters. When he brought forward his motion, he was told that Mr. and Mrs. Deacle had made co-defendants with Mr. Bingham Baring all the persons who could have given evidence in his favour. But he found, upon inquiry, that there were five persons, including a gentleman named Jervis and, three constables, who witnessed the whole transaction, who were not included in the indictment, and who might, therefore, have been called as witnesses by Mr. Bingham Baring, if he had thought proper to call them. In the course of the debate, testimony was given in favour of Mr. Baring's character, but he thought, that such testimony, when opposed to facts which had been proved twice over in a Court of Justice, was not very satisfactory. If the papers which he moved for had been granted, and he had found that they made out a case against Mr. Baring, he had intended to have moved an Address to the Crown, to remove him from the Commission of the Peace. The House was fully in possession of all the circumstances connected with the arrest of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, and the subsequent trial of the former. He did not think it was candid on the part of the prosecutors, to stop the trial against Mrs. Deacle, when they found that they had no case against her. They ought to have allowed the trial to have proceeded, and thus have offered her and her husband an opportunity of vindicating their characters. The House was also aware, that Mr. and Mrs. Deacle brought their action for false imprisonment against Mr. Bingham Baring, and obtained a verdict. This action was tried by a Special Jury, composed of gentlemen of some station in the county in which Mr. Baring's family possessed great influence on account of their high character and wealth. Such a Jury would not be unwilling to look with favour upon any circumstances in extenuation of Mr. Bingham Baring's conduct; nevertheless, they returned a verdict against him, with damages, though they were small. The Judge who presided on the occasion, told the Jury, that nothing had appeared which could implicate the character of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle. He (Colonel Evans) did not impute to Mr. Bingham Baring more than that he had exhibited great want of temper. When he moved for the papers, the discussion
382
took a course which left the characters of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle under imputation, and he had been the means, unintentionally, of doing them an injury. The hon. and learned member for Newark appeared attribute conduct of the most opprobrious nature to Mr. Deacle, and coupled his name with that of a man named Boyce, who had been convicted of felony. The hon. and learned Member had since told him, that he had been quite misunderstood; that he had no intention of throwing any aspersion on the character of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, and that he had only put a hypothetical case. He (Colonel Evans) and others, who were not accustomed to the refinements which were familiar to the gentlemen of the law, had supposed that the hon. Member meant the House to believe, that Mr. Deacle had been guilty of all that was imputed to him. The petition which he was about to present to the House, detailed some circumstances with which he was previously unacquainted, of a very grave character. The petitioners stated, that during their imprisonment, letters sent to them were destroyed by the gaoler, though one of them contained an offer of legal assistance. The petitioners also represented, that, on the trial in which Mr. Deacle was defendant, a witness, named Collins, on his cross-examination, could not deny, that he had said, that he knew nothing against Mr. Deacle, and, upon being asked, whether he did not believe, that he would have been prosecuted himself if he had not promised to give evidence against Mr. Deacle, he said, that he believed he should have been prosecuted, if he had not made such a promise; that another of the witnesses, of the name of Barnes, a carpenter, upon his cross-examination, stated that, during the trials under the Special Commission, he being in the dock, and about to put upon his trial, the Gaoler, Beckett, called him out, and took him into a room where there were Walter Long, a Magistrate, and another person, whom he believed to be Mr. Bingham Baring, who told him, that he should not be put upon his trial, if he would come and swear against Deacle. It appeared to him to be necessary to the credit and honour of Mr. Bingham Baring, that these allegations should receive some explanation. The petitioners likewise adverted to statements contained in publications, purporting to be reports of speeches made in the House of Commons by Mr.

383
Francis Baring and Mr. Serjeant Wilde, and declared, that those statements were false, and entirely destitute of foundation, and they expressed their readiness, with the permission of the House, to substantiate that declaration.
The Speakerhere called the hon. Member to order, and remarked to him, that this petition did, in fact, comment on proceedings in that House, and denied, as false and malicious, allegations, which, upon the faith of the public channels of information, the petitioners took for granted had been made in that House, and which they considered defamatory of their character. Under these circumstances, he did not conceive the House could receive the petition; and he considered, that the hon. Member was pursuing a line of argument which could only end in one of two things—in the House's rejecting the petition, or else establishing a new precedent, by receiving it.
Mr. O'Connellcould not agree with Mr. Speaker, and said, whatever technical objections might be urged against the petition, still it contained a statement of facts, which, in his opinion, ought to be laid before the House for inquiry and investigation.
The Speakersaid, that he had not drawn any inference of his own, but left the suggestion which he had thrown out, to the decision of the House. His object in interrupting the gallant Officer was, lest the gallant Officer, in stating certain matters contained in the petition, the accuracy of which, perhaps, the petitioners could not bear out, should raise a difficulty in the way of receiving the petition.
Mr. O'Connellagain observed, that the petition contained other matter, namely, a statement of facts, which ought to be received.
The Speakersaid, the best way, perhaps, would be, as proper notice on the subject had been given to the gallant Officer, to allow him to proceed, and to wait till the petition was brought up, when the House could decide whether it fell within the line which he had pointed out.
Mr. Humesaid, he had read over the petition, and his first impression was, that it was free from any technical objection.
Mr. Francis Baringwished the petition to be received and laid on the Table.
Colonel Evanssaid, the petitioners did not presume to say, that the language attributed to hon. Members had actually
384
been used by them—they only stated, that it had been so represented. Under all the circumstances of the case, he would not trespass further on the attention of the House. He begged leave, however, to make one observation with respect to the part which the Press had taken on this occasion. In his opinion, if there were any case in which the conduct of the Press was not culpable, this was the emphatic case; and he would say, much as he respected both Houses of Parliament, that they would be inefficient for the correction of abuses, without the aid of the Press.
The Petition brought up, and read at length, as follows:—
"TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED:
"The humble Petition of Thomas and Caroline Deacle, of Marwell Farm, in the parish of Owsellbury, in the county of Hants—
"Showeth—That your petitioners have read with inexpressible indignation, in the public newspapers, numerous allegations made against them, which are wholly false, scandalous, and malicious, calculated to blast their characters, to injure their pursuits in life, and utterly to destroy their peace of mind.
"That, amongst these false and scandalous allegations, Mr. Francis Baring is represented as having described your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, as one who, during the late disturbances in this county, incited men to machine-breaking, encouraged them to demand a reduction of tithes, and accompanied them illegally to demand money, and was with them when they received money thus extorted: that your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, was a person who employed the influence of her sex, and the power of her station, to ruin the poor and ignorant who lived in her neighbourhood, and that she was present with a mob when they demanded, extorted, and received, money.
"That amongst these false and scandalous allegations, Mr. Thomas Wilde, Sergeant-at-Law, is represented as having said, 'in one case the mob went to the house of a Mrs. Long, headed by Deacle and Boyce, and having compelled her to sign a paper for the reduction of rent, they afterwards demanded money. Fifteen pounds were at first demanded, but they afterwards consented to take five pounds; and after having spent the day in making collections of this kind, they adjourned to the Downs, when Mr. Deacle and Mrs. Deacle, who were with them, superintended the distribution of the money.'
"That your petitioners most solemnly declare to your Honourable House, that every thing expressed in the words above recited is utterly destitute of truth; that it is false in matter as well as in expression; that there is not a shadow of ground for either of the above

385
allegations; and that your petitioners, if your Honourable House should think proper to permit them so to do, will clearly prove, at the bar of your Honourable House, the perfect truth of the denial which they here give to those allegations.
"That your Honourable House ought to be informed, that an indictment was, just at the close of the session of the Special Commission, preferred against your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, but not against your other petitioner, Caroline Deacle; that a true bill was found, but that the Commission was suffered to expire, without bringing your petitioner to trial; that the indictment was brought on for trial at the last Lent Assizes, at Winchester; that the prosecutors produced the whole of their evidence; that one of their witnesses, of the name of Collins, on his cross-examination, acknowledged that he would not say, that he had not said, that he knew nothing against Mr. Deacle; and, upon being asked whether he did not believe, that he would have been prosecuted himself if he had not promised to give evidence against Mr. Deacle, he said, he believed he should have been prosecuted, if he had not made such promise; that another of the witnesses for the prosecution, of the name of Barnes, a carpenter, upon his cross-examination, stated, that during the trials under the Special Commission, he being in the dock, and about to be put upon his trial, the Jailor, Beckett, called him out, and took him into a room, where there were Walter Long, a Magistrate, and another person, whom he believed to be Bingham Baring, who told him, that he should not be put upon his trial, if he would come and swear against Deacle; that another person, of the name of Prickett, was called as a witness by the prosecutors, and that when the counsel for the defence rose to cross-examine this witness, the counsel for the prosecution interfered, and said, that they meant there to stop the prosecution, for want of sufficient evidence; that the counsel for the defence persisted in a wish to go on, in order that the witnesses of his client might be produced, but that the Judge interposed his authority, observing, that the defendant was honourably acquitted, and could want nothing more; that upon this part of the subject, your petitioners beg leave to point out to the attention of your Honourable House, that Charles Seagrim, the attorney of Francis and Bingham Baring, was the attorney employed in the carrying on of this prosecution, and that the said Seagrim was a codefendant in the action which your petitioners lately brought against the said Barings and others.
"That the allegations complained of are, by the newspapers, represented as parts of speeches delivered in your Honourable House; but your petitioners having been informed that your Honourable House will not receive any petition which comments on speeches made in your Honourable House, do not presume to say, that the hon. Members named in this
386
Petition did actually utter the words which have, by the newspapers, been attributed to them; but they complain of the grievous hardships and injurious consequences which have already resulted, and which cannot fail continually to result, from such calumnies being propagated, as coming from Members of your Honourable House, in their legislative capacities; and the more so, since it is impossible for them to escape these terrible consequences, without the interference of your Honourable House, in such way as to your Honourable House shall seem meet.
"That, with regard to the words imputed to Mr. Sergeant Wilde, they feel themselves doubly aggrieved, as the said Sergeant was retained by your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, in the action lately tried at Winchester, but he did not arrive at Winchester till after the trial; yet he is notwithstanding represented as making a speech tending to the destruction of your petitioner, while he had your petitioner's money in his pocket, as his advocate.
"That your petitioners, deeply lament the necessity which they feel themselves under, of thus trespassing on the time of your Honourable House; but that they hope your Honourable House will have the goodness to consider the extent of the injury done them, as aforementioned, as an instance of which, your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, informs your Honourable House that he was in treaty for a farm belonging to his Grace the Duke of Beaufort, which farm he was very desirous to rent, while the steward expressed an equal desire to have him for a tenant; but that in consequence of the allegations made against your petitioner, as aforesaid, the steward has announced to your petitioner, that the Duke of Beaufprt refuses to receive him as a tenant.
"That your Honourable House must be convinced that no individual fortune in the middle rank of life can possibly withstand the assaults made against reputation as afore-mentioned; that your Honourable House will at once perceive that no character can stand against attacks spread in this manner all over the kingdom, and coming forth, as in this case, under the pretended sanction of your Honourable House.
"That, therefore, your petitioners beseech your Honourable House compassionately to lend an ear to a recital of the treatment which they have experienced—a recital which they will make as brief as possible, omitting unimportant circumstances, but pledging themselves to prove, on the oaths of witnesses of unquestionable veracity, the truth of every part of the statement which they now submit, in the hope of obtaining justice at the hands of your Honourable House.
"Consoled by this hope, they now state—That on the 24th of November, 1830, at about two o'clock in the day, William Lewington and John Switzer, constables of Winchester, came to the house of your petitioners, being the bearers of a warrant, signed by the rev.

387
Robert Wright, and one or two other Magistrates of Hampshire, and served it on your petitioners, who immediately, without any hesitation, were preparing to dress themselves in a becoming manner, in order to go with the constables, in obedience to the warrant; that, in about five minutes after the constables entered the house, they were followed with great apparent violence, and with great rudeness, by Francis Baring and Bingham Baring (being two Magistrates of the county), by Robert Wright (clerk), by Mr. Deane (banker) of Winchester, and by one Seagrim, an attorney, of Winchester, who is the partner of another attorney, named Woodham, who are the attornies of Messrs. Francis and Bingham Baring; that, upon these parties rushing into the house, Bingham Baring seeing a friend of your petitioners, of the name of Jervis, in an outer room, who was changing his coat, put a pistol to his head, having at the same time a dagger in his hand; that he then followed the rest of these violent intruders into the inner room, or parlour, where your petitioners were; that then Bingham Baring came up to your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, and striking him upon the shoulder, and then seizing him by the arm, exclaimed 'You are my prisoner;' that at the same time, or the instant afterwards, Francis Baring also seized your petitioner by the collar, while Robert Wright seized hold of the hinder part of his coat; that thus seized, Bingham Baring having hold of an arm, Francis Baring of the collar of the coat, Robert Wright of the hinder part of the coat, Bingham Baring (in a commanding and menacing voice) said to the Constable, Mr. Lewington, (Switzer being sent into the yard to hold the horses) 'Do your duty!' and Francis Baring, on the constable seeming to hesitate, said, 'Do your duty, do your duty!' in a very quick and stern manner; that the constable, in a compassionate tone, while putting his hand into his coat pocket, answered, 'There is no occasion for that, Sir, Mr. Deacle will go quietly.' Where upon, Bingham Baring, looking sternly at the constable, said. 'Handbolt them;' that Lewington put the handbolt on one of your petitioner's (Thomas Deacle's) hands; that while he was doing this, Francis Baring quitted his hold of your petitioner's (Thomas Deacle's) collar, went to another part of the room, seized hold of your petitioner's (Caroline Deacle's) hand and arm, in order to compel her to submit to be handbolted; that in spite of the supplications of your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, who represented in the most feeling manner, the delicate and precarious state of health of his wife, she was brought up by Francis Baring, who held her arm until her wrist was fastened in the same bolt with that of her husband; that Mr. Lewington had been ordered at the jail, to bring a pair of small hand-bolts with him, and that he had them in his pocket, but did not pull them out; that at this time Bingham Baring went into the outer room, for the purpose of disabling
388
the fowling-pieces which were placed in the corner of the room; that your petitioners were now marched off from the inner room, towards the outer room, handcuffed together, Francis Baring still holding the right hand and arm of your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, her left hand being in the bolt; that in pulling her forward through the outer room into the court, she wishing not to go without her bonnet and shawl, he pulled with such force as to pull her hand through the bolt, except that it was held by the fingers, and by a part of the ruffle, which was snapped in the bolt, and there fastened; that Francis Baring, seeing your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, thus loose, put his arm round one of her arms, and held her two hands together under his arm with great force and rudeness, still refusing to suffer her to have her bonnet and shawl; that in the meanwhile Deane, the banker, had quitted the house, and Seagrim and Wright were now on the outside of the house on horseback; that the cart, which had been guarded all the while by Captain Nevill, was stationed on the outside of the yard, about a hundred yards away from the house; that Bingham Baring was now employed in knocking the caps off the fowling-pieces, and pouring beer into the locks; that your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, was now taken to the cart, by Lewington and Bingham Baring, which latter mounted his horse, and rode by the side of your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, and the constable; that Francis Baring, refusing to wait for the bonnet and the shawl, proceeded to force you petitioner, Caroline Deacle, from the house and the court, across the wet and dirty yard, in order to arrive at the place where the cart was stationed; that the servants ran after with the bonnet and a cloak and clogs, which they put on as well as they could, he not suffering your petitioner to use her hands for the purpose; that he then, not however till her feet had been wet, carried her across the yard for a certain distance, by putting his arm round the middle of her body, her head foremost and her heels hindmost, and her person in a horizontal position, and thus, notwithstanding her earnest entreaties that he would allow her to go through the garden, where the way was not only clean, but where the distance was much shorter to the cart; that when arrived at the cart, by the side of which Captain Nevill was sitting on horseback, the Captain alighted and got into the cart; that in the meanwhile Francis Baring applied his hands and arms to the person of your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, in a manner so rude, indecent, and brutal, as not to be described by her, and thus lifted her up upon the shaft of the cart, while Captain Nevill seized her by the arm, and dragged her into it; that while your petitioner's (Caroline Deacle's) person was handled in this rude and indecent manner, the extent of which indecency she refrains from describing to your Honourable House, Seagrim and the rev. Robert Wright were sitting on their horses, and looking on and laughing;

389
that the wheel and other parts of the cart covered her habiliments with dirt, and tore parts of them; that at this time, and even in the court-yard, your petitioners earnestly implored that your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, might be permitted to ride her horse, fearing from the state of her health serious injury from the rude joltings of the cart; that this request was positively refused, by Francis and Bingham Baring, and that Seagrim said, 'No: if you had your horse, you would ride as you did yesterday;' that one of the constables (Switzer) said, 'For God's sake, Sir, let the lady have her horse, and I will hold the reins, and will forfeit my life if I lose her;' that upon this, Bingham Baring made answer, 'Do your duty, Sir, or I'll report you;' that the cart was driven by Lewington, and that the horse was a wretched pony; that Bingham Baring urged Lewington to drive faster, which having done for a little while, he said, upon a second application, 'The lady complains of being ill, and says that the jolting hurts her,' whereupon Bingham Baring again exclaimed, 'Drive on—make your way to Winchester;' that Lewington still not driving so fast as Bingham Baring wished, the latter came up, and with a large black stick which he carried, gave repeated blows across the back of the pony: that the pony now went considerably faster, causing the cart to jolt so much that your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, felt great pain, and rose up, by bearing upon the side of the cart, and turning round a little, said to Bingham Baring 'Really, Sir, I cannot bear this—it will be the death of me—I shall be shaken to death;' that your petitioner, Thomas Deacie, putting out his hand, said, 'Sit still, my dear—bear it as well as you can,' and that hereupon Bingham Baring struck across your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, a severe blow with the before-mentioned black stick, which fell upon the arm of your petitioner, Thomas Deacle; that the cart was accompanied by Francis Baring, Bingham Baring, Captain Nevill, the Reverend Robert Wright, Mr. Deane, the banker, and Seagrim the attorney, as a troop of guards, assisting the constables; that when the cart had reached about half a mile from the house, Mr. Deane went off to Winchester, leaving the rest to attend the cart; that when the cart arrived at the top of Winchester-hill, about two miles from the city, it was met by a post-chaise, into which your petitioners were put, in company with the Jailor, who was in it, and were thus conveyed to the common jail at Winchester; that when arrived at the jail, the six persons before-mentioned had disappeared; that the Jailor hurried your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, into a room where certain Magistrates were assembled, amongst whom were Sir Thomas Baring, as he believes, and the Reverend Robert Wright the elder; that in the meanwhile, your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, was put into another room, being the Jailor's kitchen, but afterwards was brought into the same room; that the Magistrates
390
deferred any examination for that night, on the alleged account of want of witnesses, and refused to let your petitioners out on bail; that after this, the Jailor, Beckett, took your petitioners into the passage, and informed them, that he must take your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, and put him into a yard, and that he would give your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, a bed along with the women; that upon hearing this, your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, understanding that her husband was going to be locked up amongst felons, fell into a violent hysterical fit, and was falling backward upon the stone floor, which was luckily prevented by your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, catching her in his arms; that the fit was very strong, and rendered it necessary to open her clothes, cut the lace of her stays, and thus expose her in the presence of numerous persons of various descriptions, the inmates or the visitants of a common jail; that after this, your petitioners were permitted, at the expense of 10 s. a day, to live in the apartments of one of The Turnkeys, situate on the felons' side of the jail, and surrounded by felons on every side; that in this situation your petitioners remained from the evening of the 24th of November until the evening of the 27th of November; that on the 25th of November your petitioners were brought before the Magistrates sitting in the jail, and were told that the evidence against them had not arrived; that on the morning of the 26th of November they were brought before the Magistrates again, always guarded by the Jailor or Under-jailor, as if they had been felons, and were now told, that the evidence was in their favour, but that, as all the evidence had not arrived, they must detain them longer; that in the afternoon of the same day, the Under-jailor again brought them into the presence of the Magistrates, always sitting in the jail; that the Magistrates there told your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, that they had nothing against him, and that he might go, but they must detain your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, until the next day, when they expected some evidence against her: that upon this your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, begged to be permitted to remain with his wife, to which the Magistrates answered 'No;' that thereupon your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, fainted away, and was held in the chair, the Magistrates, with Sir Thomas Baring at their head, exclaiming 'Take her away, take her away—she must not remain to interrupt our business;' that in consequence of this, she was carried out of the room in the chair, and your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, was afterwards permitted by the Jailor to remain with his wife; that on the 27th, your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, was brought before the Magistrates by the Under-jailor, and had read to her a deposition of Robert Wright the younger, one of the defendants in the late action, but that she was not confronted with any accuser, nor were either of your petitioners ever confronted with any accuser from the first to the last; that finally your petitioners were

391
released upon bail given-for your petitioner, Caroline Deacle, and your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, without bail in the first instance, and afterwards with bail, when new-pretended evidence had been discovered; that in the meanwhile your petitioner, Thomas Deacle, had declared his intention of bringing an action against the Magistrates for assault and false imprisonment; that after this the indictment before-mentioned was framed against him, and the bill found as before stated, just at the close of the proceedings of the Special Commission, which produced the trial at the Lent Assizes, ending in the honourable acquittal of your petitioner; and that, during the imprisonment of your petitioners, the letters sent to them were destroyed by the Jailor, in one of which was an offer of legal assistance.
"Your petitioners earnestly pray that your Honourable House will be pleased, in order to afford them a chance of relief from the most direful oppression, to permit, if compatible with the rules of your Honourable House, evidence in the premises to be brought to your bar; in which case they solemnly pledge themselves to prove, by witnesses other than themselves, all and singular the allegations contained in this their humble petition: and with all submission to the superior judgment, and in a firm reliance on the justice of your Honourable House, they further pray that you will be further pleased to adopt such other measures, relative to the premises, as in your wisdom you shall deem to be most meet. And your petitioners will ever pray.

"THOMAS DEACLE,

(Signed)

"CAROLINE DEACLE."

"Marwell, July 29th."

Colonel Evans Colonel Evans moved, that the Petition do lie on the Table.
Mr. Francis Baringhad taken the opportunity of stating, on a former occasion, the circumstances of this case; and though there were many things in this petition that might seem to call for a further statement, yet, considering the time he had already taken up on the subject, he felt a delicacy in further encroaching on the public time upon the present occasion. Still, however, he trusted the House would bear with him, for a few moments, while he noticed one or two of the particulars stated in this petition. He did not intend to repeat the statement he had formerly made. When he made it, he did so partly in contradiction of the allegations that had been advanced respecting his own conduct and the conduct of his cousin, on the occasion referred to, and partly with a view of making the House acquainted with circumstances which had not previously appeared before the public.
392
With regard to the present petition, he was prepared to meet it with a full contradiction. He had already made his statement of the circumstances to the House, and there was no contradiction of his statement, contained in any part of that petition, that would induce him to withdraw one assertion that he had then made. The statement now made by the petitioners was contrary to all those put forth in evidence at the trial, and sworn to as true there. There was hardly one point in which the two statements concurred with each other—there was but one in which he and the petitioners agreed together, and that was, in the declaration that the evidence given at the trial was a false account of the circumstances that had taken place. It was said, at first, that Mrs. Deacle came forward in the room and gave her hand to be handcuffed; it was now said, that he (Mr. Francis Baring) had dragged her forward to be handcuffed. At first it was said, that his cousin had shown a gun, and had used it to intimidate; now it was stated, that a pistol and dagger were employed, and the gun was sunk! He wished that the two statements could be published side by side, and paragraph by paragraph. The plantiffs statement, as it was now made, and as it was then made by his witnesses, did not at all agree together, and of course no credit whatever was given to either. There was one point to which he wished particularly to call the attention of the House. It was this:—It was originally stated, that his cousin, Mr. Bingham Baring had carried Mrs. Deacle to the cart. That statement had then been denied, and he had said, that he was the person who had carried her to the cart. It now turned out, even on the petitioners, own statement, that it was not Mr. Bingham Baring, but he, who had carried the lady to the cart. When he had ventured to state that in the House, all the persons who took a different view of the matter said, that that was a matter which could not be mistaken. Now at the time that the witnesses swore Mr. Bingham Baring carried Mrs. Deacle to the cart, Mr. and Mrs. Deacle were both in Court: they had the means of knowing whether the statement was true or not, yet they heard it made, allowed it to go to the Jury, and to be commented upon by the Judge, and never once pretended to express even a doubt of the correctness of the statement.

393
Their Counsel, could not have known the fact, because he was sure that no honourable professional man would have calmly stood by whilst a representation, of the falsehood of which he was cognizant, was sworn to. Mr. Bingham Baring denied, most distinctly, that he had carried Mrs. Deacle, and declared, that she had been removed by another person. To that denial the Attorney for the prosecution wrote an answer. Did he there state, that this part of the charge against Mr. Bingham Baring was incorrect? No such thing; he, on the contrary, re-asserted the calumny, and argued as if there were no truth whatsoever in the solemn statement of Mr. Bingham Baring. He himself had also made a statement, which Mr. Deacle attempted to answer; but he did not venture to say, that his assertions were incorrect. With respect to that statement in the petition, where it was represented that Mr. Bingham Baring was present when Barnes, the carpenter, was told, that he should not be put upon his trial if he gave evidence against Deacle, he could meet it with the most flat and unqualified contradiction. As to the allegation that these prosecutions were all instituted by the Messrs. Baring, and were carried on by their Attornies, Messrs. Woodham and Seagrim, it was totally without foundation. The attornies who had conducted the cause on behalf of his cousin, were the Clerks of the Peace, for the county, who had in that character prosecuted all the parties at the suit of the Crown. They were not the attornies either for his father or his uncle, and they had only been employed in that instance at the recommendation of the attornies for the family because they were thought to know all the facts of the case. He himself left Hampshire a few days after the transactions occurred, and he knew nothing about the matter till he saw the notices of action. He was confident he need not offer any apology to the House for urging a few topics in his defence, when he was put, as it were, on his trial. It was too much that he should bow in silence when his character was calumniated and traduced, and the Government called upon to strike his name out of the Commission of the Peace. He was sorry that the public Press had been dragged into the discussion by the hon. and gallant Member, as he, whatever he might have thought, had never let a word escape
394
him on the subject. He must say, however, that the allusion made to the public Press was not likely to produce any good effect.
Sir Thomas Baringsaid, that as his name had been introduced in a manner not very creditable to him, he was desirous of troubling the House with a few words upon this subject. He was well aware that every person who acted in a public capacity, in that House, or out of it, was liable to have his conduct traduced, and his character calumniated; and for himself, he could only rejoice, that when this was done with regard to him, he had the opportunity which that House afforded of answering the calumny. The hon. Member who had introduced this petition had not had the common courtesy to give him the slightest notice of it—a conduct which he should not have pursued towards the hon. Member under similar circumstances. He was charged with having at first resolved upon committing Mr. and Mrs. Deacle to prison. That charge was not true. It was said, that Mrs. Deacle had fainted in the chair, and that notwithstanding her state, he had ordered her away, saying that the Magistrates could not be troubled with her, or some expressions to that effect. He utterly denied having ever said so. He had not, to the best of his recollection, heard her utter a single word; he had only come into the room accidentally at the moment when Mr. Deacle was having some evidence (his own he believed) read over to him. At that moment he saw a female in a chair, but he did not hear her utter one word. He looked over the evidence cursorily, and the cruelty of which he was then guilty was, to suggest to his brother Magistrates that Mr. Deacle should be admitted to bail. He took no other part whatever in the proceedings. When these statements were
thus found to be unsupported by the fact, he thought that the House would not feel much inclined to give great credit to other statements in the same petition. At the time that these persons were brought to prison, he was occupied, at a distance of eight miles, in endeavouring to suppress a riot occasioned by other parties, and to take those parties into custody. On his return he again read over the evidence in Deacle's case, and then, upon a more attentive perusal than he had before given it, he found the evidence stronger than he had before supposed,

395
and he surrendered his own opinion to that of the other Magistrates. These were the facts of the case as far as he was concerned.
Mr. Francis Baringwished to be permitted to say, that there were other statements in the petition which he had not noticed, but he hoped he should not be taken to have admitted the truth of them because he had not contradicted them.
Mr. Serjeant Wildesaid, that from his having mistaken the order of the proceedings in the House, he had not been present when this discussion began. He begged to express his regret at that circumstance. It seemed that he had been made a subject of accusation in the petition, and he found that he had been reduced to that situation from his having discharged what he considered to be his imperative duty as a Member of that House. The petition, so far as it referred to him, was not expressed in those courteous terms that might be expected; but he looked to the substance, not to the form of it. He wished to recal the attention of the House to what had occurred on the former occasion. He had not then expressed any opinion of what, had taken place; for he had not been present at the trial; he had not gone into those parts with which he was not personally acquainted; he had merely stated what he knew from the depositions that had been laid before him. The chief ground of complaint against the Magistrates, however, appeared to be, that they had themselves superintended the execution of their own warrant in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, instead of leaving it to others, as was the usual practice. No impression, unfavourable to the Magistrates, as he conceived, ought to arise from this circumstance of their superintending the execution of the warrant themselves, as the state of the country made it not only justifiable, but made it their duty to exert more than ordinary vigour in support of the law. The case should stand or fall upon its own merits; and, in discussing it, it would be little in accordance with his feelings to rank upon the side of harshness, oppression, or injustice: he had never embraced that side. It had been said that, in the former debate, he asserted that Mr. Deacle accompanied a mob to Mrs. Long's, to extort money. He had never stated any thing of the kind, and he knew not where it was so reported.
396
He had taken the trouble to look over the reports of what fell from him, and, though not precisely, they were generally accurate. All he could say, was what the witnesses had sworn to in the depositions which had been submitted to him. After referring to the substance of the depositions against Mr. Deacle, the learned Serjeant reminded the House, that Mr. Deacle was only indicted for a conspiracy. He did not wish to deprive him of the benefit of the verdict of acquittal; but it was not unnatural to suppose, that those who had given evidence against him, at the moment when the transactions he was charged with taking part in were going on, and the country in alarm, when they found the country was quiet, should feel their sympathies awakened for their neighbour, and that they should wish to soften the charges they had made against him. All the statements he had made had been founded on the depositions that were brought to his notice, in the discharge of his duty in assisting the King's Attorney General in the public prosecutions. Unfortunately, on account of the absence of Mr. Chambre from town, he had not been able to bring those depositions with him. He now came to speak upon a matter more immediately connected with his professional practice, and his character as a Member of that House. A retainer had been left at his chambers some time before the trial. It was anticipated that he could not be able to attend at the Winchester Assizes. The person who left the retainer was told so. He thought he was bound before everything to discharge his duty in that House. A letter was written to the effect he had stated by his clerk. That retainer gave him no information of the nature of Deacle's case. Hon. Members must not confound a retainer with a brief. A retainer only contained the names of the parties. He (Mr. Serjeant Wilde) had never seen Me. Deacle or his Attorney—he had had no communication whatever with them—and it was not to be supposed that the leaving a retainer with a one guinea fee was to prevent a Member of that House from doing his duty there. If any persons did suppose that, he begged they would keep their retainers to themselves. He considered, that his duty in that House was paramount to all others. He had no knowledge whatever of the case.
Mr. Humesaid, he regretted that the

397
hon. and learned Member had not removed the impression which what he had said on a former occasion had made on the House; the more particularly as the hon. Member had made that statement, not from his own knowledge, but from depositions. He submitted to the House, whether it was fair towards Mr. Deacle, who was now absent, that the merits of his case should be decided on by mere depositions. He did not know Mr. Deacle; the only feeling which induced him to advert to his case was, from an impression that he was a man who had been harshly and severely dealt with; in fact, there was no specific charge brought against him; and, in the absence of positive proof, the prosecuting party had recourse to that very convenient instrument, a conspiracy. By this means, Mr. Deacle was mixed up with a party, seven of whom were sentenced to death. He did not consider this a question referring solely to Mr. Deacle, but one of great public importance, and he hoped to see justice fully done. He would be glad to know who it was that ordered Mrs. Deacle to be separated from her husband. The hon. Baronet (Sir Thomas Baring) said, that he had not ordered Mrs. Deacle away, but, on referring to the petition, it appeared, that what the petitioners alleged was, that the Magistrates, with Sir Thomas Baring at their head, exclaimed, "Take her away, take her away; she must not remain to interrupt our business." He wished also to know who it was that ordered Mrs. Deacle to be handcuffed; if it had been the hon. Member, he was quite sure he would admit it. At present, the House did not know who it was, and he thought they were, in consequence, bound to institute an inquiry, and to take measures to remove persons who had been guilty of such improper conduct, from situations which afforded them an opportunity of committing similar acts of severity. He thought justice required, that the hon. and gallant Member who had presented this petition, should fix an early day on which to bring on a motion to refer the petition to a Select Committee up-stairs, in order that the allegations of the petition, and of the parties against whom the petition was directed, might be thoroughly investigated. This was necessary, to prove to the public, either that the Magistrates were innocent, or that, being guilty, they would be dealt with as their conduct deserved. In making
398
this suggestion, he put Mr. and Mrs. Deacle wholly out of the question, and looked only to the public interest which was involved in such charges against Magistrates.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonsaid, that the hon. member for Middlesex was mistaken upon one point. It had been sworn, that Mr. Bingham Baring was not present at the handcuffing, and that hon. Member had himself stated the same fact. He was quite ready to believe, that the allegations of the petition were much exaggerated. He was ready to believe this, as well from the statements of hon. Members of that House, as from the small damages recovered by the petitioners. At the same time, however, it was quite clear that, in the case of the petitioners, an extraordinary course had been followed by the Magistrates, which nothing but extraordinary circumstances could justify. He concurred in the desire expressed by the hon. member for Middlesex, to know who it was that ordered Mrs. Deacle to be handcuffed; for that act was disgraceful to a civilized country, and the House ought to be ashamed of having any person a Member of that House who could order a female to be so treated. It was certain, that Mrs. Deacle had great reason to complain of the hardship, in having been handcuffed and dragged to a gaol, for it must be recollected, that Mrs. Deacle had never been brought to trial. He thought, too, that Mr. Deacle had also much to complain of, when it was attempted publicly in that House to prove him guilty of acts which a Jury had declared him to be innocent of. Under these circumstances, whatever exaggerations there might be in the petition, Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, in his opinion, had great reason to come to that House, in order to clear their character.
Sir George Clerkdid not rise to prolong this discussion as to the merits of the Deacles, or the conduct of the Magistrates. He should not have risen at all if some member of the Government had, as he expected, taken notice of a ground upon which, in his opinion, the House could not receive the petition. This ground was, that the petitioners stated that they had suffered by speeches delivered in that House. The petition had, doubtless, been drawn by some very ingenious person, and he believed that it had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member who presented

399
it, that the petition, as originally drawn, could not have been received by the House. This showed the animus of the petitioners, which was also further apparent from the fact, that the hon. member for Portsmouth and the hon. member for Newark had been compelled to refer to and to repeat what they had said on a former occasion. Under these circumstances, he put it to the House, whether the petition was not a palpable violation of the orders of the House. At all events, he should be prepared to give a negative to the motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that the petition do lie on the Table.
Lord Althorpwas not present when the petition was presented, but had read the passage to which the hon. Baronet alluded. It was true that, by an evasion, the petition did allude to speeches that had been made in that House, and it was true also, that, by the strict rule of the House, such petitions could not be received. He did not, however, think that the rule ought to be strictly enforced on all occasions, especially as there was a rule equally strict, but not enforced, against the publication of speeches delivered in that House. The hon. Baronet should recollect, that it was only by evasion that the Debates of that House were published. As to this petition being allowed to lie on the Table, he did think that they ought to be very cautious how they rejected a petition which contained an attack upon one of themselves. He certainly should not object to the petition being allowed to lie on the Table.
Mr. Estcourtsaid, that if the Order alluded to by the noble Lord was an improper order, it ought not to be allowed to stand upon the Journals, but while it stood there he could not agree, that it was right to suffer it to be evaded. The language of the petitioners was ingenious and cautious, but the object of the petitioners was apparent. The petitioners said, "The allegations complained of are, by the newspapers represented, as parts of speeches delivered in your honourable House; but your petitioners having been informed, that your honourable House will not receive any petition which comments on speeches made in your honourable House, do not presume to say that the hon. Members named in this petition did actually utter the words which have, by the newspapers, been attributed to them." Now, the petitioners did not venture to say that they disbelieved the speeches to
400
have, been delivered in that House; but they continued in the following words;—"But they complain of the grievous hardship and injurious consequences which have already resulted, and which cannot fail continually to result, from such calumnies being propagated as coming from Members of your honourable House in their legislative capacity; and the more so, since it is impossible for them to escape these terrible consequences, without the interference of your honourable House, in such way as to your honourable House shall seem meet." It did not appear, that this allegation of the petitioners was true. The petitioners ought to have made out that they could not obtain redress for the publication of these calumnies without coming to that House. He believed it was well known that persons circumstanced like the petitioners, could obtain redress from the law for calumnies which had been propagated in the manner stated in the petition; and that it was not necessary for them to come to that House for redress. It could not be pretended, that the House sanctioned the publication of Members' speeches. On the contrary, such publication was, by the order of the House, a breach of privilege. Under these circumstances, he considered the proceeding of the petitioners to be very disorderly. If the petitioners could show that the Courts of Law were not open to them, then they might come to that House, but not until then.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the hon. member for Oxford did not carry his objection far enough. The hon. Member ought to enforce the order against the publication of speeches, if he enforced the rules of the House against this petition. Would the hon. Member do this, and call the editors of all the newspapers up to the bar; he should think not. If statements were made in that House, it was well known that they would go forth to the public; and if those statements were incorrect and injurious, evils would result which ought to be complained of. He would only say, with regard to the case before them, that, in his opinion it called for farther inquiry. That inquiry might for aught he knew, end in the most triumphant justification of the Magistrates; but he must say, that the two innocent persons—for the petitioners had been proved to be innocent—from whom this petition came, had made out a strong case for inquiry.
Sir Francis Burdettconcurred with the hon. and learned member for Kerry. This was a question which concerned the public justice of the country. Personal considerations were involved in it, but the main point was a public one, and regarded the manner in which certain Magistrates had exercised the powers confided to them by the law. He was free to confess, that he thought this was a time at which such complaints as these ought to be investigated. The hon. and gallant Member who had presented the petition, would, of course, take into consideration the best mode of investigation. As to the objection upon a point of order, the hon. Baronet (Sir George Clerk) who raised the point, had admitted, that the petition was so drawn as to avoid infringing the rules of the House, and had declared, that much ingenuity must have been exercised by the person who so drew it. If, then, it had been skilfully and successfully endeavoured so to frame the petition as not to offend against the regulations of the House, he did think that it would be a most extraordinary proceeding to reject such a petition, especially when the administration of the laws, the liberty of the subject, and the character of many individuals, were deeply involved in its allegations. He would not offer any observation upon a single point of this case, except the handcuffing; and upon that he must say, that he considered it most improper to handcuff persons under the circumstances in which the petitioners were placed, take which version of those circumstances they pleased.
Petition to lie on the Table.

WINE DUTIES.
On Mr. Spring Rice moving the Order of the Day for the House going into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. George Robinsonwished to know when the wine duties were to be brought on?
Lord Althorpsaid, that if it suited the convenience of the House, he should wish to continue in Committee of Supply till ten o'clock, and that at that hour he would bring on the wine duties.

LOSS OF THE ROTHSAY-CASTLE STEAMER.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, there was a subject of melancholy interest to al the Members of that House, but especially to him (Colonel Sibthorp), for he had lost two relatives on the occasion to which he was about to allude, to which he was
402
desirous to call the attention of his Majesty's Government, and particularly that portion of it which was connected with the management of the Home Department. He wished to call their attention to a melancholy circumstance which had occurred a few days since—he meant the loss of the Rothsay-Castle steamer, on its passage from Liverpool to Beaumaris. He was sure that it was only necessary to point the attention of his Majesty's Government o this subject, in order to ensure a proper degree of attention to the investigation which must take place with regard to it. He was certain that his Majesty's Ministers would pay every attention to any statements which might be forwarded to them on this subject, and especially to the facts which would come out at the Coroner's Inquest, which would, no doubt, be held on the bodies of the unfortunate deceased. He would also take this opportunity to express a hope, that his Majesty's Ministers, in whose hands he was inclined to leave the matter, would bring forward an enactment, for the purpose of preventing the occurrence of such circumstances in future, by summarily punishing the proprietors or owners of steam-vessels, by fine or imprisonment, where such accidents were the result of wilful negligence, and also enacting that the Captain or any of the crew who should survive in such cases, should have a summary punishment imposed upon them for drunkenness, or any other wilful error with respect to the management of the vessel.
Mr. George Lambsaid, that his Majesty's Government had derived no information with regard to the very melancholy circumstance to which the gallant Member had referred, beyond that which was to be found in those channels of information to which the public generally had access. The Home Office, with which he was connected, had received no exclusive intelligence on the subject, though he was willing to admit, that it deserved the attention of the House. The necessary steps would be taken to secure the report of the Coroner's Inquest, and an accurate account of what should take place on that occasion; and if it should appear, that any further inquiry or investigation was necessary, it should be instituted. With regard to any enactment of the nature spoken of, the hon. Member must see, that it would require very deliberate consideration; but he begged to assure the hon.

403
Member, that his Majesty's Government would give the subject the fullest possible consideration.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he was anxious to know whether his Majesty's Ministers could communicate any information on a subject which was of importance not only to the Members of that House, on the score of private, convenience, but in which the public convenience was also greatly interested—he meant the period for which the House would adjourn on the occasion of the approaching coronation. He was well aware that the noble Lord opposite did not agree with him (Sir Robert Peel) as to the period to which that adjournment should extend. It ought, however, to be borne in mind, that they had been now sitting continuously ever since the 20th of last October, for the short interval which had occurred at the time of the dissolution was not worth while taking into account. It was not, therefore, too much to expect that some adjournment—some respite from their labours—should be granted to them at the ensuing coronation; and it would be highly convenient, both to the Members of that House and to the public at large, if any adjournment was intended at the coronation, that the determination of Government on the subject should be known as soon as possible.
Lord Altnorpsaid, that the subject had certainly been submitted to the consideration of his Majesty's Ministers, but under existing circumstances, he could not assent to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet. He did not think, that it would be possible for him to propose any adjournment of the House, beyond a short adjournment over the day of the coronation.

THE KING OF HOLLAND.
Lord Eliotsaid, that he wished to take that opportunity to mention a few facts in refutation of the statement which had been made by the hon. and learned member for Kerry, on a former evening, with regard to the king of Holland, and his conduct towards Belgium. From whatever quarter or whatever publication that hon. and learned Member had derived the information which he had given to the House on that occasion, he should be able, he hoped, to show that hon. and learned Member, that it was quite incorrect, and he was sure that the hon. and learned Member would be the first to retract,
404
when he found that such was the case. The first accusation which the hon. Member had preferred against the king of Holland, respected the union of Holland with Belgium. That union was determined on by the great Powers in the month of July, 1814, and it was not till the month of August, 1815, that it was carried into complete effect. The Belgians, therefore, had ample time allowed to them to send remonstrances or Representations to the allied Congress against that union, if they had a mind to do so; but no such remonstrance or representation was fowarded by them, and it was therefore to be assumed, that they entertained no objection to the Union. The first act of the king of Holland in ascending the throne was, to order a Commission to be issued for the purpose of framing a constitution founded upon the fundamental laws of the country, and which should be in unison with the habits, and feelings, and manners of the people. That Commission was composed equally of Dutchmen and Belgians, and after they had drawn up a code of laws, the king submitted it to the States-General, in which the Belgians were represented by one Deputy for every 2,000 inhabitants of Belgium. It was quite true, that a certain majority of the Belgian Deputies voted against that constitution. He was ready to admit, that such was the fact, but it should also be stated, that their principal objection was made against the two first articles of that Constitution, which went to give equal protection and equal toleration to all religions in Belgium. The Catholic Bishops in Belgium specially addressed the king against the proposed constitution, and in that address they used the following words:—"Sire—The existence and the privileges of the Catholic Church in this part of the kingdom are inconsistent with an article of the plan of the new constitution, by which equal favour and protection are promised to all religions." They further said, in the same address, "Sire, we do not hesitate to declare to your Majesty, that the canonical laws which are sanctioned by the ancient constitutions of the country, are incompatible with the projected constitution which would give in Belgium, equal favour and protection to all religions." It was upon such grounds as those, that the majority of the Belgian Deputies voted against the proposed constitution. But it would be absurd to take that majority as the majority

405
of the whole Chamber of the States-General, and it would have been absurd for the king to have acceded to its wishes, regarding it as such. Again he would say, that he did not know to what publication, or to what authority, the hon. and learned Member was indebted for his facts and statements, but he could assure that hon. Member, that the authority to which he had trusted, had completely misled him in this instance. The hon. Member had accused the king of Holland of having abolished trial by Jury, which it was said the Belgians possessed in the time of Napoleon. But that Emperor several times interfered with it, and it was not much resorted to. It was never well understood in Belgium, and the fact was, that three Jury laws which were successively proposed by the king of Holland to the Chamber in Brussels had been rejected by them. In truth, the trial by Jury was not popular in Belgium, and no attempt was made by the Belgians to obtain it till 1827, when a bill brought forward for this purpose, was rejected by two-thirds of the Chambers. The charge of the hon. and learned Member against the king of Holland, for reducing the Judges to a state of dependence on him, was quite unfounded. The 106th article of the constitution guaranteed their complete independence; and, as a proof that they were not at all interfered with, or controlled by the Crown, he begged to mention the fact, that there was not a single instance of the removal of a Judge from his situation during the fifteen years that the king of Holland had reigned over Belgium. The decree as to the change of the language in judicial and legal proceedings, whatever objections might be urged to it, or whatever reasons might be urged in its defence, had been, in fact, rescinded some months before the revolution had taken place in Belgium. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made a most unjust attack upon the king of Holland for his conduct with regard to the Press. There was no censorship over the Press in Belgium; there was, in fact, during his reign there, no restriction on the Press with regard to publication under the charter which he had granted to Belgium, and the fullest liberty was granted to the Press to publish whatever was not libellous. With respect to schools, about which the hon. Member had complained so much the only regulation enforced was, that the persons who opened
406
them, should be properly qualified for the education of youth. The complaint with respect to the Philosophical College which the king had established at Louvain, was equally unfounded; and, at all events, as it was found to be unpopular, it was suppressed some months before the breaking out of the revolution. As to the non-appointment of Bishops to vacant Sees in Belgium, it should be recollected, that the king of Holland was a Protestant Sovereign, and that as such he could not appoint Roman Catholic Prelates. About three years ago, however, he succeeded in obtaining a concordat with the See of Rome, and the Pope had expressed his satisfaction at the appointments which had taken place since that time. It was said, that few Belgians were employed in diplomatic situations. The paucity of the Belgians employed in such situations was to be accounted for principally through non-application on their part for employment of that description. Nevertheless it did so happen, that at this moment there were three Belgians in diplomatic situations, under the king of Holland. Another of the charges of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, that no Belgians were employed in the higher departments of the army, which was, perhaps, owing to the Belgians themselves, for a vast deal fewer of them, in proportion, than the Dutch were promoted to the upper ranks of the French army, when both were in the service of Napoleon. The hon. and learned Member had spoken of the unpopularity which the Belgian Deputies who had taken the side of the king of Holland in the States-general, had earned for themselves. As a proof of their unpopularity, he begged to state, that two-thirds of them were at present members of the National Congress in Brussels. He had shortly stated those facts, to show that the hon. and learned Member had been grossly misled by the authority on which he had relied, and he was sure, that the hon. Member, when he was disabused of the error into which he had fallen, would be the first to retract a mis-statement, of the having made which wilfully he need scarcely say, that he altogether acquitted the hon. Member.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the noble Lord had, with great courtesy, made a statement in reply to what had fallen from him (Mr. O'Connell) on a former evening, in reference to the conduct of the king of

407
Holland. He (Mr. O'Connell) should feel the utmost delight in retracting any statement which he had made, if it were proved that such statement were unfounded. Instead, however, of retracting any thing which he had stated, with regard to the conduct of the king of Holland, he had only to regret, that his charges against that personage, on a former evening, had been preferred in a very mitigated shape. He had not stated a single fact which he was not ready to substantiate by documents. He hoped, that the House would bear with him on this occasion, while he proceeded to vindicate that statement which the noble Lord had endeavoured to impugn. As to the non-presentation of remonstrances from the Belgians, against the annexation of Belgium to Holland, he was aware that that annexation was only finally arranged in 1815, though it had been determined upon in July, 1814; but the noble Lord had forgotten to state, that the king of Holland was in possession of Belgium, as the commissary of the Holy Alliance, all the time between the period when Napoleon was completely defeated, and the period when the union of the two kingdoms was arranged and finally agreed to. When it was said, therefore, that the Belgians sent forward no remonstrances against that union to the Holy Alliance, let it be recollected, that the king of Holland was in military possession of Belgium, and there was in that country no magistracy, no civil authority, no law but the will of the Stadtholder; and it might very truly be said, that the Belgians expressed no unwillingness to the union. How could they? Dare any man of them, under such circumstances, throw out a hint about it? The king, indeed, referred the constitution to a Committee. But the way he managed was distinguished by the chicanery which pervaded the whole conduct of that king. The Dutch had already agreed to the constitution, and well they might, as they had all the advantages of it on their own side: but the constitution was referred to a Congress of an equal number of Dutch and Belgian Notables. With respect to the Dutch, then, it was merely acta agere. The Dutch nominees of the king in the States General of course voted for it, because it was favourable to themselves; but of the 1,323 Belgic deputies in the States-General, 796 voted against the acceptance of the constitution, and 527 in favour of it. Was
408
not that a rejection of the proposed constitution on the part of Belgium? Could any man in his senses say, that the Belgians did not thus reject this constitution by a majority against it? His Dutch majesty, however, decided, that 527 votes were more than 796, and that the minority was greater than the majority. Because 126 of the Belgian deputies who voted against the constitution, assigned as a reason for doing so, that the king was a Protestant, his majesty struck their votes out of the list, on the ground of their having given a reason for their votes. There were 282 of the Belgian deputies who did not vote at all, and the king at once decided that every one of them had voted on his side. Such conduct was an insult to common sense, and an outrage upon the feelings of the people of Belgium. All these Notables had been selected by the king, and yet they voted against the constitution, than which there could not be a more decisive proof that it was opposed to the feelings of the nation, and that it was eventually forced upon them by fraud and violence. But then they were told, that the Belgian Bishops had protested against the giving equal favour and protection to all religions in Belgium. In doing so they only imitated the example, and followed the steps, of the Protestant Tories in this country. In doing so, they only acted in accordance with the principles of the hon. member for Oxford, for instance, and of many other hon. Members in that House. For his part, he differed from the Belgian Bishops, and from the hon. member for Oxford, on that point; he was for giving the same protection to all religions; but again he would say on behalf of those Belgian Bishops, that they only protested against the protection of the Protestant religion in Belgium, as the Protestant Tories would protest against the protection of the Catholic religion here. Such was the reason that some of the Belgic deputies assigned, for voting against the constitution proposed by the king of Holland; but though it was not a good reason, it was no just cause for disqualifying them for voting. Could any decision afford a greater evidence of fraud and force than that decision, on the part of the king of Holland? It was in such a way that this constitution was forced upon Belgium. By means of that constitution, Belgium was saddled with the debt of Holland. The only debt that had previously

409
existed in Belgium, was the Austro-Belgic debt, which amounted to about 1,000,000 l. sterling. By the constitution, however, which the king of Holland imposed upon Belgium, it was saddled in addition with the Dutch debt, which amounted to 80,000,000 l. sterling. It was not at all wonderful that the Dutch Deputies had voted for the imposition of that constitution upon Belgium, when, by means of it, they transferred 39,500,000 l. of it to the shoulders of the Belgians. The consequence was, that the increase of taxation in Belgium was enormous. To such an extent, indeed, was it carried, that the French war taxes in Belgium under Napoleon, amounted only to one-third of the Dutch peace taxes in that country. This taxation was, besides, increasing every year during the reign of his Dutch majesty over Belgium, and the result must have been either a bankruptcy, or a revolution, if that cause alone had been allowed to operate. In the year 1821, the king of Holland imposed additional taxes to the amount of 4,000,000 l., 3,000,000 l. of which were thrown on Belgium, and the remaining 1,000,000 l. on the Dutch. Was that a fair or a just distribution of the burthen of taxation between the two countries? Besides, though the Belgic population amounted to 4,000,000, and the Dutch to only 2,000,000, the Dutch had an equal number of representatives in the States General. The consequence was, that the king being always sure of the Dutch Deputies, had only to bribe one or two of the Belgic Deputies, to secure a majority for any measure which he might propose with regard to Belgium, however onerous or unjust such a measure might be towards that country. It was by that means that he secured a majority of two in 1821, when the unjustly disproportionate share of the new taxes was laid upon Belgium. In truth and fact, there never was a more iniquitous and unjust union, than that which subsisted between Belgium and Holland, unless, perhaps, that which at present existed between two other countries, to which he would not further allude. The Dutch king, in 1814, when acting as commissary of the Holy Alliance, abolished by a decree the Trial by Jury in Belgium, and he never restored it, though the Belgians frequently petitioned for it. In one of the petitions, the Belgians, though living under the rule of this Dutch king, had the courage to repeat
410
that the Trial by Jury "had been assassinated in Belgium." It was said by the apologists of the king, that he had presented three Jury codes to the Chamber, which were successively rejected by it. But when were they presented? It was not until the year 1828 that the first of them was offered to the Chamber, and the legislation of the middle ages was enlightened, compared with the specimen of legislation which they afforded. The fact was, that the Belgians were obliged to reject them, they were so extremely bad. In a message to the Chamber, on the 11th of December, 1829, the king of Holland expressly declared, that the Trial by Jury was an "exotic innovation" in Belgium. In the same decree by which the king of Holland abolished the Trial by Jury in Belgium, he ordained, that the examination of witnesses should no longer take place in open Court, and he thus removed one of the surest safeguards of public justice. Still further, he rendered the Judges in Belgium, quite dependent on his will and power. It was true, that not a single one of them had been removed, during the fifteen years that his Dutch majesty ruled in Belgium but his (Mr. O'Connell's) complaint was, that such was the case, and that all that time those Judges held their offices provisionally. The constitution declared, that the Judges should be irremovable; but then the king was to have the first nomination of them, and afterwards the Chamber was to have it; and by thus keeping in the original Judges, he rendered them perfectly dependent on him, for they were well aware that they only held their situations "during their good behaviour." Yet this king, who by thus withholding the execution of that part of the constitution which related to the Judges, rendered the judicial office provisional, and completely dependent, had been lauded in that House as a philosophic monarch! Undoubtedly, if cunning meant philosophy, he possessed a most superabundant store of wisdom, for, by withholding the constitution of the Courts, he contrived to keep in his hands, during the fifteen years of his reign in Belgium, an unlimited control over the Judges in that kingdom. The law of libel declared, that whoever excited a hatred of the government, or created any distrust (mefiance) of the government, should receive, as a minimum of punishment, one year's imprisonment, and six hours in the pillory,

411
whilst the maximum of punishment should be death. This was the detestable law, under which Belgium had laboured for fourteen years. The law was published on the 25th of April, 1815, and not a single year had elapsed without somebody being prosecuted under this law. In the month of June, 1830, no less than thirty-two prosecutions were commenced under this law, on the same day. He would now name a few of the leading cases of oppression which had occurred under this mild philosophic king of the Netherlands. The first case lie would allude to, was that of Mr. Wallace, who had presented a memorial to the assembly at the Hague, praying that he might be allowed to institute a prosecution against the minister of police, for having illegally and tyrannically banished from Brussels two French gentlemen, who had resided at that capital, and who were entitled to all the rights and privileges of free and natural born subjects. For laying this petition before the house, Mr. Wallace was thrown into solitary confinement for sixty-six days. He was then brought to trial, for a transportable felony, and if he was acquitted he did not owe his escape to the king, or to his prosecutors. He could quote very many other instances of oppression. He would allude to a case of a priest at Antwerp, a man of the highest respectability, a most exemplary character, and one who employed his leisure time in the pursuits of literature. This person was invited to a dinner in a private family at Antwerp, and in the course of the entertainment, he produced some Latin verses, in which there was a line expressive of the sentiment, that the Belgians were ignorant of submitting to a foreign yoke—
"Nescit subire jugum."
For this line he had to suffer two years' imprisonment. He would now come to the case of M. de Potter. That gentleman's articles in the newspapers were so written, that it was impossible to attack any one of them with a view of bringing it under the law of libel; and what was the stratagem of Government? They took them all together, declaring, that though not separately libels, they were libels taken as a whole, and tried M. de Potter before the Premier President, without a Jury, and sentenced him to seven years' transportation. M. de Potter was a politician, and might merit the anger of Government; but what could be thought
412
of the case of M. Vander Spragen? This gentleman published a large octavo volume upon Political Economy, and a prosecution was immediately commenced against him. M. de Potter's prosecution was going on at the same time; and a gentleman, M. Van de Weyer, now the Ambassador to this country, was the Keeper of the Public Library; he was Professor of Philosophy, and he had been elected Keeper of the Royal Manuscripts. M. de Potter sent to him to know if he would act as his counsel, and he replied in the affirmative; but on this being known, an intimation was forthwith conveyed to him, that if he acted as counsel for M. de Potter, he would be immediately deprived of his office. "You may deprive me of twenty places," he replied; "but I will do my duty?" Immediately he rose in Court to defend his friend; no sooner had he uttered the word "Messieurs"—the term in which Pleaders commence in addressing the Court—than a royal messenger rose, and gave him his dismissal from his official situations. How, too, did the upright King of Holland proceed in the case of M. Van Staaten. That gentleman had applied to seven members of the legal profession to draw up his case. The very next day all these seven gentlemen were committed to gaol, and were held without bail or mainprize, nor was it until a twelvemonth had elapsed that they were restored to their profession. In hearing of this case, who could forget that of the seven Bishops in England, which was followed by a revolution that no man could hesitate to justify, and yet the bigotted tyrant who prosecuted the seven Bishops never thought of prosecuting the Counsel that undertook their defence? But the Press in Belgium was open to prosecutions by foreigners. The king of France had a Belgian writer prosecuted and punished. And who was the next prosecutor? Why, it was no less a man than the beloved Ferdinand. A paragraph had appeared in the papers acknowledging that Ferdinand was an excellent embroiderer, but at the same time the writer took the liberty of doubting if the Virgin Mary would be much pleased with a petticoat embroidered by hands that were stained with innocent blood. The beloved Ferdinand prosecuted the writer of this, and he was punished. Even the Duke of Wellington tried his hand at these prosecutions. The Governor of some colony had neglected his duty, and great disturbance

413
had been produced in consequence in the interior. The writer stated, that the Governor was a friend of the Duke of Wellington, and that his object was to throw the colony into the arms of England. The Duke of Wellington on this instituted a prosecution for libel, and had laid his damages at 10,000 florins, and what did he get? why, five fanes. He would do his Grace the justice to say, that he believed, that he did not put one penny of this in his own pocket. The Burgomaster of Maestricht, for opposing an illegal tax, had been tried and acquitted, but was deprived of his office, and of all his political rights. Another Burgomaster, for suggesting a petition to the House of Assembly in favour of the Jury law, was dismissed from his office, and deprived of his political rights, by which he lost his chance of being returned as a member of the Chambers. A Baron Stassart, a native Belgian, who had served in the French army, had resigned his pension of 10,000 francs in France, and had preferred to reside in his native country, upon a pension of only 1,800 guilders. He was a member of the second Chamber, before which was laid a petition complaining of grievances, and he voted that the petition should be received and considered. The next day he was deprived of his pension, and his political rights were taken away from him by this philosophic king. The noble Lord was wrong in his opinion of the press. The public press was intelligent enough. The noble Lord should reflect that there were 80,000,000 l. of Dutch debt, some of which was due to English subjects, and this, he might easily imagine, would have its influence on the English press. The manner in which he had been reported in the leading journal was rather singular. It was something new for a reporter to state that a speech of his had received "a sneering answer." Such a thing had never before happened to him, and it had never happened except to him. To call the Belgians rebels was an abuse of terms, and a gross calumny. With respect to the religious part of the question, the Pope had considered himself to be defrauded in the transaction. The greatest tyranny had been shown in the licensing of schools. Not Carlile or Taylor could have gone farther in religious freedom than the Emperor Joseph 2nd, and his foundation of the College at Brussels had created the revolution of 1787, and yet the Catholic
414
clergy were obliged to pass three years in study at this college. He had now shown hat he had exaggerated nothing. He had been attacked, but what had been his crime? He had merely assailed the Toryism of Holland, a Toryism similar to that which had devastated his own country, and yet this had excited the anger of a right hon. Baronet.
"Sejanus, Wolsey hurt not honest Fleury, But yet would put some statesmen in a fury."
He had now shown, that the Belgians were called upon by every sanction of religion to endure their tyranny only until they could snap their chains, and he trusted that they would never again be united.
Lord Althorpdid not think an attack upon the king of the Netherlands a proper mode of proceeding, and it was only because the noble Lord had made a statement in answer to what the learned Gentleman had said on a previous night, that he felt disinclined to interrupt the learned Gentleman, although the whole discussion was very irregular. He thought it far from desirable, that the discussion should be proceeded in. The subject extended over fifteen years, and it was not likely that the debate would be speedily concluded.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that the Belgians had had sufficient ground for the course they had adopted; but surely there was no one who had heard the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman, both on that and on a former night, who would not admit, that what he said was more directed to another country than to that which formed the ostensible object of his two speeches. Much had been said respecting the Belgian Debt. It might be true, that it was not so large as that of Holland; but the hon. and learned Gentleman now admitted, there was a debt, which he had before denied. The hon. and learned Member had again misstated the facts of several divisions of the second Chamber on the Jury question. As to all the special cases of individual hardship which the hon. and learned Gentleman had enlarged upon, they had nothing but bare assertion to rest upon; but all the cases and circumstances he had mentioned did not justify the Belgians in casting off their allegiance. Contenting himself with these observations for the present, he should only say, that whenever the hon. and learned Gentleman thought proper to bring forward a motion on the

415
subject, or bring the subject in any form again before the House, under circumstances in which it would be practicable to collect evidence, he should be prepared to answer him.

SUPPLY—LESCESNE AND ESCOFFERY.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Spring Rice Mr. Spring Rice moved, that the sum of 11,270 l. be granted to Lewis Celeste Lescesne, and James Escoffery, to compensate them for their losses in being moved from the island of Jamaica, by order of the Duke of Manchester, in 1823.
Mr. Humesaid, that 5,000 l. had already been voted for this purpose, and he protested against anything further being paid out of the pockets of the people of England. If any wrong had been done to these individuals by the Assembly of Jamaica, the people of that island ought to make the compensation. It was not to the principle of just compensation that he objected, but to the House granting it without such necessary previous information as would enable the Members to determine, first, the grounds on which the claimants were entitled to compensation; and next, the proper quarter for defraying the burthen of it. Till, therefore, Ministers furnished the documents with respect to the present case, which he had on a recent occasion unsuccessfully moved for, he must give the vote a decided negative and take the sense of the Committee on it.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, the question lay in a short compass—namely, whether these two gentlemen were entitled to compensation; that is, whether they had been illegally deprived of their situations by the Duke of Manchester, and exposed to consequent unmerited suffering, or otherwise; and who were the parties bound to afford the compensation? The whole point turned on another question—as to whether they were, or were not, aliens? If they were, the Duke of Manchester had not exceeded his functions of governor; if they were not, he had acted illegally, and they were entitled to compensation. The case had been fully inquired into in the years 1824 and 1825 in the island, and the report, and all the documents on which it was founded, referred to Mr. Justice Richardson, in 1826, for his decision. That gentleman having, however, retired from his judicial duties, in consequence of ill health, the whole case was referred to
416
Mr. Serjeant Bosanquet, and that learned lawyer gave it as his opinion, that the Duke of Manchester had acted illegally towards the claimants under the present vote; for that they were not, in the eyes of the law, aliens, but British subjects. Mr. Bosanquet's opinion, and all the documents on which it was founded, were then referred to the then Attorney and Solicitor General, and they decided that that opinion was just and legal. The only question, then, that remained was, the amount of compensation, or damages, for unmerited suffering; and this point was left to the arbitration of Mr. Selwyn, upon whose award a Treasury minute was issued under the administration of the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Murray) opposite, who then filled the office of Colonial Secretary, under which minute, dated the 30th of July, 1830, a sum was paid to the parties on account, with an explicit promise on the part of the Treasury, that the remainder would be made good by a vote of Parliament. Hence the present vote, to which, as founded, after the fullest inquiry, on the opinion and award of gentlemen eminent in their profession, and free from all personal bias one way or the other, he could not anticipate any opposition.
Sir George Murraysaid, he would only trouble the Committee with a very few observations upon this subject, understanding from the right hon. Gentleman, who had stated very accurately the particulars of the case, that no blame whatever was attached to the Government which preceded the present in what had been done. The arbitration, he thought, had taken place when his lamented friend, the late Mr. Huskisson, was in the Colonial Office. He had but few words to say as to the share which he had taken in the transaction. After the report of the arbitrators had been made, there was a supposition that some new facts might be elicited, which would possibly alter it, and he thought it incumbent upon him to send other papers, which had reached the office, to the parties who had the case before them. The result was, that the same decision was pronounced, and it was not till the Law Officers of the Crown had, after due investigation, confirmed the opinion of Mr. Serjeant Bosanquet, that the Committee was called upon to vote the remaining sum, part of which had been already paid, the amount of the compensation given.
Mr. Burge,having been a member of the Council of Jamaica, which had advised the Duke of Manchester to act as he had done towards the parties interested in the present vote, felt that it would be indecorous in him to offer an opinion on the merits of the case, in the absence of the documents essential to its thorough elucidation. He would therefore leave it in the hands of the Committee—merely observing, that he was confident that the documents, if produced, would show that the Council of Jamaica were warranted to act as they had done.
An Hon. Membersaid, that the country relied on the professions of Ministers and their supporters to enforce economy to every possible extent; and therefore would hear with surprise of the present vote. As it was plain, from the statement of the hon. Secretary of the Treasury, that the Duke of Manchester's having acted illegally was the original error, why, he asked, in the name of common-sense and common justice, should not that noble Duke, and not the public, be called upon to defray the expense of compensation?
Mr. Warreagreed with the hon. Member, but still felt himself compelled to give a reluctant vote in favour of the Motion as it stood. The statement of the hon. Secretary of the Treasury made it evident, that they were committed to the present vote, else he would divide with the hon. member for Middlesex against it.
Lord Howickhad, on a recent occasion, resisted the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex, for the production of the documents to which the present vote referred, on the ground, that their printing would cost 6,000 l., and that the whole legal inquiry would have to be gone over again by that House, and the House had agreed with him, in negativing the hon. Member's motion. The inexpediency, then, of producing these papers having been thus decided, the only question was, whether the Colonial or the Home Government was bound to make good the award made in favour of Messrs. Lecesne and Escoffery. It appeared to him plain, that as Ministers were responsible for the Colonial Governors appointed by their advice, they, and not the Duke of Manchester, were the persons bound to afford compensation to individuals illegally used, like the present claimants.
Sir John Bourkesaid, if the hon. member for Middlesex persisted in his motion,
418
he should vote against it; but, if the hon. Member would shape it for a Committee to inquire into the claims of the parties, he would support such a motion.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that the formation of a Committee would be of no benefit; the case had already been fully investigated. With respect to the act of the Duke of Manchester, it must be taken as the act of the Government. He did not say, that the Duke of Manchester was bound to follow the recommendation of the Assembly for the removal of the individuals, but, had he not, he would have been placed in a disagreeable position. It would be a gross act of injustice to require the noble Duke to pay the compensation awarded.
Mr. Fyshe Palmercared not much who made good the award, so as Messrs. Lecesne and Escoffery received the compensation to which their most unmerited treatment fully entitled them. He considered these individuals to have been most cruelly used, and he thought that they ought to have compensation, no matter whether it came from the Colonial Assembly, or from the Duke of Manchester, or from any other quarter. This country was only called upon to give 16,000 l. as a compensation for the grossest act of perfidy and injustice ever committed. He said this knowingly, because he had given some attention to this matter. He was not connected with either party in this case; but if he had any connexion with it, his connexions and his relationship lay rather on the other side than on that which he was then advocating. He left it to the feeling and to the justice of the Committee to do what was right on this occasion; but when he considered the whole series of oppression which these individuals had endured—when he recollected that it was such as no English Legislature had ever sanctioned before—he thought that it was incumbent upon the House to make them ample compensation for the indignities and injuries which they had suffered. Indeed, he would put it to the Committee whether 16,000 l. could be a sufficient compensation to individuals, who, independently of their pecuniary loss, had been manacled, tied neck and heels, and carried out of the island like slaves? In conclusion, he maintained that the Committee was bound to make to these individuals the most ample compensation within its power.
Mr. Serjeant Wildecontended, that the

419
Committee should give these individuals, not only ample, but also immediate compensation, inasmuch as a delay of all justice for seven years was something very like a denial of justice. It had been admitted on all hands that these individuals had been injured by the conduct of a representative of the British Government; he therefore insisted that the British Government ought to be responsible for the injury which its representative had inflicted. He thought that it would be hard upon the Duke of Manchester to make him personally responsible, as he had acted upon the advice of the Saw-officers with which the Government had provided him. He was of opinion that the case ought not to be re-opened, as it had been submitted to the arbitration of a most upright, learned, and pains-taking Judge, Mr. Justice Bosanquet, who had decided it in favour of Messrs. Lecesne and Escoffery.
Mr. Burgecould not refrain from observing, that the hon. member for Reading had been wanting in common justice towards him (Mr. Burge) when he (Mr. Palmer) gave so strong an opinion upon this case, without knowing any thing of the evidence by which it was supported. He denied that these individuals had been either manacled or tied neck and heels, He would not enter into the defence of the authorities of Jamacia upon this occasion, however he might be provoked by unjust accusations to do so. He would only implode the Committee to suspend its judgment with regard to this transaction, until the Members were made acquainted with all the circumstances connected with it.
Mr. O'Connellcontended, that these individuals had been most unjustly and oppressively treated, and he cared not by whom. They had sought a trial—they had been refused a trial—and yet, after all, they had been convicted without a trial.
Mr. Burgedenied the truth of this statement.
Mr. O'Connellpersisted in declaring, that they had been convicted on the green-bag evidence of the Colonial Assembly of Jamaica; and then, because that evidence would not satisfy a Court of Justice, had been deported as aliens. Now they claimed to be, and had since proved themselves to be, British-born subjects; and the establishment of that fact rendered the use of the Alien Act against them still more oppressive. The hon. and learned Gentleman,
420
after entering into the facts of the case, which have been repeatedly published, proceeded to enforce their claims to compensation, on the ground that though economy was a good thing, justice was a better. He was also of opinion, that the Duke of Manchester ought not to be made pecuniarily responsible for the injury which these individuals suffered, as he had merely acted in conformity with the advice given him by the Assembly and the Council. He believed that, if he had refused to act according to their advice, he would have been liable to an impeachment.
Mr. Huntsaid, that if these persons were to be indemnified, so ought every man who had been imprisoned under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. If the hon. member for Middlesex did not persist in dividing the Committee upon this clause, he should.
Mr. Fyshe Palmerwas surprised at the accusation of injustice which the hon. member for Eye had brought against him, for the speech which he had made upon this subject. Though he had not examined all the papers connected with it, he knew that they had been referred to the decision of a most learned and upright Judge, and that that Judge had declared, that these two individuals had been harshly and unjustly treated, and ought to be recompensed. He should have felt the rebuke of the hon. member for Eye more deeply, had he not recollected, that that hon. Member was, to a certain degree, mixed up with this transaction, and that he was now bound to confirm in the House of Commons the judgment which had been given by his advice in the Island of Jamaica.
Mr. Burgesaid, that the advice which he, as Attorney-general of Jamaica, had given to the Duke of Manchester on this transaction, had met with the approbation both of the Council and of the Assembly of that Island. He did not wish to shrink from any of the measures which he had then advised.
Mr. Keith Douglasthought the present discussion altogether unnecessary, as the whole question had been previously settled by the House. The Government was bound, he thought, to grant the compensation awarded.
Mr. Humewas of opinion, that the present Government was not bound to carry into effect the award made during the late Government. He admitted, that injustice had been done to the two individuals

421
but he must contend, that the people of this country were not bound to provide the compensation. He would not consent to vote the money unless some further in formation were supplied on the subject.
The Committee divided on the original question, Ayes 117; Noes 12; Majority 105.

List of the NOES.

Blamire, W.

Guise, Sir William

Burke, Sir John

Hodgson, J.

Dick, Quintin

Hunt, H.

Dixon, J.

James, W.

Gillon, W. D.

Williams, Sir James

Gordon, R.

TELLER.

Godson, R.

Hume, J.

SUPPLY—IRISH ESTIMATES.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he had the honour to introduce the Irish Estimates to the House. They had been framed with the greatest attention to economy, and he hoped they were not liable to many objections. It was in contemplation to introduce measures which he hoped would be attended by a considerable saving, but they were not able to carry them into effect immediately. The first vote he should propose was, 5,794 l. for the Protestant Charter Schools in Ireland for 1831. The Committee would observe that there was a considerable reduction in this vote, as last year the sum proposed was 8,950 l.
Mr. Humeasked when these grants were likely to cease; he had the strongest objection to these schools, which tended to promote religious animosities.
Mr. Spring Riceintimated, that it was proposed first to reduce this grant to 3,000 l., and soon to cause its cessation altogether. It was in a state of gradual reduction; a few years since, the amount was 40,000 l.—
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the houses and buildings now occupied by these schools were purchased with the public money. If they were to be broken up, care ought to be taken to secure the buildings, and not allow the trustees to have them.
Vote agreed to.
On proposing 27,824 l. for the Foundling Hospital,
Mr. Spring Ricestated, that this vote also was in course of gradual reduction, with a view to its abolition as early as possible.
Mr. Ruthvenfelt some regret at hearing these grants were to be gradually reduced.
422
The poor people in Ireland had no other resource than these charities; they had no Poor-laws to fly to.
Mr. Humesaid, the whole principles of Foundling Hospitals wore bad; they inculcated bad habits, and fostered immorality. They induced the poor to look on them as asylums for their children, and thus made them indifferent to the consequences of their conduct. They were the resources of bad governments; Scotland required no such grants. They ought, by all means, to encourage feelings of self-reliance and habits of forethought in the lower orders, which such institutions had a direct tendency to counteract. He was glad to hear the grant was reduced.
Mr. O'Connellconcurred with his hon. friend that the principles on which such institutions were founded were bad. The mortality in them was frightful, and he feared the consequences were made worse by the salaries and allowances to the nurses not being regularly paid. He should recommend hon. Members to read the reports; the deaths were so numerous as to be hardly credible.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, the delay of the payment of the salaries was caused by the time taken to prepare the Estimates.
Lord Granville Somersetsaid, it was the general feeling of the Committee to whom the whole subject was referred, that the grants should be gradually abolished. It was only on account of the children already in the asylums, that the grant was not instantly discontinued. If the children were not humanely treated, the trustees and overlookers of the institution were to blame.
Mr. O'Connellhad strong reasons for believing, that the nurses treated the children intrusted to them with the utmost kindness. There were many instances of the children retaining the strongest attachment through life to them.
Mr. Humesaid, it appeared, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Committee, that children were admitted last year. This was wholly improper, and a neglect of duty in the late Government; the resolution was, "that the Committee recommend that all admissions of children to the Foundling Hospital shall cease and determine after the 1st of January, 1830."
Vote agreed to.
Mr. Spring Rice Mr. Spring Rice moved "That 21,200 l. be granted for the House of Industry, Dublin, the Lunatic Department, and

423
three General Hospitals attached." There had been a reduction in this grant, since last year, of 1,800 l., and he hoped still further ones would be made, particularly in the salaries.
Mr. Humeconsidered, that the people of Dublin ought to pay all the expense of these local charities, but if the public were to subscribe to support local institutions, hospitals, on a good footing, were the best that could be supported.
Vote agreed to.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, the next resolution was, "That 1,388 l. be granted for the Richmond Lunatic Asylum."—The expenses of this institution had been reduced this year 5,312 l., the last year's estimate being 6,700 l.
Mr. O'Connellregretted very much to see these grants reduced. Many charitable institutions would be discontinued in consequence. The assumed saving was, after all, a mere transfer, the expense being saved to the public, but thrown upon the starving peasantry of Ireland. These grants had been given to compensate in some degree the loss occasioned by so many absentees, and others, who were compelled to attend their duty in England, and there spent much of their revenues.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, however the hon. and learned Member's remarks might apply in general, they did not apply to this institution in particular; it was a local charity, and its benefits confined to a particular district.
Vote agreed to.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, the next resolution was, "That 6,323 l., be granted for the Hibernian Society for Soldiers' Children." A reduction of 1,273 l. had been made since last year, in this grant. There were formerly 800 children in the school, there were now 500, and they proposed to reduce the number to 300, which would allow of still further reductions.
Mr. Leaderregretted, that the orphans of soldiers, who had fought the battles of their country, were to be deprived of the benefits they enjoyed by means of this institution.
Mr. Humesaid, the children of artizans had as much right to be maintained by the State as the children of soldiers. This institution could not, however, be abolished in Ireland, while a similar one was kept up in England, but he hoped the grants for both would be discontinued.
Mr. O'Counellsaid, the children of Catholics were only admitted into these schools on the understanding, that they were to be educated as Protestants. He hoped some explanation would be given if this was really so.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he was not aware of that particular circumstance, but he must observe, that, as the expense of supporting the orphan children was borne by the State, and as it was obvious they must have some religious education, it would follow, that the only one that could be given them was that founded on the religion of the State.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the Catholic relations of these orphan children objected to send them to the school, where they knew they would be educated as Protestants. This led to their total exclusion. If the Protestant religion was that of the State, the Catholic religion was that of the great majority of the Irish people, and the exclusive system had a pernicious influence on their minds.
Sir George Murraysaid, the exclusive system had been much relaxed. The children were now allowed to be apprenticed to Catholic masters, although he acknowledged the school was still under the superintendence of a clergyman of the Established Church; but the children of both persuasions were similarly treated in every respect.
Sir Henry Hardingecould also assure the House that the children of Catholics and Protestants were placed on the same footing.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the system altogether was what he complained of. The Protestant soldier's child was educated in his father's religion, the Catholic in what was called the State religion.
Vote agreed to.
The next vote was, "That 1,268 l. be granted for the Hibernian Marine Society.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, the grant had been reduced 132 l. since last year.
Mr. Humerecommended that this vote should be withdrawn as speedily as was compatible with justice to those who happened to be at present on the institution. There were considerable abuses connected with it. The children educated there, were not those for whose benefit it was intended, and the expenses besides were far too large for the number maintained.
Mr. Spring Ricereplied, that all admissions

425
were to be stopped for the future, as it was in the contemplation of Government to anticipate the hon. Member's suggestion.
Vote agreed to.
The votes,
1,291 l. for the Female Orphan House;
2,900 1. for the Westmoreland Lock Hospital;
2,000 l. for the Lying-in Hospital;
1,578 1. for Dr. Stephen's Hospital;
2,860 1. for the Fever Hospital, Cork-street, Dublin; and
465 1. for the Hospital for Incurables, were agreed to without opposition.
The House resumed.

WINE DUTIES.
On the Motion of Lord Althorp, the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Wine Duties' Bill was read, and the question put, that the Bill be read a second time.
Mr. Courtenay Mr. Courtenay rose, and being called on by the Speaker, though Mr. George Robinson rose at the same time, went on to say, that he was sorry to interfere with the hon. Gentleman, but as the hon. Gentleman had had an opportunity on a former occasion of addressing the House on the subject at great length, he must then take the liberty of saying a few words on that important question. In opposing the second reading of the Bill, he begged to be understood as not opposing the principles of the noble Lord. In the situation in which he stood, as well as when he was in office under the Government, he had given this subject a great deal of attention, and, though holding principles somewhat similar to those adopted by the Government, he had come to the conclusion that it was not possible to alter these duties without acting inconsistently with treaties. Before, however, he noticed the treaty, he would beg to offer one word with respect to his own consistency. In the course of the Session before last, an hon. friend of his, now the Secretary of the Board of Control, brought forward a motion touching grievances with respect to the wine trade. It fell to his lot to be the organ of Government on that occasion; and he did then certainly state, that he agreed, to a considerable extent, with his hon. friend, but he also stated on the part of Government, that it was placed in this difficult situation—that it could not interfere with the wine duties, without a communication with the government of
426
Portugal, and the difficulty lay in Portugal having a sovereign whom we had not acknowledged. The argument of his hon. friend was reiterated and reinforced by Mr. Huskisson; but so far from taking a different view of the subject to that taken by the Government, it was, he said, its duty to consider the question, whenever the state of diplomatic relations with Portugal would permit. It was no new opinion of his, that the Methuen Treaty was in the way of the arrangement of the noble Lord. A legal gentleman, extremely well versed in these matters, had given his opinion as to the propriety, according to the law and customs of nations, of departing from that treaty without previous discussion; and he said, that there was no way of getting out of the difficulties raised by the treaty, except by putting upon it that construction for which the noble Lord contended, but which would be a practice so exceedingly sharp, it would be so pettifogging a construction, that it would not become the dignity of an honourable Government to resort to it. This advice was received when he was in office; and he trusted, therefore, that the House would at least believe, that he was sincere in his opposition to the Bill of the noble Lord. The noble Lord, in speaking on the subject of the compact, said, that this question depended entirely upon the Methuen Treaty. The noble Lord, in support of his argument, read a part—but a part only—of that treaty, and omitted to read the first Article, which was as follows "His sacred royal Majesty of Portugal promises, both in his own name and that of his successors to admit for ever hereafter, into Portugal, the woollen cloths and the rest of the woollen manufactures of the Britons, as was accustomed till they were prohibited by the laws: nevertheless, upon this condition." The second Article was this, "That is to say, that her sacred royal Majesty shall, in her own name, and that of her successors, be obliged for ever hereafter to admit the wines of the growth of Portugal into Britain; so that at no time, whether there shall be peace or war between the kingdoms of Britain and France, anything more shall be demanded for these wines, by the name of custom or duty, or by whatsoever other title, directly or indirectly, whether they shall be imported into Great Britain in pipes or hogsheads, or other casks, than what shall be demanded from the like quantity or measure of French wine,

427
deducting or abating a third part of the custom or duty;" and then there was this proviso, upon which the noble Lord relied. "But if at any time this deduction or abatement of customs, which is to be made as aforesaid, shall in any manner be attempted and prejudiced, it shall be just and lawful for his sacred royal Majesty of Portugal again to prohibit the woollen cloths and the rest of the British woollen manufactures." It would be quite impossible to find in any treaty words more decidedly of a permanent character than these articles—"for ever," and "at no time;" nothing certainly could well be stronger than those words. It certainly was intended to be as binding, and to last as long, as any treaty that ever was made. But the noble Lord endeavoured to get over the difficulty, on the principle of retaliation. He said, if Great Britain should at any time depart from this treaty, Portugal might also depart from it. It was a treaty that might be put an end to at any time, by either party. That was certainly the effect of what was said by the right, hon. the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, although the noble Lord, indeed, did not say "either party." The noble Lord said, we might at any time commit a breach of this treaty, provided we were ready to bear the consequences. He was astonished to hear the noble Lord argue as if there were no moral obligations to be borne in mind, but simply taking this circumstance into consideration, and at once coming to the conclusion, that, we might, on the ground of any diplomatic policy, violate a treaty, provided we were ready to abide by the penalties imposed on us for pursuing such a course of conduct. He was astonished to hear that doctrine from the noble Lord, considering him a straightforward, single-minded, Englishman; but he was more astonished to hear such doctrines, when he recollected, that the noble Lord was Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it was precisely the argument used by those who committed breaches of the revenue-laws. "Oh!" say the smugglers in high life, "there is no harm in doing this, because, if we are found out, we are perfectly willing to pay the penalties.'' That view of the subject could not be taken by an honourable man, and still less by the head of the Revenue Department. The noble Lord devised his measure with the ingenuity of a pettifogger, and justified it
428
with the sophistry of a smuggler. The noble Lord said, that the view he took of the Methuen Treaty was also taken, first, by the Lords of Trade, who made an elaborate report, in the year 1767, which was laid upon the Table of this House last year, and afterwards by Mr. Pitt. He was at issue with the noble Lord as to both these authorities. If the noble Lord would turn to the report, he would find only one passage which touched at all upon this part of the question; and it would appear from this passage, that the Lords of Trade were of opinion, that nothing would justify us in breaking the Methuen Treaty, but the government of Portugal departing from its specific terms. Therefore, if this had any bearing whatever upon the subject, it would act against the view taken by the noble Lord. He contended, however, that it had no bearing upon the question. With respect to Mr. Pitt's opinion, he admitted, that Mr. Pitt was very anxious—quite as anxious as the noble Lord—to get rid of the Methuen Treaty, and to open an intercourse with France; he admitted, that Mr. Pitt even went so far as to propose Resolutions in this House for equalizing the duties on wines; but he never did for one moment admit, that we were at liberty to depart from the words of the Methuen Treaty. He then made use of these expressions, "I have every reason to expect the negotiation with Portugal will prove successful; if, however, it should fail, in either case, I will come down to the House, and, in one of the two situations, will move a Resolution to lower the duties on Portugal wines, one-third below the duties on French wines; in the other, I will lay before the House the grounds on which the Administration consider the Court of Lisbon as no longer willing to comply with the Methuen Treaty." Mr. Pitt considered himself bound to adhere to the Methuen Treaty, so long as the Court of Lisbon expressed its determination to abide by it. He challenged the noble Lord to produce any passage, to prove that it was in the contemplation of Mr. Pitt to commit a breach of the Methuen Treaty. It was stated, that Mr. Pitt, in a letter read by the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, threatened, that if Portugal persevered in committing breaches of former treaties, we might be induced, on our parts, to depart from the treaty of 1703. He was ready to admit, that, if

429
we could make out against Portugal a case of a breach of other treaties, that would authorise us to break the treaty of 1703. But how stood the case before the House, with respect to those breaches of treaty? Why, upon the motion of his hon. friend, the Secretary for the Board of Control, they had a long statement of grievances up to the year 1813, but nothing of a subsequent date; and the House of Commons was called upon to act in a particular manner, in consequence of grievances, of the existence of which it could know nothing. If it were attempted to justify breaking the treaty, by alluding to grievances of recent date, he should answer, that we had the highest possible authority for saying, that the grievances caused in this, or the course of the last year, had been redressed. It was true, we were told, in the Speech from the Throne, that we had sustained a series of unexampled insults from Portugal; but it was also true, that the Speech said, that, on satisfaction being demanded, those grievances were redressed. The House knew nothing of the existence of any grievances, of later date than the year 1813, and we had no right or title whatever to break a treaty—a solemn compact with Portugal—on account of acts done by her so long ago. It was like the wolf and the lamb in the fable, to say to defenceless Portugal, you shall suffer for injuries done to us by your fathers or your grandfathers. It would be necessary, if this solemn treaty was to be broken, on the ground of misbehaviour on the part of Portugal, that his Majesty's Ministers should lay before the House the facts on which they rested their accusations, in order that they should be clearly and explicitly made out. The stipulation was made for ever, or until the two parties should agree to put an end to it; if one party put an end to it without the consent of the other, that produced a cause of quarrel; but, in this case, one was a very strong, and the other a very weak party. The stipulation, therefore, with respect to what Portugal might do, stood on these grounds:—England, being the stronger party of the two, it was introduced for the protection of Portugal; if Portugal broke the compact, we could protect ourselves; if we broke the treaty, Portugal had no other resource than to dissolve the treaty. But, the more it was out of the power—and we had had a recent public instance of the weakness of Portugal—the
430
more it was out of the power of Portugal to make war against this country, the more England was bound, by every principle of humanity and justice, to adhere rigidly to that part of the treaty. Referring the question, then, as the noble Lord referred it, solely to the treaty, that treaty was a perpetual treaty, and could only be altered by mutual consent, and mutual consent could only be obtained by previous discussions; and, if our relations with Portugal were unfortunately so mystified as to prevent discussion, we were bound, as an honourable nation—bound by every consideration of justice and equity—to adhere to that Methuen Treaty until this Government should come to some final understanding with the government of Portugal. He would now say a few words as to the operation of the more recent Treaty of 1810. The 26th Article of that treaty said, "The two parties agree and declare, that the stipulations of former treaties, concerning the admission of the wines of Portugal on the one hand, and the woollen cloths of Great Britain on the other, shall, for the present, remain unaltered." It was quite certain, that this Article did not in any manner affect the argument deduced from the Methuen Treaty. It never could be supposed, that on the next morning after entering into the agreement, or at any subsequent time, without previous discussion, the treaty should be revoked. These arrangements certainly added nothing to the force of that argument, but they did not detract from it. There was one other article in the Treaty of 1810 which alluded to the Methuen Treaty—the thirty-second—by which it was agreed that the obligations of the Government, expressed or implied, should be perpetual, and should not be changed or affected in any manner. The next Article, however, gave to the two parties themselves, after fifteen years, the right of separately examining, discussing, and revising the several articles of that treaty, and of making such amendments or additions respectively, as the interests of their respective subjects might require. It was a matter of doubt whether the agreement extended or not to the Methuen Treaty, but it might be contended that the expression "expressed or implied" must extend to the Methuen Treaty, and he had understood, that the negotiator of the Treaty of 1810 stated that such was the intention with which it was framed. A

431
very great authority in another place had said, that the sense of an Act of Parliament was not to be construed by the understanding of those who introduced it. That was perfectly correct in respect of an Act of Parliament, but the case was exceedingly different with respect to a treaty. It was, however, a matter of no great importance whether the thirty-third Article of the Treaty of 1810 were called in aid or not, because if the construction he had put on the Methuen Treaty was correct, all that Article did was, to prescribe a mode of proceeding in case of any proposition being made for altering it. He was sorry to go back again to the Methuen Treaty, but he wished to add, that it was laid before the House accompanied by a letter from the negotiator; from which it would appear, that he considered his country to be placed under a binding obligation. Mr. Methuen did not think, as the noble Lord did, that this was a mutter from which Queen Anne or her successors might, at any time, depart, and he took great credit to himself for not having imposed any unnecessary restrictions. He concluded his letter by saying:—"By these means, her Majesty is under no restriction at all with respect to the duties on French wines, except that they must always continue one-third higher than the duties on the wines of Portugal." The negotiator most distinctly laid it down, that the treaty was to last for ever. He had already said, that he did not disagree with the noble Lord in principle. He was for equalization in all cases. At the same time he agreed with the hon. member for Worcester, so far as to admit, that there was no pressing necessity for adopting this measure now, considering the present state of our relations with Portugal, and the commercial conduct of France. Neither did he expect any great increase of our trade with France from it. At all events, however much he might approve of the Bill as a financier or political eco-mist, yet he was bound to oppose it as a man of honour.
Mr. George Robinsonsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had made an extraordinary use of his statements, and he confessed he thought the opponents of the measure would not derive much advantage from his arguments. The right hon. Gentleman placed the whole question on the perpetual character of the Methuen Treaty; but it must be recollected, that at the end of fifteen years after the signing
432
of that treaty, either party was at liberty to put an end to it if they thought fit. Dismissing it, therefore, he meant to apply himself to the purely commercial part of the question, and on that he believed the Government had committed a very dangerous error. The Vice-President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Poulett Thomson) had asked, with an air of triumph, if they thought that the Portuguese would deprive themselves of some of the most necessary articles of consumption, purely because this country admitted French wines on better terms? He would ask, in his turn, however, what was to prevent the Portuguese from equalising the duties on all the articles of export from England? According to the returns of 1830, it appeared that the exports to Portugal on official value amounted to two millions and a half, in addition to 200,000 l. worth of cod, shipped from our colonies of Newfoundland. The fish which Portugal took from the fisheries of Newfoundland amounted to 300,000 quintals. The transport employed 100 sail of vessels, and it was received at a duty of fifteen per cent, while the fish brought by our great rivals, the Americans and the Norwegians, paid a duty of thirty per cent. The consequence was, that we enjoyed the monopoly of the market, in spite of the active competition of the Americans and the Norwegians. If the duty should be equalised, we should be driven out of the market. The noble Lord said, that if the duty should be equalised, we could compete with the Norwegians and Americans in Portugal, as we now competed with them in Spain. He would tell the noble Lord what had been the effect of that competition in Spain. Twenty years ago we imported into Spain 80,000 quintals of fish, whilst the Norwegians imported only 10,000. Now, the case was exactly reversed—we imported the 10,000 quintals, and the Norwegians imported the 80,000. Were the noble Lord, and those who advised him, acquainted with the state of our export trade to Portugal, as compared with that to other countries? Our exports to Portugal alone exceeded those to France, Prussia, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, collectively. At the same time, our imports from those countries were ten times more than those from Portugal. But the noble Lord said, that by taking off part of the duty on French wines, we should induce the French to take more of

433
our commodities. Experience might have instructed Ministers on this point. A few years ago we reduced the duty on French wine 6s. 6d. per gallon. It was now proposed to reduce it only 1s. 9d. per gallon. Our imports from France were now twice as much as they were at the time the duty was reduced, and our exports were only half as large as they were at the same period. If the large reduction of duty had failed to induce the French to take our commodities, it was but reasonable to expect that the small reduction would fail also. Unfortunately, many persons advocated what was called free trade, without considering the consequences to which that system would lead. Foreign nations knew what we meant by free trade. They knew that we wanted to obtain the monopoly of their markets, and to prevent them from becoming manufacturers for themselves. The United States of America, one of the most enlightened nations in the world, inferior to us in hardly any respect, repudiated the doctrine of free trade. She knew that she could get manufactured iron and cotton goods cheaper from us than she could make them herself. But she would not deal with us notwithstanding. She legislated for the future, and, knowing that she had an increasing population, determined to take measures for becoming a manufacturing nation herself. Already America was making rapid progress in manufactures, and from the information which he possessed on the subject, he believed, that in twenty years she would be altogether independent of English manufactures. He was at a loss to conceive what motive could have induced the noble Lord, embarrassed as he was with the Reform Bill, to trouble the House with this subject at the present time. Had the drinkers of French wines complained that they could not pay for their burgundy, champagne, and claret? If so, he would tell the noble Lord not to attend to them. The measure now proposed was a departure from the noble Lord's own principles. The noble Lord had always professed a desire to relieve the poorer classes. He was now relieving the wealthy, and placing an additional burthen on the poor and the middling classes. Whether he looked at it as a question of finance or of commercial policy, he considered it one of the most unfortunate measures ever proposed by a Ministry. If the noble Lord should succeed in transferring
434
the wine trade from Portugal to France, he would add to the prosperity of a country which must always, to a certain degree, be our rival, and diminish the power of a nation which never could injure us, but had, on many occasions done us good service. It was, however, impossible to increase the consumption of French wines of the first growth, owing to the limited quantity of them which was produced. In 1828, when the Americans, by a new tariff, placed almost prohibitory duties on British goods, what did the late Mr. Huskisson say? He stated, that this country might, and would perhaps, be driven to import cotton from the Brazils, in order to show the Americans that this country was independent of them. Was this a hasty observation, or was it not rather the deliberate opinion of a statesman, founded on the principle that where a country acted in opposition to us, it became our duty to deal with other nations which were ready to act towards us on a fair principle of reciprocity? He now called on the noble Lord to apply this principle to the case of France and Portugal. He knew very well that the hon. member for Middlesex dissented from the doctrine which he laid down. That hon. Member would say, "Let us go where we can get any article at the cheapest rate," without looking to any collateral circumstances; but this case was connected with collateral circumstances that ought not to be overlooked. If they did not draw a proper distinction, in their intercourse with friendly and unfriendly Powers (he spoke in a commercial sense) the situation of this country would be greatly deteriorated. During the late war, this country might be said to have enjoyed the commerce of the whole world, and there was an abundant market for her manufactures. This was not now the case; and both in France and in America they were rapidly improving their manufactures. It was, therefore, important that we should retain whatever market we at present possessed. But yet, though the state of commercial affairs was such as he had described, Ministers were adding to the evil, by throwing open the home trade to an extent that was never before thought of; thus accelerating that distress and difficulty which would by and by assail us, when it would be utterly impossible to prevent or to guard against it. In saying this, he was not actuated by any feeling

435
of despondency. He believed the resources of this country to be almost exhaustless; but still he feared, if the line of policy which he deprecated were persevered in, that this country would, in time, be brought on a level with the poorest nations of the continent. The agricultural interest would be the next to suffer; for it appeared to him, that a free trade in corn would, in the end, be called for. But if we procured corn from Poland, silk from France, and other articles from various places abroad, he admitted, that the consumers would be benefitted, the few would reap a certain degree of advantage, but the many would be ruined. And then he would ask the noble Lord, who was to pay the taxes? The next thing would be, to come down on the Funds; for he would contend, that the system which was now introduced would be found incompatible with paying the interest of the Debt and supporting such establishments as ours. He should conclude with moving a number of Resolutions, as an amendment to the second reading of the Bill. In doing so, however, he despaired of making any converts to his opinion; but still he deemed it necessary to place his sentiments on the Journals of the House. The hon. Member concluded by moving, as an amendment, the following Resolutions.
"Resolved, that it appears, by official statements, that the exports of British and colonial merchandise, and of British manufactures, from the United Kingdom to Portugal and her dependencies, with a population of about 2,500,000, have amounted to the sum of 11,906,622 l. official value, during the past five years, independently of exports of about 1,000,000 l. during that period, from the island of Newfoundland, averaging 2,581,324 l. per annum; the imports from Portugal and her dependencies into the United Kingdom not having exceeded 3,023,277 l., averaging 604,654 l. per annum.
"That this beneficial commerce, the fruits of more than a century of close and intimate connexion with Portugal, is carried on almost exclusively in British shipping, the proportion being about seven to one, thereby affording employment to a large portion of our commercial marine, adding essentially to the naval strength of the empire, and promoting the interests of British commerce and manufacture, and the employment of the labouring population of this country.
436
"That, during the same period of five years, the exports of British and colonial merchandise, and of British manufactures, to France, with a population of about 30,000,000,have not exceeded 4,387,357 l. official value, or 867,470 l. per annum; the imports from that kingdom having amounted, during that time, to 11,282,190 l. or 2,256,438 l. per annum; and that, notwithstanding these imports have greatly increased since the late reduction of duty on French wines, silks, &c., the exports to France have materially diminished.
"That this limited commerce with France is carried on indiscriminately in French and British vessels in the proportion of about three to two only in favour of the United Kingdom, exhibiting a remarkable contrast with the trade of Portugal.
"That the magnitude of our exports to Portugal, as compared with France, is owing mainly to discriminating duties to the extent of about fifteen per centum in favour of Great Britain, giving almost the exclusive supply of her markets to British capital and industry; whilst the limited extent of our exports to France may be attributed to her discouragement of British produce and manufactures, by high protecting duties in favour of domestic capital and industry, to the exclusion of British competition:
"Therefore, that it is highly inexpedient to make any alterations in the relative duties now payable by law on wines imported from Portugal and France for purposes of revenue only, which might be attained by an equal increase of duty on all foreign wines, thereby hazarding the loss of a steady and valuable market for our surplus produce and manufactures, diminishing our naval resources, and incurring the risk of transferring our remaining fisheries in Newfoundland to rival nations, without a reasonable hope, that further concessions to France will be productive of any corresponding benefit to our commerce, as long as that government, notwithstanding the liberal example we have before shewn, continues to maintain her present system of commercial policy."
Mr. Attwoodseconded the Motion.
Mr. Courtenaycomplained that the hon. member for Worcester had brought a most extraordinary charge against him—that of having spoken before the hon. Member. If he had done wrong in taking that course, he was extremely sorry for it;

437
but he was not aware that the hon. Member had a greater right to speak than he had, because the hon. Member had given notice of his intention to move certain resolutions.
Mr. George Robinsondisclaimed any intention of bringing a charge against the hon. Member.
Mr. Hyde Villierssaid, that, after the protracted and discursive address of the hon. member for Worcester, he should endeavour, as briefly as he could, to state his opinion on the question then before the House. The objections which had been raised went either to the policy of the measure altogether, or to the manner in which it was proposed to carry that policy into effect. He was surprised, that the right hon. member for Totness (Mr. Courtenay) should have endeavoured to re-construct an argument on a point which had formerly been introduced, and which had been successfully rebutted. The noble Lord, he believed, could easily satisfy the House, that the interpretation now put upon the Methuen Treaty was precisely the same that Mr. Pitt and other statesmen of his day had affixed to it. As to the notice required by the stipulations of the Treaty of 1810, that was only contemplated in the event of some peculiar change in this trade which did not exist at present. The stipulations of the Methuen Treaty and of the Treaty of 1810, remained just as they originally were. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, that the stipulations of the Methuen Treaty were not now in force, but that Treaty was at present as much in force as ever. If Portugal pleased, she might, under that treaty of alternatives, entirely change the duties on the few bales of woollens we now sent to that country, which proved that the Methuen Treaty was still in operation. He would not go into the history of the immense injury which this country had sustained from the great wine monopoly in Portugal. It was not an unimportant topic; but, on account of the lateness of the hour, and having formerly stated his opinion on it, he did not think it necessary to advert further to it on this occasion. As to the general policy of the proposed measure, he entertained not a doubt. The miserable and declining state of Portugal, in every point of view—the necessity which existed for securing markets for our immense population—the change which had taken place in the political
438
system of Europe since the period of the Methuen Treaty, and the manifest propriety of strengthening the bond of good will between this country and France—these different considerations, as it appeared to him, perfectly justified Ministers in adopting the course which they had followed on this occasion. These considerations had only received their just and proper weight in the Bill now before the House. The commercial relations of this country with France had, for a long time, settled down unsatisfactorily, which was, he believed, chiefly to be attributed to England. An unjust feeling towards the exports of France, and an unwise preference for those of Portugal, had existed for 130 years. By now equalizing these duties, we should place ourselves in the right with France, whereas we were before decidedly in the wrong, by the preference we had given to Portugal; but he hoped, that it was now beginning to be understood, that strict commercial amity and alliance with France ought to be the chiefest care of statesmen who desired to preserve the peace of Europe, and who wished their country to pursue a career of prosperity and honour. In his opinion, an independent legislation, and an active diplomacy, founded upon the knowledge of the internal wants of the French people—a knowledge but too little cultivated hitherto, but which might be easily acquired—would give us a party in France always favourable to our commercial interests. A great effort would thus be made to place the commercial interests of the two countries on an improved footing. To maintain peace with France must be one of the chief cares of every wise and just statesman; and he knew no surer mode of effecting that object, than by the encouragement of an extensive commercial connexion. If this liberal course of policy had been adopted long before, the ports of France would be now open to us, and we should have had a ready market for our woollens, our cottons, our iron ware, &c. But, instead of that, the two countries had persevered in a system of mutual prohibition and restriction. As we were the first to adopt that pernicious system, he was very happy to find, that, by this Bill, we should now be the first to depart from it. The resolutions of the hon. member for Worcester appeared to be framed with so little knowledge of true commercial principles, and with so little acquaintance

439
with the real facts of the case, that he did not feel it necessary to descant on them. It appeared to him, that the great fear of the hon. Member was, lest this measure should have an injurious effect with respect to the exportation of fish from Newfoundland to Portugal. But, were the people; of this country to be content to suffer under, and to inflict on themselves, all the evils and mischiefs of the Methuen treaty, political as well as commercial, lest, by any chance whatever, the fish that was carried into Portugal from Newfoundland should, in future, be admitted into that country, at a rate of duty, to a certain degree, less favourable than at present? He was himself anxious for the prosperity of that trade; and it was a remarkable fact, that no apprehension of the kind which was entertained by the hon. Member, had been put forward by the inhabitants of Newfoundland. There was no reason whatever to suppose, that this measure would inflict any injury on the trade in fish. Portugal would scarcely attempt any thing of the kind, knowing, as she did, that we had in our hands, the means of immediate and ruinous retaliation. The hon. Gentleman had argued, that our imports from France were greater than our exports to that country, and that the reverse was the case with respect to Portugal. Now, many things that seemed to be imported from France were not so imported. Thus, silk, which came from Italy, through France, appeared to be an importation from France, though it really was not. Again, much of our exports to France was effected through the medium of a smuggling trade, and could not, therefore, be entered in the regular returns. He could not, therefore, subscribe to the accuracy of the hon. Member's calculations. The hon. Member complained, that the trade was at present restricted, and yet the specific which he prescribed to cure the evil was calculated to confine it within still more narrow limits. He regretted that the member for Worcester—a place of so much commercial importance—should withhold his support from the King's Government, in their praiseworthy exertions to extend the principles of free trade, and the division of labour, which was, in fact, the soul of trade, which would prove advantageous, in proportion as they were extended, and which were always attended with the most salutary effects, whenever they were acted upon.
Mr. Sadlerdid not think, that indulging in general arguments, as had been done by the hon. Member who had just sat down, was the best way to deal with a subject of this description, materially affecting the industry of the country. Such a subject should be discussed in a more practical manner, at a period when the agricultural and manufacturing interests were in a state of unparalleled distress. He should shortly have to lay petitions on the Table, from persons connected with the industrious classes, which would tell a different tale from those who declaimed upon the prosperity of the country. If the new system of universal liberality was to be adopted, without caring upon what system other countries acted, he should be glad to know, what was the use of the cumbrous and expensive Board of Trade, and of the other Boards, which were so well paid for considering commercial treaties. The treaty with Portugal was said to be the last vestige of the system of illiberal commercial regulations. That system, however, he contended, had exalted the commerce of this country to that gigantic state of health and prosperity, which had few prototypes in the history of nations. For the sake of encouraging a good understanding with France, it was now thought necessary to succumb to that country, by adopting a new commercial system. The experiment had been already made, however, with respect to France, but no beneficial result followed, for the principle of reciprocity was not acted upon by that country, and every attempt to conciliate her had been attended with a signal failure. It was not one of the features of the times least to be deplored, that ancient treaties were looked upon as little better than rotten parchment bonds; and in following some imaginary interest, to which Ministers were guided only by crude and abstract principles, the House was now asked to abandon the commercial treaty which so long united this country to Portugal. The hon. Member concluded, by expressing his concurrence in the Resolutions proposed by the hon. member for Worcester.
Lord Althorpdenied, that under the Methuen Treaty, this country was interdicted from placing the wines of France on the same footing as the wines of Portugal. By such an arrangement, this country would be no longer bound to Portugal, nor Portugal to this country,

441
Portugal stipulated to admit our woollens so long as we admitted her wines at a duty inferior to that which we imposed on French wines; and, so soon as we increased the duty on Portuguese wines to the same amount as that on French wines, Portugal was no longer bound to admit our woollens. The right hon. Member (Mr. Courtenay) seemed to think, that he had not correctly quoted the opinions of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox on this subject, in 1787, when the commercial treaty with France was under consideration. Mr. Pitt then said, that admitting the wines of France would not amount to a breach of the treaty with Portugal, but that it might be considered as virtually putting an end to that treaty, for, that Portugal only stipulated to admit our woollens so long as we admitted her wines at a lower duty. He said, therefore, that, though the proposed treaty with France would be an alteration, it would not amount to a breach of the treaty. Mr. Fox was strongly opposed to the treaty with France; and, in looking back to the arguments used on that occasion, he did not hesitate to say, that he agreed in the views taken by Mr. Pitt, and was opposed to those of Mr. Fox. As Mr. Fox was very warmly opposed to the treaty with France, he could not assent to the principles laid down by Mr. Pitt. In the commencement of his speech, however, he distinctly conceded, that admitting the wines of France would be patting an end to, rather than a breach of, the Methuen Treaty. Both Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, therefore, took the same view as Ministers took, that it was competent for either Power to put an end to the treaty. Considering the immense resources of France, the circumstance of our trade with that country being so limited was a strong proof of the impolicy of the system adopted in our commercial relations with that country. The great export trade this country enjoyed with Portugal, did not arise from the commercial advantages which we enjoyed in Portugal, but because this country was the great consumer of the productions of Portugal. The reason why so large a quantity of the wine of Portugal came to this country was, not because of the advantages this country had in the Portuguese market, but because Portuguese wines were not much to the taste of other countries. The hon. member for Aldborough (Mr. Sadler) had stated, correctly
442
enough, unfortunately, that great distress and difficulty now existed in the country; but what had that to do with the wine trade? As to the distress of the agricultural interest, this measure had nothing to do with it; and, though the manufacturing interests were pressed upon at the present moment, it was not the consequence of the principles of free trade. The manufacturers were not suffering from anything done of late years, but from the consequence of long wars. On the whole, he had not heard a single argument from the other side, which he conceived should induce the House to reject the proposition now submitted to it.
Mr. Alderman Thompsondid not object to this measure on the ground of its being a breach of treaty with Portugal, but simply on the ground of its inexpediency as a measure of commercial policy. He should willingly agree to the reduction of the duty of 1s. 9d. a gallon on French wines, if he thought that reduction would open the ports of that country to our commodities; but since the previous reductions of duty on French wines, our exports to that country had not increased. Perhaps the fairest mode of settling the question, so as to protect our own interest, and keep faith with our old and firm ally, Portugal, would be, to impose an ad valorem duty on all wines. He did not share the common opinion as to the Oporto Wine Company, and thought it contributed to keep down the price of port wine. He wished to say a few words as to the effect which this Bill would have on the cultivators of Cape wines. It would not be denied by any person acquainted with the Cape of Good Hope, that the noble Lord's Bill would have the effect of completely ruining the wine trade of that colony. He would remind the House of what took place in 1821 with respect to Cape wines. At that period, every encouragement was given to the cultivation of the grape at the Cape. Premiums were held out for the best wines produced. A proclamation was issued in the colony, calling the attention of the merchants and capitalists to the cultivation of the grape, as one of the most important branches of industry to which the capital of the colony could be directed; and as a further encouragement to the colonists, it was stated, that no higher duty should be imposed on Cape wines than on those of British manufacture. In a statement of

443
those engaged in the trade, this proclamation is thus noticed:—"By a Government Proclamation of 19th December, 1811, the merchants and cultivators of the colony of the Cape of Good Hope, were directed to the subject of the wine trade, as 'a consideration, above all others, of the highest importance to its opulence and character;' and such Proclamation, after authoritatively demanding from the settlement a serious and lively attention to their interests, promised the most constant support and patronage on the part of Government, and that no means of assistance should be left unattempted to improve the cultivation, and every encouragement given to honest industry and adventure, to establish the success of the Cape commerce in this her great and native superiority." This proclamation was followed by another, offering premiums to those who planted most largely, and those who produced the best wines, by the promise that the old channels of this trade should be re-opened, and new ones formed, and by a variety of regulations, all strongly evincing the lively interest which Government felt in promoting the trade, and which was fully ratified and confirmed by the Act of July, 1813, admitting Cape wines to the British market at one-third of the duty then payable on Spanish and Portugal wines. He had now before him the Report of the board of Commerce, which pointed out the ruinous effects which must follow from the increased duties. The increase of the duty to 5s. 6d. per gallon, even though the operation of the Bill should be deferred as to Cape wines for two years, would involve the ruin of those engaged in that branch of industry. The Board of Commerce said:—"The present state of the Cape wine trade is a subject requiring the utmost reflection of every well-wisher to the colony. For several years past a large proportion of the wines exported have been sold at a loss, while those of the very best qualities have barely realized a remunerating price. But now every market that is open—but particularly that of Great Britain—is so exceedingly depressed from various causes, that no sale can be effected except at the most ruinous sacrifice. By accounts received within these few days from the Chairman of the Cape Trade Society, your Committee were informed, that his Majesty's Ministers had resolved on the
444
measure of equalizing the duties on all descriptions of wines to 5s. 6d. per gallon, which was equivalent to a prohibition of Cape wine altogether in that market. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, however, been prevailed on, in consequence of the immediate and strenuous exertions of the Home Committee, and other friends of the colony, to abandon his original intentions in part, and to agree that Cape wines should be admitted at 2s. 9d. per gallon for the space of two years, when the duty is to be raised to the same rate as upon foreign wines—namely, 5s. 6d. per gallon. The Committee congratulate their constituents and the colonists at large, on a respite from a measure which, if persisted in, would have caused immediate bankruptcy in the wine trade of this town, and eventually the total ruin of the cultivators in the wine districts. Although it is so forcibly declared, that no further protection will be given to the produce of the colony after the expired limits, your Committee would strongly recommend the necessity of sending repeated petitions on the subject to both Houses of Parliament, pointing out the injustice and inhumanity of destroying so extensive a branch of colonial industry, as well as the inconsistency of putting this colony out of the pale of the general system of protection granted to all the rest of the possessions of Great Britain. So long as the sugars of the West Indies and the Mauritius are admitted at 24 s. per cwt., whilst foreign pays 63 s.; Jamaica rum at 9s. per gallon, when foreign spirits pay 1l. 2s. 6d.; coffee 6d. per pound, foreign 1s. to 1s. 3d.—there can be no just reasons for excluding protection to Cape produce." He hoped that the Government would reconsider this subject, which would, in his opinion, have such great influence on the state of our trade with Portugal. He presumed that it was not the wish of Government to encourage the consumption of ardent spirits, but there could be no doubt that such would be the effect of this increased duty on Cape wine. At present, the labouring classes consumed a considerable quantity of Cape wine. A pipe, of ninety-two gallons, might be had for 10 l., and to which was to be added 11 l. duty, so that it could be sold at a profit for 1s. per bottle. If the duty were increased to the extent proposed by the noble Lord, this article would be placed wholly out of

445
the reach of the labouring classes, who, instead of wine, would consume ardent spirits. When the House considered, too, the situation of the inhabitants of the Cape, who had embarked their capital in the cultivation of the vine, on the faith of the encouragement they received from this country, in the year 1811;—when the House considered, also, that the Cape paid all its own expenditure, to the amount of 30,000 l. or 40,000 l., while the whole patronage of the colony was in the hands of the Government here, and that it was treated as if it were a colony which did not pay, but was a heavy burthen to the mother country; when the House took these circumstances into consideration, it must admit, that the course now proposed by the noble Lord, with respect to Cape wines, was one of great injustice. He meant, therefore, to give his most strenuous opposition to this Bill.
Mr. Herrieswould take a future opportunity of fully expressing his opinions on this measure. But he begged leave to advert to one observation which had fallen from the noble Lord. The noble Lord had alluded to the conduct of Mr. Pitt with respect to the Methuen Treaty. But did Mr. Pitt abrogate that treaty? No; he entered into negotiations on the subject, and the treaty was confirmed. The noble Lord had argued the question, as though the Methuen Treaty was the only commercial and political engagement between this kingdom and that of Portugal. By other treaties, as well as by the Methuen Treaty, we had a preference in many things over others of the most favoured nations, and we possessed civil and municipal rights of our own, with Judges and Courts peculiar to the subjects of Great Britain, which were advantages enjoyed by no other people. And what had Portugal thrown to her as her share or equivalent in return? Nothing but the right to succour and protection, Portugal should suffer from invasion or unjust aggression. How had we recently fulfilled that condition? But on the impolicy and inutility of our late proceedings with respect to France and to Portugal, in the present circumstances of those countries, he would take another opportunity of speaking. He could not however, help designating this measure a this time, when our relations were so critical with both of these countries, as highly impolitic and dangerous.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, he should confine himself to a single observation, in reply to the hon. Members who had assailed the measure of his noble friend. The state of things, it should be remarked, lad materially varied of late years, in respect to the close and intimate intercourse between this country and Portugal. That country, even in Mr. Pitt's time, and in the period succeeding the Treaty of 1812, when Portugal was eminently indebted to his nation, for powerful exertions in her behalf, was found unwilling to observe strict faith in its stipulations, though Portugal had so many valid and solid reasons to be grateful and attached to Great Britain. But, since then, it had been found impossible to inspire Portugal with a sincere disposition to meet England fairly in negotiation, for a period now of nearly sixty years, and there could, therefore, be little indelicacy in this country now adopting a line of policy independent of the existing treaties. Indeed, Mr. Pitt had formerly intended to have done this, and pay the penalty defined and limited by treaty—namely, that our woollens should have no preference in the Portuguese market. The present Bill only adopted the principle of that great man, who was certainly eminently qualified to decide on an occasion like that which had since arisen.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, that if he wanted a proof of the assertion which had of late been frequently made, that the business of the country was not properly discharged, he should find it in the manner in which the present proceeding was carried on. Here was a measure, involving the most important principles, involving our interest as a trading nation, and our national honour as a moral people, and yet see how it was managed. It was arranged that the second reading should be moved at ten o'clock, and when that time arrived, the benches were thin, and they had continued to be so, and little attention had been paid by the few Members present. For this he laid the blame on Ministers. The impression out of doors was, that there was very little chance of the business of the country being followed up, or transacted with any spirit or sagacity, whilst the whole time of the House, and the whole energy of the Ministry, were directed solely to one question, that of Reform. Under these circumstances, he should, like his immediate predecessors,

447
be very brief, He felt himself in rather a difficult situation. A string of Resolutions had been proposed by the hon. member for Worcester, in hostility to the Bill. He, like that hon. Member, was opposed to the Bill; but, it was quite a different thing to be opposed to the Bill, and to support the hon. Member's Resolutions. To the substance of those Resolutions he strongly objected. With all deference to the hon. Gentleman by whom they had been proposed, he must say, that he had never seen any Resolutions, comprehending more misrepresentations, or so many allegations, not borne out by the facts. Whenever the discussion on the Bill should come forward, he would oppose the measure; but not on the grounds stated by the hon. member for Worcester.
Mr. Humehad never witnessed a measure brought into that House, upon commercial matters, which reflected greater disgrace on its authors, than that part of this Bill which seemed intended to carry distress and ruin on one of our finest colonies, the Cape of Good Hope. He felt most keenly the injustice Government was about to commit on these colonists, and when the proper time should arrive, he would take the earliest opportunity to submit a case, which was so demonstrative of the injustice of this measure, towards the colony, that it must expose the scandalous misconduct of the Ministry, to all who were not totally blind, or totally prejudiced. In his recollection, he had never witnessed the infliction on British subjects of such an iniquitous and heartless atrocity. Words failed him to characterise this monstrous and most atrocious violation of the public faith, and the faith of the Government of this country. He felt, the Committee on this measure would be a peculiarly fitting opportunity to make a stand against the present Government, for its total disregard of former solemn pledges, made by the Government of this country its colonies, and of all sound principles of colonial policy. The Bill should have his most unqualified and unmeasured opposition in the Committee.
Mr. Burgesaid, he should embrace the same opportunity to oppose, with all his might and capability, a Bill which he could not avoid characterising as a total departure from the true principles of colonial policy.
The Amendment negatived without a division, and the Bill read a second time.

MINUTES.
Bill. Plurality of Benefices, committed.
Petitions presented. By the Marquis of LONDONDERRY, from the Inhabitants of Glenarvon, Antrim, in favour of continuing the Grant to the Kildare Street Society. By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, from the Clergy of Ospringe and Feversham, to prohibit Beer-shops being opened on Sundays.

THE CORONATION.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, he would take the present opportunity of correcting an error which had gone abroad respecting what passed on a former evening relating to the Coronation. He believed, that the noble Earl opposite had stated, that the peers were to do homage to their Sovereign in the same manner as at the Coronation of George 4th., and not of George 3rd.
Earl Grey: I said George 3rd.
The Marquis of Londonderrythen wished to inquire, whether the noble Earl had taken into further consideration the suggestion which had been made by the noble Viscount on a previous evening, as to the procession of the peeresses. From all the information he could collect, he believed, that such a ceremony would very much tend to aid the trades people in this town. He believed, that if the noble Earl, or the select vestry of the Privy Council, to use the words of a noble Viscount, continued in their determination of smuggling in the Peeresses by Poets' Corner, and herding them together, where they could not be seen, depriving them, thereby, of all motives to spend large sums of money on their trains and other decorations, the ceremony would be found to be extremely unpopular among the fair class of visitors. As he believed that the arrangement of the affair depended on his Majesty's gracious pleasure, and not upon the will of the noble Earl opposite, or his select vestry, he wished to know whether the noble Earl had made any representations
366
to his Majesty on the subject, in consequence of the suggestion of a noble Viscount, and whether it was intended to allow the procession to take place? He thought that a procession was more especially requisite on the approaching occasion, because her Majesty was to be present, whereas the last Coronation was not attended by any Queen.
Earl Greyrepeated, what he had stated before, that the homage was to be paid according to the precedents of George 3rd. and George 4th. With respect to the question put by the noble Lord, relative to the procession of Peeresses, he begged leave to refer the noble Lord to the orders given to the Earl Marshal.
Viscount Strangfordsaid, that even at the risk of seeming importunate, he would beseech the noble Earl to take into consideration the question of the Peeresses' procession. He would tell the noble Earl, that this was no trifling matter. The trades people of this metropolis were discontented with the parsimony of the noble Earl. If this part of the ceremony were to cost the country one farthing in the way of additional taxation, he should be the last man in the House to propose any thing of the kind; but the truth was, that this procession, by taking the money out of the pockets of the rich, and putting it into the pockets of the poor, would enable the poor to pay the taxes, and thus benefit them and the revenue at the same time. The fact also was, that the manufacturing poor wanted bread. They had now an opportunity of earning some, and he knew that the noble Earl was too good a patriot to allow that opportunity to be lost. What, after all, would be the expense of a few hundred planks to make a platform? He would drive a bargain with the noble Lords opposite, and in order to obtain the suffrage of one of their colleagues, he would propose that the platform should be made of Baltic timber, instead of British Canadian. He was perfectly disinterested on this subject. He, unfortunately, had no lady for whom he felt sufficient interest to warrant him in thus troubling their Lordships. But many of their Lordships had ladies, and it was their bounden duty to gratify their ladies in all possible ways, as far as was consistent with the public service. Now if he should have the honour of being consulted by any of those noble ladies, he protested that he should advise them not

367
to give their noble Lords any peace, by day or by night, until they had carried their point, and were allowed to display their trains at the Coronation, as voluminously and gorgeously as ever their grandmothers or great-grandmothers had done before. He did entreat the noble Earl not to consider this as a laughable matter. The noble Earl would do more for the manufacturers of Spitalfields, if he enabled them to provide half a dozen comfortable meals for their families, than if he empowered them to send half a dozen Members to Parliament. Let them have the benefit of second thoughts, for second thoughts were oftentimes excellent; and as there was an amended Reform Bill, why should there not be an amended programme of the Coronation?
The Marquis of Clanricardesaid, that if there should be any parsimony, or any saving of the money of the rich at the ensuing Coronation, the blame would not belong to his Majesty's Ministers, or to the Privy Council; because the ladies, whether they sat with their trains under them all day long, or walked about till they were tired, must still wear the same costume. The persons of whom the artisans of this town would have to complain, would be those noble Lords, who, by going into the country and absenting themselves from the Coronation, would avoid spending any money on decorations.
The Marquis of Londonderry The Marquis of Londonderry rose, but was interrupted by exclamations that there was no question before the House. He said that he had only one observation to make. He apprehended that if there should be no procession, there would be no occasion for trains at all.
The conversation ceased.

IRISH YEOMANRY.
The Earl of Wicklow The Earl of Wicklow rose to put certain questions to the noble Earl opposite, on the subject of the Yeomanry in Ireland. The question was of so important a nature, that he was only deterred from entering at large into the discussion, of it from a conviction of the great inconvenience of such a proceeding, upon the mere putting a question. He would, however, state the reasons which induced him to bring the subject under the notice of the noble Earl opposite. He had learned from the public press, and public rumour, that communications had taken place in the course of last week
368
between several Irish Members of Parliament and his Majesty's Government, on certain subjects connected with Ireland, and particularly the disbanding of the Yeomanry corps. He was perfectly ready to believe, that those gentlemen were influenced by the best feelings and the most patriotic motives; but he must declare his opinion, that the system of gentlemen of the House of Commons banding themselves together for the purpose of intimidating and browbeating the Minister of the Crown, and drawing from him concession, whether right or wrong, was exceedingly unwise, unjust, and unconstitutional. The natural effect of such a proceeding would be, to cause combinations to be formed on the other side; and the consequence to the peace and tranquillity of the country would be most unfavourable. The proper sphere for Members of Parliament to exercise their abilities in, was the House to which they belonged, and he could say, that ever since he had been a Member of Parliament, he had found every disposition on the part of the gentlemen of this country to co-operate in any measure for the benefit of Ireland. The first meeting of the Members of Parliament who had so combined with the Ministers, took place at the house of the noble Earl opposite, and he was struck with the honest and manly manner in which the noble Earl had conducted himself on that occasion. But, unfortunately, on the next day he had reason to alter the good opinion which he had formed of the noble Earl's conduct; for he learned that another meeting had taken place, and he found that the firm and dignified Minister had become—quantum mutatus ab illo!—the timid and acquiescing placeman. The noble Earl was reported to have offered conditions and made concessions. He was reported to have proposed to disarm the Yeomanry of Ireland—or at least to place their arms in dépôts—form the corps into battalions resembling the local militia of this country, and place them under the command of the new Lord-lieutenants of counties. If such a proceeding were adopted, it would be tantamount to disbanding the Yeomanry, because that high-minded body of men, it was evident, would never consent to such conditions. Let him ask what was the nature of this force? Was it a force which the party in power had uniformly condemned, holding it preferable to increase the standing army rather

369
than employ the Yeomanry? By whom had the Yeomanry been called out to preserve the peace of Ireland? By this Government. By the present Government, they had been employed to preserve the peace of the country, and after having performed that duty, they were now to be handed over to the mercy of those who had ever been their greatest enemies. This was the recompense they were to receive for the services which they had rendered their country. He begged leave to be understood as not standing up as the advocate abstractedly of such a species of force. If it had never existed, if it had never been called out, he should certainly hesitate a good deal before saying, that such a species of force ought to be established. But the question of disbanding that force after it had been established was a very different thing. The Yeomanry had, on former occasions, performed great services to their country, and perhaps the time was not far distant when they would be required to perform some similar services. It was pretty evident that Government must have been under serious alarm with respect to the peace of Ireland; because, in calling out the Yeomanry corps, they were acting in violation of the principles of one of their colleagues (the President of the Council), whose last act, previous to retiring from office in 1828, was to abolish the Yeomanry corps in this country. That was a proof that they must have considered the state of the case urgent. Another reason which led him to believe, that Government had felt alarmed with respect to the state of Ireland was, that a bill, the most unconstitutional and tyrannical ever proposed to a British Parliament, had been presented to the other House by the organ of the Ministry there. But it might be inferred from the conduct of Government towards the Yeomanry corps, and by their allowing that bill to lie dormant on the Table of the other House, that Government no longer felt any alarm on the subject of Ireland. To whom, then, were they indebted for this beneficial change? It was to the Yeomanry alone that they owed the maintenance of peace? He could assure their Lordships that he looked with apprehension to the effect which the reports he had alluded to might produce in different parts of Ireland. In the North, where Protestantism prevailed, the reported intentions of Government would be received with contempt.
370
They would be met, not perhaps by a determination of resistance, but certainly by resolutions to counteract and defeat them. Besides, there was nothing to prevent the Yeomanry from arming themselves, and then they would be free from that responsibility which at present attached to them. With respect to the South, where the number of Protestants was few, his apprehensions were still more alarming. The effect produced there would be that of excessive intimidation. In that part of Ireland the Protestants all belonged to the Yeomanry. There was no reason to prevent the Roman Catholics from belonging to the Yeomanry too; but as regarded the Protestants, they were all in the Yeomanry. When they found that they were deserted by the Government to which they had hitherto looked for protection—when they found that they no longer had the security, more imaginary than real, of being embodied together in corps—they would be driven to desperation; they would be obliged to abandon their religion or their country, and would seek in exile that security which they no longer enjoyed at home:—
"Exilioque domos et dulcia limina mutant, Atque alio patriam querunt sub sole jacentem."
He was aware of the difficulties which Government had to encounter in taking any measures with respect to Ireland; and he should be glad to concur with Ministers in any proposition for the benefit of that country; but he should be sorry to see them brow-beaten by any faction. He therefore wished to know whether it was correct that the noble Earl had declared that Government meant to disarm the Yeomanry of Ireland, to place their arms in dépôts, or to form them into battalions?
Earl Greysaid, that agreeing as he did with the noble Earl who had just sat down, both as to the inconvenience and impropriety of discussing a subject of this nature on the simple asking of a question, he could not but regret, that the noble Earl had deviated from the rule which he had laid down for himself in the beginning of his speech, and had gone into a considerable discussion, not only on the establishment of the Yeomanry corps in Ireland, but also on the conduct of his Majesty's Government with respect to those corps, on which latter subject the noble Earl appeared to him to be very incorrectly informed. In what had fallen from the noble Earl in the other parts of his speech,

371
he (Earl Grey) certainly concurred. He had to lament, with the noble Earl, the prevailing fashion of introducing into the public prints communications which had taken place on a matter of this nature, and which were never intended for publication. By whose fault those communications had found their way to the public, he did not know. He certainly had no concern in the publications on this subject which had appeared. He did not admit their authenticity, and he condemned, as strongly as the noble Earl, the practice of which the noble Earl had complained, and which had grown up to a most inconvenient height. The noble Earl had referred to two communications which had taken place with Government on the subject of Ireland; and he had deprecated another practice, certainly not less inconvenient than that which he had just noticed—namely, the association of certain Members of Parliament, for the purpose of conveying to his Majesty's Ministers intimations, that if such or such conditions were not complied with, they would be found in opposition to the measures of Government. He certainly agreed in the observations which the noble Earl had made on this subject. He could not approve of any such proceedings. For himself he would say this, that as long as he had the honour to hold the situation which he at present filled, those intimations would have no effect on his mind; and the noble Lord had, with respect to the particular case to which he had alluded, done him the justice to say, that he had answered the deputation which waited on him, in a manner becoming his situation. He certainly did feel it his duty distinctly to state, that if any threat of that kind was held out, he was prepared to meet the consequences: that it might be in the power of a number of persons, by combining against the Ministers, to force them from their situations, and that, if that should happen, he should have much less unwillingness to relinquish office than he had felt originally in accepting it; and he further stated, that he possibly might be forced to concur with those from whose policy he most dissented, in order to oppose measures tending to a separation of the different parts of the kingdom, which he felt confident would have the worst effect on the peace and happiness of the whole. At the same time he explained, as he thought
372
himself bound to do, in common courtesy towards a deputation of Members of Parliament, his general views on the state of Ireland, and what measures, in his opinion, might be taken for the relief of that country. Among other things, he undoubtedly did state, that there was in the contemplation of Government a measure for adopting new regulations with respect to the Yeomanry of Ireland. This measure had been in the contemplation of the Government long before the meeting in question was thought of; but as to any disarming or suppression of the Yeomanry corps, that was not a measure for which he was prepared. This was what passed at the meeting at which he was present. The noble Earl had referred to another meeting, at which the noble Earl supposed that he had been present. He could, however, assure the noble Earl, that he was not present at that meeting, but he believed the object of it was, to make some communications with respect to the measure, which it had been thought might be useful in re-modelling the Yeomanry of Ireland. What that measure was, whether it was a right, or whether a wrong measure, as the details were not before their Lordships, and probably might never come before them, he did not think he was at present called upon to say. Thus much, however, he would state, that whatever measures were in the contemplation of Government, it was the furthest possible from their intention to do anything which could appear like an insult to the Yeomanry, or anything that might express an opinion, or convey an imputation, which would, in any degree, hurt their sense of honour, of which the noble Lord had so highly spoken, or detract from the value of the services which they had, on many occasions, rendered the country. He had, therefore, only to say, that though the measure to which he had alluded, had been in the contemplation of Government, yet what had passed on the occasions referred to by the noble Lord, as well as on the present occasion, did not make him feel inclined, as one of his Majesty's Ministers, to persevere in proposing that measure. With respect to the Yeomanry of Ireland, he had only to state, that it was far from his wish to say anything which might injure the feelings of that highly important body; but he must freely and candidly declare, in answer to the noble Earl, if the noble Earl wished

373
to know his opinion with respect to that description of force, that experience had convinced him, that whatever might have been its merits on particular occasions—whatever might be the patriotic spirit by which the members of the corps were actuated—whatever might have been the advantages rendered the country by that body on certain occasions—that species of force was not one which was attended, on the whole, with advantage to the country. The disadvantage of that species of force was obvious. With the anxiety which the members of it felt to support the Constitution of the country—with the zeal and ardour with which they embarked in that service—there were, unfortunately, too often mixed, from local circumstances, other feelings of party spirit and personal hostility, which sometimes produced the most lamentable consequences. Another evil was, that when they were called out to act against a spirit of insubordination in the country, the feelings which were excited did not subside when the occasion was over, but remained in the minds of the people, ready to break out at a future opportunity. He had already stated, that he did not mean to concur in, or propose, any measure, that tended to a sudden abolition of those corps, yet he certainly did think, that the general security of the country would be better provided for by other means; and whatever taunts the noble Earl opposite, or any other person, might think fit to throw out against him, with respect to a change in his opinion on the subject of a force of this description, or an increase of the standing army, he certainly had no hesitation in declaring, that if any further military force for the maintenance of internal tranquillity should be required—(a most lamentable necessity he acknowledged it to be)—he should infinitely prefer the extension of the regular police force of the country, or an increase of the standing army, however unpopular that expression might be, to the assistance of those corps, against which, however, he begged leave to say, in order that he might not be misunderstood, that he threw out no imputation whatever. He had said thus much, perhaps more than was suited to the occasion, in answer to the noble Earl; but if he had done anything inconsistent with the convenience and orders of the House, he had been led into the proceeding by the noble Earl opposite, for it was impossible for him to suffer all that
374
the noble Earl had said to pass without notice. It only remained for him to add, that Government had no intention of introducing any measure of the description which the noble Earl imagined, for the disarming and extinction of the Yeomanry of Ireland or England, or any measure which would be injurious to their feelings, or derogatory to their sense of honour. He had no local feelings on a question of this nature. What he had said with respect to the Irish Yeomanry, was equally applicable, in his mind, to the Yeomanry of England; and he should have expressed his entire concurrence in the measures formerly taken by his noble friend (the Marquis of Lansdown) with respect to the Yeomanry, if he had had an opportunity of so doing at the time. It might be satisfactory to the noble Lord to learn that his Majesty's Government were determined not to govern Ireland by anything like a party spirit; and whatever measures might be taken for the peace and advantage of that country, every thing like party spirit would be avoided.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that if he had committed any irregularity in originating this discussion, he felt no regret at having done so, because he had been the humble means of drawing from the noble Earl one of the most satisfactory statements he had ever heard, which would do more good in Ireland than a hundred Acts of Parliament.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that he should not have taken part in the present conversation, had not the noble Earl opposite stated, that before the noble Earl at the head of the Government could have had recourse to the services of the Yeomanry, he must first have overcome the scruples of one of his colleagues. The noble Earl seemed to think, that because he had formerly proposed what the noble Earl was pleased to call the extinction of the Yeomanry corps of England, that he should be favourable to the same course with respect to the Yeomanry of Ireland. Now the noble Earl was greatly misinformed, if he supposed that the measure which he (the noble Marquis) proposed, when he held the office of Secretary for the Home Department under a former Administration, had for its object the extinction of the Yeomanry corps of England. On the contrary, that measure related to its partial diminution, on the score of its expense in some districts compared with

375
its amount and efficiency. It was preserved, and usefully preserved, in those districts where, from the state of the population, the services of the Yeomanry might be required. It was preserved in that state in which he should wish to see it preserved in some parts of Ireland, where, from their insular position, the Yeomanry corps might sometimes be called out without that efficient control over their movements which was so necessary for the public service. When he had proposed that the Yeomanry corps should be so continued, he could not be supposed to wish for their extinction, still less could he be supposed to have that wish when it was recollected, that he was the humble adviser, that the Yeomanry should be called out in that county of which he had the honour of being the Lord-lieutenant, and with respect to which he had the happiness to say, that its services had been applied with complete success; for he had the satisfaction of knowing, that the corps whose services had been so required, had not been more distinguished by the zeal with which they came forward, than by the temper and moderation which they evinced in the discharge of their duty, and for which they received his Majesty's thanks. These corps were kept up in that state which did not render them liable to that objection which existed against some corps, of being called out, or of calling themselves out, without that regimental control so necessary to the efficient performance of their duty. He had felt it necessary to say this much as to what fell from the noble Earl, who had altogether misunderstood the measure which he had brought forward when he had the honour to hold the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department.
The Marquis of Londonderrycould not, as an Irishman, refrain from expressing his thanks to the noble Earl (Earl Grey), for the statement he had made, which, he must say, was likely to be productive of much benefit to Ireland; for certainly it would be a most mischievous course to put down the Yeomanry corps in that country. He would now say a word as to the character of those Irish Members who had made the application to the noble Earl. They consisted chiefly of the Catholic Members, or those who represented the Catholic feeling in Ireland such as Sir John Milley Doyle, Mr. Daniel O'Connell, O'Connor Don, Mr. James Lambert, Mr.
376
Wyse, Mr. R. M. O'Ferrall, Mr. R. L. Sheil, Mr. Alexander Dawson, &c. &c. These hon. Members might represent the feelings of the province of Connaught, but he had no doubt, that if those Members who represented the other parts of Ireland were assembled, they would differ much from the opinions which those Members expressed. If the opinions of these hon. Members, who might be said to represent the Catholic interest in Ireland, were to prevail, they would have the effect of renewing those feelings of irritation for which it was thought, that the settlement of the Catholic Question would be the panacea. He considered it highly improper that any set of Members should go to the Minister of the country, and state, that if he did not submit to such and such a course, they would oppose him, not on one, but all questions. Was this consistent with that due consideration which a Member was bound to give to every measure on its own merits? The House of Commons was the proper place for Members to state their objections to any measure that might be brought forward; but from the public Journals, he perceived that this application was made in private. He hoped, that this would be a warning to others how they made such applications. He regretted that these Members were influenced by that unfortunate person—for unfortunate he would call him—who had raised the minds of his countrymen to a state of desperation before. He hoped, however, the noble Earl would be on his guard against him, and recollect how he had deceived the noble Marquis at the head of the Irish Government. He hoped the noble Earl would recollect what this person had stated in his last Letter to the people of Ireland. This union of some Irish Members put him in mind of that Parliamentary Association which they had had in Ireland, and he could not but think, that it was most degrading to those Members who took a part in it. Let the noble Earl at the head of the Government recollect what was the language of that person to whom he had alluded, on the Question of Parliamentary Reform. That Question must, indeed, be at a discount, if it required the support of twenty or thirty Members to carry it. The individual he had alluded to (Mr. O'Connell) said, in the last Letter he had addressed to the people of Ireland:—"That in framing the Reform Bill, his Majesty's Ministers have been

377
actuated by a latent, if not avowed disposition to treat the people of Ireland with indignity, by a determined disregard to Irish interests, and a vile jealousy of giving constitutional rights to the Irish people, by a foolish imagination that they can with impunity treat Ireland with supercilious contempt and ignominy—by the presumption which leads them to think that the Irish people would submit to be treated in this manner, by the opinion that the Irish are like the eels, accustomed to be skinned alive—by contemptuous injustice towards the towns and counties of Ireland—by disgusting unfairness—by gross partiality." Yet this was the man, who could so write against the Government, to gain whose support, and that of the Members he carried with him, it was expected that Government should listen to the suggestions made with respect to the extinction of the Yeomanry of Ireland, The noble Marquis was proceeding to advert to the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with whose conduct (as we understood the noble Marquis) he did not find fault, except in his late unconstitutional interference in the election at Dublin—when
The Duke of Richmond The Duke of Richmond rose to order, He observed, that it was irregular in the noble Marquis, on the occasion of a question put by another noble Lord, to enter at length, not only into that subject, but also into a number of others which had no connexion with it. If this course were to be permitted, there would be no regularity in their Lordships' proceedings. The noble Marquis had alluded to the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on the late election for Dublin. Now, whenever the noble Marquis should think proper to bring that subject before the House, he I should be prepared to show, that the charge made against the noble Marquis at the head of the Irish Government was altogether without foundation; but he submitted, that it was not regular to introduce it in this way.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that when the noble Duke called him to order, he should himself be acquainted with the forms of the House. If he were out of order in commenting on the subject of a question asked, so was the noble Marquis, the President of the Council, whom the noble Duke did not call to order. He contended that he was not out of order [cries of "Order"]
The Earl of Shaftesbury(who sat as Speaker), said, there was no question before the House.
Lord Hollandsaid, that the noble Marquis did not appear to recollect, that there was no question before their Lordships. It was true that the courtesy of the House admitted a question to be put by a noble Lord to any Member of his Majesty's Government. The object of that permission was to save time, since it was frequently found to be a summary way of obtaining information on which an ulterior parliamentary proceeding might or might not be founded. But there was a great difference between allowing a simple question and answer, and permitting other noble Lords to enter into a discussion, involving a variety of extraneous matter. It might be convenient not to be too strict in such matters, but he must say, that he thought the noble Marquis was abusing the privilege when he made a speech which had little connexion with the subject of the question put by a noble Earl to his noble friend, but in which he went into an excursive consideration of all the various topics connected with Ireland. He by no means wished for an abolition of the practice to which he had been alluding; but he thought it ought to be kept within certain bounds. In his opinion it would be a wholesome regulation if the privilege were confined to the noble Lord putting the question, and the noble Lord giving the answer.
The Marquis of Londonderrythanked the noble baron for the kind manner in which, on this as on all other occasions, he put his suggestion. He had not conceived himself out of order in speaking on the subject, after what fell from the noble marquis (Lansdown); but as he should have other opportunities of adverting to the subjects to which he referred, he would not press them further at present.
The Marquis of Westmeathsaid, that the noble Marquis had alluded to the parties whose names he had read as being Catholic. Now the fact was, that Sir John Doyle, Mr. Dawson (the member for Louth), and several others who attended the meeting, were Protestants. He mentioned the fact only to show, that if he wished to draw any inference from the fact, he was in error with respect to it.
The Marquis of Londonderryhad not described all those members as Catholics,

379
but only as persons who were disposed to take exaggerated views of Catholic interests.
Earl Greysaid, that no suspicion could be attached to the motives of the individual who was at the head of the party who had called on him. It was but justice to add, that the whole of the hon. members had communicated with him in the most amicable manner.
Here the subject dropped.

POOR RELIEF BILL.
The Duke of Richmond The Duke of Richmond moved the second reading of this Bill, which, he observed, was a measure for more effectually providing employment for the poor. It was not necessary for him on this occasion to trouble their Lordships with more than a few remarks. From the evidence before a Committee which sat on this subject, it appeared, that in many parts of the country a large portion of the labouring poor were thrown out of employment for a considerable part of the year. On those occasions they applied to the Overseers of their respective parishes, who sent them to work on the roads, where, in fact, no work was required. Now his object was, to enable Overseers to provide those parties with employment, which would enable them to maintain themselves with less expense to the parish. For this purpose it was his intention to extend the twelfth clause of the 59th George 3rd., by which Overseers were empowered to take leases of lands for the employment of the poor. He wished to allow them to take larger quantities of land for that purpose. There was also a clause, the 27th of the 22nd George 3rd., chapter 83, by which Overseers were allowed to enclose commons, with the consent of the Lord of the Manor, to the extent of ten acres. He proposed to give them permission to do so to the extent of fifty acres. He meant to give also the same power to Guardians of the poor as that law vested in the Overseers. Another clause would provide to lands hired under this Act, and a third would prevent any person holding such land from gaining a settlement by means of it. He did not wish to raise expectations by the Bill, but he had reason to believe that it would do some good. He did not hope that it would cure the evils of the Poor-laws, but at least it would prove to the labouring poor, that the Legislature was not inattentive to the improvement
380
of their condition. Bill read a second time.