Sitting of 19 June 1832

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. EWART, Account of the Number of Prisoners tried at the Lancaster Assizes, in each year since the year 1823; distinguishing the Number from each Hundred from which they were Committed or sent for Trial: also, the total Number of Prisoners Committed, but not Tried, within the same period.
Bills. Read a first time:—Customs Duties; Valuation of Lands (Ireland); Linen Manufactures (Ireland).—Read a second time:—Party Processions (Ireland).—Read a third time:—Life Annuities Transfer; Trespasses (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE, from St. James's, Westminster,—in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland); and by Sir ROBERT BATESON,

829
from several Places in Ireland,—against that Plan.—By the same HON. MEMBER, from the Members of the Conservative Society in Ireland,—against the Party Processions (Ireland) Bill.

MINISTERIAL PLAN OF EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Sir Robert Bateson presented Petitions from the Synods of Ulster, in Down, Antrim, Dromore, and Londonderry, against the Government plan of Education in Ireland.
Mr. Pringle, in supporting the prayer of the petitions, observed that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland lamented that it should have gone abroad, from a petition that was presented some time since, that they were favourable to the Government plan of education in Ireland. The fact was, they had been deceived by the statement of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland.
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, that the statement which he ventured to make, on the presentation of that petition, was now fully borne out. He could not sit down without alluding to the practical argument in favour of a Christian education in Ireland, which had just been supplied by the ludicrous instances of gross and slavish superstition recently exhibited in three, at least, of the four provinces of that country. Who that had heard or read of the hundreds and thousands of infatuated beings, who had been running about that country with a piece of lighted turf in their hands prescribing blessed ashes and pater nosters as a preventative of plague, did not wish to see the schoolmaster abroad among such a miserably-deluded people.
Mr. Humeexpressed his surprise at the statement that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland had been deceived, and considered it the height of presumption in any hon. Member to make such a statement, no proof having been brought forward that they were so. In regard to what the hon. Member stated, of individuals in Ireland running about with lighted turf, their conduct was not more wonderful, in his opinion, than it had been on those occasions when thousands of them ran after the hon. Member to hear him sport nonsense. They might be as well employed in one way as the other.
Lord Killeenthought that the Government plan of education in Ireland would be attended with the best effect. As to the lighted turf, he really thought it too ludicrous to deserve notice in that House.
Mr. James E. Gordonwished merely to
830
offer a remark, in reply to what had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex: That hon. Member had said, that the people might be as well employed in running about the country with a lighted turf, as in listening to the nonsense spouted to them by the member for Dundalk. He would tell the hon. Gentleman that there were some people who laboured under the unhappy incapacity of distinguishing between sense and nonsense, religiously speaking, and such men could stigmatize a reference to Divine Providence, as "humbug, cant, and hypocrisy." He would also tell the hon. member for Middlesex, that he had never been the man to spout high treason at public meetings.
Petitions to be printed.

PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND).
Sir Robert Batesonpresented a Petition from the members of the Protestant Conservative Society, in Dublin, against the Bill introduced by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland for suppressing processions. Among the petitioners were many gentlemen of the first rank, talent, character and property in Ireland, and they stated, that they had heard of processions of a most extensive character in England, at which banners with revolutionary inscriptions were exhibited in the vicinity of the Sovereign's palace, and that the Government had introduced no bill for their suppression. They had heard also that some of his Majesty's Ministers had corresponded with the bodies from which those processions emanated; they had no objection to the suppression of all processions, but it appeared that it was intended, by the Bill in question, only to put down Protestant processions—those processions which usually took place in the month of July, in Ireland, and that it was not intended to embrace any other processions. So recently as last year, processions had been held in Dublin which emanated from meetings sanctioned by the Government, and attended by two of his Majesty's Serjeants-at-law. Even at this period large masses of people were assembling in Ireland, whose professed object was to destroy Church property, but whose real object was to destroy every description of property, and yet Government had not adopted any means of preventing those processions. The petitioners concluded by deploring the forbearance of the Govern-

831
ment towards the disaffected part of the population, and prayed that the Bill might not pass into a law. He never was an Orangeman, and he had always wished that all processions, and all party animosity, should subside; but he was bound to state, that at the present moment, the Orangemen of Ireland were a most numerous and respectable body, and that within the last six months tens of thousands of persons had joined it, not from a wish to oppose the Government, but from the necessity of protecting their lives and property. He knew that a system of exclusive dealing had been recommended by the leading demagogues of the day, and every body knew that a recommendation from such quarters was law; for those demagogues not only ruled, but ruled with a rod of iron. What objection, then, could there be to allow the processions of persons on the 12th of July, when the object was merely to go to church, hear a sermon, and then go home? He implored the Government not to pass the Bill too hastily—at all events, to postpone it until after the 12th of July, at all events, it was now too late for this year, because the preparations for the 12th of July were already made—those public processions which their forefathers had been accustomed to—all that the petitioners wished for was, equal law and justice for all.
Mr. Stanleydeprecated such premature discussion, and implored hon. Gentlemen to wait until the Bill came regularly before the House. As to the procession merely going to church to hear a sermon, the Bill would not interfere with it; and would only interfere with processions growing out of religious party-feeling; but what reason was there for processions going to church with arms, banners, and music? Those tended to create a disturbance, and should be put down. The hon. Baronet had furnished him with a sufficient reason to press the Bill hastily through the House (which he certainly should do), as it appeared that preparations were already making for the processions on the 12th of July next.
Mr. Henry Grattanhoped the Bill would be immediately proceeded with.
The petition to be printed.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND).
Mr. Sadlerrose for the purpose of bringing forward the Resolution which it was his intention to submit to the House, for the purpose
832
of affording an opportunity of expressing their approval of the principle upon which he advocated this important subject. The hon. Member declared, that as he had hitherto let slip no opportunity which had been afforded to him, since he was in public life, of bringing forward the question of the application of Poor Laws to Ireland, neither would he stay from the thorough discussion of the subject at that moment, even to proceed to take the sense of the House upon his proposition. He had been urged, on the last occasion of his bringing forward this question, to prepare a bill for the purpose of carrying his object into effect, and to submit that bill to the House, when they could discuss the matter regularly, and in detail. He thought, however, that the principle of the measure ought first to be affirmed by the House, and, upon that affirmation, a bill might be introduced, for the purpose of carrying that principle into effect, with some chance of success. Without dwelling upon the minor arguments which might be adduced in favour of the Resolution which he was about to propose, he would assert that the very "head and front" of them was that indisputable axiom which maintained the right of the poor to be relieved out of the produce of the land. Especial care had been taken to enact laws—and those, too, of a sanguinary and harsh nature—for the purpose of protecting the rights of property in Ireland; but that sacred duty which was imperative on a just Legislature to perform—namely, of providing by law for the relief and support of the destitute and comfortless—had been totally and shamefully neglected in Ireland. It was a principle in morals, immutable as any principle in nature, that the poor inherited this claim to support as part of their birthright: the great Locke advocated that principle in his Treatise on Government; and allowing, as he there did, the rights of property, he at the same time declared' that the rich had no right to starve the poor, or to withhold from them their share of the bounties of Providence. The very principles upon which the rights of property were based, were founded on this indefeasible right of the poor, for property could not be maintained to be sacred, save upon the principle of reserving the right of the poor to maintenance from the land. This was the law in all civilized States. In that State where, of all others, it was least to be looked for, the principle

833
was extended beyond the bounds which were put upon it in the European States. He alluded to America—the United States, in which, says Mr. Dwight, the poor of all classes, all colours, all nations, may claim relief by law; and what rendered this claim more onerous in those States was, the fact, that the maintenance of a certain number of poor persons cost more in New York, for instance, than an equal number did in England, notwithstanding the great disparity which existed between the prices of provisions in the two countries. The only exception which he had to make to this universal adoption of a system of Poor laws in European States was Ireland; and the only question which it seemed to him it was necessary to put before they were extended to that country, was, whether there was a sufficient degree of poverty there to render their extension a matter of necessity? What was the reply which was made to this question by those upon whom those Poor laws would press? Why, that the very magnitude of the distress which existed in Ireland, was the principal reason why those laws ought to be refused to them. What a perversion of argument was there—the very greatness of the evil being alleged as the excuse why no remedy was to be applied—the very depth of the distress was the most cogent reason used for evading and neglecting their duty. This selfish argument had been brought forward as the most irrefragable. What! could the long neglect of a duty, the non-performance of which had been the cause of so much calamity, be a reason why it should never be carried into execution? He trusted the House would never for one moment entertain such an argument. Ireland had stronger claims to legislative relief than any other country. Alternate pestilence and famine, those scourges of the human race, had committed their ravages amongst her population, whilst the sword destroyed those who had escaped the pestilence. For many centuries past, such had been the fearful history of Ireland; famine, plague, and sword, held alternate sway in that unhappy land. For all these evils it was said, casual charity is a sufficient boon, a sufficient relief. Such was the melancholy history of Ireland. It was the so called protection, or rather the cruel desertion, of their absentee landlords which had reduced the poor of Ireland for centuries to the most abject distress. These landed
834
proprietors had at length resorted to the expedient of clearances; a plan which they would never have dared to propose in England, where there was a system of Poor laws. They had audaciously called the people on their estates a surplus population, and had proceeded to ship them off, as if that assertion were, or could be, founded in truth. It was objected to the introduction of Poor laws in Ireland that there was a great deal of malversation going on in the administration of these laws in England. But where, let him ask, was there to be found an institution, so widely extended as the English Poor laws, in the administration of which some venial errors might not be detected? Ireland had long been in a state either of latent or open disturbance. The existence of distress, according to the axiom of Bacon, "Distresses are so many hopes for trouble," was one of the chief causes of her disturbed condition. Let her have a system of Poor laws adapted to her, and he would answer for it the troubles would mainly cease. Even without reverting too narrowly to the condition of England and her Poor laws, he would advance a proposition which no one could deny—that it was equally hard upon both Ireland and England to provide for the poor in one country, and not in another. It was hard upon Ireland, because of the suffering which her population endured; it was hard upon England, because her already numerous train of operatives, both in manufacture and agriculture, was swelled by the Irish poor, who flocked over to obtain employment, and who, by working for a less sum, reduced the artizan's wages, and took his bread from his mouth. In short, owing to this cause, the market for labour, both manufacturing and commercial, was completely overloaded, and the poor of both countries, in consequence brought down to one level of wretchedness. By doing justice to the population of Ireland they would do justice to England, and enable each country to maintain its own poor. An objection was made on account of the difficulty of founding a system of Poor laws for Ireland. Why, the same difficulty was made at the time the Poor laws were first considered in this country. The existence of a difficulty was no answer when the necessity of legislation was admitted. Others expressed their fears of an increase of the numbers of mankind; surely they could not attempt to apply such an argument as

835
this to Ireland, whose history was a practical demonstration to the contrary of this absurd theory. He had said enough, he trusted, to satisfy the House that the principle upon which his Resolution was based was correct: the affirmation of it he left to their consciences, and to their sense of duty. It was proved by statistical documents that admitted of no controversy that the poverty of Ireland had a great effect upon human life. The comparative tables of mortality there and in England gave a balance of fifty per cent in favour of England, on all lives under forty years of age. He trusted, with such important facts before them, that all parties in that House would lose their acrimony, and blend in one united effort for the amelioration of the condition of the Irish poor, as by so doing—so far from putting a check, as had been asserted, upon charity—they would maintain and give vigour to that inestimable feeling. He had pondered long upon the subject of his Motion; he had devoted years to it before he entered into public life; and he felt convinced, whatever might be their decision on the subject that night—he felt convinced that his ideas would ultimately obtain confirmation in that House, and his principles be carried into effect. He trusted the House would reflect upon the consequences of rejecting his Resolutions. It was too late in the session to introduce any bill founded upon them, but he called upon them, as they valued the sacred principle upon which his proposition was founded, to give their affirmation to it. He begged to move a resolution, declaratory "That it is expedient to establish a permanent provision for the suffering and destitute poor of Ireland, by a levy upon all the real property of that part of the United Kingdom, and more particularly upon that of the absentees."
Mr. Hunt seconded the Motion.
Mr. Stanleyobserved, that the hon. Member seemed merely desirous, by his present Motion, to put on record his adhesion to the benevolent principles which he had, on former occasions, fully developed to that House, and he could hardly think it possible that the hon. Member was serious, when he declared it to be his intention to take the opinion of the House upon those principles, which would, he dared say, be silently assented to by all, because they were so general and so vague that nothing binding could come of them, though the
836
hon. Member deserved great credit for his able advocacy of them. When the hon. Gentleman brought forward his proposition last year, the objection taken, not only by members of his Majesty's Government, but by Members whose conduct was entirely uninfluenced by party considerations, was, that it was calling on the House to affirm a proposition which admitted of different constructions, and the judgment of different individuals. The people of Ireland might fancy that it bound the House to every thing whilst some of the Members who voted for it might conscientiously believe that it bound the House to nothing. He stated, then, that he wished the hon. Member, who had paid the subject so much attention, would bring it under the consideration of the House, in a form which would enable them to grapple with the practical point and real difficulties of the measure; and if the hon. Gentleman would introduce a bill, he then assured him it should have the most anxious and impartial consideration. He was, therefore, rejoiced to find, from the notice on the Order Book, that the hon. Gentleman intended to do this. Judge, however, of his regret, as well as his surprise, to find that the notice had been altered within the last four days, and the hon. Member now came forward with a Resolution, he would not say as vague, but infinitely more vague, than that which he introduced last year. He had listened to his speech to-night with every possible respect for the talents and eloquence of the hon. Gentleman; but it was quite impossible to ascertain from that speech any one single plan by which the hon. Gentleman expected to overcome the evil of which he complained. He did not for one moment deny the moral obligation to relieve the necessities of the poor, but the question was, in what manner the Legislature was to afford effectual relief. He wished to know what was the practical question which the hon. Gentleman meant to bring forward. Did the hon. Gentleman mean to assert, that there were no charitable institutions in Ireland, to which the Legislature had not paid any attention? Did the hon. Gentleman not recollect the Lunatic Asylum, the Fever Hospital, the County Infirmaries, and other institutions of a similar description? Did the hon. Gentleman mean to say, that those institutions should be more effectually assisted? Except for the evils of blindness,

837
and deafness, and dumbness, there were no physical evils for the mitigation of which, in Ireland, legislative means were not afforded. Did the hon. Gentleman mean that the House should blindfold, and without investigation, pledge itself to a Resolution that it would afford the means of supporting all persons in Ireland who were unable by their labour to support themselves and their families? Was he prepared to bring forward such a proposition as that, with all the immediate disadvantages which surrounded it? Was it not desirable, at least, to postpone such a pledge until it could be shown that the proposed system was free from the difficulties which beset a similar one in England? Would that hon. Member bring forward a bill himself on the subject, and expose himself to all the consequences in public estimation of its advantages and disadvantages—such as the expenses of litigation incident to the English system, with the charges of removals from one parish to another? No; the hon. Member shrunk from the difficulties incident to such a measure, though he had talked of bringing in a bill, and had actually given notice of it. Now they were to be amused with something of a lighter character; namely, a resolution, by which it was sought to pledge the House to something not strictly defined. He acknowledged that his Majesty's Government had been so occupied with objects of the very utmost and pressing importance, that they were not prepared to introduce, at present, a measure, on their own responsibility, which it might be hoped would obviate the difficulty. He, therefore, must object to an instruction which would have the effect of pledging Government to an abstract proposition, propounded by any other person, the consequences of which his Majesty's Government had not weighed and considered. At least, before such a pledge was given, they should know to what they were to be pledged; because, observe this, whatever it might be, it was a subject which, if they touched, they must touch with prudence and consummate judgment; for, if they touched it incautiously, or infelicitously, the evils they would create must be, perhaps, greater than those they would avoid, and it was most likely that in such a case the most ruinous and fatal consequences would ensue. Now all this the Government was called upon by the hon. Member's motion to do, in utter blindness and
838
ignorance of the object or extent of the measure thereon to be founded. It was also notorious that, ere Parliament met again, a new Parliament would be called together, and the effect of this Motion would be, to pledge a future and a new Parliament to the expediency of acquiescing in the future measure which still slumbered in the bosom of the hon. Member, and which was, in fact, an abstract principle, conceived, but not announced, by that hon. Member. It might be, perhaps, applicable only to the old or infirm, or it might embrace the able-bodied poor who had not employment sufficient for their support; but, as the question now stood, with this imperfect information before them, he should, he confessed, meet it, as he had before met a similar motion, to show his conviction that the Motion was ill-timed and inconvenient, by moving the previous question. To disprove the assertion of the hon. Member, that there was no legislative enactment, relative to Ireland, on the principle of our Poor laws, he would only refer to a bill of his own, this Session of Parliament, for amending the 58th and 59th of George 3rd, with the view to prevent contagious and` epidemic diseases. The principle of this bill was, to extend the power of levying means of compulsory relief, through the establishment of a Board of Health. The clause to which he alluded gave power to the Board, which was appointed by the parish vestry authorities, to guard against the first symptoms of approaching contagion, or epidemic disease, and to borrow money of the Consolidated Fund, whenever they perceived symptoms of that distress which they apprehended would lead to endemic disease. Was not that a Poor law, so far as it went? He would not sanction the application of a system, such as that existing in England now, to a country so eminently and exclusively agricultural as Ireland, because a Poor law, such as we had in England, would, in Ireland, be productive of the most fatal effects; because it implied that employment was to be provided by some means, for those who could not support themselves by the means of their own labour. If such a project were carried into effect in Ireland, without great care being taken to counterbalance the evils necessarily attendant on it, it could not but prove a curse, instead of a boon, to Ireland. In the present state of the House, in the present state of the

839
Session, in the present state of the Parliament, it was impossible to legislate satisfactorily on so important a subject. If so, how impolitic and imprudent it would be for the House to pledge itself to something which it could not accomplish, and the mode of accomplishing which, by its successor, it could not divine! There was one part of the hon. Gentleman's resolution to which he would rather give a direct negative than meet it with the previous question; for the hon. Gentleman had complicated the question of the Poor laws in Ireland with the question of Absenteeism. He willingly allowed that a great moral injury resulted from the absenteeism of great landed proprietors in any country; and when to that consideration was added great drain of rents, it must be admitted that absenteeism had a great effect on the physical comforts, as well as on the moral condition, of the community. But it was a very difficult question to know how to deal with. Were they, by a system of Poor laws, to press on the estates of absentees? But how was absenteeism itself to be defined? Did it consist in an absence from Ireland of nine months, of six months, of three months, of two months? Was an absence of six months in two years, or of three months in two successive years, to be considered equal absenteeism? What then was absenteeism?
Mr. Sadler: The Legislature had decided who was an absentee, and the question had been settled by their vote.
Mr. Stanley: If so, he would not trouble the House with an inquiry into that which had been settled by so high an authority; but the Legislature had not decided whether it was equitable or politic to make distinctions in taxation between those who were resident and those who were not so. He would ask the hon. Gentleman, too, looking at the question in another point of view, were the Irish proprietors, in his mind, the only persons who, in strictness, could be considered absentees, living at a distance on the produce of Irish property, and making no return to that country? What would he say to the numerous mortgages on Irish property and estates? Was not the man who advanced money upon mortgage to a person possessed of a rent-roll of 10,000 l. a year, from which mortgage he derived an income to the extent of 9,500 l. a year, whilst the original landed proprietor received no more than 500 l. a year, a very
840
formidable absentee, and very difficult to reach by legislative provision? Had he no right to receive the amount of his mortgage, and the proceeds of his money, on the security of an estate in Ireland, although he resided here, and had never seen the estate in question? Would the hon. Gentleman go, in order to support his abstract proposition, the length of saying, that he would tax this mortgagee as an absentee, in order to protect the interest and the pocket of the farmer or tenant who resided on the land, and thus raise a provision by law for the Irish poor? There was also a class of absentees here who had estates in both countries, and, though they preferred living on their English estates, yet the property from which they absented themselves in Ireland was far more liable to mismanagement; and the influence of change of seasons or crops upon the condition or resources of their tenantry was much greater than on their English property. Would the hon. Member go to the extent of taxing each and all of these parties? The hon. Member seemed to have taken up the question, although humanely, certainly far too vaguely, and upon too light grounds to warrant him in giving the Motion his support; he should, therefore, meet it by moving as an amendment the previous question.
Mr. Chapmanfelt desirous of doing that for the hon. member for Aldborough which he had altogether omitted doing for himself, and of giving to the House some description of the extent and nature of his proposed plan of Poor laws. In his speech at a public meeting in Leeds, the hon. Member had stated, that if all the tithes in Ireland were converted into a provision for the poor, that provision would be inadequate; therefore, let Irish Members be fully aware of the extent of the proposed plan, and not imagine that, by voting for that Motion, they were merely advocating the introduction of a modified system. He felt extremely unwilling upon that occasion to detain the House by any lengthened observations as to the necessity or expediency of introducing a modified system. Upon that point he begged to refrain from giving any opinion; but in opposing this measure, he did not mean to pledge himself to oppose a modified system: he chiefly opposed it on account of the time at which it was brought forward, as he considered

841
that, however consistent it might be in the hon. Member, who looked forward with fear and apprehension to the reformer Parliament, to endeavour to bind this House, and hurry forward the measure now, it would be very unsuitable in those who anticipated great and important benefits from the next Parliament, to advocate so vague and indefinite a proposition, which the hon. Member himself acknowledged he did not intend to follow up by any specific measure, and which, therefore, could not possibly lead to any practical results. He, therefore, would oppose the Resolution, without at that time expressing any opinion upon the subject of the extension of a poor-rate to Ireland, which he would reserve for some other opportunity. On the subject of absenteeism he would only say, that the hon. Member seemed to him about reviving the obsolete statutes of Edward 3rd and Richard 2nd.
Mr. James Grattanbegged to than the hon. member for Aldborough for bringing the subject under the attention of the House. It had been argued, that the hon. Gentleman had not gone into or proposed any detailed or definite measure. And why had he not? Because there were already on the Table of the House propositions of definite measures, resolutions of this House, and Reports of Committees upon this subject, which remained on the Table unattended to. Such being the case, he thought it was too much to charge the hon. Gentleman with being indefinite in the resolution he had proposed. That the propositions to which he had referred remained unattended to, somewhat surprise him, when the right hon. Gentlemen (the Secretary for Ireland) had admitted and recognized the necessity of establishing Poor laws, and had acknowledge their principle in the bill he had himself introduced in the present Session, and to which he had this evening referred, making a provision for the sick poor. In reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman with respect to absentees, he (Mr. Grattan) begged to say, that he would preserve to every individual the right of residing wherever his choice dictated, but he should, notwithstanding, require that all such should contribute to the relief and comfort of the poor, and that every nobleman or gentleman should be bound to afford something to the support and maintenance of those he left behind him. The question of a provision for the poor of Ire-
842
land was one demanding early attention, and he was sure the question agitating Ireland for a Repeal of the Union, would never be settled until the laws were assimilated and the people of both countries were placed upon an equal footing. There were already two bills on the Table of the House, and in progress, involving two great and important questions to the people of Ireland—he meant the bill for the removal of the Irish poor, and the Tithe Commutation Bill, both of which tended to aggravate the distresses of that country, while any measure, tending to the relief of the poor was wholly unattended to; but they were told to wait until the next session of Parliament, when their wants would be considered. Indeed, all his (Mr. Grattan's) hopes for any measures of benefit to Ireland centred in the reformed Parliament. While the present system continued, there would be no end to the combinations of Rockites, Whitefeet, and other parties, from which so much misery had been entailed on the country. Both in 1819 and in 1822 Committees had sat to inquire into the condition of Ireland, and they had reported that her distresses arose from local causes, which could only be removed by such charges on the land as would afford a security to the peace and tranquillity of the country. He concurred in that opinion. Allusion had been made to the emigration system, and he was ready to acknowledge, that the system of emigration of Mr. Wilmot Horton had been productive of relief to Ireland; but with respect to what had been stated of the charitable institutions for supporting and relieving the sick, he would say, that the poor supported themselves, for they, in some way or shape, contributed the funds upon which they relied when distressed. He regretted the subject had not been taken up by the late Government, in the year 1825, but they turned a deaf ear to the cries of the Irish people, and what was now the consequence? Why, tithes were extinguished in Ireland. Would the Clergy of the Established Church have now been in the situation in which they were placed, if a different course had been adopted, and they had themselves come forward with petitions upon the subject? But they never stirred in the matter, and the result was their present distress. He felt convinced that some such measure as that proposed by the hon. Gentleman who had moved the resolution before the House was

843
necessary, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, as Secretary for Ireland, would give it his support if brought forward on a future occasion.
Colonel Percevalhad been requested by several gentlemen of the county of Mayo to complain of the manner in which the Grand Jury laws were administered, especially that portion which related to a provision for the poor, the object of which had been, on several occasions, frustrated by the Grand Jury of that county, who even had staggered the Judges themselves, when they had called their attention to that portion of the Grand Jury laws by which the intentions of the Legislature had been frustrated.
Mr. Stricklandcalled the attention of the House to the Report of the Committee of 1825, and expressed his opinion to be, that it was absolutely necessary to raise the Irish labourer to the standard of the English labourer, or else the consequence would be, that the latter would be eventually overpowered by the influx of the former. It had been said by a noble Lord (Lord Holland), several years ago, "that it was easy to describe the sufferings and miseries of the poor, but that it was difficult to provide a remedy for them." Now he (Mr. Strickland) thought a strict, well-modified, and well-defined system of Poor laws would confer a great blessing upon Ireland; while he hesitated not to say, that a system such as practised in this country, particularly in the southern districts, would be an evil and a curse to that country. He should support the motion of the hon. member for Aldborough, if he pressed it to a division, because his (Mr. Strickland's) construction of the Resolution was, that some system of Poor laws should be introduced into Ireland; others might put a different construction upon the Resolution, but such was his. He, however, hoped that, considering the near approach of the end of the session, and indeed, of the end of the Parliament, the hon. Gentleman would content himself with having thus recorded his sentiments, and not press his Resolution to a division.
Mr. Wysecould not help availing himself of that opportunity to say, that the Church had taken every occasion of throwing those taxes which it ought to pay, on the shoulders of the people; for which reason it appeared to him, before any fresh burthen was imposed on the nation, that the Church ought again to pay those taxes
844
which had so unjustly been imposed on the country: when this was done, they might judge how far the money of the nation would be required. If this point were settled, he should be prepared to go with the hon. Gentleman, who had always shown himself so anxious and so zealous on the subject; but, till then, the matter ought to rest in abeyance, and he should, therefore, suspend his vote, especially when it was to be given on such a motion as that presented this evening; for it should be observed, that the present Resolution went much further than that of last year, which merely stated that it was proper to support our fellow-creatures. The present Motion, however, went into details, though much too loosely; and it, therefore, pledged the House, not only to the opinion that it was proper to support our fellow-creatures, but that it was proper to support them in a particular manner. His objection to this Motion was, that, having once gone into detail, it had not gone far enough. It was neither one thing nor the other; and he, for one, therefore, must wait for something more specified and distinct. He was fully aware that there was a great difference between the countries: on this side of the water the poor man was sure of support; on the other side, such support as there was for him was disjointed and uncertain; and, therefore, he should contend, that some great change ought to take place, for the purpose of producing an assimilation between the state of England and Ireland. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that the support of the sick and the maimed in Ireland had been a subject of frequent legislation, both in this Parliament and the Irish Parliament; and, so far from their not being provided for, there was, perhaps, a larger provision for them in that country than elsewhere; but, then, it had always assumed a heterogeneous shape, and wanted that system of regularity which had always proved so highly beneficial here. Besides, it was not afforded sufficiently early to do that good which might otherwise be effected. A family, for instance, gradually sunk, from want of sustenance, and was at length attacked with fever; the father was removed to the fever hospital, and died; his children shared his fate one by one. And why was this? The earlier wants of the family had been unattended to, and the Irish system of relief seemed to forget that

845
prevention was better than cure. Surely, it would have been better to have expended the money in giving that man employment, and thus to have redeemed him in time from so deplorable a state of starvation. He did not, however, expect that one Session of Parliament would be sufficient to bring the House to a safe conclusion: such a subject must necessarily occupy a considerable portion of time; and his main objection to the hon. Gentleman's motion was, that it did not tend to direct attention to any special object. He gave him the fullest credit for benevolence of intention; and if the hon. Member had moved for leave to introduce a bill, he should certainly have had his support, because he was seeking information on the subject. It was of very little consequence whether the House pledged itself to the opinions expressed in the Motion, for in a few months that House would be no more, and the next Parliament would not hold itself bound by anything this Parliament might have clone, but act, he trusted, on very different principles and views. Above all, he wished that this question should be suspended, now that the public mind was occupied by a very different subject—which subject was being solved day by day—and which, when solved, would put it in the power of the Legislature to come to a wiser and a juster conclusion on the question than was now proposed by the hon. member for Aldborough.
Mr. Humesaid, a subject so important as the present required the most mature consideration, and it was his wish to pay the utmost attention to it; but he was sorry to say, he had not heard one argument from the hon. Mover that could induce him to vote for his proposition. The hon. Member ought to have made out the efficiency and advantage of the Poor laws, as they operated in England, before he required the system to be applied to Ireland. But the hon. Member did not and could not show that any advantage resulted from the English Poor laws. So far were they from conferring benefit, that the system, he believed, destroyed the independence of the people, without effectually relieving their poverty. The Poor laws threatened to swallow up the fee-simple of the land. The condition of the northern and southern districts of this country was very strongly contrasted: it would be found that in the former, where the Poor
846
laws were not enforced in the same manner as in the latter, the people were morally and physically in a better situation than in the south. The same remark applied to the northern and southern parts of Scotland. He thought the hon. Member had not made out a case such as would justify the House in agreeing to his proposition. With respect to absenteeism, that was a question of serious import, much more so, indeed, than the hon. member for Aldborough seemed to think. The principle of taxing absentees more than others involved the question, how far the Legislature had a right to chain men to their property, or to compel them to change it; and it certainly must operate against the permanent interests of Ireland, if anything were done that should finally draw the capital from that country. He, therefore, hoped that this question would never be combined with that of the Poor laws, but that, whenever brought forward, it would be as a distinct and separate subject.
Mr. Sheilthought that there were two objections to the adoption of the hon. Gentleman's motion. The one was, that the House would thereby be only leaving a legacy to the next Parliament: it would be a sort of testament of recommendation from a Parliament already self-condemned, and in the agonies of suicide. The right hon. Gentleman had, with his usual tact, laid his finger on this part of the case, and all that he (Mr. Sheil) had to hope was, that he would further embody the idea in his Tithe Report, and leave the whole of that question also to the decision of the next Parliament. The other objection was, that the hon. Gentleman had not come forward with a distinct proposition. He (Mr. Shed) had narrowly watched the progress of his speech: he certainly went over a vast range of amiable speculations, but he did not mention one specific object: he did not propose a Board of Management in the respective parishes; he did not say anything about the co-operation of the Clergy; and, in fact, he entirely confined himself to abstract principles. But why did he do this, when he was sure that the House would be looking for the means of entering into some safe and substantial measure? The hon. member for Middlesex had fallen into a mistake, in thinking that the hon. Gentleman proposed to apply the English system to Ireland. Indeed, all must admit that the ma-

847
chinery of this country did not work well, and the hon. Gentleman certainly did not propose to adopt it as the model for Ireland. The hon. member for Middlesex had, therefore, put into the mouth of the hon. member for Aldborough, arguments which he never used; but then the hon. member for Middlesex had done them the favour of answering those arguments with great ingenuity. The hon. Gentleman should also have recollected, that Scotland was situated very differently from Ireland. Scotland had enjoyed a long course of political ease; agriculture there had been carried to the highest point, so had manufactures; the Clergy there belonged to the religion of the people, and they therefore exercised an influence over the rich which could not be felt in Ireland. In Scotland the clergyman stood at the door of the place of worship, and made a collection for the poor—a collection not enforced by the law of the land, but by the law of public opinion. The clergyman acted as a sort of tax-gatherer; he used religion for the purpose, and he succeeded, even with the hard-hearted, because they were influenced by a feeling of shame. But in Ireland the minister of the poor did not stand at the church door of the rich. It was true, the Protestants of Ireland were a most charitable body; but their charity could not be brought into practice as in Scotland. No one could deny, that great misery had resulted from the clearing system. He trusted in God that the effect of that system would not be permanent; but, while it lasted, it must produce misery of the most appalling sort. It might be said that that system was not likely to prevail again. No; for it had done its worst: it had left a large deposit of calamity in several parts of Ireland. A system of Poor laws for Ireland would be premature, till such part of the Church property as was not required for the decent maintenance of the Clergy was applied to the support of the poor. And, while on this part of the subject, he would remind the hon. member for Aldborough, that, in his book on Ireland, he had very fully discussed those questions which related to the Church of Ireland. He (Mr. Sheil), therefore, begged to ask him how it happened that he had entirely omitted the topic in his speech of this evening? It was certainly hiatus valde deflendus. With respect to absentees, although there seemed no immediate connexion between them
848
and the other part of the hon. Gentleman's motion, it was certainly difficult to touch upon one of those subjects without referring to the other. He rejoiced to find that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, unlike a certain school of political economists, admitted that absenteeism was productive of great moral evil and pecuniary embarrassment; but, whilst he made that admission, he (Mr. Sheil) was sorry to see an objection raised in his mind as to the removal of the evil. He asked, how were they to distinguish between the proprietor of an estate, and a mortgagee residing in London? He would see, upon examination, that the evil arising from a mortgagee residing in London was only temporary; whereas, that of a proprietor not residing on his estate was permanent. For instance, he (Mr. Sheil) had an estate in Ireland; he mortgaged it to a London merchant; and, on his not paying the interest, he foreclosed, sold the estate, and things resumed their natural course. [Mr. Stanley: Suppose you pay the interest?] That was a fact assumed by the right hon. Secretary; but regularity with Irish mortgagors was certainly not often to be met with. The evil, then, arising from a mortgagee's being in possession of an estate was only temporary. Now, there was the Duke of Devonshire, who received 20,000 l. per annum from the county of Waterford; and the rents of the estates from which he received it, had, in like manner, long been drawn by his ancestors. This, then, was a permanent drain of money from Ireland; but, if these estates were to fall into the hands of a mortgagee, and his interest were not paid, he would sell the land, and it would be distributed amongst various purchasers. It was, therefore, quite a mistake to compare the case of the mortgagee, who had only a temporary hold upon the soil, with that of an absentee proprietor, who was fixed and rooted in it. It had been said that no expedient to prevent absenteeism had ever succeeded; but, certainly, he did not think it could be denied that the attempt had been made more than once, with more or less of success. The Statute of Edward 3rd, and the Statute of Richard 2nd, had been referred to; and the latter had been pronounced, by high authority, to be just in principle, and salutary in its effects. In the time of Henry 8th, another Act was passed to cure the evil; nor must the House imagine they remained a dead

849
letter, for let any hon. Member open the Statute-book, and he would find, under the head of the "Earl of Shrewsbury," that all the estates of the Talbot family in Waterford, were forfeited for absenteeism. Did he mean that there should now be forfeitures? Certainly not; but that in those Acts materials might be found for framing the provisions of a bill at present. Before the Union, an Act was passed in Ireland imposing a tax of 4s. in the pound on all pensions paid to persons absent from the country; and, in 1773, Mr. Flood made a motion, which was lost by only a small majority, for a two shilling tax on the estates of absentees. Such a proposition, therefore, was not quite so unprecedented as hon. Gentlemen might imagine.
Mr. Spring Ricewas prepared to vote for the motion for postponing the consideration of this matter for the present; but he should have been equally ready to vote had the question been so framed as to meet the proposition of the hon. Member with a direct negative. The grounds of his opinions upon this subject he had stated, at great lengths, on former occasions, and should not, therefore, occupy the attention of the House beyond a very few minutes. He concurred with the hon. member for Middlesex in all the statements of facts and principles which he had made; and rejoiced that such a declaration of opinion had come from him, who, of all men, could not be suspected of being indifferent to the rights of the people, or the real interests of the poor. He (Mr. Spring Rice) objected, on principle, to any proposition, the effect of which, under colour of giving relief to prevailing distress or misery, would be rather to increase misery, and create a demand for relief greater than they had the means of supplying. He should at all times feel it his duty, as an Irishman, to meet any such proposition, in any shape, with a direct negative. With respect to the application of Church property to the relief of the poor, not only did he think the House had no right to take the Church property for that purpose, but that the objections he had to relieving the poor in that way would be greater than if the relief were to be given from the produce of voluntary assessments. When people were called upon to tax themselves, there was some check upon abuses; but if the power were given them of putting their fingers into the pockets of others, if the
850
principle were vicious, then would it be applied in a more mischievous degree. With respect to absenteeism, he deplored it as much as any man; and had never mixed himself up with that school of political economy which, looking only to the pounds, shillings, and pence part of the question, and forgetting the important considerations of moral and political influence, had said that absenteeism was not an evil. He thought it was, but he was also satisfied, that if any attempt were made to remedy it by controlling freedom of action in any part of the country, the law which should so brand it, would inevitably be a greater evil than any benefit to be derived from it could counterbalance. Such a law could not be sanctioned by those who opposed themselves to any distinction being made between the two countries; and was it to be said, that Ireland was a country so hateful to those connected with it, that the humanity, the sympathy, which bound men in other countries to the performance of their duty, was insufficient for the purpose in Ireland, and that Irish proprietors were not to be trusted with that degree of moral and political liberty which was enjoyed by all Englishmen? Let the remedy for absenteeism be discussed as a proposition applicable to the whole empire, and not as a proposition applicable to Ireland alone. If it were an error, it was a grievous one: if it was a moral crime—and he admitted it to be one—to absent yourself from your estate, it was as applicable to Englishmen who resided abroad as it was to Irishmen. He must complain a little of his hon. and learned friend, the member for Louth, having, when speaking upon this subject, run down the credit of his country. He seemed to think that the punctual payment of interest was a rare exception to the general rule of neglect and foreclosure of mortgages, which, said he, bringing about a sale amongst residents, the evil of absenteeism ceased. If that were the case—if payment of interest were the exception, and not the rule—he (Mr. Spring Rice) knew enough of the money-market of London to say, that he might relieve his mind from the apprehension of any dangers he might think likely to arise from English mortgages; for he could assure him, that the security to be derived from the non-payment of interest, and the possibility of foreclosure, would not occasion a very great flow of British capital into

851
Ireland. But, suppose the estate to be sold, it was rather an Hibernian way of making Ireland rich, to send the purchase-money out of it to satisfy the English capitalist, who, of course, had been applied to because the money could be obtained from him on better terms than from an Irish capitalist. He now came to a point on which the hon. Mover was altogether mistaken, although he could not but do justice to the motives of humanity and benevolence by which he had been actuated. The wages of labour were regulated by the proportion of the supply of labour compared with the capital capable of being advantageously employed in its payment. The hon. Gentleman, however, had peculiar notions with respect to population. He thought that if a given number of persons were found to live in comfort upon a given number of acres, the same given number ought to live in comfort upon the same number of acres any where else, and, that, therefore, an idea of excess of population, if misery should be shown to exist among the labouring classes of any similar number of acres, was out of the question. The mistake of the hon. Gentleman existed in his omitting to take into account the amount of the wages of labour. He might have 100,000 people living in comfort if wages were high, but he might have 100,000 people living in a district of similar extent and fertility, miserable from the low rate of wages. The hon. Gentleman only looked to the question of area and the numbers of the people, which had no more to do with their comfort than if he measured the degrees of latitude and longitude within which they were placed. Provided the wages of labour were high it mattered not to the labourer whether he were employed by a resident proprietor or an absentee. It was stated by the hon. member for Middlesex, that a comparison of the state of Scotland, and the northern counties of England with that of the southern counties, would enable the Irish Gentlemen to judge how far it was desirable to introduce the poor-laws into Ireland. He would refer Gentlemen to the Report of the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, and to the evidence of Dr. Chalmers, given before a Committee of which he (Mr. Spring Rice) had the honour to be Chairman, for a proof of the fact referred to by the hon. member for Middlesex—namely, that just in proportion as
852
the poor-laws were adopted did the condition of the people become deteriorated. In the south of England, where the poor-laws had been so far perverted as to occasion the payment of the wages of labour out of the poor-rates, the condition of the people had been brought so low, that not two years since, their wretchedness made them throw the country into confusion. In Yorkshire and Northumberland, where wages were very little, if at all paid out of the poor-rates, the physical condition of the labourer was better; but his moral condition was much the same. In Scotland, the assessment principle had only made its way within the last 100 years into a few districts; but just in proportion as it was advanced was the condition of the people deteriorated. Dr. Chalmers stated the case of two parishes or districts in the town of Glasgow, which completely illustrated his (Mr. Spring Rice's) position. In one of these the principle of assessment had prevailed, in the other it had not. The pursuits of the people in both were precisely the same, so that they offered the very best possible test of the real nature of the assessment principle. A period of calamity came, attended with loss of employment and great distress. A subscription was raised for the relief of the poor, and it was found that there was less demand for relief in that parish where the assessment principle had not prevailed than in that where it had. He (Mr. Spring Rice) had dealt with the general principle; but in the present state of Ireland, there was no one evil connected with the Administration of the poor-laws in England, which, if they were introduced into Ireland, would not there cause tenfold distress and mischief. There was one point on which the peasantry of Ireland would bear a comparison with the peasantry of England, or of any other country in the world, and that was in the sanctity of the marriage tie, and in the affection for their children. He believed that one of the evils consequent on the introduction of a system of Poor laws would be to destroy the sanctity of that tie, and render a man comparatively indifferent to his children. Such, at least, had been the effect produced by the compulsory marriages which took place under the Poor laws in this country. He called, then, on the hon. Member, before he introduced the English system of Poor laws into Ireland, to withdraw from them the dross

853
and the alloy with which their administration was mixed up in this country. When that was done, the experiment might be tried in Ireland; but until then, he (Mr. Spring Rice) should object to it. He thought it would be a serious evil if the peasantry of Ireland were taught to look to the Poor laws for a remedy for the evils of their condition; it would paralyse their industry, and induce them to depend on other means besides their own labour for their support. At the same time that he said this, he begged most distinctly to declare, that he should be quite ready to support a proposition to relieve those who by age, by disease, or by accident had become unable to support themselves; but he strongly objected to the introduction of a principle that would afford assistance to those who were merely unemployed, since he believed, that although in some cases, that relief might be most charitably afforded, the establishment of it as a right would only tend to deteriorate the condition of that peasantry whom it was intended to benefit.
Mr. O'Connellwas glad that he possessed influence in Ireland, because it afforded him an opportunity of exerting that influence to guard the people against a delusion, which would have a most injurious effect upon their real interests. He admitted, that at first sight, the arguments in favour of poor laws seemed plausible enough, and were calculated to delude the people, because they impressed them with the notion that they ought to rely upon the pockets of their more wealthy neighbours for support, instead of their own exertions. It was true he had entertained a very different opinion at one time upon this question. He had since bestowed upon it all the consideration which it was in his power to bestow. He had reviewed it in all its bearings—weighed the arguments which had been urged in its favour—and, after a patient and minute investigation of the subject, it was his deliberate and decided conviction, that Poor laws would deteriorate the condition and debase the morals of the people. If his object had been mob popularity (a motive which had so often been ascribed to him), he ought to have pursued a very different course from that which he now adopted. Throughout his political life he had only supported such measures as he conceived would benefit his country; and it was because he was persuaded that the present one would have
854
a contrary effect that he now opposed it. He thought that injustice had been done by some hon. Gentlemen to the hon. member for Aldborough, in imputing motives to him in bringing forward this proposition. On the other hand, he also conceived that other hon. Gentlemen had been too lavish in their commendation of his conduct. They gave him credit for too great a share of philanthropy in favour of Ireland—they gave him too much glorification for his extra purity and disinterestedness of purpose, without making a proper estimate of the benefits which they were to receive in return. He would beg of the hon. Gentleman to turn his philanthropy to something practical. He did not, for his part, fancy that species of charity which put the four fingers and thumb into the pockets of a third person; for no philanthropy was more easy and imposing than that which vented itself in taxing other people. In the first place, he thought that Poor laws were calculated to widen the breach between the higher and lower orders of the people, which was so much to be deplored in Ireland. If the rich were compelled to support the poor, their hatred for that class would be increased, and this, in itself, he thought, would be a great evil. Institutions for the relief of the sick and the suffering were very different in their nature from Poor laws, and did not hold out discouragement to industry; for instance, no man would voluntarily break his leg, or incur a fever, merely for the gratification of getting into an hospital. To this extent, and under such circumstances, he admitted that the poor were entitled to relief, but he denied that the right went one whit further. No one would be found to say, that the man who was wilfully idle ought to be supported at the public expense. Now, how were they to ascertain whether a man was wilfully idle or not? They should have some tribunal to decide. The farmer would have an interest that the poor should be employed at the public expense—that the price of wages should be reduced. It was, therefore, clear, that a person so situated, having these temptations before him, would not be exactly the person adapted for the discharge of these duties. Then, if it were left to the landed proprietors, they would also take care to shift the burthen off their own shoulders; so that, in whatever light the subject was viewed, it was surrounded with insurmountable difficulties. He knew

855
that the poor, both of England and Ireland, had great reason to complain. Their poverty and distress was brought about by the heavy and grinding taxation, which the people were no longer able to bear, resulting from the crimes of former Governments, which had taken the property of a mighty nation into its own hands, and squandered it, with a shameless profligacy, upon unnecessary wars. He trusted, however, that they were now returning to a natural system, and that all those evils would, in time, be greatly mitigated. He did not mean to assert, that if property was willed to the poor, it should not be rigidly applied to the purpose of the owner; he only meant to deny the abstract right of the poor to relief at the expense of his more prosperous fellow-subjects. The advocates of the abstract rights which he thus denied, admitted that they would not extend relief to those who had the opportunity and the power to work; but he would ask, would not the inquiry into the fact, whether an applicant was able or unwilling to labour, be placing the applicant in the condition of a slave—and whether, therefore, Poor laws, as implying slavery on the part of those who thus obtained relief under their provisions, was not prejudicial to the independence of the national character? There was, however, another powerful reason to which he might confine himself, and into which all the others he had stated might be merged. When he saw the most powerful, wealthy, and intelligent nation upon the earth, a nation of all others most deeply interested in discovering a remedy for the monstrous abuses of their own system of Poor laws—when he saw this mighty nation engaged for upwards of half a century in examining the institutions of other countries, in sending emissaries to every quarter of the globe, and using every exertion which the combination of splendid intellect and unwearied industry could achieve—when he found that all those things had failed, and that no man had the hardihood to stand up in that House and propose a plan for their amendment, or even a partial mitigation of the abuses which were admitted to prevail to a frightful extent in the system—with such evidence as this before his eyes, could he, without an abandonment of all those principles by which public men should always be regulated in the discharge of their public duties, vote for the introduction of Poor laws into Ireland?
Mr. Huntobserved, that the hon. and learned member for Kerry had changed his opinion with respect to the expediency of introducing a system of Poor laws into Ireland. The hon. and learned Member was a man of observation—from observation came experience, and from experience often a change of opinion. Hence the declaration of the hon. and learned Member that evening. He hoped, however, that the hon. and learned Member would go on to observe, and to change his opinion again. It was almost impossible to suppose that the hon. and learned Member's opposition to the Resolution moved by the hon. member for Aldborough could arise from any selfish motive. The hon. and learned Gentleman was a most disinterested person, actuated by no motive but a desire to promote the general interests of the country, and the happiness of his countrymen. With that desire uppermost in his mind, he had become an advocate for the Repeal of the Union. But it seemed that if the Poor laws were introduced into Ireland a Repeal of the Union would become unnecessary—the wishes of the people would be satisfied. On the other hand, it became apparent, that if a system of Poor laws were not introduced, a Repeal of the Union must take place. Now, was it possible that the hon. and learned Member could have a personal interest in the Repeal of the Union—was it possible that he could be a little blinded to the interests of his suffering countrymen by any interest of his own? For his own part, he (Mr. Hunt), thought that the best results would follow from the introduction of the Poor laws into Ireland, and for that reason he should give his cordial support to the Motion of the hon. member for Aldborough.
Mr. Callaghansaid, that as upon every occasion when the subject of a legal provision for the poor of Ireland was before the House, he had given it his humble advocacy, he would not then trespass on their time, by any repetition of what he had before stated; but he would express his regret that the hon. mover of this Resolution had confined his exertions on this occasion to a simple Resolution, without proposing what, after the last debate on this subject, the House had some reason to expect from him; viz. a Bill, or substantive plan, for effecting the humane object he had in view, which would enable the House to deal with the subject more fairly than by allowing so many to believe

857
that he had in view Poor laws similar to those which existed in England. He had also to regret that the hon. Member had mixed up with the question of a just provision for the poor, the other intricate question of Absentee laws, agreeing, as he did, with the right hon. member for Limerick, that the question of absenteeism was a general one; and, though the evil unfortunately pressed upon Ireland more heavily than elsewhere, he would rather it were treated not as an Irish, but as a general question, on its particular merits. He could refer with pleasure to most of the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Middlesex, whose facts and principles he could not deny; but there was one of his conclusions on which he would remark. The hon. Member stated that, in a natural state of society, where every man was left to his own resources, and had no pension or tax to resort to, he would providently guard against the evil day, and if, by any great casualty, a period of destitution should unfortunately arrive, the poor man would be certain to receive the charitable assistance of the higher orders. He would say, that Ireland presented the exception to that rule, for there the poor had no fund whereon to rely, that periods of destitution were continually occurring, and that it was allowed upon all hands that its relief was not adequately supplied by the charitable feelings and donations of the rich, however great these were, and however honourable to the feelings of the great majority of the better classes, in the cause of charity. It was because of this frequency of a state of destitution by sickness, poverty, and want of food, that he was anxious to have established some better means than at present existed, of providing for the poor of Ireland, and that he had hoped a Bill for that purpose would be introduced, satisfied that until then the march of distress would go on, and the evil be continually increasing. He thought the difficulties in framing a plan not so great as others did. His notion was, that the amount to be expended for the support of the poor should be regulated by, and be optional with, those who were to pay it, and that amount determined annually; that the levy should be compulsory in such proportions as were just upon the landlords and tenants. The right hon. Secretary to the Treasury, and others, held that there in fact did exist in Ireland at
858
present a Poor-rate, because all the afflicted poor were provided for by funds raised by presentments of Grand Juries; but he had to state to the House that this very system was one becoming very grievous to the householders and inhabitants of towns in Ireland; that the Cholera Bill which the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had introduced, and which was now in operation in Ireland, was felt not to be placed on a just basis, for all the weight of taxation by it fell upon the occupying tenants, and not upon the landlords. He had had some petitions from the city which he represented, complaining of this, which he should have to present to the House as soon as he could do so consistently with the plan laid down for petitions, and which he hoped the right hon. Secretary would attend to. The House had to deal with facts. Ireland was continually overcharged with poor. There existed not sufficient means by law to relieve them. The charity of the higher orders was great; but there was no compulsion upon them by law, and several proprietors found it convenient not to contribute. It was to oblige such people to contribute that he would look for a law. His constituents believed that for this they had a precedent in the case of the Scotch Poor law; for that there the heritor, or landlord, was obliged to contribute in a greater proportion than the householder or tenant. The poor of Cork were continually increasing; the poor of the estates of all the neighbouring gentlemen were continually pouring into the city, to add to the stock of healthy labourers, and the aged and feeble poor citizen was left without work or provision in his old age. A general Poor-rate would prevent this; and without it he saw no end to the misery which the towns in Ireland would have to bear with. He had attended anxiously to all the debates and inquiries on this subject, since he had the honour of a seat in the House, and he had heard nothing that could shake his confidence in the opinion he had heard delivered before a Committee of the House by Dr. Doyle, that the 43rd of Elizabeth, which gave a system of Poor laws to England, was the Magna Charta of the poor. The abuses that had since grown up in the system might or might not be capable of correction; but a system which he hoped to see adopted for Ireland should have guards against such abuses, the principal

859
of which was, perhaps, the payment out of the Poor rates by the farmers who distributed them, in reduction of the wages of the poor for their own benefit. This, he had heard was capable of correction by the attention of the landlords themselves, who absented themselves from vestries, and from the control of the Overseers and their expenditure. With the abuses of the system he had nothing to do but to guard against them. He was told, that enough public institutions existed in Ireland to relieve destitution; he knew that destitution existed there, nevertheless, to a frightful extent; he knew that no man, in any state of society, would lie down and die—that he would make some exertions to live—and rather than die would rob. To guard against such a contingency was the duty of society, and, as the poor must live and be supported, he was for maintaining them by a system, instead of having the country without a system, as at present. Until this was established, he could not think the peace and happiness of Ireland properly provided for, or that the Government had done its duty to the people. Much had been said in the course of this debate on which he might comment, but he thought he should best discharge his duty, by confining his remarks as much as possible to show what he was anxious to impress upon the House, that a necessity existed for legislating further for a provision for the poor of Ireland.
Mr. Lambert, in support of the Motion, said, that Dr. Doyle had so fully exposed the cant and hypocrisy of the objection to Poor laws, founded on their alleged tendency to narrow the channel of voluntary charity, that he need only refer to that able divine's pages. The learned member for Kerry objected to Poor laws, because they tended to make the poor cringing, and whiningly dependent upon the voluntary charity or capricious beneficence of the rich; but surely the moral and social dignity of the poor was best preserved by enabling them to demand as a right, what the learned Member would make them cringe for as a boon. Why should not the rich landed proprietor—particularly the absentee—be compelled to contribute to the support of those persons to whose labour he was wholly indebted for his wealth and leisure? Was it not a notorious fact, that in Ireland the absentees and great proprietors wholly neglected their duty to the poor, and
860
would continue to do so till compelled by a legislative enactment? Then, in Ireland there was no provision for illegitimate children; the wretched mother had to bear the whole expense and ignominy. Was it wonderful, therefore, that infanticide should occur to her thoughts? And was not Dr. Doyle borne out in stating, that he should prefer twenty illicit intercourses and their consequences between the sexes, to the chance of a single mother's being forced by shame, or the consciousness of being the only sufferer, into the crime of child murder?
Mr. Slaneysaid, it was easy for hon. Gentlemen to say, that benevolent feeling called upon them to adopt the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite, but his (Mr. Slaney's) firm belief was, that if the system of Poor laws prevalent in this country, were transferred to Ireland, instead of diminishing evils there, which no man deplored more sincerely than he did, it would have the effect of increasing them. Hon. Gentlemen from the sister kingdom might not know, that the English Poor laws divided themselves into three branches, which were all distinct from each other. In the first place, there was the law of rating, with respect to which the hon. Gentleman opposite had not said a single syllable. That was a most complicated and difficult part of the English law, and had furnished more cases to puzzle the sagacity of lawyers than any other. The hon. Gentleman had not touched upon it; but he would beg leave to say a few words with respect to it by-and-by. Next came the law of settlement, which was also exceedingly complex. The hon. member for Limerick had referred to some of its difficulties; but if Irish Members would look to its different heads—at the minute differences which existed in it—at points of division which would excite laughter, if it were not for the expense to which they had put parties—they would pause before they adopted that branch of our law. The third, and most important branch of all, was the law of relief. This divided itself into two parts, perfectly distinct from each other; first, there was the relief of those who by misfortune, by accident, or any natural defect, were unable to assist themselves. These were a large class, to which the law of England directed assistance to be given; and, as far as regarded that class, provision should be made for it in Ireland,

861
and this might be done in a way so as completely to cut it off from another large class to which he should presently refer. But it was unfair for Gentlemen to say, that the Government appeared to feel an indisposition to give due consideration to an alteration of the law; for the right hon. Gentleman below him had said, that he had already made experiments for the purpose of endeavouring to see how far it might be politic to introduce some provision, at least as far as regarded those who were the objects of everybody's pity. But it was the second class which caused all the difficulties they had to contend with. Was it right to give every able-bodied man a right to say, "You shall employ and support me?" It appeared doubtful to a Committee which sat upon the subject of the Poor laws, whether the Act of Elizabeth gave that right at all; but custom had given it in most parts of England, and the question now was, whether, in giving assistance, it should be given in the form of work, of money, or of something else. He had ever contended that in giving that assistance, it ought always to be in the shape of work, for that the idle man, truly speaking, did not want. Now he would venture to say that, as regarded the application of the Poor laws to Ireland, no good would be done to the poor of that country, by introducing this part of the English law; but that, on the other hand, the greatest possible evil, by relaxing all that desire which they now had to exert themselves. He did not say this upon his own humble judgment merely. Far from it; for it was the unanimous opinion of all who had looked closely into the subject. How had the law in this respect worked in England? There were many instances of a man not worth sixpence, taking a pauper by the hand, marrying her, openly declaring that he intended to come upon the parish for the support both of her and his children. In point of fact, the law stimulated to improvidence, and was beneficial neither to the rich nor the poor. Experience would prove this. England divided itself into two districts with reference to the administration of the Poor laws. In the southern counties it had been the habit to allow every able-bodied man so much for every child, so much for cottage-rent, and so much for other things; and if he stated himself to be without work, none was given him, but he was shut up in a yard to
862
play at marbles. In Sussex the rate amounted to 7s. in the 1l. throughout the county, and it was equally high in several other counties—but were the poor there happy—were they contented—were they as we should wish the peasantry of our kingdom to be? Let the House look to what had taken place within these two years in those counties for an answer. A very different system, on the other hand, prevailed in Northumberland and other northern counties: there the wages of the people were good, and the Poor rates were low, and there that independent spirit prevailed amongst the people that ought to prevail in this country. Now, if such a system as he had described were to be introduced into a poor country like Ireland, it would absorb all property, and render the whole people a mass of paupers. He was far from contending that nothing should be done upon this subject. On the contrary, much benefit would arise from permitting certain persons in Ireland to tax themselves for the purpose of providing relief for a particular description of poor. If, however, Parliament should establish a permanent system of Poor laws in Ireland, and make the relief of the poor compulsory, the evil would be perennial. He was, therefore, disposed to restrict the interference of Parliament upon this question, to giving to benevolent landlords the power of assessing themselves, for the relief of the poor, in particular emergencies. It occurred to him, that a powerful reason for inducing the House to abstain from pledging itself to the expediency of introducing the English system of Poor laws into Ireland, was to be found in the fact that, at the present moment, a Commission, appointed by his Majesty, was sitting to investigate that system. Before long, in all probability, that Commission would make a Report, pointing out what part of the present system ought to be retained, and what part was defective and should be abolished. He appealed to the House, whether it would not be an unprecedented proceeding, whilst this Commission was sitting, with the view of suggesting alterations in the Poor laws, that this House should pledge itself to introduce the system unrevised, and unamended, into a neighbouring country? He was not the enemy of a wise system of Poor laws—he would give the utmost extension to that part of the system which provided for the maintenance of the impotent and aged who

863
were stricken by misfortune. There was one thing much wanting in our system of Poor laws, and if no person of greater influence than himself should endeavour to supply it, he would pledge himself to do so before long: he alluded to the want of any provision for the education of children of paupers who became chargeable to their parishes. He was prepared to maintain that such a provision was necessary even upon the ground—the paltry ground—of saving. If parishes wished to diminish expense, let them teach the children of the poor the way in which they should go. In the greater part of the country parishes these unfortunate children had scarcely any education at all. The consequence was, that when the time arrived for apprenticing them, masters refused to take them; and, being thrown upon their own resources, they, in most cases, became vicious members of society. If one-tenth of the sum which was applied to the relief of the aged poor were devoted to the education of the young, there would soon be a great improvement in the moral condition of the lower classes. He did not feel it necessary to detain the House longer upon the subject. He would only say, that whilst he agreed with the hon. member for Aldborough, as to the necessity of providing for the relief of the impotent and aged poor in Ireland, he would oppose the introduction into that country of that part of the English Poor laws which provided for the support of able-bodied men at all times, whether they were idle or industrious. The introduction of that part of our system would be injurious to the Irish peasantry themselves: and, on these grounds, he must, reluctantly, vote against the Motion.
Colonel Conollydeprecated incautious attempts to legislate on this important subject. Those persons who wished to introduce the Poor-laws into Ireland were unacquainted with the working of the system in this country, and totally ignorant of the state of Ireland. He was anxious to see a provision made for the poor and infirm, but the extension of the whole system of Poor laws to Ireland would deteriorate the condition of those whom it was intended to benefit.
Mr. Ruthvensaw no just ground for opposing the resolution which had been brought forward by the hon. member for Aldborough. He was decidedly opposed to the introduction of the English Poor
864
law system into Ireland; but that a strong necessity existed for some measure of this kind, however modified it might be in its details, he entertained not the slightest doubt. He hoped and believed that the people of England were not indifferent to this question. He regretted it was not brought forward at an earlier period of the Session, but even late as it was, he thought the present state of Ireland—the misery and destitution of the people—the crimes and disturbances arising from this misery—the unfeeling conduct of many of the proprietors of the soil towards the destitute poor—all these considerations, he trusted, would induce the House to accede to the resolution of the hon. member for Aldborough. He differed widely in opinion from the hon. Member who conceived that the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman pledged the House to any specific plan. It merely said that it was expedient to provide some plan of relief for the destitute poor of Ireland. This he conceived to be the first question. This House ought to decide, having once admitted the principle, that it was expedient to introduce some measure of this description. The consideration of the plan and detail might form the subject of future deliberations. He repeated, that the hon. member for Aldborough had not been treated fairly on this question. He conceived his opinion entitled to just as much weight as that of any of the Committees which had been sitting for several years back on the state of Ireland, which had printed four folio volumes, and, after all this labour and fuss, just left the country in the condition in which the Committee found it, without introducing one single practical measure of amelioration. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland asked, what plan did the hon. Gentleman propose. This, he repeated, was not the time for the plan. It was a question of great difficulty, at least as far as related to the details; but he had heard no argument which could convince him that he ought not to vote for the principle. The right hon. Secretary had himself brought forward a resolution on another question of great difficulty also, and yet no objection was made to his proposition on the ground that he had no plan. He knew not whether the right hon. Secretary had yet determined upon a plan; but this he would tell him, that the people of Ireland had adopted one of their own, which was

865
likely to supersede all the legislative enactments which the right hon. Gentleman might pass upon the subject. This state of things was precisely owing to the manner in which Ireland had been always treated in this House. It was either too late or too early to bring forward any measure for her relief, and the consequence was, that the people, finding their petition and remonstrance unavailing, determined to redress and relieve themselves. He now warned the House how they rejected this proposition. When any measure intended to benefit the Church was brought forward, they heard nothing about the inconvenience of the period at which it was proposed. Irish Poor laws were matters of too much importance to be entertained in the present Parliament, but Irish tithes were looked upon in a very different light. He again repeated, that the proposition of the hon. member for Aldborough had not been met in the spirit of fairness which the character of the hon. Gentleman and the importance of the subject demanded. He trusted the House would not allow the right hon. Gentleman to get rid of this proposition by moving the previous question. If they did, the people of Ireland would only receive it as another instance of the contempt with which they were treated in that House. Negative the proposition if you will, but he would protest against getting rid of it by a side-wind. With regard to taxing absentee property, he was of opinion, that the consideration of this portion of the subject might be postponed. He did not think it expedient to bring it forward at this moment, but the measure should have his cordial support whenever it was introduced. He regretted that his hon. friend, the member for Kerry, did not concur in his view of this question. He (Mr. Ruthven), however, felt convinced that Poor laws would benefit his country, and, entertaining that opinion, he should always openly avow it. It had been frequently said, that hon. members from Ireland were under the dominion of the hon. member for Kerry; that their opinions were controlled by him, and that those who were in the habit of supporting him, were influenced by other motives than those which ought to influence an independent member of this House. He, for his part, repudiated this assertion—he had always acted with perfect independence, and every vote he gave in that House was regulated by his own
866
sense of duty, and with the view to benefit his country. He supported his hon. friend, the member for Kerry, when he thought that he was right, but he opposed him on every occasion when he thought otherwise. One of his reasons for advocating the introduction of Poor laws was this, the landed proprietors of the country, they who ought to contribute to the relief of the poor, did not fulfil this duty, and the consequence was, the burthen was thrown upon the middle classes of the people. In proof of this he would refer to a case in the county of Mayo, during the late famine in that county, when a landed proprietor, of extensive property, refused to contribute a farthing, although some of his tenants were literally starving. There were other cases of a similar description, which had been mentioned in the public papers. Now, he would put it to the House, ought such a state of things to be permitted in a civilised country? Ought the population to be allowed to starve, while the landlord pocketed the product of their labour, and contributed nothing towards their support? Did hon. Gentlemen mean to say, that it was better to have paupers roaming in hordes through the country, than living within the limits of their own parishes? It was a common practice with some landlords to send their tenantry to beg on the estates of other individuals. The only remedy he saw for this crying evil, was a well regulated system of Poor laws. He thought the resolution of the hon. Member would lead to this. It should, therefore, have his cordial support.
Mr. John Smithsaid, that he was anxious to address the House on this occasion, because circumstances with which he was closely connected, not many years since, had given him no slight acquaintance with the poverty of Ireland, and he must own, that it appeared to him almost incredible that the House should not eagerly embrace any plan which might be offered to them for putting an end to the dreadful calamities which had resulted from the distressed situation of the Irish peasantry. It was proved by evidence which was removed beyond the possibility of doubt, that in the year 1822 a great number of individuals perished by hunger, and that a much greater number, from insufficient nourishment, was attacked by typhus fever, and other lingering disorders, of which, in the end, many died. The hon. Member who last addressed the

867
House stated, that a person of large property in the county of Mayo, having no feeling for the poor destitute peasantry in his neighbourhood, refused to subscribe one farthing for their relief, but left them to perish, as they would have done if assistance had not arrived from England. That fact he knew. He would not mention the name of the individual—it would not be fit to do so; but he knew the fact. This was not a solitary case: he knew many others like it. He was not one of those who undervalued the Irish character. On the contrary, he very highly estimated it, from the experience he had had of the good qualities of the lower classes of the Irish. In the course of his life he had had in his employment many poor Irishmen, whom he had found in a state of dreadful destitution, and who remained with him for seven, twelve and some eighteen months. These poor men had but one fault—to him individually it was a great one—excess of gratitude. He heard strong language used in this House on the subject of slavery—stronger than he thought ought to be employed—but the most highly-coloured picture of the wretchedness of the slaves in the West Indies could not exceed the reality of the misery of the Irish peasantry. If that House should suffer their Irish fellow-subjects to languish longer in their horrible state of destitution, they would participate in the crime of those of their own country who barbarously refused to afford them any relief. There had been a great deal of poverty in England, particularly of late years, but there were no instances of assassination—of shooting Magistrates—of setting houses on fire for the purpose of burning the inhabitants, or any of the other dreadful atrocities which were constantly occurring in Ireland. The reason for this difference in the conduct of the people of the two countries was to be found in the system of Poor laws, which in this country rescued the poor from starvation; but in Ireland there was no such resource. From the turn which the discussion had taken, it might be supposed that his hon. friend had submitted a proposition for introducing the system of Poor laws at present existing in this country, into Ireland. No man could oppose such a proposition more strenuously than he would, but the fact was, that his hon. friend only proposed that the House should declare the expediency of providing for the relief of the poor in Ireland, by an imposition on
868
the land in that country. He thought that it would not be very difficult to frame a plan for assessing the land in Ireland, for the relief, not of able-bodied peasantry, but of wretched, helpless individuals, children, aged, sick, and perishing mortals, of whom England occasionally heard such disastrous accounts. In 1822 an enormous sum was subscribed by the people of this country for the relief of the Irish poor, and he would take the liberty of asserting, in contradiction to some statements which had reached his ear, and which were entirely destitute of truth, that the whole of the money so subscribed was honestly and fairly distributed. Since that period another famine had taken place in Ireland, which, though not so afflicting as the former, was, nevertheless, the cause of great sufferings. On that occasion he exerted himself in order to raise a subscription; but, with few exceptions, he found the hearts of the people of England closed against the dish tresses of their Irish fellow-subjects, and the sum obtained was trifling in amount, compared with that to which he had before adverted. If the calamity of famine should a third time visit Ireland, it would be in vain to appeal to the people of England. Nothing would be obtained from them. Often was he told by those to whom he applied for subscriptions, "We have poor enough of our own." The Bank of England contributed liberally to the first subscription for Ireland, but refused to give anything to the second. Other wealthy Companies, who were liberal on all occasions, acted in the same manner. He repeated, therefore, that if Irish distress should again occur, it would not be again alleviated by English benevolence. If hon. Members knew one-fiftieth part of the scenes of horror which occurred in Ireland, at the periods to which he alluded, they would, in spite of every consideration, fly at once to some measure of relief. Children perished by the road-side, multitudes subsisted on the weeds which they picked up on the sea-shore, and others sold their clothes off their backs to purchase a morsel of food. He did not wish to say anything disrespectful to the Irish gentlemen, but he must declare that he thought he observed amongst them less sympathy for the poor than was evinced by persons of the same rank in England. Perhaps this might arise from the Irish gentlemen not seeing much of their poor countrymen in consequence of not living amongst them. If some regula-

869
tions for the relief of the poor should be enforced in Ireland, they might, perhaps, have the effect of inducing the gentlemen of Ireland to reside at home. He also desired to see a system of relief for the Irish poor established, in order that they might not be driven to the necessity of coming over to this country to beg, for that he would maintain they did. The presence of the bands of poor Irish in this country often led to serious disturbances, for they were viewed with a jealous eye by the English labourers. These men pretended to seek for employment, and perhaps they would work if they could get anything to do, but begging was their trade, and they were exceedingly expert at it. In conclusion, he thought that the establishment of a system of relief for the poor would tend to tranquillize Ireland, and to benefit the whole empire.
Mr. Sinclairsupported the Motion. Unless some measures were taken to provide for the Irish at home, they would swamp both the English and Irish labourers, and, therefore, he would give his strenuous support to any measure which was likely to have such a beneficial effect.
Mr. Gally Knightalso supported the Motion, but said, that no measures would be productive of any benefit in Ireland, unless tranquillity were established there; and, therefore, he hoped that all persons who possessed influence in Ireland would employ it in endeavouring to establish order there. There was no one, however, connected with Ireland who did not anticipate as part of the beneficial results from the introduction of a system of Poor laws, that they would tend to establish order.
Lord Oxmantownsaw no reason to suppose that the plan of a provision for the poor, which the hon. Gentleman contemplated, would have the effect of raising the wages of labour in this country, by keeping the Irish labourer at home; for so long as the wages of labour in England remained in the slightest degree higher than in Ireland, so long would the Irish peasantry come here in search of work. It was, therefore, a most mischievous error to maintain that the establishment of a provision for the poor in Ireland would have the effect of improving the condition of the English peasant.
Mr. Blackneytook great blame to himself for not having been present at an earlier stage of the debate. He was at all
870
times ready to support any measure which might be calculated to better the condition of the Irish people, whenever he could see any reasonable chance of its being carried into effect. The suffering and extreme destitution of the people of Ireland were owing to oppressions of long standing, arising from heavy burthens inflicted upon them in the shape of rack-rents. Absenteeism was also another fruitful source of evil, because it drained away a large portion of the capital of Ireland, a shilling of which was not appropriated to the improvement of the country, or the employment of the people. To this might be added that ill conceived and badly constructed measure, called the Subletting Act, which empowered the landlord to turn out his poorer tenantry, without providing them any means of employment. By this iniquitous measure, thousands of families were driven from dwellings which their forefathers had held for years, and, while this law sanctioned this violation of the most sacred principle of humanity—while the Government had been looking on at its disastrous effects, no steps were taken, up to this hour, to remedy the evil, or counteract its frightful consequences. Was it, from this state of things, to be wondered at that disturbances existed in Ireland? It would be indeed a wonder if it were otherwise. There was a point of suffering beyond which human endurance could no longer contain itself, and the starving, despised and infuriated peasant, in the blindness of his desperation, wreaks his vengeance on his oppressors, destroying and sacrificing human life and property. These were the results of the abominable system he had described, and nothing but a provision for the poor could save that unfortunate country from destruction. He begged to express his gratitude to his hon. friend, for his perseverance in bringing forward this measure. He had every hope, from what occurred upon a former occasion, when a similar proposition was only negatived by the trifling majority of twelve, and from the declaration then made by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that no opposition would be offered on the present occasion. He knew an instance of a noble Lord, who had large estates in the part of Ireland with which he was connected, and who, with an income of 60,000 l. a-year, spent but 100 l. in Ireland. His visits to that country were like those of angels, "few and far

871
between," and were generally paid in the month of June, which is the sheep-shearing season. Thus, while the people were employed in shearing the sheep of their superfluous wool, his Lordship was also assiduously engaged in a pursuit of a similar nature; and, after fleecing his tenantry of their cash, he packed it up carefully in his breeches pocket, took his departure for the shores of old England, and was never seen again in Ireland until the "shearing" and "fleecing" season arrived. He assured the House that he stated a fact, and there were countless facts of a similar character in other places. The hon. Member concluded by supporting the Resolution.
Mr. Sadler, in rising to reply, said, he should not detain the House long at that late hour, especially when so much time had been already consumed by the debate. In answer to an observation made by a right hon. Gentleman opposite, he begged to state, that he was prepared with a bill upon the subject; but, from the little prospect there was of carrying it through at so late a period of the Session, he would not then introduce it to the House. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that some provision was necessary for lunatics, and those unhappy persons who might be afflicted with fevers, but he declined to give relief to the able-bodied labourer. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that an able-bodied labourer, who could not meet with employment—and how many thousands were in that deplorable condition?—might, within forty-eight hours, be reduced by sickness to such a state as came within his admission. The hon. Member who spoke last alluded to the case of some absentees receiving a large income from Ireland, and spending little of it there. He did not propose to make any just in the case of absentees, but just that they should contribute in Ireland to the support of the poor; that they should perform the same duty there which the law compelled them to discharge here. The father of political economy, Adam Smith, said that, perhaps, absentees were the fairest subject for taxation. While they declined the performance of every other duty in Ireland, they should not, at least, be exempt from that of contributing to the support of the poor. He would not, however, then go into the subject of absenteeism, although so much had been said relating to it; neither would he go into any arguments which had been advanced
872
against the system of English Poor laws, which it was supposed by some Members, notwithstanding he had repeated again and again that he had no such intention, he was seeking to introduce into Ireland. He must confess his surprise at hearing the objections of the hon. member for Middlesex, against a system of poor laws. Those objections were founded in a total ignorance of the subject. The fact was, that the portion allotted for the support of the poor here had diminished since the time of Queen Elizabeth, in proportion to the total revenue of the country. In her time it was half as much as the total revenue; and a century after, in the reign of Charles 2nd, the total amount raised in the way of poor-rate was 665,000 l., a greater sum, in proportion to the revenue of both periods, than that collected now for the same purpose. The hon. Gentleman considered them as discouraging to industry. "Adieu to exertion and industry," argued the hon. Member, "in every country in which there are Poor laws established." Let the hon. Member, however, point out, if he could, an illustration of his assertion. The hon. Member also complained of the Poor laws, as encouraging extravagance and destroying foresight. He appeared to think it possible for the labourer to save sufficient to keep him in old age or sickness. This could not be the case at the present very low price of labour. This was a species of doctrine which was not acted upon by Government, for why were pensions granted to Chancellors, Judges, and other officers? Men filling these high situations were not paid with a sparing hand, and yet they were provided for by pensions; and why hold one doctrine for the rich and another for the poor? The labourers of the north of England were better off than those of the south, because they were hired the year round: they had their cottages and gardens, and thus their character was preserved. He totally denied that Poor laws had destroyed the industry of the English labourers in husbandry. No men worked harder, or were more willing to work, when they could procure employment. He denied, too, that the Poor laws destroyed sympathy for the poor, or withheld the hand of private charity. When Ireland saw the dying and the dead lying together in one scene of suffering and sorrow, the appeal to the absentees did not call forth a larger contribution than 83 l. Wanting Poor laws in Ireland, they saw nothing but

873
want and mendicity, human destruction; and armed police, and the establishment of those laws would alter the horrible picture. This question, which he had to-night again introduced, however it might be treated by the House of Commons, could not be turned aside, for, in fact, it was one which was gaining ground in the estimation of the country. Every hour that the people of Ireland were deprived of what he would venture to call their rights, added to the injustice from which that country suffered. The people of England—the people of Ireland, demanded a provision for the poor; and never, at any time, was there a greater impression out of doors of the necessity of such a provision for the people of Ireland than at present. Whilst they delayed the act of justice for which, he contended, they committed an offence, and for that offence they would have to answer to God and man. He did not call upon the House of Commons to pledge itself to any particular measure, but he was anxious to have its recorded vote upon the Motion which he had that night submitted.
The House divided on the Motion:—Ayes 58; Noes 77—Majority 19.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, M.

Mackillop, J.

Blackney, W.

Mayhew, W.

Blamire, W.

Miles, W.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Mullins, F. W.

Bourke, Sir J.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Briscoe,.J. I.

North, F.

Buller, Sir A.

O'Connor, M.

Bunbury, Sir H.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Calcraft, G. H.

Payne, Sir P.

Callaghan, D.

Rickford, W.

Curteis, H. B.

Rider, T.

Doyle, Sir J.

Robinson, G. R.

Ellis, W.

Ruthven, E.

Encombe, Viscount

Ryder, Hon. G. D.

Estcourt, T.

Scott, Sir E.

Evans, Colonel

Sheil, R. L.

Forbes, Sir C.

Sinclair, G.

Forbes, J.

Smith, J.

Grattan, H.

Strickland, G.

Guise, Sir B. W.

Thicknesse, R.

Halse, J.

Thompson, Alderman

Hodges, T. L.

Tomes, J.

Howard, R.

Tyrell, C.

Hunt, H.

Venables, Alderman

James, W.

Walker, C. A.

Johnson, J.

Warre, J. A.

King, E. B.

Wason, R.

Knight, H. G.

Webb, Colonel

Knox, Hon. J.

Tellers.

Lambert, H.

Sadler, M. T.

Leader, N. P.

Grattan, J.

Lowther, Colonel

FLOGGING IN THE ARMY.
Mr. Humepresented Petitions from the Political Union of Shoreditch, and from Samuel Smith, praying for an inquiry into the case of Somerville, a private soldier of the 2nd Dragoon Guards, who had been flogged for writing a letter to a newspaper. Petitions read, and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Huntthen proceeded to bring forward a Motion for the suspension of the punishment of flogging in the army during one year. For many years he had been convinced, not only of the inhumanity, but the inefficiency, of the practice he was desirous to see abolished. He regretted that the subject had not fallen into abler hands; but, however unequal he might be to the task he had undertaken, he should yield in zeal and anxiety to none. He should place before the House facts which could not be contradicted, and he was the more encouraged to do this, because his Majesty's Ministers, when in Opposition, were friendly to the mitigation, if not to the abolition, of flogging as a military punishment. For years he had heard with disgust and abhorrence of the treatment which private soldiers experienced in the British army. He remembered full well, that in the 15th Light Dragoons, then commanded by his royal highness the Duke of Cumberland, two private soldiers had, to avoid the punishment of flogging, put themselves to death, the one by drowning, and the other by cutting his throat. To exemplify the evil consequences which resulted from this species of punishment, he would beg leave to refer to a higher authority than his own; to a letter which had been addressed to Sir F. Burdett, by a soldier who had served upwards of forty years in the British army, who, though he had subsequently risen to the rank of Lieutenant, had originally been a Drummer, and who stated, that he had himself inflicted this torture three times a week upon his comrades, during the eight years which he remained a Drummer. That letter had been written to Sir F. Burdett (whom he was sorry not to see in his place that evening, for the hon. Baronet must have been an able advocate of his Motion) by a Mr. Shipp, who had risen from the ranks to a lieutenancy in the service. It was entitled, "A Voice from the Ranks, by John Shipp, late a Lieutenant in the 67th Foot." He (Mr. Hunt) was prepared to bring Lieutenant Shipp

875
forward to substantiate the facts in that letter, either at the bar of the House, or before any Committee that might be appointed. There were many Officers, members of that House, who could speak to the gallantry of Mr. Shipp, but unfortunately they were not present, as they deemed Ascot Heath races better amusement than listening to a speech from him (Mr. Hunt), on such a subject as Military Flogging. Sir John Malcolm, and several military Officers who had served under his command, had, he believed, read every word in the very instructive yet entertaining volume which he then held in his hand. Mr. Shipp expressed himself in the following manner:—'It is some consolation to me to be able to say, that my present views are not induced by the remembrance of personal castigation; but from the practical observation of its effect on others, I can most solemnly affirm that, in my opinion, flogging is, and always will be, the best, the quickest, and most certain method that can be devised, to eradicate from the bosom of a British soldier his most loyal and laudable feelings. During the whole of my career, which included a period of upwards of thirty years, and the length and nature of which afforded me opportunities for extensive inquiry and accurate information, I never knew but one solitary instance in which a man recovered self-respect and general reputation, after having been tortured and degraded by the punishment of flogging'. This isolated case was as follows:—'When I was regimental Serjeant-Major in the Light Dragoons, the regiment was one evening paraded, for the purpose of seeing punishment inflicted. The delinquent was a private soldier, who had, on previous occasions received, altogether, some thousands of lashes. Since his first flogging his name had been constantly in the guard reports, and he had scarcely ever done a day's duty. His offence, on this occasion, was being drunk on guard, and his sentence was 300 lashes. The court-martial was read, and even before it was finished he began to undress with apparent and sullen apathy. He knew the heinousness of his crime, and he was well aware of its certain consequences. When he was tied, his naked back presented so appalling and frightful a spectacle, that his kind-hearted commanding officer, on viewing it, turned his head
876
instinctively from the sight and stood absorbed in thought, with his eyes in another direction, as though reluctant to look on it again. Thus stood the commanding officer, until the Adjutant informed him that all was ready. These words roused the Colonel from his motionless position, and he started when the Adjutant addressed him. I can well imagine the struggle between duty and mercy by which his benevolent heart was assailed; but the latter was always his motto, and, thus kindly predisposed, he walked slowly up to the prisoner, and viewed more closely his lacerated back, on which were visible large lumps of thick and callous flesh, and weals which were distressing to behold. The Colonel viewed his back for some seconds, unknown to the delinquent, and, when he at length turned round (more from surprise that the flogging did not commence than from any other motive), his commanding officer addressed him in the following words:—"C——, you are now tied up to receive the just reward of your total disregard and defiance of all order and discipline. Your back presents an awful spectacle to your surrounding comrades, and, for my own part, I would willingly withdraw it from their sight, but I fear that your heart is as hard as your back, and that I have no alternative but to see that justice administered which the service requires. What possible benefit can you expect to derive from this continual disobedience of orders, and disregard of the regulations of the service?" Thus addressed, in a mingled tone of benignity and firmness, the poor fellow seemed touched, and he wept bitterly. For a time he could say nothing; but at last he exclaimed, "I wish to God I was dead and out of your way; I am an unfortunate fellow, and I hope this flogging may be my last, and put me beyond the reach of that cursed and vile liquor which has been my ruin." The Colonel and the whole regiment were now much affected, and many of the soldiers turned away their heads to hide their emotions. Seeing this, the Colonel called the attention of the offender to the commiseration of his comrades. The unhappy man looked round as he was directed, and seemed much distressed. The Colonel then said, "I cannot bear to see your brother soldiers so much affected for you without remov-

877
ing the cause. Your sentence, therefore, for their sakes, I will remit, and, instead of the chastisement which has been awarded you, and which you so well deserve, if you will pledge yourself to me, in the presence of your commiserating comrades, that you will behave well in future, I will not only pardon you, but promise, when your conduct shall merit it, to promote you to the rank of Corporal." The astonished culprit called on his comrades to bear witness to his words, while, in a most solemn manner, he protested his firm resolution to amend. A short time after, this man was promoted, and proved one of the best non-commissioned officers in the service. The unlooked-for mercy which had been extended towards him, and the totally unexpected turn which the affair had taken, raised the feelings of his heart far above the level to which disgrace had plunged them, and every exertion was made by him to merit the kind consideration with which he had been distinguished. This man would often speak to me on this happy event in his life with feelings of ineffable pleasure. Mr. Shipp mentioned another case which had taken place under his own eyes. It was the case of a man who had been sentenced, for some military offence, to receive 300 lashes. The man received them without a groan; but, as he marched out of the square, said, on passing his commanding officer, "The devil a day's work will you ever get out of Paddy again." He would quote some other equally instructive instances. 'Another man,' continued the hon. Member, reading from Mr. Shipp's pamphlet, 'an old offender, who had been frequently punished before, was ordered to strip to receive another flagellation. This fellow, however, would not at first take off his clothes, and, consequently, coercive measures were resorted to; but such was the man's power, that he defied the united efforts of numbers, until he at last exclaimed, "Now, if you will only be shivil, I will do it myself without any help." He then stripped, and received his quantum of punishment without moving a muscle, and, when taken down, he said to the Colonel, "Colonel, honey! if you will give me six drams of liquor, I will take 600 lashes more." To such a pitch of degradation was this poor creature reduced, that he would expose his lacerated back to his comrades, and
878
prided himself exceedingly on the number of lashes he had received.
On my return home one evening, after having attended the funeral of a soldier belonging to my own company, I got into conversation with the Serjeant, relative to the deceased. The Serjeant, who was quite an illiterate man, said, "the people in the hospital say he died of an in for mation in his side, but he knowed the real cause of his death. That 'ere man never did no good since the time he was flogged for being drunk 'fore guard. He knowed the man well; he was a fine high-spirited youth. Bless you, Sir, before his punishment there was not a smarter or finer looking soldier in the King's army; but, after he was flogged, he never did no more good, but became a dirty, slovenly fellow, and was never sober if he had the means of getting liquor. I have heard him declare that his heart was broken, and that, if liquor did not soon close his miserable life, he would take some more speedy means." This last desperate alternative was never necessary, for he died of drunkenness ere he had attained the age of twentysix, adding to the long catalogue of those whose buoyant spirits could not brook the degradation of the cat.
When I was orderly officer of the main-guard at Cawnpore, several men were condemned to be punished. Among the rest was a youth not more than twenty years of age. The morning on which the punishment was to be inflicted I visited the prisoners early, and such was the change observable in this poor young fellow, from reflecting during the night on his approaching degradation, 'that he looked like one whose constitution had, in a few hours, undergone all the diseases incident to the country. His eyes were glassy and inexpressive, his cheeks sunk, and his deportment stooping and loose. Altogether he looked the very picture of woe, and his extreme dejection was so obvious, that I could not refrain from asking him if he was unwell. "No," replied he, "but I am one of those who are to be flogged this morning," and he wept bitterly. "Come, come," said I (and it was as much as I dared to say), keep up your spirits; your extreme youth, and the fact that this is the first time you have been brought to a court-martial, may, probably, obtain your pardon." He shook his head, but said nothing in

879
reply. I regret to be obliged to add, that this poor fellow received 150 lashes; and, from the day he was flogged until the period of his death, I can venture to assert that he was never two hours sober. He sold all his own things to purchase liquor, and then stole those of others; and at last he died in the hospital from drunkenness.
The following is a melancholy instance of the same character as the foregoing, in which it is my painful duty to attest the utter ruin of another promising young soldier, by the odious system, the existence of which I deplore. Two men were brought to court-martial. The one was an old and hardened offender, whose offence was being drunk on guard, and who was sentenced to receive 300 lashes; the other, a youth, who, for his first offence, absenting himself from evening parade, was condemned to 100 lashes. The former was admonished by his commanding officer, his corporal punishment remitted, and his sentence commuted to fourteen days' solitary confinement. This proposal, however, the hardened delinquent rejected with indignation, professing that he would rather take 1,400 lashes than suffer fourteen days' solitary 'confinement in the black-hole. He accordingly received his punishment, without moving a muscle, and afterwards, on leaving the square, strutted off, muttering something like "D—d hoax," or "fudge." The conduct of this depraved fellow nettled the commanding officer, and he ordered the youth to strip and receive his punishment. The poor fellow threw himself on his knees and implored forgiveness in the most earnest and pathetic manner, or that, in preference to the degradation of flogging, his punishment might be commuted to solitary confinement, if even for six months. But, no; the officer was irritated,—he hoped the Secretary at War would listen to this:—'the officer was irritated, and the unhappy youth received every lash, after which he left the square sobbing most piteously. During the infliction of the punishment, many a tear did I see that morning stealing down the cheeks of the commiserating comrades of this ill-fated youth, for they well knew that his prospects as a soldier were irretrievably blighted. From this time forth, day after day, and week after week, might this sad victim of "discipline" be seen prowling
880
about (when not in the guard-room for subsequent misconduct, which, after this event, was constantly the case), with a dejected and care-worn countenance, pensive and gloomy, as though he had lost some dear relative, or rather, perhaps, as though he had committed an act on account of which he dared not look an honest man in the face. The disgrace he had endured had sunk deep into his heart; a leprosy pervaded his mind; and, in despair, he sought consolation from drink, which soon brought to a termination both his troubles and his life.
One wintry morning, when the bleak wind whistled along the ranks of a regiment paraded to see corporal punishment inflicted, every eye was turned in pity towards the delinquent, until the commanding officer, with Stentorian lungs, pronounced the awful word "Strip, sir." The morning was bitterly cold; the black clouds rolled along in quick succession; and the weather altogether was such, that the mere exposure of a man's naked body was of itself a severe punishment. The crime of this man was repeated drunkenness, of which he had, undoubtedly, been guilty; but what was the cause of this constant inebriety? Let us trace the evil to its source. It was the sad recollection of his former disgrace by flogging, to which the course of intoxication that he now pursued might justly have been attributed. When the offender was tied, or rather hung up by the hands, his back, from intense cold and the effects of previous floggings, exhibited a complete blue and black appearance. On the first lash the blood spirted out some yards, and, after he had received fifty, his back, from the neck to the waist, was one continued stream of blood. The sufferer flinched not a jot, neither did he utter a single murmur, but bore the whole of his punishment with a degree of indifference bordering upon insensibility, chewing, all the while, what I was afterwards informed was a piece of lead or a bullet. When the poor fellow was taken down, he staggered and fell to the ground. His legs and arms, owing to the intense cold, and the long period they had remained in one position, still continued distended, and he was obliged to be conveyed to the hospital in a dooly, a kind of palanquin in which sick soldiers are carried.

881
This unfortunate creature shortly afterwards shot himself in his barrack-room, in a sad state of intoxication, and was borne to his solitary pit, and hurled in like a dog. No inquiries were made as to the causes to which this rash act might have been assigned. If any such investigation had been deemed requisite, ample attestations might have been produced, from which it would have appeared that this poor wretch had scarcely ever looked up from the date of his first flogging; that his prospects as a soldier had been utterly destroyed; and that his degradation had been so acutely felt by him, as to paralyze his best efforts towards amendment, and at length to sink him into a state of worthlessness and despair.
I come now to a case which I have good cause to remember with feelings of intense pain, as the poor sufferer had exhibited much kindness to me on numerous occasions. When I was at the Cape, in 1798 or 1799 (I forget which), a Serjeant in the regiment in which I served was sentenced to be reduced to the ranks, and to receive 100 lashes. The man was, I think, one of the finest soldiers I ever saw; in his manners firm, but respectful and unassuming; in his principles, strict and honest; and in his person, handsome and commanding. He had been Pay-Serjeant for many years in the regiment, and a kind friend to me. In pursuance of his sentence, the stripes which distinguished him as Serjeant were torn from his brave arm, and trampled in the dust; and, when he was ordered to strip, the most intense silence prevailed throughout the ranks, and every heart beat high with the fear that forgiveness was now hopeless. The result was looked for with breathless anxiety, and probably it was expected that the offender would have pleaded something in extenuation of his fault; but, to an ardent love which this man entertained for his profession, was added a manly pride, which probably restrained him from begging publicly for pardon. Certain it is, however, that he did not utter a word. The command "Go on" was given, and a half-suppressed groan of horror was audible throughout the square. The savage infliction commenced; but scarcely had he received five lashes, when his affectionate wife
882
rushed through the square, and threw herself between him and the Drummer. The half-frantic woman was dragged forcibly from the spot, and her husband received every lash to which he had been condemned! From this moment he never looked up, but soon sunk into the grave, leaving a wife and child.
In the experimental corps in which I commenced my military career, I recollect two boys being sentenced to be flogged for desertion: they were brothers, and the elder was not more than thirteen years of age. They had deserted altogether, and probably intended to have gone home again, not much relishing their new mode of life. The elder boy was tied up first, and having received about six dozen lashes he was ordered down, and it became the turn of his younger brother to occupy his place. Afflicted by the idea of what his poor little brother was about to suffer, the senior boy begged, in the most earnest manner, that he might be permitted to take his brother's punishment, protesting, most solemnly, that he was the sole cause of his desertion. When this was refused, and the younger one was ordered to strip, the shrieks of the two rent the air. They flew into each other's arms, clung together, and, when they were torn asunder, the tear of pity started to the eyes of all around. The little fellow received every lash to which he had been sentenced; and in little more than a year after, there were not two greater reprobates or vagabonds in the whole corps. The elder boy soon died. Of the fate of the younger I cannot speak with certainty; but I think he was found drowned in Table Bay, at the Cape of Good Hope'. He hoped the House would bear with him, though he was trespassing so much upon its attention and patience; but this was a subject which he had considered it his duty, ever since he had been in the House, to bring forward. He had, on two former occasions, very slightly touched upon it; but he had been met by resistance on the part of his Majesty's Government. He now seriously pledged himself to prove, either at the bar of the House, or in Committee, the whole of the facts he had been stating, if the House would listen to the proposition which he should presently submit to it. In reading these statements, he hoped

883
hon. Members would do him the justice to believe, that he did so out of respect to the House; he had never had the courage nor the hardihood to witness a single military flogging; therefore, he was doing the House more justice by reading these facts, than by making his own statement, which, for the reason he had alleged, must be, to a certain extent, imaginary; when it was considered too, that at this very moment there was a soldier in the Scotch Greys, of the name of Somerville, who had been lately sentenced to receive 200 lashes for an offence he had never committed—for no offence at all—that he had actually received 100 lashes, and was now lying in the guard-house to receive another 100.—[Mr. Robert Grant: No! no! that is against the law.] He certainly did not wish to state anything which he could not prove, and he was not able to prove this fact; but he was stating it from the authority of a petition which was then lying on the Table. He would proceed, therefore, to read that which he was prepared to prove. The hon. Member again quoted from Mr. Shipp's Book:—'One morning I attended parade, when a wretched looking half-dead young lad was tied up for flogging; but the doctor reported him unfit to receive his punishment, as the wounds on his back, received in a former flagellation, were not healed. He was taken down and sent to the hospital, and in one week after, I followed him to his grave! Whether the poor fellow's death was to be attributed to the punishment he had suffered, or to the effect of that punishment on his mind, and consequently on his frame, I cannot take upon myself to pronounce; but I fear it must be assigned to one or other of these causes.
I one day attended the hospital as orderly officer, and when I asked, as was my duty, if there were any complaints, a man with a dejected and maniac visage, bellowed out, "Yes, I have a complaint to make, that neither you nor the King of England can remedy." I asked him, in the kindest manner, what it was? He laughed most terrifically, and said, "Don't you know that I have been flogged for being drunk on parade—one hour's neglect of duty." I replied that I was sorry for it, when he rejoined, "So am I most heartily, and the service will lose an old and faithful soldier by it." A short time after this, the poor fellow was found
884
drowned; but whether this proceeded from intention, or from a fit of inebriety, no trace was left us to judge, and, as there are no coroner's inquests in the upper provinces of India, the event was buried with the man; but I should imagine, from his frantic manner to me, and the sort of threat which accompanied it, that it was desperation that had wrought this dreadful catastrophe.
The instances which I have now laid before you, Sir, in proof of the evil effects of flogging soldiers, will perhaps find their way to the heart sooner than all the arguments that can be urged against this barbarous mode of punishment. That the castigation is cruel and agonizing, those who have ever witnessed its infliction cannot doubt; yet it is not, as I think—
Mr. Robinsonrose to order. The House had listened with a great deal of forbearance to the hon. Gentleman, while he had been reading statements of facts; and there had been no indisposition on the part of the House to pay every attention to those statements; but when the hon. Gentleman proceeded to read, not facts but arguments, he was exceeding the usual limits allowed to Members in quoting from published works.
The Speakersaid, it was difficult to say, precisely, what should be the limits to which any Gentleman might proceed in reading extracts from a printed document, as a portion of his speech. He must, however, observe, that since he had had the honour of sitting in the Chair, he never had heard so long a time occupied in reading as the hon. Gentleman had already consumed. Still, the matter must depend upon the feelings of the House, and the discretion of the hon. Member, though he would undoubtedly govern himself according to what he perceived to be the sense of the House on the subject.
Mr. Huntwas aware of the great kindness with which the Speaker had mentioned the rule of the House, and he should be very sorry to inflict any punishment on the House, or to overstep the bounds of a just discretion; but this was a point of so much importance, that he must go on. He would, however, as much as possible, refrain from reading the aguments, and read only the facts contained in Mr. Shipp's pamphlet. He admitted it was an unusual course to read long extracts, but he recollected on one occasion, when he was a mere

885
listener in the gallery, that h e heard the late Sir John Cox Hippisley read a pamplet of his own, for two hours and a-half, on the subject of Catholic Emancipation, and if he had not met with such a precedent as that, he should not have taken up so much time on the present occasion. But he would venture to read a few more facts. The statement he was about to read was worthy of the attention not only of the Secretary-at-War, but of all his colleagues in the Administration; for it was the only part of the pamphlet which he should have doubted, as it spoke of a practice which was as clearly illegal, as it was in a moral sense, tyrannical. 'I am now, Sir, about to notice another abuse to which the flogging system has given birth, and which in my opinion, deserves severe reprobation. It is, I believe, but of late years that the practice to which I allude has crept into the service; but I am informed that it has actually become, in some regiments, an established rule. It consists in giving a soldier who has fallen under the displeasure of his commanding-officer, the choice, either to receive a certain number of lashes—say fifty 100, or 150, as the case may be, or to abide the decision of a court-martial.' Mr. Shipp stated that he had himself been ordered to make such a proposition to a soldier. He should hope there was no such thing practised now. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman opposite was prepared to show that there was not; because it must be, contrary to law. But to proceed: 'When at Jersey, in the year 1808, it was my painful duty to witness the in fliction of corporal punishment almost every week. This was not in my own regiment, for the Colonel of our corps, Lieutenant-colonel John Covell, was one who never resorted to flogging, except as a last resource, and then with great reluctance, and with feelings of sorrow that he had no alternative. At the period of which I speak, we were at war with France, but, in one of the battalions of the 60th regiment, then at Jersey, we had many French soldiers. Many of these men deserted, and most of them were taken in the attempt. When we consider that they were natives of France, it is no great wonder, that when a war broke out, they should attempt to quit the English service, in preference to fighting against their own country; and, in my humble opinion, it would have
886
been neither unwise nor impolitic to have discharged them all; for men who would be base enough to fight against their own country, could scarcely be considered fit to be trusted by any other power. But, be this as it may, many of these men were taken, and sentenced to receive 1,000 lashes each for their desertion. This punishment was rigidly inflicted, with the additional torture which must have resulted from the number of five being slowly counted between each lash; so that, upon a fair calculation, each delinquent received one lash every twelve seconds, and consequently, the space of three hours and twenty minutes was occupied in inflicting the total punishment; as though 1,000 lashes were not of themselves a sufficiently awful sentence, without so cruel and unnecessary a prolongation of misery. Many of these poor creatures fainted several times from intensity of bodily suffering; but, having been restored to their senses by medicinal applications, the moment they could move their heads the castigation recommenced in all its rigour. Numbers of them were taken down and carried from the square in a state of utter insensibility. The spectacle, altogether, instead of operating as an example to others, created disgust and abhorrence in the breast of every soldier present who was worthy of the name of man.
The following is a picture of the revolting ceremony of flogging, for which, I apprehend, few persons will be prepared. From the very first day I entered the service as drum-boy, and for eight years after, I can venture to assert that, at the lowest calculation, it was my disgusting duty to flog men at least three times a week. From this painful task there was no possibility of shrinking, without the certainty of a rattan over my own shoulders by the drum-major, or of my being sent to the black-hole. When the infliction was ordered to commence, each drum-boy, in rotation, is obliged to strip for the purpose of administering five-and-twenty lashes (slowly counted by the Drum-major), with freedom and vigour. In this practice of stripping there always appeared to me something so unnatural, inhuman, and butcher-like, that I have often felt most acutely my own degradation in being compelled to conform to it. After a

887
poor fellow had received about 100 lashes, the blood would flow down his back in streams, and fly about in all directions with every additional blow of the instrument of torture; so that, by the time he had received 300, I have found my clothes all over blood, from the knees to the crown of my head, and have looked as though I had just emerged from a slaughter-house. Horrified at my disgusting appearance, immediately after parade I have run into the barrack-room to escape from the observation of the soldiers, and to rid my clothes and person of my comrades blood. Here I have picked and washed off my clothes pieces of skin and flesh that had been cut from the poor sufferers back. What the flogging in Newgate or Bride-well may be, I do not know, but this is military flogging.
I am ignorant what kind of cats were used when this pernicious system was first introduced into the army, but they are now, I believe, very different in different regiments, and, indeed, there is sometimes a variety kept in the same corps. Those which I have seen and used were made of a thick and strong kind of whipcord; and in each lash, nine in number, and generally about two feet long, were tied three large knots, so that a poor wretch who was doomed to receive 1,000 lashes, had 27,000 knots cutting into his back; and men have declared to me, that the sensation experienced at each lash, was as though the talons of a hawk were tearing the flesh off their bones.
Have the advocates for the continuance of this barbarous system ever handled one of these savage instruments? Have they ever poised the cat in their hands when clotted with a soldiers blood after punishment had been inflicted? If not, let me inform them, that it has then almost weight enough to stun an ox, and requires the greatest exertion and dexterity in the Drummer to wield it. I have heard poor fellows declare that, in this state, it falls like a mass of lead upon their backs.
If those whose duty it is to form the code of military laws will allow soldiers to possess the common feelings and sensibilities of other men, it must be obvious that degrading a man, by flogging him like some vile miscreant, must be attended with great and irreparable injury
888
to the service. Since I entered the army, the practice of flogging has considerably abated, thanks to the noble advocated, for its total abolition: but, even still, the terrific cries for mercy are heard from the ranks of almost every regiment in the service, especially those which are abroad. If a man deserve such ignominy and debasement, he is unfit for a soldier, and ought to be discharged the service. Often have I been agonized to see the skin torn off the poor sufferer's wrists and legs, by lugging him up to the triangles as you would the vilest miscreant of the land, and afterwards an inexperienced drum-boy flogging him over the face and eyes. I have heard men beg for a drop of water to cool their parched mouths and burning tongues, which has been denied them.'
There were many in that House who would recollect the story of Lazarus and the rich man; and what the individual there offered for a drop of water to cool his palate; and when those Gentlemen had pictured to their imaginations the sufferings which the soldier must endure, who was tied up, and receiving 1,000 lashes, they would be able to conceive what was the distress of Dives; they might then judge of the horrible system pursued in our army for preserving military discipline, when they reflected, that like the man we read of in Scripture, these victims begged for a drop of water, and it was denied them. This was the treatment of the poor, and wretched, and tortured private soldier. After the admonitions which he had received, he should refrain from reading the arguments and reasonings of this gentleman, which would have, however, much more effect than anything which he (Mr. Hunt) could offer. Mr. Shipp said, that from the time he was a Drummer, to the period at which he became Drum-major, he must have flogged, or have assisted in flogging, during those eight years, no less than 1,248 soldiers. He declared, that if he were to see a regiment just returned from abroad, he would venture to pick out every man as he stept on shore, who had suffered the disgrace and torture of military flogging. Such a man offered an appearance so altered, so dejected, and so degraded, as compared with that of the man who never had been flogged, that he appeared entirely different from his comrades. The inference which Mr. Shipp drew from all

889
the facts which had fallen under his notice, and in which he concurred, was this:—that no good was ever done by flogging; or, at most, only this, that, when in action, those who had suffered under the lash became the most desperate, and the most barbarous, perhaps, of any men in the field; and were driven to do the rashest and maddest acts, willingly exposing their lives, and rushing upon destruction, in order to rid themselves of an existence which the ignominy of the torture had rendered intolerable. He perfectly agreed with Mr. Shipp, that it was impossible for a man who had suffered the brutal torture of flogging ever to make a good soldier. When a person had once received the lash, he never held up his head again. He, therefore, protested against the inutility as well as the inhumanity of this practice. He was anxious, for the sake of humanity, and for the character of the army, to get rid of it. He was aware that the punishment of flogging was inflicted now much less than it was formerly. At the period when the present Speaker became Judge Advocate, the practice of flogging was very frequent; and when he left that, situation, the infliction of this species of punishment was much diminished. It then became the fashion with officers, who thought such a circumstance must be a feather in their caps, to report to the War-office that very little flogging had taken place in the regiments under their command during the year. He hoped this salutary fashion was still continued; but, when floggings such as had recently been inflicted at Birmingham, and as occurred frequently in the Bird-cage-walk were still heard of, he was afraid it was not. He appealed to the Secretary-at-War, who, out of office devoted his talents, his eloquence, and his zeal, to promote the object he had in view to support his Motion. He was aware that flogging was the law of the land; he knew that the Mutiny Act had passed, and that it must remain in force unless there was a fresh Act of Parliament. He, therefore, meant to submit to the House a proposition calculated to benefit the army, and throw a lustre on his Majesty's present Government, and he could not conceive any possible objection to its adoption. Without wishing to claim any merit to himself beyond that of having performed his duty, very imperfectly he was aware, but according to the best of his ability—and, willing as he was
890
to give all the merit of the act to his Majesty's Ministers, to whom his gratitude would be due if they acceded to the proposition of so humble an individual as himself—and begging to express his thanks for the patient attention with which the House had indulged him for the past hour, he would proceed to read the terms of his Motion, to which he hoped his Majesty's Ministers would agree, in order that he might be saved the trouble of bringing before this House, from time to time, every case that occurred throughout the country; which step, however, if his proposition were rejected, he should certainly feel it his duty to take. There was one strong reason why this question should come before the House—namely, because there prevailed a practice of flogging in private. It was not necessary, that after the court-martial, the public should know in what manner its sentence was carried into effect; and the knowledge of the punishment being inflicted transpired only through the communication of some private soldier, which, in itself, was a disobedience of orders. This secret mode of punishment was a further ground of his appeal to his Majesty's Ministers to adopt the proposition with which he should conclude. He begged to move—"That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty praying that he will be graciously pleased to take such measures as may cause the punishment of Flogging in the Army to be suspended till after the meeting of next Session of Parliament."
Mr. Humeseconded the Motion, in order to show that his opinion on this subject had not altered since he seconded a similar motion on a former occasion; on the contrary, every clays experience afforded additional reasons why the proposition of the hon. member for Preston should be acceded to. The extracts which the hon. Member had read were from a letter addressed by Lieutenant Shipp to the hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster. He had seen Lieutenant Shipp, and the details which he had stated, were well worthy the attention of his Majesty's Ministers. They were not written from mere hearsay, but were the result of a long and checquered experience of a man of much talent and undoubted bravery. Lieutenant Shipp was not unknown; he led no less than five forlorn hopes in India, and had on all occasions, proved himself to be one of the most gallant soldiers in

891
the East-India army. He was now in the receipt of a pension from the East-India Company, and Mr. Shipp's statement was he believed perfectly correct. No man could rise up from the perusal of its melancholy details without feeling that many brave soldiers had been destroyed by this flogging system. Mr. Shipp had admitted since, that when he left the army eight or nine years ago, the practice had improved. In some regiments the punishment was as severe as ever; whilst, in others, it had almost entirely disappeared. It appeared from this statement, and from the admission of many gallant officers, that after a man had once been subjected to such punishment, he never was worth anything. He considered himself degraded, and despair drove him to courses by which he invariably incurred a series of punishments, only put a stop to by death. He, therefore, thought, that the experiment ought to be made which was now proposed. On a former occasion, when a similar proposition was made, an objection was taken, that it was necessary to distinguish between the army abroad and the army at home; and he was, therefore, induced to propose a motion confining the experiment to England. The hon. member for Preston made no such distinction, because he had been upbraided with invidiously distinguishing between different portions of the army; and he had, therefore, included both in his present Motion. The experiment, however, might be made by an order being issued to the commanding officer, that an end be put to the punishment of flogging; because, however much the practice might now be mitigated, yet it could not be denied, that, so long as men had power, they were inclined to exercise, and too often abuse it. With regard to the petition of Mr. Somerville, which he had laid upon the Table that evening, he considered it would be unfair towards Major Wyndham, were he to enter into a discussion of the allegations it contained, unless indeed, his right hon. friend, the Secretary at War, had had an opportunity of communicating with Major Wyndham. If his right hon. friend had not, he should postpone the discussion till a future day. Somerville, it appeared, was sentenced to receive 200 lashes for an alleged disobedience of orders—that disobedience being a refusal to mount an unruly horse. He had tried to manage it but was unable; and being an inexperi-
892
enced horseman, on being ordered to mount again, he declared, either, that he could, or would not; and for this he was sentenced to receive 200 lashes; 100 of which he had received; and, as the petitioner expected, was to receive the other 100. He (Mr. Hume) was aware that was a mistake, and he had stated as much to the person who brought him the petition. But what was the offence, if indeed it was an offence, of which Somerville had been guilty? Was it one which ought to be made the subject of a court-martial? To make it such was an additional proof, if any were wanting, that men, possessing power, were ever too prone to exercise it. It was, then, desirable that this power should be taken away: and if, in some portions of the army, the flogging system could be safely dispensed with, why might it not be, with equal safety, suspended throughout the whole of the army? He was not desirous of pressing his right hon. friend opposite on the subject, because he knew, that his right hon. friend might have obtained information, since he had been in office, to make him alter his former opinion; but he would submit, that it would be a great public benefit to make the trial; on that account he should second the Motion.
Sir John Hobhousehad no reason to complain of the tone or manner in which the hon. member for Preston had brought forward this Motion; at the same time, he must state, that the details which the hon. Member had read were made up of facts connected with the previous, and not of such facts as could be connected with the present practice of the army; for as the hon. Member had truly stated a very great change had been made of late years in the army with regard to corporal punishment. There was a general feeling prevailing, not only in the country, but also in the service itself, that it would evidently be to the advantage of that service to get rid of the punishment of flogging, if possible, altogether. This pamphlet he had had the advantage of reading. It was addressed to his hon. colleague, who had taken so distinguished a part in that House in the effort to abolish, or at all events to mitigate, this species of punishment. He thought, when he first read this address, that certainly there were some things in it which did not quite apply to the present state of the case. If the public were to form a

893
correct judgment upon this very important point, it surely should have relation to what was now going on, and not to what was formerly the practice. As to what had been said by the hon. Gentleman, of the option given to the soldier, either of receiving a limited punishment without a court-martial, or of standing the chance of a greater punishment being inflicted upon him by a court-martial, he could assure the hon. Member such a practice did not now prevail. Indeed, he did not believe that it ever had prevailed. Neither was it correct to say, that soldiers were secretly punished; the courts-martial at which they were tried were public proceedings, and the reports made of them might at any time be called for and produced in that House. As to the punishment taking place in secret, that was frequently the case with sentences pronounced by civil Courts, and had nothing to do with secresy of prosecution or of trial. The punishment might be secret as to the public, but it was not secret as to the regiment. With respect to the general question, however, it was not necessary that he should discuss it with the hon. Gentleman; because it was well known what his opinions were, and he had taken an opportunity of publicly declaring those opinions since he had taken office. And his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, was mistaken if he supposed that he (Sir John Hobhouse) had changed his opinions in any degree. Allusion had been made to the case of a soldier at Birmingham; but it was quite an error to suppose that soldiers were ever punished by instalments. With respect to the form of the motion, he had some doubt as to that; the King might, if he pleased, do what was proposed in this motion, but it would be exceedingly irregular, and without precedent; and after the articles of war had once passed this House, and been signed by his Majesty he did not conceive that the right way of producing an alteration in them was an Address to the Crown. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken if he supposed that nothing had been done on the part of the War-office to lessen the amount of the punishment. With the consent of the Judge Advocate-General and of the Commander-in-chief, he had succeeded in having the new articles of war so drawn up, that the greatest number of lashes that could be inflicted by a regimental court-martial was reduced from 300 to 200, and by a garrison court-mar-
894
tial from 500 to 300. This showed, he hoped, the spirit by which he was actuated; and he, therefore, trusted, after the statement he had made, that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion.
Mr. Robinsonwas ready to support the motion of the hon. member for Preston. Flogging was a most brutalizing and degrading punishment, and unless a better case could be made out for the necessity of continuing it than had been stated by the right hon. Baronet, he (Mr. Robinson) should be ready to support any measure short of abolition. The present Motion was not to abolish, it was only to suspend flogging. It was very moderate in its tone and temper. Public reprobation had marked the system, and in a time of profound peace, it was high time that it should be inquired into, and, if possible, got rid of.
Colonel Evanssupported the Motion. The severity of corporal punishments was one of the reasons which deterred persons from entering the army. In time of war, he, as a professional man, would not have recommended the suspension; but in time of peace he thought the experiment might be made.
Mr. Kemmissuggested, that the power of inflicting lashes might be taken from regimental courts-martial, and the power of punishment by hard labour or solitary confinement substituted. He could not support the Motion, which he thought ill-timed, and more likely to be injurious than beneficial. The punishments in foreign armies were more severe than in our army. In France a man was shot, or imprisoned for ten years, for disobedience; in Prussia he was locked up in a cell; while in England he was flogged, or imprisoned for six months.
Mr. Robert Grantdoubted whether the Motion could be entertained, and whether the Crown had the option of varying the Articles of War. If any thing could be done, it must be by a motion for the purpose of suspending the operation of the Mutiny Act, because that Act gave the King a special power, as soon as may be, to make Articles of War, which were to be distributed throughout the empire, and to be recognized by all Judges, and to have the force of law. Therefore, it was a matter of serious doubt whether it was in the power of the King to vary these Articles from time to time. The pamphlet which had been so largely quoted, sufficiently established the fact, that something very different prevailed now in the army, with

895
regard to corporal punishments, from that which was the practice formerly; and he was bold to say that, since the time that pamphlet referred to, there had grown up, on the part of the officers of the army, a disposition to mitigate the infliction of corporal punishments; which had, in a considerable degree, diminished both the application of that punishment and the necessity for awarding it. If he were to detail all the circumstances within his own knowledge, as to the means taken in order to dispense with corporal punishments, he could make a deep impression on the mind of the hon. Member, in favour of the feelings of justice, as well as those of humanity, by which the officers of the army were actuated. By issuing general orders, and the exercise of vigilant inspection over the proceedings of courts-martial, and by applying means of prevention rather than of punishment, a great progress had been made in effecting a diminution of the necessity for corporal punishment. He had paid a willing tribute to the temper in which this matter had been brought forward, because it was due to the hon. Member; but there could be no step more unpropitious for attaining the purpose sought, the practical advance in the mitigation of flogging, than to bring forward all those facts—of a most grievous description, certainly—which in former years occurred, without taking any notice of those changes of the system which had made a repetition of such facts impossible. There was scarcely one of the facts mentioned in the book which could, by possibility, take place under the present system. The hon. Member must excuse him for saying, that it was quite absurd to go over the cases which occurred many years ago, with a view to show the present practice. He would add, that the Commander-in-chief, and the high officers of the service, and the commanders of regiments, were all anxious to second the exertions of the Secretary-at-War. There were, however, difficulties in the way which might not in the first instance strike hon. Gentlemen. It must be recollected that the army was not a mere machine, and hastily to attempt great changes in it, was to run the risk of completely disorganizing it. In making important changes, it was necessary to proceed gradually, and not try experiments without the utmost caution and circumspection. The hon. and gallant Officer opposite said, that if it were not
896
for the system of flogging at present pursued, the recruiting could be carried on with greater facility, and that you would induce a superior class of persons to enter the army. He could not speak from practical experience on this subject, but that was, in his opinion, by no means certain. The House and the country were jealous of a standing army, and the Government was called to the most severe account for the expense of the army; if, therefore, the pay was to remain as low as at present, the inducements to enter the service would not be greatly increased. He repeated, that it was necessary that the utmost caution should be used in making such a great change in the punishments of the army, and he thought, if they went hastily and unadvisedly to work, they would expose to great hazard the constitution of the army. It was safer and the hon. Member would be more certain of attaining the end he had in view, by withdrawing his Motion, and relying upon the stedfast exertions of his right hon. friend, the Secretary-at-War, and the Commander-in-chief, and the commandants of regiments, all of whom were anxious to diminish, and, if possible, ultimately to abolish, this species of punishment in our army.
Colonel Daviesremarked, that the present system of discipline in the army was entirely different from that described in the pamphlet. The last instance mentioned there was in 1808. He was disposed to concur in the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Kemmis), to take away from minor courts-martial the power of inflicting corporal punishments, which might be safely intrusted to garrison courts, and he hoped that in the next Mutiny Bill a provision would be introduced to that effect. He said it with great regret, but he was apprehensive that the discipline of the army could not be maintained if corporal punishment were wholly abolished.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, that during the short time he had been in the army, he had observed that corps in which corporal punishment prevailed were generally inferior, and that a flogged man was a lost man.
Sir John Bourkethought, that at a time when the dispositions of the Commander-in-chief, and of the officers generally commanding regiments, were hostile to the system of flogging as a general punishment, and when it was known that an officer commanding a regiment received credit at head-quarters in pro-

897
portion to the extent in which flogging was diminished in that regiment, he hoped the House would feel that the present Motion ought not to be pressed.
Mr. Hunt, in reply, said, that he must insist on the expediency of presenting the Address, were it only to show the disposition of the House on the subject. Whatever might be said of the humane disposition of officers, it was evident that the system was different in different regiments. In some regiments the officers never used flogging, in others they did, and he would have them all compelled to do, as some of them did, without using it. He would have one law for all. He believed that his object could be easily accomplished by proper instructions issued by the War Office, and he felt, therefore, bound to press his Motion to a division.
The House divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 33—Majority 18.

List of the AYES.

Bulwer, Henry, L.

Thicknesse, R.

Calcraft, Capt. Granby

Vincent, Sir F.

Curteis, Herbert

Warburton, Henry

Evans, Col. de Lacy

Wood, Alderman

Ewart, Wm.

Wood, John

Grattan, Henry

Walker, C. A.

Paget, Thomas

TELLERS.

Robinson, G. R.

Hume, Joseph

Tennyson, Rt. Hon. C.

Hunt, Henry

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Juries (India).—Read a second time:—Charitable Funds.—Read a third time:—Representative Peers (Scotland); Tithe Prescription; and Churches Building Act Amendment.

SCHOOLS OF ANATOMY.
The Earl of Minto, in moving the second reading of the Bill for Regulating Schools of Anatomy, stated, that, as the law now stood, the bodies of persons convicted of murder were alone legally subjected to dissection, and the number of those persons was so small as to prevent persons engaged in the acquisition of surgical knowledge from obtaining a sufficient number of subjects, without resorting to that class of persons called "resurrection-men," who

823
carried on their trade in defiance of the law. The great inconvenience to which lecturers on surgery were subjected, from the scarcity of subjects, had led, of late years, to that horrible crime at which human nature revolted, and the perpetration of which would not have been believed if it had not been put beyond all doubt by proof in a Court of Justice. He need scarcely say, he alluded to the crime called Burking. He trusted their Lordships would not refuse to entertain a measure which was calculated, not only effectually to prevent the repetition of that horrible crime, but which, he believed, would go far to remove the difficulties with which the surgical profession now had to contend from the deficiency of subjects for dissection.
The Earl of Malmesburywas exceedingly sorry that he was obliged to differ from his noble relative who had just sat down, in his opinion on this subject. It was, in his opinion, a most difficult subject to legislate upon, and the difficulty was augmented by the circumstance that one of the first and best feelings of human nature operated in this country against that practice which the present Bill went to sanction. The Bill went to legalize the sale of dead bodies, and it was peculiarly objectionable, because it did not afford protection to the poor man who died in the hospital from an accident, or in the workhouse from poverty. It might be said, that the relations of parties dying in such situations had the power, under the Bill, to dissent from such an appropriation of the bodies of their friends, but unfortunately, such persons were not always in a state to dissent, and might not be acquainted with the death of their relative until it was too late to prevent the dissection of his remains. Another of his objections to the Bill was, that it did not sufficiently protect the bodies of those that were accidentally killed; for it might well happen that a stranger in London might be run over, and so meet with his death, and his body be submitted to the dissecting knife before his friends in the country could hear of the accident, and come to town to claim his remains. The clause under which this distressing circumstance might occur, was that which, instead of requiring the previous assent of the deceased, made his non-dissent sufficient. True it was there were Inspectors appointed under the Bill, but, in his opinion, the
824
provisions with respect to Inspectors were complicated without being efficient. As he had touched on that point, he felt it his duty also to observe, that, in his opinion, the Inspectors ought not to be medical men, as they were the persons most interested. The sanction of the law once given, human bodies might be sold in the open market, but he feared the effect would be as little beneficial to the public as the sale of game in open market. The bill for legalizing the sale of game was recommended on the ground that it would check poaching, instead of which, he appealed to noble Lords if it had not facilitated poaching; and he feared that the present Bill would be as inefficacious in preventing that horrible crime of Burking to which his noble relative had alluded. There was another point in which he considered the present measure objectionable. It went to interfere with the decent rites of sepulture; for he did not see how it was possible that the rites of burial could be provided for under this Bill. But they were, in his opinion, of that sacred nature, that the utmost care ought to be taken that they were not needlessly violated; and certainly, to allow dead bodies to be publicly hawked about, was little calculated to promote a proper or decorous feeling among the living. At the present stage he would not enter further into a statement of his objections to this Bill, as he did not mean to divide the House, being anxious to see what might be done in Committee. He had other and equally serious objections, however, to the measure, to which he should probably call their Lordships' attention at some future stage.
The Earl of Roseberystated, in support of the Bill, that he was a visitor of Edinburgh College, and that all the medical men connected with that College had given their testimony in favour of the present measure. They stated, that they could not obtain a sufficient supply of subjects for the use of the pupils resorting to the College, even at an enormous cost, and that the interests of science were seriously injured by the system which now prevailed. The measure before their Lordships had been opposed on the ground that it injuriously affected the interests of the poorer classes. Now, in his opinion, the poorer classes were the persons chiefly benefitted by the measure. The higher classes might always afford to purchase the advice of those who had ac-

825
quired a competent knowledge of surgery, even at a great cost, but the poorer classes were necessarily at the mercy of persons who were imperfectly educated, in consequence of the great expense of acquiring knowledge by dissection. That a strong feeling existed on the subject he was willing to admit. Indeed, the feeling was so strong in some places, particularly in the north of England, and such was the vigilance of the people in protecting the bodies of their deceased friends, that it had become almost impossible to get a subject, under any circumstances or at any cost. It was unnecessary, he thought, to argue that such a deficiency was a great injury to science, and a great detriment to society. Indeed, things had arrived at such a point, that it was absolutely necessary that the Legislature should interfere; and it was a fact worthy of remark, that Edinburgh, the place where the horrible crime of Burking had made its appearance, was the very place of all others where the greatest difficulty was experienced in obtaining a supply of dead bodies for the use of the schools of anatomy. The present measure went to obviate, if not to remove, this evil, and should, therefore, have his support.
Lord Wynfordobjected to the principles of the Bill, and also to the mode in which those principles were carried into execution; and so strongly did he feel on both those points, that he should divide the House, even if he had to go below the Bar alone. He admitted that it would be most desirable to provide a sufficient number of bodies for the purpose of dissection, and for the advancement of surgical science; but, in his opinion, such a number might be provided without outraging some of the best feelings of humanity, as was done by this Bill. Every man admitted the importance of finding remedies for disease, but it was better, in his opinion, that the bodies of the people of this country should be subjected to disease, than that their minds should be contaminated, which, he contended, would be the effect of the present measure. He spoke from experience when he pronounced the opinion, that the giving up of the bodies of persons convicted and executed for capital crime for dissection was a useful and effective part of the punishment. In the situation in which he was once placed, he had reason to know the effect which this portion of the punish-
826
ment produced on the minds of criminals. He had been told by a convicted criminal, with whom he felt it his duty on one occasion to communicate, that he looked with perfect composure on his approaching death, but that he felt the most intense horror at the idea of dissection. When such was the feeling of a man of so much firmness as Colonel Despard—a person who had been described by the illustrious Nelson, as a most determined man—it was not too much to say, that the fear of dissection might deter men of less firmness from the perpetration of crime; and, for his own part, he hoped that part of the law which enabled Judges to order the bodies of criminals to be given for dissection would never be relaxed. Surely it would be much better that the bodies of such persons should be given for dissection than that the corpses of the honest members of the community should be handed over for that purpose. He admitted that something ought to be done, but he contended, that there were other places besides workhouses and the prisons of debtors, from which an ample supply might be procured. The bodies of criminals, and of those who destroyed themselves, might be given for dissection without any injustice. Instead of the properties of suicides being forfeited, and their bodies buried in an ignominious manner, which was, until very recently, the case, it would be some reparation to the public if their bodies were given for the purposes of science. As the Bill now stood, it was unjust, for its practical operation was to protect the bodies of the rich, whilst it left the poor unprotected. The Bill gave to any man in the lawful possession of a dead body, the power of selling that body. Now, who was the lawful possessor of a dead body? The executor or administrator of the deceased. But the poor had no executors or administrators, and the matron of a workhouse or the keeper of a prison would be in lawful possession of the poor man's body. His view was, that the bodies of persons convicted of felony, whether executed or dying in prison, should be given for dissection; but that the body of the debtor who died in prison, or any man who was only charged and not convicted of crime, should not be dissected. The Bill also gave a power to men to dispose of their own bodies after death. Now, it was well enough for a man to dispose of his body

827
by will, which was usually done upon deliberation; but it was a horrible thing that a man might dispose of his body after death in a moment of excitement or intoxication, perhaps to supply some temporary want. The effect would be, that they should hear of men selling their bodies to Jews, who would exact the pound of flesh, or extravagant compensation for it, from the miserable wretch who, in the moment of thoughtlessness or dissipation, had entered into such a horrible contract. If their Lordships agreed to the measure in its present form, it appeared to him that they would be sending forth an Act which would reflect the highest disgrace on the British Legislature, without effecting any corresponding benefit to science. If he thought the Bill could, by any possibility, be amended, he should have no objection to its going into a Committee; but his decided opinion was, that it could not. He should, therefore, move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
The Earl of Harewoodsaid, he could never sanction the principle of partial legislation upon a subject like the present. He did not see why the bodies of the poor and friendless should be particularly selected for the dissecting-knife. He admitted that a good deal of ingenuity had been displayed in drawing up this Bill, for the gross indecorum of the former Bill had been in a great measure avoided. But, still it came at last to much the same thing, and he could not consent that the bodies of persons who had been guilty of no offence to the community should be given up for dissection. He could not vote for having this done by law, and he thought it best to say no more about it.
The Lord Chancellorfelt a great deal of difficulty in dealing with the question, for he must admit that it was very difficult to discuss it without hurting the feelings and prejudices of many. But he hoped that what had been stated by one noble Judge was not law, otherwise the bare opening of a body with a view to ascertain the cause of death would be punishable. It had been decided that the bare having in possession a body that had been disinterred was punishable. But the consequences of this state of the law was, that while a surgeon was punishable for want of due skill in his profession, he was also punishable for resorting to the only means by which competent skill could be acquired;
828
and a very eminent surgeon had declared, that unless something were done, the profession might become a curse instead of a blessing. The same surgeon (Sir Astley Cooper) had declared, that the consequence of the system was, not the preservation of dead bodies, but an increase of the price, and that there were no bodies, of high or low, that he might not have for a good price if he chose. The same surgeon had stated, that the body-snatchers were most abandoned and desperate wretches; and he wished their Lordships to consider the effects of high price with reference to the security of the living, and the atrocious and frightful practice for which some miscreants had of late suffered. He was not prepared to say, that he approved of every provision of the Bill. But it appeared to be generally admitted that something ought to be done, and in his opinion, they ought to go into Committee on the Bill, in order to try whether it might not be made such as to afford some remedy for the existing evil. As to the giving up of the bodies of all persons dying under sentence of felony, that might enhance the penalty on some felonies, but would lower it in cases of murder, supposing that dissection ought to be made the sentence for murder, which some doubted.
The Earl of Fifeadmitted, that this was a subject on which their Lordships ought to proceed cautiously. But the time had come when something must be done, and he was, therefore, for going into the Committee, in order to try whether this might not be made a beneficial law.
The House divided on the Question, that the word "now" stand part of the Question:—Contents 15; Not Content 10—Majority 5.
The Bill read a second time.