Sitting of 5 August 1833

MINUTES.
Bills, Read a third time:—Privy Council.
Petitions presented. By Mr. DENISON, from Farnham, for an Alteration in the Labour Rate Bill.—By Mr. WOLRYCHE WHITMORE, from Wittenhall, for the Abolition of Slavery; from British Residents in Calcutta, for Reducing the Duty On East-India. Sugar and Rum.—By Mr. E. B. CURTEIS, and Mr. HILL, from several Places, against the Scotch and Irish Vagrants' Bill.—By Lord MORPETH, from Brechin, in favour of the Factories' Regulation Bill.

325
—By Mr. LEE LEE, from Shipton Beauchamps, against the Tithes' Commutation Bill.—By Mr. BROCKLEHURST, from Macclesfield, against a Reduction of the Duty on Foreign Thrown Silk.—By Mr. WARBURTON, from the Medical Practitioners of Norwich, against the Apothecaries Bill; and from the Physicians practising in London, for an Inquiry into the State of the Profession.—By Mr. G. F. YOUNG, from North Shields, in favour of the Sea Apprentices' Settlement; from Tynemouth, against the General Register Bill; from the Ship owners of the Port of London, for the Repeal of part of the London Port Duty Act; from Shadwell and Wapping, against Impressment; from the Ship Owners, &c. of London, against the Registry of Vessels Bill, and for Reducing the Amount allowed for the Repairs of Ships in Foreign Ports.—By Mr. F. SHAW, from the Taylors of Dublin, in favour of the Kingstown Ship Canal.—By Mr. CAYLEY, from the Protestant Dissenters of Lofthouse, for Redress of Grievances; from Kirby and Cleveland, for the Abolition of Tithes—By Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY, from Colonel Brady, complaining of Injustice and Oppression.

CORPORATION OF NORWICH.
Mr. Lennardpresented a petition, signed by 8,000 respectable inhabitants of Norwich, complaining of gross abuses in the Corporation of that city. The hon. Member referred to the petition that had been presented to that House, complaining of the return of the sitting Members, and alleging the existence of bribery on their parts, and of general corruption in the city of Norwich. The charge of bribery was undoubtedly disproved; but the allegations of corruption were completely borne out. There could be no doubt that a system of extensive corruption existed among the inhabitants of both parties; and he regretted that the evidence taken before the Committee had not been printed that the House might have determined whether or not it might not have been fit to take further steps to insure the purity of elections at Norwich. He repeated the election petition contained two allegations—the one of bribery against the sitting Members, which was disproved; the other of a general charge of corruption, into which the Committee would not inquire. He would not impugn their conduct, for which he knew there were precedents; but it was certainly natural that the petitioners should complain that half their charges were left untouched.
Sir James Scarlettthanked his hon. friend for giving him an opportunity of rebutting in person the many atrocious calumnies which had been advanced against his noble friend and himself. Nothing could be more false and unfounded than the imputations which had been thrown out on the subject. As far as he had any knowledge of the case, there never had been an election for Norwich to which such imputations were so little applicable. It
326
was certainly impossible to expect that, in a constituency of above 4,000, there would not be partizans on both sides whose zeal would induce them to overstep the line of duty. He believed, however, that, at the late election, there were very few such cases; and he also believed, that the majority of them were in the ranks of his opponents. To show the candour of those by whom his noble friend and himself had been attacked, he would merely state, that an attempt had been made to persuade the Committee that the conduct of a member of the Corporation, which had relation to the election of Sheriff, had relation to the election of his noble friend. His hon. friend had said, that the members of the Corporation, having certain patronage, exercised it in behalf of their friends. Was there anything peculiar in that? It was the practice of the Ministers of the Crown to use their patronage in favour of those by whom they were supported, either in or out of that House; and he had never heard it imputed to them as a crime that they did so. He hoped, however, that if it were to be made criminal in a Corporation to give places to their friends, they would go higher, and make it criminal in a Ministry. To him this appeared to be an excess of purity. If, indeed, unworthy subjects of patronage were chosen, that would be a just cause of complaint; but otherwise he did not SCO how they could ground a charge against any Corporation or Administration, for using their patronage in behalf of those who were in their interest. As to the Corporation of Norwich, it was at present in that most desirable state to which it was wished to bring all Corporations—namely, that the elections were all popular. The constituency was numerous. Contested elections naturally generated heat and animosities; and there might have been improper cases at some of them. He knew of none; except that in the Court of King's Bench he had seen informations laid against Members of the Corporation: some of whom were punished, and all of whom were put to great expense. That was the proper tribunal for such cases. As to the Committee it could best defend itself. The Members of it were as little connected with him, as were any thirteen Members in that House. In politics, the greater part of them were opposed to him. As a proof, however, of the mistaken views of a disappointed partisan, a Norwich paper declared that the Committee had been bribed by his noble friend and himself.

SIR JOHN KEY.
Mr. Harvey Mr. Harvey moved that a new Writ be issued for the Election of a Member for the City of London, in the place of Sir John Key, who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, the Motion which had been made would of course prevent him moving for the Committee of which he had given notice, as far as the breach of privilege was concerned. But the petition he had to present referred to two points; first, the breach of privilege; and secondly, the conduct of the Government in appointing the son of Sir John Key to the situation of Storekeeper in the Stationery office. He had no vindictive purpose whatever in view, and he should say nothing regarding the hon. Baronet in his absence, which he would not have said had he been present. The petitioners, twenty-six or twenty-seven in number, slated that they were engaged fairly in trade, and they complained, that by the late appointment of Master Key (a youth of eighteen years of age) to the office of Storekeeper, in which capacity he had to judge of the quantity and the quality of the goods sent in for the service of the Stationery Office, they were deprived of their chance of an equitable competition in their trade, as those duties ought, and could only be properly performed, by an individual of solid judgment and experience. This young gentleman filling such a situation, and his own father being a contractor for stationery, what security had the other portion of the trade that their wares would be fairly judged, or the public that their interest would be fairly and impartially considered? He looked, and it was the duty of the House to look, to the principle which was involved. If this young gentleman was only eighteen years of age, it was impossible he could enter into the bond required by law; and being so connected, it was nearly impossible that strict impartiality could govern his actions. He understood from the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that the young gentleman was no longer in office, and that neither the noble Lord nor Earl Grey was aware of his appointment. He could only, of course, suppose that Master Key had been appointed on the supposition that he had attained his majority; but, whatever were the circumstances connected with the case, it was absolutely necessary that the public should have a guarantee that it should not occur again. The petitioners prayed that their interests might be protected, in
328
common with others. He felt compelled, in obedience to that prayer, and to the prayer of another petition, which he had to present on the same subject, to move, after they should have been received, for a Committee to inquire into the circumstances which led to the appointment of Master Key to the office of Storekeeper of the Stationery. The right hon. Baronet then moved, that the petition from certain stationers be read at length. The most important allegations in it were, that the Government contract for paper which amounted to 60,000 l. was nominally with Sir John's elder brother, who had long since retired, and had now nothing whatever to do with business, but beneficially Sir John himself; and that Master Key had never been at the office since his appointment; but that his father attended every day, and superintended the reception of his own paper, which was unloaded from his own carts.
Lord Althorpsaid, that, of course, the House would expect him to give some explanation of what had taken place with respect to this appointment. The custom of the office had been, that the person who had been appointed under the Comptroller, in the situation lately held by the son of Sir John Key should have been engaged in the stationery trade, and they generally had been persons who had not succeeded in business. On the late vacancy occurring, the Comptroller stated his wish that a younger man than those generally appointed might have the place as the persons formerly appointed were not always equal to the discharge of their numerous duties. Mr. Key was appointed, not in the belief that he was eighteen, but on the statement that he was twenty-two years of age. On his appointment the Comptroller did not mention that his uncle was the person who had anything to do with the contract with the Government, but on the appointment being made, the Comptroller took care that the article to be furnished under the contract should be inspected by another person. The Treasury, however, had not the least idea, from the beginning, that the contract was in the hands of the uncle of the person who had been recently appointed. The arrangement he had mentioned was made by the Comptroller of the Department. He need hardly tell Gentlemen opposite, who were well acquainted with the nature of these things, that he individually, had nothing to do with the appointment, and that he was not aware of any of the circumstances

329
till yesterday or Saturday se'nnight, when a friend wrote to him to say what had taken place. He immediately represented it to the Board of Treasury; the consequence of which was, that the appointment was directly afterwards cancelled. Certainly nothing could be more improper than to appoint to such an office a connexion of the person who had the contract. And there was no person who knew what his duty was that would think of making such an appointment. When the application for the office was made, it was represented that the young man was of age, and the Comptroller had said, that he wished a younger man than those generally appointed to be in the office, and stated it to be his opinion they should not be more than twenty-five to thirty years of age. It had always been considered that a man connected with the trade should be appointed, and that reason had been urged with reference to Mr. Key. As soon as it came to the knowledge of the Government that circumstances of impropriety existed with regard to the appointment, that appointment was cancelled. If Sir John Key had retained his seat in that House, it would have been proper to inquire into his right to do so, but now as he had no longer a seat there, he (Lord Althorp) submitted to the right hon. Gentleman, whether Sir John Key, being liable to prosecution for penalties, it would be fitting in that House to pursue the inquiry at the present moment.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that it appeared to him that the most strange part of the whole proceeding was, the Motion making it doubtful, whether Sir John Key was still entitled to be a Member of that House. He regretted that Sir John Key had been allowed to vacate his seat, for if the vacancy happened at all, it should take place in execution of the law, and not in avoidance of it. If Sir John Key had been a contractor with the Government, his seat was void by the law; and they ought to have an opportunity of knowing whether it was so; and he ought not to be permitted, by the interference of the Executive, to avoid the question, whether he was a fit person to have a seat in that House. This House of Commons dared not refuse to inquire. If the statement made in the petition was correct, he would venture to say, that under an unrefomed Parliament no Government would have permitted such a transaction, nor any House of Commons have allowed it to escape inquiry. The Act by which contractors were prevented from sitting in
330
Parliament was passed in consequence of that memorable resolution of Mr. Dunning in 1782—"That the influence of the Crown has increased—is increasing—and ought to be diminished." That Act contained provisions declaring, that no man entering into any contract for the supply of articles for the public use should have a seat in Parliament, and that no man in Parliament should enter into any such contract, and retain his seat; and it further declared, that "in every such contract, agreement, or commission, shall be inserted the condition that no Member of the House of Commons shall be admitted to have directly or indirectly, any share in the gains, profits, or benefits arising there from." Was that condition inserted in this contract? If so, after that could it be permitted that Sir John Key should become the contractor. That matter deeply affected the honour of the House, which was bound to inquire how such a transaction could take place. It appeared that the contract was nominally entered into with Mr. Muggleston Key, but really with Sir John Key. If it were possible to evade this Act of Parliament, and to permit the brother of a Member nominally to enter into a contract, while the Member himself was the virtual contractor, and would become entitled to all the advantages of the contract, that ought to be met by an immediate legislative remedy. In the petition presented by his right hon. friend it was stated that it was capable of proof that Sir John Key, being a Member of Parliament, was the real contractor; that that contract was for paper amounting to a sum of 60,000 l.; that Sir John Key's brother had retired from business, and that Sir John Key himself supplied the articles, and was in daily communication with the Stationery-office on the subject. He repeated, that they ought to have an opportunity of knowing whether these were the facts, in order if the law could be so evaded, that they might apply a remedy. But superadded to all this was the statement that Sir John Key had got his son placed in that office, by which the quality and the quantity of the article furnished were to be ascertained. The noble Lord said that nothing had been stated at the Treasury of the age of this young man. That ought, however, to have been inquired into. It was the duty of the person at the head of the department to which he was appointed, not to acquiesce in that appointment, but to remonstrate against it on account of the young man's age; he should have made a

331
representation to the Treasury, for although the youth was the son of a stationer, it was impossible that he should be practically acquainted with the business, any competent knowledge of which his age must have precluded him from acquiring. It was not sufficient to say, that his relationship was not known—his age ought to have disqualified him; he had to enter into a bond for the satisfactory performance of his duties, and it was impossible he could enter into any valid bond at that age. He knew nothing of these circumstances, except by the petition which had been presented; but he thought the House of Commons owed it to their honour and character to institute an inquiry, not for the purpose of obtaining penalties, but of ascertaining how such a transaction could have occurred and of preventing it in future.
Lord Althorptrusted that, though he had already addressed the House, he might be permitted, after the attack which had been made upon the Government generally, and upon himself personally, to address the House again, and to explain the circumstances under which Sir John Key had obtained the office which had enabled him to vacate his seat. He would state the grounds under which Sir John Key had been permitted to accept the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. He admitted that, under existing circumstances, he did not view the granting of Sir John Key's application for that office quite as a matter of course; but he likewise felt that the effect of giving that office to Sir John Key would not withdraw him from the liability which, provided he was a contractor, he had incurred, of being prosecuted for the penalties to which every contractor was subject who presumed to sit and vote in Parliament, and that it would not place him in any better position than that which he occupied at the present moment. On the best consideration that he could give to the matter—and the House would recollect that he had not any long time given him for consideration—he was of opinion that no harm could accrue from giving to the hon. Baronet the appointment which had enabled him to vacate his seat. Now, the right hon. Baronet had attacked his Majesty's Government as if they had knowingly given this appointment of storekeeper to a young gentleman of the age of only eighteen years and a half.
Sir Robert Peel: No; I said that the Comptroller ought to have reported to the Government the age of the person appointed
332
to the situation, and that the Government ought to have remonstrated against the order making the appointment, which it did not appear that they had done.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he did not rise to defend the Comptroller, but the Government—for the imputation which the two right hon. Gentlemen had cast was cast upon the Government, and was cast upon the Government on this ground—that it had appointed an incompetent young man nearly connected with the contractor, to a situation, where he would have to control the contractor's supplies. He had not stated that the contractor had said that the young man's age was twenty-two. That representation had been made to Earl Grey when application had been made to him for this appointment. What he (Lord Althorp) had said was, that the Comptroller had not stated what the age of the young man was, and had not mentioned that he was in any way connected with the contractor. The Comptroller made an arrangement without any communication with the Treasury, by which the inspection of the paper sent in by their contractor was taken from the young man. He must add, that no person connected with the Treasury was aware that the contract was where it was, or that the young man was connected with the contractor. As to the appointment of a Committee, he had merely suggested that it was questionable whether the House ought to consider the matter as a breach of privilege, there being no longer a breach of privilege, in consequence of Sir John Key having vacated his seat. He assured the House that he had no wish to screen any party, and if any hon. Gentleman wished for inquiry, he would be the last man in the House to object to it. He appealed to the hon. and gallant Officer opposite whether he (Lord Althorp) had not written to him (Sir Henry Hardinge) that morning, and told him that he would not object to inquiry if it were demanded. He had only expressed a doubt whether, as Sir John Key, if he were a contractor, had rendered himself liable to heavy penalties for having sat and voted in Parliament whilst a contractor, it would be right to institute an inquiry into a matter which might afterwards become the subject of legal investigation. The tone which the right hon. Baronet had taken in the course of his speech seemed to assume that Government had done that which he admitted would have amounted to gross misconduct if they had done—namely, appointed the nephew

333
of a pretended contractor, but as it was alleged the son of the real contractor, to an office overlooking the performance of the contract, for which he was moreover otherwise disqualified. He asserted, that Government had no knowledge of any such facts; and that from the very first moment ill which he became aware of them, he had said that they must be corrected, and that a change must take place in the arrangement.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the assent which the noble Lord had just given to the appointment of the Committee was the very best answer the noble Lord could have given to the Motion. There was no reason why Sir John Key, because he shrunk from Parliament, should be allowed to get rid of the prosecution for penalties to which he had laid himself open by sitting and voting in Parliament after he had become a contractor. It was singular this first trait of a reformed Parliament—namely, that the brother of a Member of Parliament should get a contract from the Government, and then that contractor's nephew, the son of the Member of Parliament, should get a place where he had to judge of the mode in which the contract was performed, not for his merits, for they were unknown, but for his demerits, he being only eighteen years old, and without experience. How was it, he would ask, that this young man had got the place? Sir John Key had voted for the Coercion Bill, and for the Resolution which rescinded the vote of the House repealing the Malt-tax, and for those votes his son was rewarded with a place of 400 l. a-year. This was a very extraordinary way for the son of a Member of Parliament, representing a popular constituency like the city of Dublin, to get a place. He had made a mistake—he did not think that the sons of the member for the city of Dublin had any great chance of getting a place. The son of the member for the city of London had, however, got a place. He contended that the present was a monstrous case, calling for examination and decided censure on somebody, and he was glad that the House was now going to examine who the parties were that deserved it.
Mr. Secretary Stanleywas exceedingly gratified that his noble friend had given his assent to a Committee of Inquiry, for sure he was, that the more inquiry was made into the circumstances of this ease, the more would it contradict and refute the insinuations of the two hon. Gentlemen.
334
He thought that the vindication of his noble friend, and of the Government with which he was connected, was now complete. It was not for the Government to say, that gross misconduct had not taken place somewhere, and he (Mr. Stanley) was exceedingly gratified that by the inquiry which was now to be instituted, that misconduct would soon be laid bare and open. His noble friend had stated the case on behalf of the Government, and as he did ill all cases where he himself (Lord Althorp) was personally concerned, plainly and simply, and without any wish to gain a vote by ornament or eloquence; on the contrary, he had rather understated than overstated the defence of Government on this occasion. This was the individual ease of the Comptroller of the department. An application was made for an office in it by a gentleman who was represented to be twenty-two years of age, when, in point of fact, he was only eighteen. The office was filled up, and he trusted that the hon. Gentleman opposite would not consider it as a disqualification of the holder that he was a supporter of the existing Government. On the contrary, the Government had been frequently abused for not disposing of its patronage among its own supporters. The charge had been brought against the Government over and over again, and by no person more frequently than the hon. and learned Gentleman. He would admit, that an improper person had been admitted to the office. That person had not the qualifications which he was represented to have; he was only eighteen years of age—not twenty two as had been stated, and, moreover, he was not competent, either by his knowledge or his experience, to perform the duties of this office. As soon as this came to the knowledge of the Government, the party holding the office was informed of it. The appointment took place in the month of June, he forgot the exact day; on the 28th of July it was represented to the Government that the person holding it was only eighteen years of age, not twenty-two; on the 29th a communication was made by his noble friend to the Stationery-office, and also to Sir John Key; and on the next day Mr. Key resigned, and a Treasury minute, cancelling his appointment, was issued be for the single word had been uttered about laying all the circumstances of this case before the House of Commons. Here, was a complete vindication of the conduct of the Government. He was not there to

335
inquire into the conduct of the Comptroller; he was not there to inquire whether he was cognizant of Mr. Key's age or not. The Comptroller was not an officer appointed by the present, but by the former Government. If he had not fulfilled his duties, he was responsible for it. For his appointment the present Government was not responsible. For the contract in Mr. Key's name they were responsible, but for cancelling Mr. Key's appointment, when they learned the circumstances attending it, they claimed their share of credit; and he rejoiced that his noble friend, in assenting to this inquiry, would bring all the circumstances connected with this transaction fairly under the consideration of the public. The hon. Gentleman had said, that Mr. Key was connected with one of the parties to this contract. Now, it ought to be recollected that the contract was not made with Sir John Key, but with his brother. It was also possible to evade the law by one person making a contract in the name of another, and it was matter of extreme difficulty to detect these evasions. Besides, it ought not to be forgotten that the contract was not matter of favour and appointment by the Government, but was decided upon legal tender and by public and open competition; and in this instance, as his noble friend said, the contract of this year was five per cent lower than the terms of the contract last year. This contract did not come either before the Government or before the Treasury—the lowest bidding was taken—and that bidding was in the name, not of Sir John Key, but of Mr. Jonathan Muggleston Key. Whether the Comptroller and the Gentleman at the head of the Stationery-office, ought or ought not to have been ignorant of the connexion between these two gentlemen—whether they ought or ought not to have reported it to the Government—whether the Comptroller should have remonstrated or not against the appointment of a youth of eighteen to the office of storekeeper, was not at present the question. The whole case was to be inquired into; though he thought that his noble friend was quite justified in doubting the propriety of bringing this case before the House of Commons, as the penalties for which Sir John Key might be sued were of heavy, indeed enormous amount. He rejoiced, however, that the House of Commons was going to take this question into its cognizance; and he was sure that, in spite of the imputations which had been
336
cast upon the Government, it would go into the inquiry with clean hands, and come out of it with an untarnished reputation.
Lord Stormontasked, whether Earl Grey, when he gave this place to the young man, was aware that the uncle of this young man was the person who had taken the contract?
Lord Althorp replied in the negative.
Petition laid on the Table.
Sir Henry Hardingedeclared, that it was not his intention to do anything by which Sir John Key could be placed in a more prejudicial situation than that in which he had placed himself at present. He should be extremely sorry that any inquiry in the Committee should bring before the public such proof as would be necessary to support a prosecution against Sir John Key for the penalties to which he had rendered himself subject if he had sat and voted in Parliament after he had become a contractor. His object was, to do justice, and if blame attached to any quarter, to let that blame fall where it was deserved. He did not intend to bring any accusation against the Government. He had said, that ignorance or carelessness might be attributable to them, but after the letter which he had received from the noble Lord, containing his disavowal of the transaction, he did not think that it would be fair to make insinuations either against the noble Lord or the noble Earl at the head of the Treasury. Whilst he was anxious to appear to do nothing vindictive against Sir John Key, he still felt that he had a duty to perform towards the petitioners; and that duty he must perform by moving for a Select Committee to examine into the allegations of their petition.
Committee appointed.

MINISTERIAL PLAN FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
On the Motion of Lord Althorp, the Slavery Abolition Bill was recommitted. On the Committee coming to Clause 10th, relating to apprenticeships,
Mr. Fowell Buxtonproposed to add to it this proviso:—"That where the legal quantity of provisions was not given to the slave, and that was made apparent to three Justices, and that where, on demand being legally made for such quantity, in consequence of an order issued by those three Justices, a refusal to comply with the order was given, an end should be put to the apprenticeship of the slave, and he should be released from his indentures."
Mr. Secretary Stanleyobjected to the Amendment. The principle of the Bill was to leave these minor details to the Local Legislatures, and it would be an unwise deviation from the general rule to fix a specific penalty for the violation of local enactments. He requested Mr. Fowell Buxton to leave it to Government to frame instructions to the Governors of the different colonies. If those instructions should not be attended to, then Parliament would be at liberty to interfere.
Amendment withdrawn.
Mr. Bernardproposed an Amendment, to the effect that the laws applying to the apprenticeship of freemen should be applicable to the slaves when apprenticed, after June 1st, 1834.
Mr. Secretary Stanleyopposed the Motion. The laws as to apprenticeship were not in force in the colonies, and the Amendment, therefore, would be of no avail.
Amendment withdrawn.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonsaid, that the next consideration which he had to press upon the attention of the Committee was the necessity which existed for taking especial care to ensure to the children who should be born alter this Bill had passed, all the blessings of freedom to which they were therein declared to be entitled. Another consideration for their attention was, the fact that as the condition of slavery degraded and debased the human mind to a degree to render those who had once endured it scarcely capable of receiving that advantage from freedom which freemen ought to have, he thought that all children under the age of six years ought to be exempted from the term of apprenticeship, in order that they having altogether escaped the debasement consequent upon slavery, might arrive at manhood in a frame of mind equal to bear their free condition, and to avail themselves of that blessing. These reasons, he considered, were sufficiently strong to justify him in proposing an Amendment to the clause to that effect.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that perhaps he might be able to offer some strong objections to the hon. Member's intended Amendments, which would have the effect of saving the Chairman the trouble of putting them. In the first place he was ready to admit that the apprenticeship of the negro was a choice of evils, and was only to be looked upon in that light. In the second place, the apprenticeship of the negro infant was a humane provision intended to guard against the possibility of
338
an orphan, or a child of parents unequal to its support, being cast upon the world without any means of livelihood, and consequently of being subjected to the chance of starvation. If this were not done and the master were compelled to support such destitute children, it would be an additional hardship on him, against which, however, the Bill fully guarded by giving him in return the advantage of the child's labour, such as it might be. The Amendment of the hon. Member, therefore, if carried, would only defeat his own humane intentions.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that if he thought the clause was to extend only to destitute children, he should not object, but he feared that the effect would be to carry slavery to a much greater extent than was intended by the principle of the Bill. When he found that there was in most of the colonies, a fund for destitute children, and when he found that the number of whites relieved by that find was as nearly twenty to one compared to those of the black population, though the latter were so much more numerous, he thought it would be no great addition to the burthens of that fund if all the children of the black population who might be left destitute should be thrown upon it. Even if it were a small increase of expense, and he did not think it could be very great, it would be better to adopt that course than place the children in such a state of half bondage until they attained the age of twenty-one years.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that the children thus apprenticed would be in the same situation as apprenticed labourers. The clause was, that if any such children under six years of age should be destitute—that was, without parents or any friends to claim them—the special magistrate should be authorized to apprentice the child to the master, or to any other person, as circumstances might render necessary.
Dr. Lushingtonwas not satisfied with the proof that the child would not be able to support itself. [Mr. Stanley here observed, that that would be decided by the special magistrate.] He was not, however, satisfied with that mode of deciding. He thought the clause quite nugatory as applied to slave children.
Mr. Briscoetook the same view of the case as the hon. and learned Member who spoke last, and would take the sense of the House on the clause.
The Committee divided on the Amendment: Ayes 30; Noes 65—Majority 35.

List of the AYES.

Brotherton, J.

Harland, W. C.

Blake, Sir F.

Hawes, B.

Burdett, Sir F.

Humphery, J.

Briscoe, I.

Johnstone, A.

Buckingham, J. S.

Lushington, S.

Brocklehurst, J.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Christmas, W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Collier, John.

Ruthven, E. S.

Cornish, James

Sinclair, G.

Ewart, W.

Sullivan, R.

Evans, W.

Tooke, W.

Fenton, John

Vigors, N. A.

Faithfull, G.

Wedgwood, J.

Fancourt, C. S. J.

Wilks, J.

Goring, H. D.

TELLER.

Hardy, John

Buxton, F.

Mr. Hardyproposed that the indentures of female apprenticed negroes do expire when they reach their eighteenth year; that being a marriageable age.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaw no reason whatever to assent to the Amendment.
The Committee divided on the Motion: Ayes 37; Noes 43—Majority against the Amendment 6.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lushington, Dr.

Barnard, F. G.

Mullins, F. W.

Blake, Sir F.

Oswald, J.

Bouverie,—

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Brodie, W. B.

Plumptre, J. P.

Buckingham, J. S.

Potter, R.

Buxton, T. F.

Ruthven, E.

Evans, W.

Sheppard, T.

Ewart, W.

Skipwith, Sir G.

Faithfull, G.

Sinclair, G.

Fitzgerald, T.

Sullivan, R.

Gisborne, T.

Tooke, W.

Handley, W. F.

Tower, C. T.

Hawes, B.

Vigors, N. A.

Harland, W. C.

Wedgwood, J.

Hume, J.

Wilks, J.

Humphery, J.

Williams, Colonel

Johnston, A.

Wilmot, Sir E.

Locke, W.

The original Clause agreed to.
Mr. Secretary Stanley Mr. Secretary Stanley moved to strike out the 53rd clause, in order to substitute a provision extending the 52nd George 3rd, to colonies, wherein acts repealed by that statute were still in force. In all other cases he was willing to leave matters as they stood. The effect of the change would be in favour of Dissenters.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonwished to know whether Government had received information from Jamaica of any disposition on the part of the legislative assembly to defray the expense of rebuilding the chapels that had been destroyed in that island?
Mr. Secretary Stanleycould not say that he had heard of any such steps having been taken; but the subject would be one of the earliest submitted by the Government to the consideration of the local Legislature.
Motion agreed to.
Lord Althorpbrought up the clauses providing for the raising of the grant of 20,000,000 l. He observed that it had been suggested by the right hon. member for Harwich to introduce a proviso enacting that no money should be raised under the Act except during the sitting of Parliament; and, further, that the terms of the contract should be laid on the Table. He saw no objection to this. It was understood that the Legislature was pledged that the loan should be positively raised, but it was right that Parliament should have an immediate check upon the Government as to the terms of the contract.
Mr. Humeasked whether Parliament was to have a control over the terms of the loan?
Lord Althorpreplied, that the contract made by the Government would be final, but Ministers would be liable to the censure of the House if the terms were disapproved of.
Mr. Humethought that Parliament should have a control over the terms of the loan—at least the House ought to know the plan of providing for the interest.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the interest must be provided for by Parliament at the time: he had frequently before stated that the mode contemplated was by a tax on colonial produce. When the contract for the loan was made and charged on the Consolidated Fund, he was sure that if a necessity arose for supplying any deficiency in the Consolidated Fund, Parliament would be prepared to do so; but he did not know that there would be any necessity fur a new tax at all: the revenue was progressive, and would necessarily continue so (such was his opinion). However, if a new tax should be necessary to provide for the interest, it would be for Parliament to decide in what manner it should be imposed.
Mr. Humeasked whether the contract would be open.
Lord Althorpanswered that it would: there was a provision in the clauses he had brought up to that effect. However, there was one exception to an open contract, which was, in case the Commissioners for the redemption of the national debt should be able to undertake the matter without going into the market at all.
Mr. Wilkswas not unwilling to pledge the Legislature to a grant of 20,000,000 l, but thought that the terms of the contract should depend on the ratification of Parliament—a reformed House of Commons ought not to trust any Ministry to the extent now proposed.
Lord Althorpobserved, that the mode in which it was proposed to raise the loan would be the most advantageous both for the West-India proprietors and the public. It would enable the Commissioners for the management of the national debt to make the best bargain they could for the public.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that Parliament had always, in the instance of former loans (and of loans, too, of a far greater amount), reserved to itself the power to determine the terms on which the loans should be raised, without trusting altogether to the discretion of Government; and he thought that practice should be still adhered to.
The Clauses empowering the Commissioners for the management of the national debt to raise the loan in question in the shape of annuities, and specifying the manner in which the operation was to be conducted, were brought up, read, and agreed to.
The House resumed—Report to be received.

TITHE ARREARS (IRELAND).
On the Motion of Mr. Littleton, the Order of the Day was read for the House going into Committee on the Tithes Arrear (Ireland) Bill.
The House went into Committee.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that in submitting the statement which he was about to lay before the Committee, it would be necessary for him, in the first instance, to give them an estimate of the amount of arrears of tithes that remained due in Ireland for the years 1831 and 1832, and also of the amount of arrears of tithes due for the year 1833, for the total amount of which the measure he was about to introduce went to provide. Some weeks ago his noble friend (Lord Althorp) had called the attention of the House to this subject; but at that time his noble friend was not prepared to state the precise amount of the sum that Parliament would be called upon to advance, and as, since that period, a desire had been expressed by the House that impropriate tithes should be included in this arrangement, it was necessary to ascertain the amount of such tithe due at present. Early in the Session an account of the amount of tithes
342
and arrears of tithes due was ordered, at the instance of the hon. member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw), and that account had been presented to the House on the 11th ult. That Return had misled many hon. Members as to the amount of tithes due, and it was altogether so erroneous that he would not have alluded to it on the present occasion, had it not been referred to on a former evening by the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tam worth, as an authority on the subject. It was not only erroneous in this respect, that from many parishes it contained no Return at all; but furthermore, it contained no account of the amount of tithe due for the present year, nor any account of what was due for impropriate tithes. It besides included the arrears of tithes due since the 1st of May, 1829. Now, from all that had come to his (Mr. Littleton's) knowledge, he did not believe, that there was any considerable amount of arrears due for the years 1829 and 1830. According to this account, which was, as he had remarked, an extremely erroneous one, the whole amount of arrears due was 409,384 l. He would now proceed to state to the Committee what his estimate was of the amount of arrears due, according to the best information he had been able to collect upon the subject. With respect to the arrears for the year 1831, proceeding upon what he considered to be pretty correct data—namely, the amount claimed by the clergy under the Relief Bill of last Session he would set them down at 104,285 l. From that sum was to be deducted 12,100 l., the total amount which had been recovered by the Government in consequence of taking those arrears upon them as Crown debts. That amount too, he was bound to say, had been collected with great difficulty, and with some loss of life. Deducting it from the sum he had already mentioned, it left the total amount of arrears due for the year 1831, 92,185 l. To that it would be necessary to add a sum which, calculating it on the best authority, he estimated at about 20,000 l.—namely, the amount of arrears due to Bishops, Corporations, and to other persons who had not availed themselves of the relief afforded by the Act of last Session. That would make, according to his calculation, the total amount of arrears due for the year 1831, 112,185 l. Now, with respect to the arrears due for 1832, he had in the first instance to observe, that the total amount of the ecclesiastical tithes in Ireland was calculated at 600,000 l. That,

343
he believed, was the estimate made of their amount by the best informed authorities on the subject. In the year 1832, in consequence of the great difficulties and embarrassments which had arisen in 1831 with regard to the collection of tithes, the collection of them was rendered still more difficult. A very small proportion of the tithes due for that year was collected in the southern counties of Ireland. A much larger proportion was collected in the northern counties; and, according to the best accounts which he had received from various parts of Ireland, he had every reason to believe that no less than 300,000 l. for ecclesiastical tithes remained due for the year 1832. It appeared, then, that the total amount of arrears due for 1831 was 112,185 l.; for 1832, 300,000 l.; making a total due for those two years of 412,185 l.; to that was to be added the sum of 600,000 l, being the amount of tithes due for the current year; thus leaving the gross amount of ecclesiastical tithes due and unpaid for the years 1831, 1832, and 1833, at 1,012,185 l. The greatest difficulty had been experienced in calculating the amount of lay tithes due for the years 1831, 1832, and 1833. As much greater hostility existed to the payment of impropriate than of ecclesiastical tithes, it was very probable that a very small proportion of lay tithes had been collected throughout Ireland during that period. By an account which had been laid before Parliament early in the year, it appeared, that the number of impropriate parishes in all the dioceses in Ireland amounted to 669. By looking at those which had compounded, by which he had ascertained the amount of his tithes, he had come to the conclusion, that the gross amount of lay tithes due was 94,192 l. 19 s. 1d. It was, however, to be observed, that in some cases the lay tithe and rent had been added together, and in that way some of the landlords had received the value of their lay tithes. It would be necessary, therefore, to make an abatement for that consideration from the gross amount he had already mentioned. The abatement he proposed to make from that sum, in consideration of lay tithe added to rent, was 20,000 l.; balance of lay tithe remaining due each year, 74,192 l. 19 s. 1d., which balance, multiplied by three, leaves an arrear of lay tithes for the years 1831, 1832, and 1833, of 222,578 l. 17 s. 3d.; there by making the gross arrear of ecclesiastical and lay tithes for the years 1831, 1832, and 1833, to be
344
1,234,763 l. 17 s. 3d. That was certainly a large amount. It would not be necessary, however, to apply to Parliament for an advance equal to that sum. He believed, that nobody would be inclined to dispute the justice of the principle, that if Parliament should come forward with a sum to pay the tithe-owners what was due to them, relieving them from the costs of collection, of valuation, and the other expenses and difficulties attendant upon the recovery of that species of property, a considerable discount should be given to the parties thus making such ready-money payment. He believed, that the Irish Members would not refuse a large discount upon the arrears for the years 1831 and 1832, as a considerable portion of those arrears must have been considered bad debts if Parliament had not stepped in and guaranteed their payment. A great difference must be made between those arrears and the tithes due for the present year. It was proposed, therefore, that while, upon the payment of the tithes due for the present year a deduction of not more than fifteen per cent should be made, a deduction of twenty-five per cent should be made upon the payment of the arrears for 1831 and 1832. The total per centage thus allowed would amount to 241,242 l., which, deducted from the total amount of tithes and arrears due—namely, 1,234,763 l., left a balance of 993,521 l. That, therefore, was the amount to be provided for, and it was proposed to provide for it by an issue of Exchequer-bills to the amount of 1,000,000 l. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to explain to the Committee the machinery of the Bill by which it was proposed to arrange the distribution of this money, and the mode in which it was to be subsequently levied on the land. Such he said were the heads of the Bill which it was his intention to propose on this subject. He would beg leave, in conclusion, to move the following Resolution:—"That his Majesty be enabled to direct Exchequer-bills to an amount not exceeding 1,000,000 l. to be issued for the purpose of advancing under certain conditions, the arrears of tithes due for 1831 and 1832, subject to a deduction of twenty-five per cent; and the value of the tithes for 1833, subject to a deduction of fifteen per cent, to such persons as may be entitled to such arrears on such tithes, and as may be desirous of receiving such advances, and that the amount advanced shall be included in the tithe composition, so as to be repaid in the course of

345
five years, being payable by half yearly instalments."
Mr. Shawsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Littleton) should understand, that he (Mr. Shaw) had not moved for the Return of the arrears of tithe with any reference to the present measure, but previously to the announcement of any intention by his Majesty's Government to introduce that measure, and with a view to lay open the system of injustice and resistance to the laws under which the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland were suffering. He (Mr. Shaw) did not, however, materially differ in his calculation of the amount due, and now to be provided for from that which the right hon. Gentleman had come to by a different process. Setting off the number of benefices not returned at all, which appeared to be 157, against the arrears of 1829 and 1830, which were included in the Return, but which of course were not a part of the sum now to be estimated, there remained in round numbers 500,000 l. of clerical arrear due for the years 1831 and 1832. Add to that the clerical tithes of the present year, being somewhat more than 500,000 l., and about 200,000 l. for the impropriate tithes for the arrears of the two last years, and for the current year, the result would be as nearly as possible the same the right hon. Gentleman had arrived at—namely, that a sum of about 1,200,000 l. would be due for tithes in Ireland, and remained to be provided for by the Resolution then before the Committee. With respect to the means by which the Government proposed (as just stated by the right hon. Gentleman) to raise that sum of money, and to meet the difficulties of the case, difficulties which he admitted were great, but which he (Mr. Shaw) could show were produced principally by the weakness and the folly of the Government themselves—with respect, he said, to the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, he contended that its leading characteristic was that of gross injustice to each and all of the parties concerned. First, as to the landlords, it was unjust beyond all precedent to require them to pay not only what they had not been liable to by law, but a charge that they had expressly contracted should be paid by their occupying tenants and not by themselves. The case was altogether different where there was no existing lease or contract. There he (Mr. Shaw) approved of making the landlord pay, but where there was an existing contract all principle was violated in transferring
346
the payment from the party who had contracted to pay, to the party who had by express contract protected himself from the payment. Then, as regarded those who had paid their tithes and obeyed the law, they were to be put in a worse situation than those who had combined to resist the payment and to violate the law. And though he mentioned them last, the least injustice was not done to the clergy themselves, who, having been deprived for the last three years of their legal maintenance by an organised and illegal combination against them, carried on under the implied sanction, if not the direct encouragement of the Government—having abstained within the last few months from legal proceedings to recover their long withheld rights, or even from viewing the crops in uncompounded parishes, upon the express understanding of the noble Lord (Lord Althorp), that these three years' tithes should be paid them, were now called upon to submit to the unreasonable, and under the circumstances, most unjust deduction of twenty-five per cent. No more cruel or oppressive conduct had ever been pursued towards any body of men than that with which the Irish clergy had been treated by the Government. In the end of 1830, soon after the present Ministers came into office, the systematic resistance to the law commenced, and those who most insidiously inculcated the doctrines which directly tended to that resistance, received not only the countenance, but the praise of the highest authorities in the Irish government. When violence and outrage were proceeding beyond the purposes of the Irish government themselves, and some attempts were made to repress them—no sooner were the consequences beginning to be felt, which in Ireland were always sure to follow a firm and vigorous Administration of the laws, than the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stanley) used the unfortunate expression of the extinction of tithes, and again raised the outcry against them from one end of the country to the other. So matters went on to the passing of the Coercion Bill, the necessity of which was occasioned by the base, vacillating and timid policy of the Ministers; but order having been in some degree restored under its influence, and the people being led to believe, that the law had not been altogether suspended, the clergy seemed on the point of recovering their tithes by the ordinary process, when, in perfect keeping with their former indecision, and that up-and-down system

347
which had characterised their whole policy, the noble Lord caused proclamations to be posted throughout the country that all proceedings for tithes should be suddenly put an end to. The policemen, who the week before had been putting up notices at the risk of their lives, warning the people to pay under the severest penalties of the law, were now attempted to be chaired through the country, and carried in triumph by the people, distracted with the inconsistency and unintelligible conduct of the very Ministers whose duty it was to hold a steady and firm hand over them, instead of first exciting them to resist the laws, and then having recourse to extraordinary means to punish them. From every part of Ireland his information was to the same effect, that had the Government not interfered, scarcely any tithes would have been unpaid by the 1st of November. A correspondent from the county of Cork wrote, that "all payments, though in fair progress, were at once put a stop to by Lord Althorp's words in the House, and the clergy are beginning again to feel all the difficulties of destitution." Another from the Queen's County says—"Until the Government interfered the other day, the anti-tithe conspiracy had been nearly put down. The Roman Catholics in this country were paying in all directions; and I don't think there would have been any tithes due before the 1st of November, unless in cases of real inability. This, of course, is all at an end now." And from the north of Ireland a most estimable and experienced clergyman writes—"I have been on the best terms with all my parishioners; in January last they were unanimous in thanking me for the composition I entered into; but the consequence of the recent conduct of the Government has been, that my agent has not only been refused any further payment, but actually threatened with violence if he did not return what he had already received—as they said, that Government was to pay all the tithes for the last three years." Was not this holding out a premium to crime, and paying a bounty on insubordination and disorder? He could not avoid referring to a passage in the first tithe report which was then on the Table. It said the Committee of which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) was Chairman, was deeply impressed with the danger that must threaten the whole frame of society if a combination against a legal impost was permitted ultimately to triumph over the provisions of the law—and was
348
triumph ever more complete than that which the Government bad given in the present case to that combination, to deprive the clergy of their legal income, which that same Report had so strongly dwelt upon? Was it not a striking instance of the evil deprecated in the Report of affording proof that turbulence could lead to relief, and that popular combination was sufficient to bear down legitimate authority? And what did the Report most truly point out as the certain and inevitable consequence? that "the security of all property would be shaken—the framework of Government and society disorganised—and a state of confusion and anarchy ensue." Yet with these truths placed before the Government by one of their own Members, at the time Secretary for Ireland, they had pursued the course to which he had alluded. As regarded the clergy, they were not in the situation of free agents—they were in a state of destitution, caused by the very persons who now proposed to make this exorbitant deduction from the arrears of an income already much reduced. Still they were not in a condition to reject any terms the Government had the injustice to impose; they were, as it were, under duress—not free to exercise an independent judgment. Was not the proposition now made a monstrous deduction to be made from their lawful and fair demands? He almost felt, that, in agreeing to the present measure, they would be accepting a temporary and insufficient relief, to the prejudice of their permanent interests, and the undoubted rights of the body to which they belonged. This, he suspected, was the reason why the hon. member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) viewed the measure so favourably—it substituted a mere passing expedient for the firm foundation of an acknowledged legal right. But he could not follow what might be his better judgment; he could not bring himself to refuse the means of subsistence to the many families he knew to be deprived almost of the necessaries of life, and what, perhaps, was more deplored by those most interested—of the means necessary for the education and permanent advancement of their children. He therefore would not oppose the Resolution—while he must raise his voice against the dereliction of duty, on the part of the Government, which led to it, and the gross and flagrant injustice of the conditions which they annexed to it.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, before this million was voted, it was absolutely necessary they

349
should understand the principle on which it was asked for; so strange did it appear to him to be, that he really was almost convinced that he was in error himself upon the subject. The principle, as he look it, was to advance to lay and other tithe-impropriators, who might not have received their tithes for two years past, or who may not receive them for the present year, this sum of money; and the Crown was to be the party advancing, and the party claiming an equivalent for that advance at the expiration of five years, till which period the amount was to be added to the composition fund, and after all only to be paid off by instalments. Last year they had gone on another principle to that which they now proposed. They had gone on this principle—that the incumbent was unable to collect his tithe, and therefore the Crown should be called upon to levy for the clergy. Last year, when the grant of relief had been made, a very different principle had actuated and directed the proceedings of the Government with reference to the clergy of Ireland. He admitted that the state of the clergy in Ireland was such, that it was impossible for him to withhold his vote of assistance to that deserving and meritorious body. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who might be said to represent the clergy of Ireland in that House, said that the money ought to be paid to the clergy, without any deduction. Nothing could be more natural than such a proposition on his part, on behalf of the clergy; but, there was another party whoso interests must be considered—the people of England, who had already paid their own tithes. This sum ought to be paid by the people of Ireland, in what proportion by the landlord and tenant, he would not stop to discuss; but if this legal charge was to be transferred to the people of England, who had already obeyed the law, it would certainly be holding out a premium to the disobedience of the law. They ought to endeavour to strike a balance between the interests of the Irish clergy and the interests of the people of England. He hoped that the House would support Government in their rigorous efforts to enforce the authority of the law in Ireland. He objected to the; principle of the vote; he would say nothing of the grant to the West-India proprietors, because that was a peculiar case; but if Ministers proceeded on the principle of solving their difficulties by large votes of money to be levied on the people there was an end of all hope of improving the financial
350
affairs of this country. This principle of escaping from temporary difficulties by votes of money from the public purse, was one which would involve the country in inextricable confusion. He hoped at least, that the details of the measure would be maturely considered, and the best security possible taken to obtain the repayment of the money from those by whom it was due in Ireland. He should augur the worst possible result from the present vote, if the course now about to be adopted should be allowed to be drawn into a precedent, and unless it was followed up by a vigorous effort to compel payment from those from whom the money was really due.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that when vigour was talked of with regard to Ireland, it should be recollected that that had been the system for the last 700 years. This was the first time in which a more conciliatory system had been adopted. Were the Government to blame for adopting this first step in the system of conciliation? No. What was the state of Ireland before it was adopted? There was one universal resistance to the payment of tithes, and soldiers had been obliged to come from Cork to Middleton, to put down that resistance. Attempts were made to enforce payment of tithes by horse and foot, and the country was almost in a state of civil war. The law processes were incessant. In 1832 there were, in the Common Pleas alone, 321 writs issued, and in 1833, these had increased to 572. In 1832, of the writs issued, only seven were at the suit of clergymen; but in 1833 there were 265, out of the whole number issued, at their suit. Tills went on in the same manner in all the three Courts, so that there were nearly 3,000 processes at the time of the Coercion Bill. The country was almost in a state of civil war, and the Government were obliged to interfere and prevent a predial insurrection. No Government had acted more wisely than the present Government had done in this instance; and in his opinion the advocates of the clergy, instead of blaming, ought to praise them for the course they had pursued. They had a good reason for their conduct. This would be a good foundation for a system of conciliation. Let this vote pass, and next Session let them agree to some measure that would lessen the burthen of the Church of Ireland upon the people of that country. This money never would be repaid—who was there to pay it? Let

351
them give it at once. The landlords were not much to blame. Were they to be made liable for their tithes and be made tithe proctors? If so, let it be so stated at once. It would be an injustice to them to make them liable for all these tithes. As soon as it was announced in Ireland that the landlords were to be made liable for the tithes if the occupying tenants did not pay them, there would be a general shifting of the tenantry. The clergy would, however, be provided for by this measure; and it was most ungracious on the part of the hon. and learned member for Dublin University, who represented them, to complain of a measure which was evidently for their benefit. The hon. and learned Gentleman no doubt felt the value of the measure, and no doubt wished to be able to say that the clergy had no reason to be grateful to this Government for anything. He heartily concurred in the vote for a million. Never was there a million that had been more cheaply laid out than this would be, for if the war had continued, more would have been spent within six months, besides all the other and more dreadful consequences. Let them grant this million and purchase peace with it—it would be a cheap purchase; and then let them continue the system of conciliation thus begun, and make Ireland prosperous and happy.
Sir Robert Ingliscould not imagine that the hon. and learned Member could conceive that those who advocated the interests of the clergy in the House, and the great majority of the people who were their supporters out of the House, could agree with him in the opinions he had just expressed. The hon. and learned Member called this the first step in the system of conciliation towards Ireland. Was not the measure of 1829 so regarded by him at the time it passed? Had not the measure of 1793 and 1778 been so regarded? In every one of these instances the measure had been called the first step towards conciliation, and that expression had been kept up till each measure was passed; but immediately afterwards it was forgotten, and a new grievance was started, and every previous attempt at conciliation was then denied. He objected to the principle of the present measure, for he looked upon it but as a premium to disobedience of the law. He feared, too, that in that, as in other instances, the demand and supply would be found to equal each other; and every three years, he had no doubt, they should see the Irish Secretary coming down to the House with a proposition like
352
the present. Protesting, therefore, against the principle, and against every use that might be made of this precedent hereafter, he should reserve his objections to the details of the measure till they came fairly before the House.
Mr. Divettobserved, that all the arguments of the hon. and learned member for Dublin showed his belief that the sum now advanced would not be repaid. After that, could that House be called on to vote one million of Exchequer Bills, and to do what? Why, to bolster up the Church of Ireland—a Church against which all the feelings of the Irish people were arrayed. He agreed with the hon. Baronet who had just spoken, that the demand for this sort of advance would never fail. The hon. and learned member for Dublin spoke of this as buying peace for Ireland. If he believed it would do so, he should consent to the vote; but as he was quite sure it would purchase rebellion, he should give it his strenuous opposition.
Mr. Sinclairthought, that the House seemed to have scarcely any other duty to perform, than that of voting away millions of the public money—a system which it was high time to check. He considered this grant as very impolitic and unjust—impolitic, because it operated as an encouragement to resistance both active and passive—unjust, because the loss would inevitably fall upon the people of Scotland and of England, who had obeyed the laws, and paid their full share of all the public burthens, including the dues of their own clergy. It was also hard, upon such of the Irish people as had already paid their own tithes, and would now have to contribute towards making up the deficiencies of their more refractory neighbours. Whereas, if they had set the laws at defiance, their own tithes also would have been paid at the public expense. Such a system could not restore peace to Ireland, and would prove an incitement, both there and in Great Britain, to resist just demands, in the hope that the Government would impose the payment upon the country at large. He quite agreed with his hon. friend, the member for Oxford, that this measure would serve as a premium upon lawless proceedings; but he differed from the conclusions at which his hon. friend arrived—being determined to vote against the grant which his hon. friend intended to support. It was not to be expected, nor would it be just, that the advance should ever be reimbursed by the Irish landlords—or could be

353
recovered by them from their indigent and resisting tenantry.
Mr. Humeobserved, that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had stated he should show how tithes, from which this advance was to be repaid, were to be collected. He doubted much if that could be done. He believed, that this money would be lost to England. And for what was it to be paid? To bolster up the Church Establishment against the best feelings of the country. The hon. and learned member for Dublin asked them to give the money at once, in order to continue the non-payment of tithes for another year, and then they would never be paid again. He (Mr. Hume) had always told them, that that would be the case. The people of England would do the same; and if they were to be called on to pay what other people ought to have paid, they would be silly not to do it. They were now distinctly told, that the money never would be repaid. Under these circumstances, could they think of granting it. The whole scheme of repayment ought first to be laid before them. He should propose, therefore, that the Chairman should report progress, in order to give the Ministers time to lay the Bill before the House, that they might form their own judgment on the matter.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the passing of the Resolution must be preparatory to bringing in the Bill; and when the House saw the Bill, if they did not think that there were any means of recovering the money, it would be in their power to reject the Bill, at any stage of its progress. At the time when this measure was first announced, it was stated that the Government intended to bring forward a proposition which should prevent, in future, the collection of tithes in the old way. The continuance of that system might bring the utmost confusion in the country. He could assure the House, that they came with the expectation and the determination that the measure they intended to propose should procure the repayment of this advance. If the occupying tenant was to be made to repay it, the same consequences as before would follow from the same causes. They proposed, therefore, to follow a different course. They intended to follow up the Composition Bill of the last Session. If they were right in passing that Bill, the application of the same principle on a more extended scale must be advantageous. The tithes of this year would be spread over a period of five years, and would be added to
354
the amount of the composition for tithes. The advance would be made to the clergy, who, on obtaining the composition, would repay it to the Government. This sum would therefore be added to the amount of the composition which the clergyman would be entitled to receive. It did not appear to him, that the Government was in any danger of not being repaid. The tithes that had been lost by the tenantry quitting the land, could not, of course, be levied on the landlord, but must be considered as totally lost; and no deduction could be made by the clergyman on account of them. He did not wish to call on the people of England to pay for the people of Ireland. He should, therefore, put his case on this issue, that if the House were not satisfied that ample provision would be made for the repayment of this money, they ought not to adopt the Bill; but if they saw a reasonable probability of the money being recovered, then he thought they would agree with him, that it would be good policy to make the advance, and prevent the old mode of collecting tithes from being again resorted to in Ireland.
Mr. Aglionbycould not see any means by which the money could be repaid, and therefore he agreed with those who thought that this would be a grant, and not a loan, and he believed that, if once adopted, this course must eternally go on while the Church establishment was forced upon the majority of the Irish people against their will.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that if the matter was as the noble Lord supposed, there could be no objection to the House adding to the Resolution, that they agreed to it on the contingency, that this Bill, when produced, should satisfactorily provide for the repayment of the loan. Ministers could not be ignorant that there was a strong feeling among the people of England against tithe, especially in the agricultural districts. He thought that, at all events, they would not be more willing to pay the tithes of the Irish than their own; and although the grant was proposed in the shape of an Advance, there could be little doubt, that, like the loan to the West Indies, it must end in an absolute gift.
Lord Althorpadded, that the adoption of the Bill, to be founded upon the Resolution, would, of course, depend upon the kind of security it offered for the money: if that security were not approved, the Bill might be rejected. The forms of the House required that the vote should first

355
be brought forward in the shape of a Resolution.
Mr. Briscoesaid, that if the Resolution were merely waste paper, it was needless for the Committee to be called upon to vote in favour of it. The sum required was to pay the arrear of tithes in 1831, 1832, and 1833, with certain deductions at so much per cent; and it really seemed as if the House of Commons had nothing to do but to vote away the public money, without at all inquiring where that money was to come from. The people of England had none to spare, more especially for the lay impropriators, who had not a shadow of claim.
Mr. Halcombefelt it his duty to support this Resolution, though he might, by doing so, incur the censure of his constituents. He hoed, therefore, that if the payment of the money were decided upon, it would be in the shape of a loan, and not of a grant, for he thought that this country was already too much taxed to be paying any sums for arrears of tithes in another country.
Lord Duncannonwas confident, that tithes never could be collected in Ireland under the present system, and he therefore thought some such arrangement as the one proposed highly necessary. He entirely approved of the Resolution, which should have his support; and, as to the security, the House would be enabled to judge, when the proposed Bill came before them, how far that offered by it was sufficient.
Lord John Russellsaid, that of the only two courses open to the Government for the settlement of the question of tithes, they had, he thought, made choice of that which would prove the most advantageous. He was convinced, that for the Government to proceed with the collection of tithes would be highly inexpedient, inasmuch as it would necessarily lead to the expense and discord which attended the harassing war fare which took place in Ireland last year, as well as to that description of resistance which had already been attempted. A repetition of such a course would, he was sure, be highly imprudent; and he therefore approved of the other mode—that which the Government had adopted—of relieving the parties now oppressed, by means of the proposed grant; for, notwithstanding all that had been urged against the Irish Church in general, he had never yet heard that the claims of the present incumbents had been denied.
Mr. Humecontended, that the present
356
was merely a temporary measure to answer the immediate purpose of Ministers—which would never give permanent peace to Ireland. The landed gentry of Ireland had declared, that they would never pay the tithes; so that the advance must be looked upon as a pure gift. Ministers would soon raise in England a resistance as effectual as that existing in Ireland. He especially objected to the grant of 220,000 l. for lay impropriators.
Mr. Littletonregretted, that the objectors to this plan had not favoured the House with any suggestion instead of it. If this Resolution were rejected, the fault would not lie with the Government, but with the House.
Mr. Cayleywould certainly oppose the attempt to throw the burthen of the tithes upon the landlords of Ireland. The money required ought to be taken out of the surplus fund of the Church, and the first million received by the Commissioners ought to be set apart for the purpose.
The Committee divided on the Resolution: Ayes 87; Noes 51—Majority 36.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Inglis, Sir R.

Agnew, Sir A.

Johnston, A.

Althorp, Lord

Kennedy, F.

Anson, Hon. Geo.

Lefevre, C. S.

Biggs, R.

Littleton, Rt. Hon. E.

Brodie, W. B.

Lowther, Lord

Burrell, Sir C.

Maberly, Colonel

Campbell, Sir J.

Macaulay, T. B.

Carter, B.

Macleod, R.

Childers, J.

Marjoribanks, S.

Cole, Hon. Gen.

Marshall, J.

Denison, W. I.

Milton, Lord

Duffield, T.

Molyneux, Lord

Duncannon, Lord

Morpeth, Viscount

Ellice, Right Hon. E.

Murray, J. A.

Elliott, Hon. G.

Nicholl, John.

Evans, G.

O'Brien, C.

Ferguson, Sir R.

O'Connell, D.

Fitzgerald, E. V.

O'Connell, J.

Fleming, Admiral

O'Connell, M.

Forster, C. S.

O'Reilly, W.

Fox, Colonel

Ormelie, Lord

French, T.

Parker, J.

Gordon, R.

Peel, Sir R.

Graham, Rt. Hn. Sir J.

Penleaze, T. S.

Grant, Right Hon. C.

Pepys, C. C.

Grant, Right Hon. R.

Perrin, L.

Grey, Sir G.

Petre, Hon. E.

Grey, Colonel

Pinney, W.

Halcombe, J.

Poyntz, S.

Hayes, Sir E.

Rolfe, R. M.

Horne, Sir W.

Russell, Lord

Howard, Hon. F. G.

Russell, Lord J.

Jeffery, Rt. Hon. F.

Scott, Sir E.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Scrope, P.

Jerningham, Hon. P.

Seale, Colonel

357

Sebright, Sir J.

Tracy, H.

Shaw, F.

Tyrell, C.

Smith, V.

Verney, Sir H.

Stanley, Hon. E. G.

Waterpark, Lord

Stanley, Hon. H. T.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Stawell, Colonel

Wrotttsley, Sir J.

Stuart, P.

Tollemache, Hon. A.

TELLER.

Townley, R. G.

Wood, C.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hutt, W.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

James, W.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Kemp, T. R.

Bewes, T.

Lees, Lee

Beauclerk, Major

Lester, B. L.

Blake, M.

Mullins, T. W.

Briscoe, J. I.

Parrott, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Potter, R.

Brotherton, J.

Rickford, W.

Buller, C.

Romilly, J.

Calley, E. S.

Ruthven, E.

Collier, J.

Sanford, T.

Coote, Sir C.

Shawe, R. N.

Cornish, J.

Sinclair, G.

Divett, E.

Strutt, E.

Dunlop, Captain

Talbot, J. H.

Dykes, F. L.

Tooke, W.

Ellis, Wynn

Torrens, Colonel

Ewart, W.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Fielden, John

Walker, R. A.

Goring, H. D.

Wilks, J.

Gordon, Captain

Williams, Colonel

Hall, B.

Wilmott, Sir E.

Handley, W. F.

Wood, Alderman

Harland, W. C.

TELLER.

Hawkins, J. H.

Hume, J.

LABOUR RATE.
Sir Charles Burrell Sir Charles Burrell moved the second reading of the Labour Rate Bill.
Mr. Charles Bulleropposed it, as a measure which was calculated to do more injury than good to the agricultural labourer. Me moved as an Amendment, that it be read a second time that day three months.
Lord Althorphad before consented to a similar Bill for a short time, in the hope that in the interim some more general measure might be adopted, and he now gave his assent to the present, in the same hope, that before its expiration, Parliament might have time to pass a more general measure on the Poor-laws. He looked upon this merely as a temporary measure, and not as one which he should wish to sec the general law of the land. It had done some good in places since it had been in operation; but he admitted, that it was only a palliative of an evil which it could not permanently remedy.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that the speech of the noble Lord was one of the most un-
358
statesmanlike he had ever heard. He admitted a given quantity of evil because that evil was to be only temporary; but if the Bill was calculated to do good, it ought to be general; and if it only afforded a temporary remedy to an evil, some more general measure should be applied. He did not think, that it would produce the good expected from it. The principle of the Bill had gone through many editions since it was first introduced by Lord Nugent, in 1830; but he did not think it had been so improved as to entitle it to the adoption of the House.
Mr. Ordopposed the Bill. He lived in an agricultural district, and had not found it work well. He objected to it on the ground, that it was one of those palliatives which, in the result, would do more harm than good. He hoped, therefore, it would not be pressed.
Mr. Struttsaid, though it might relieve for a time the distress to which it was to be applied, it would, in the result, aggravate that distress by destroying the independence of the labourer.
Mr. Evelyn Denisonsupported the Bill from the experience he had had of its operation in several districts to which it had been applied, and hoped that it might be allowed to pass.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonthought the Bill bad in principle and bad in operation. It was one of those instances of legislation in which, though the benevolent intentions of the parties introducing it must be admitted, he thought the House ought not to concur, seeing that it could tend to no practical result. The present was not a mere re enactment of the former Bill, it went to extend the principle of that Bill, and as he denied that principle, as he did not think it right in theory or practice, and, moreover, as it tended to destroy the independence of the labourer, he should give it his opposition.
Mr. Halcombesaid, that if the matter were res integra, he might look at it differently, but, as they had only a choice of evils, he would agree to the present measure as affording a remedy for those evils for at least a short time, and until some general measure was adopted.
Sir Harry Verneysupported the measure as one which had worked well in many parishes in Buckinghamshire, and so much satisfaction had it given, that the decision of the House respecting it was anxiously looked for by many parishes. It should be recollected, that it was wholly optional,

359
and if the parishioners desired it, they were not bound to adopt it, but if adopted by one part of them it might be set aside by appeal to the Quarter Sessions.
Mr. Marryattadmitted, that in principle it was as wrong to interfere between the farmer and the labourer as it would be to say to a manufacturer how many men he should employ. The Bill was, however, to be defended only as a temporary palliative to an evil to which he should hope to see a more general and permanent remedy applied.
Mr. Poulett Scropeobjected to the Bill, as one by which the large farmer and landholder might be enabled to throw upon the small farms and the shopkeepers those labourers for whom they themselves had no employment. What could a poor shop keeper and a poor widow lady do with three labourers who might be thus thrown upon them for support?
Sir Charles Burrell, in reply, said, that in those parishes in which the Bill had been carried into operation it had given great satisfaction to all parties. He had never urged it other than as a temporary measure, to be applied only until some general measure should be adopted.
The House divided on the question, that the Bill be then read a second time—Ayes 17; Noes 29: Majority 12.

List of the AYES.

Althorp, Viscount

Rickford, W.

Bulteel, J. C.

Shaw, N.

Denison, W. J.

Smith, V.

Duffield, T.

Tollemache, A. G.

Forster, C. L.

Tracey, H.

Goring, H. D.

Tyrell, C.

Halcombe, J.

Willough by, Sir H.

Hughes, H.

TELLERS.

Plumptre, J. P.

Burrell, Sir C.

Poyntz, W. S.

Verney, Sir H.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Parker, J.

Blake, M.

Parrott, J.

Briggs, R.

Romilly, J.

Brotherton, J.

Ruthven, E.

Campbell, Sir J.

Scrope, P.

Childers, J. W.

Shaw, F.

Divett, E.

Strutt, E.

Dykes, F. L. B.

Sullivan, R.

Ewart, W.

Thomson, C. P.

Hall, B.

Tooke, W.

Hawkins, J. H.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Hume, J.

Warburton, H.

Knapp, H. R.

Williams, Colonel

Marshall, J.

TELLERS.

Molyneux, Lord

Inglis, Sir R.

Ord, W. H.

Buller, C.

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of the Earl of ROSSLYN, a Copy of the Commission for Inquiry into the Burghs, &c., of Scotland.
Bills. Read a third time;—Dwelling House Robbery; Burgh Police (Scotland).—Read a second time;—Scotch and Irish Vagrants; Hyde Small Debts.
Petitions presented. By Lord SUFFIELD, from Leeds, for Equalizing the Duty on East and West-India Sugar.—By the Marquess of LANSDOWN, from the Burgh of Calton, to be included in the proposed Measure of Reform. By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, from the East India Company, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill for the Renewal of the East-India Company's Charter.—By Lord ELLENBOROUGH, from Mr. Courteney Smith, against the same Bill; and by the Earl of GOSFORD, from the Reverend Charles Wodehouse, Prebendary of Norwich, for Alterations in the Liturgy.

EAST INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.
The Marquess of Lansdown The Marquess of Lansdown moved the Order of the Day for going into Committee on this Bill. He should reserve his statement until the noble Baron (Ellenborough) had brought forward his views.
Lord Ellenboroughproceeded to state his reasons for wishing to postpone the consideration of certain parts of the Bill to next Session. He should first call the attention of the noble Earl (Grey) opposite, to a speech uttered by him on the 18th day of June, 1818, in which the noble Earl 'urged the impropriety of going into the discussion of this question at so late a period of

309
the Session, without the requisite information before them, and without the possibility of giving the question that due consideration which its great importance demanded. Were his noble friend, the noble Earl said, instead of asking the delay of a few days, to desire the postponement of the question altogether till the next Session, such a Motion should have his decided support, conceiving that it could not, at this period of the year, meet with adequate deliberation or due consideration.'* The measure which the noble Earl then objected to proceeding with, effected certainly some alterations in the trade to India, but in other respects it left the Charter much the same as before; whereas the alterations in the present Bill were of almost infinite importance, and required great consideration. The great subject-matter of the last Bill, too, had been preliminarily fully investigated and inquired into by a Committee of the House of Commons from 1809; whereas the present Bill, as far as related to the government of India came under their Lordships' consideration but very recently, and without any such examination; for, until the Bill was introduced, no persons but those connected with the Government were aware of its objects and provisions. What he desired, therefore, was the postponement of the clauses making important alterations in the administration of government in India, to the next Session, in order to give an opportunity of examining and obtaining the opinions of those persons most conversant with that subject, and most qualified to give an opinion on the proposed changes. It was true that, in the course of the inquiry which had taken place, some general questions on the subject had been asked; but there was a vast difference between general questions on a general subject, and specific questions on a specific plan. He had on a former occasion endeavoured to show, that there would be an increased charge on the revenues of India, in consequence of the plan of his Majesty's Government, of 400,000 l. per annum. Taking the evidence between the calculations of the Board of Control and of the Court of Directors, there was at present a prospective deficit of 570,000 l., which, added to the 400,000 l., constituted a deficit of 970,000 l. He admitted that the civil expenditure of India might be put upon the same footing as in 1823, and that, consequently, there might be a saving in the
* Hansard, xxvi., p. 711.
310
expenditure of 650,000 l. a-year. This would still leave a considerable deficit. There would probably, however, be some increase in the revenues of India, perhaps to the extent of 100,000 l. a-year; still, if he were correct, it might be found, even allowing largely for the expected improvement, that it would be at least four or five years before the revenue of India was equal to its expenditure. There was nothing which would be more advantageous to the people of India than a reduction of the expenditure of the government. That was not his opinion only—it was the opinion of some of the greatest men who had been in India. Sir Thomas Munro, the highest authority on Indian affairs, said:—'I have, in the course of this Minute, urged again and again the expediency of lowering our land revenue, and of establishing a mode rate and fixed assessment; because I am satisfied that this measure alone would be much more effectual than all other measures combined, in promoting the improvement both of the country and the people.' By the plan of Ministers, however, they would postpone for four or five years that reduction of taxation which Sir Thomas Munro considered to be essential to improve the condition of the people. Any surplus revenue which might arise from not reducing taxation, might be advantageously laid out in public works. There was no country in which the public money might be laid out to more advantage than in India, in forming tanks and canals. There was none, perhaps, in which less had been done in India, than by the English Government. If we were to be expelled from that country to-morrow, we should leave few traces of anything beneficial done by the Government for the people. Something of that kind ought to be done. All previous sovereigns had done something, and on this point the government of England was much inferior to the government of the Moguls. In connexion with the new charges to be thrown on the government of India, he could not but advert to the forcible and speedy termination of the Company's trade. In this particular the plan of the present Ministers differed from that which would have been adopted, he believed, had the late Government remained in office. For the sudden suppression of the trade now proposed he saw no good cause. It took place, too, at a time when there was no money at Calcutta, and no commercial credit. There were now no means to carry on commercial transactions—no means of

311
obtaining any remittances, and even those articles were not sent from India which were essential to the completion of many of the manufactures of our own country. The Company had been advised immediately to discontinue their trade, and they were acting on that advice. Their indigo plantations were offered for sale; their cotton was to be sold in India; the goods they had prepared for the China market were to be sold here; their shipping was rendered useless, and was probably unfit for any other employment; their magnificent docks and warehouses were no longer to be employed; and thousands of persons who depended on the Company for their subsistence in the metropolis would be thrown out of work and out of bread. Why should this be? Why should no efforts be made to soften the blow it was necessary to inflict? The result of this mode of treating the subject would be, that full two-thirds of the trade of India would be transferred from London to the out-ports. The trade from India was valued at 6,000,000 l. sterling per year, and 4,000,000 l. of this would be immediately lost to London. Why should this be done so suddenly and unexpectedly? He said unexpectedly, for the great majority of the persons connected with the trade did not think a year ago that it would be done, and by the sudden application of this measure a crisis had been unnecessarily forced upon the country. The Ministers seemed to think that a government could not carry on trade, and to that they had sacrificed the India Company. But, however true that might be in general, it was not true as applied to this Company. It had for a long time carried on trade without injury to its subjects, and in carrying on trade it had not neglected the affairs of government. After the destruction of trade, too, in what way, he wished to ask, was the government to make remittances? It would have to go into market with its rupees, and give a price for bills which would cover all the expense of sending goods to England, thus forcing the market to meet those bills. Such a necessity would be much to the disadvantage of the Company, and would be very injurious to the proper course of trade. Remittances could, in fact, only then be made by a sort of bribery on the part of the Company, to create an export trade. However much he agreed with the political economists in thinking that the production of wealth was of great importance, he could not think it right to disregard the sufferings of individuals,
312
or the amount of injury which might be immediately inflicted by a measure, that was ultimately to promote the national greatness. It was consistent with sound and just policy, and most expedient, never to make any great change in trade suddenly, and not to injure individuals who had engaged in occupations, and embarked their capital in business, upon the faith that Parliament would not suddenly change the whole system of trade. Turning aside, however, from the subject, he must draw the serious attention of their Lordships to the great alterations which it was proposed to make in the constitutional government of India. Why were these alterations proposed? The present form of government had existed for more than half a century. Did the Ministers, then, imagine that it was formed by men who had no skill in the management of affairs, and that it might, therefore, be destroyed whenever its destruction was recommended by a modern theory? The existing system was the offspring of men of great genius, of profound experience, and of much practical wisdom; of men who stood in their day in the first rank of practical statesmen. Not to disparage the present Ministers, he thought they might, without humbling themselves, pay some deference to the opinion of Mr. Pitt, and of the first Lord Melville. It was they who framed this system. It had undergone few alterations since. It was formed at a period when the attention of all the clever men in the country was directed to Indian affairs. It had now stood the experience of half a century—and half a century, not of peaceful times, but of times of danger and of war—of danger the most imminent, and of war the most extensive—and it had gone through all these dangers increasing in firmness and power. After having stood the shock of wars, and proved adequate to a great crisis, why was it proposed to alter this in time of peace, and to to strengthen the government—when, according to all experience, the business of government was one of comparative ease? It was unfortunate, but, at the same time, he believed, it would be the necessary effect of altering the China trade, that the influence of the Company in this country would be diminished. He regretted that, because it would have the effect of deteriorating the constituency of the Directors, and ultimately of deteriorating the representatives. The diminished influence of the body of Directors in this country which would be the consequence, would make the Company less

313
efficient as the instrument of government in India. That effect was taking place, in conjunction with others. The Government seemed desirous of disparaging the Company, even while it was willing to retain it as the instrument of governing India. What, for example, could induce the Government to take from the Company the control of those, by whom it would have to carry on the government of India? The Bill removed from the Court of Directors the control of Haileybury College, which disparaged the Court of Directors. What had the Company done, too, that they were no longer to be intrusted with their own property? He saw no reason for this, though he saw what he believed was its object. There was a part of the measure which compelled the Board of Directors to submit their estimates to the Board of Control, and which consequently allowed the Board of Control to fix the sum for the payment of all the officers employed by the Company. The clause of the Bill allowing this was not exactly so worded, but its practical effect would be, to place narrow limits on the power of the Company, and to remove all limitations from the Board of Control; and the consequence of that would be, to place in the hands of the latter Board the whole government of India. At present the real limit to the power of the Board of Control was, the impossibility of extending its establishment. That, however, could now be done, and he had no doubt it would take the initiative in all measures. It would become a Board of Control, antecedent to the acts of the India Company; not, as hitherto, a Board only controlling the decisions of the Company, subsequent to the adoption of them. The practical effect, he contended, of this part of the Bill, would he to alter all the relations between the Board of Control and the Board of Directors; and the former would obtain a complete command over the latter. Let them next look at the effects of the alterations proposed in the government of India. It was proposed to take away from the subordinate Presidencies all control over the expenditure, to take away from them all power to increase salaries, or create places, or perform any one legislative act. The Bill, then, was taking power from the subordinate officers to give it to the Governor-General. He must condemn this part of the plan, and contend, that the consequence would be, that no men of high and independent character would be induced to accept the subordinate Presidencies, which would have
314
to be filled by the civil servants of the Government, advanced by the principle of rotation. That would, he contended, weaken, not strengthen, the government of India. It was to him awful to think how much at present depended on the character of the one man who was Governor General; but if he should be, he would not say deficient of those great qualities which he ought to possess, but not possessing them in a remarkable degree, the Governor General might now fall back on the subordinate Presidents, and find counsel in their resources and talents. He could mention cases in which the abilities of the Governor General had found remarkable assistance from the support of his subordinate officers. But that could not be hereafter the case, when, as he stated, men of high character would no longer accept those offices. He understood that it was the intention of Government to abandon the plan of removing the Councils from Madras and Bombay; but he wished that the provision had not been introduced into the Bill, because it tended unnecessarily to disturb that which had been established for more than half a century. But, if they meant to continue these councils, why had the Government established a Presidency without a Council at Agra? The reason, he believed, why these councils were so very advantageous was, they recorded at the time the reasons which determined them to adopt any line of conduct, and those reasons were very instructive to the Government at home. Another alteration of importance, which he viewed with apprehension, was, the intention to establish one uniform legislation which should apply to all the King's subjects in India, Europeans as well as natives. It was impossible that any system of law could be drawn up which ought to be applied equally to persons so different in habits and circumstances as the Europeans and natives. The noble Baron, in support of this view, quoted the opinion of Sir Thomas Munro to show, in particular, that the Ryots required a law for themselves. "It was as impossible," Sir Thomas said, "to adapt our institutions to India, as to transfuse into a corpse the animation of the living being. It was impossible to make one set of laws for people so different." The noble Baron next referred to that part of the Bill, which granted permission to Europeans to settle in India; and contended, that the power given to the Governor General to make what laws he pleased, placed in his hand the power to remove

315
whom he pleased, while the settlers were mocked with the promise of not being subject to deportation. Under such enactments, no persons would go to India but mere adventurers, and they would settle in the lower provinces, where the timidity of the natives would invite them to commit acts of oppression. He objected also to the power given to the Governor General to make laws for all things, even for the regulation of the Supreme Court, which, he contended, ought to be reserved to the Parliament itself. Investing that Court with all the majesty of the sovereign authority had a great effect in preventing crimes. The Governor General Was to have the power of abrogating the statute law and the common law, with the exception only, that he could make no laws to set the subjects free from their allegiance to the King. Such power was not necessary even for the purposes of the Bill, and was hostile to the good government of India. The Governor General was already overwhelmed with details, and more were now to be added, He was already overburdened, and an addition was to be made to his cares of governing 20,000,000 more people; being as many as lived in the whole Peninsula, or in the two kingdoms of Spain and Portugal united. He objected to the plan of admitting both natives and half-castes to offices, because, in his opinion, the latter, by dint of their connexion and superior education, would attain all the offices, while, to the natives, therefore, the permission would only be a mockery and a delusion. This would be very unfortunate, because the natives had a profound contempt for the half-castes, and he was disposed to believe that they were not as trustworthy as the natives. He objected also to the clause of the Bill which declared, that slavery should be abolished in India, and expressed his astonishment, that such a proposition should ever have entered the head of any statesman. He warned the Ministers that at present there was a crisis in the fate of India. It had hitherto been well governed and the dominion of England preserved, because every person connected with the Government was animated with the greatest zeal, but at present all the servants of the Government were filled with despondency, because the Government was uncertain, and they had not the slightest chance or hope of promotion. He conceived that the tendency of the Bill was, to defeat every object which ought to be kept in view. He had contemplated
316
some plans for the improvement of the government of India, one of which consisted in improving the education of all the governing classes, and increasing their zeal by making them all pass through the army. That view had been supported by all those to whom he had mentioned it. He believed it would have the great advantage of making promotion very rapid—of stimulating all with hope, and of allowing the Governor General always to select men of the greatest energy for the places of most difficulty. He had been prepared too, to propose an improvement in the constitution of Haileybury, and to bring forward a plan for accelerating the correspondence. He had taken measures to accelerate that when he was at the head of the Board of Control, and to assimilate the manner of conducting it to that on which the correspondence of the Home-office was conducted. It had been his intention, had he remained in office, to have established a regular communication with India, by steam; for he was convinced then, as now, that unless our subjects in that Empire were brought more immediately under the control of the Government at home, they would be much more likely to do wrong, being without the fear of immediate punishment. Indeed he should never deem India to be placed in a state of security unless there were more expeditious communication with the Government there. He should conclude by moving an instruction to the Committee to omit all such clauses in the Bill as tended to alter the constitution and power of the government of the several presidencies of India.
The Marquess of Lansdownthought that the noble Baron had considerably exaggerated the dangers and losses likely to be occasioned by the change in the character and situation of the East-India Company. As a matter of course so great a change as this must involve particular losses to particular individuals; but the benefits which would be derived from it to the community were ample grounds for its adoption. Nor, indeed, was the proposed change anything like a sudden blow, for it had been in the contemplation of all wise men, and almost also all statesmen, for the last twenty or thirty years. The Act of 1813 was itself a change, to a certain extent; and few of those concerned in that measure but looked upon it as a step towards the greater alterations contemplated in the present Bill. However,

317
the same arguments—the same ominous predictions—had been held up in opposition to the modified change of 1813, as to the present measure. Petitions without number poured in from particular classes of merchants, foretelling, as was foretold now, that the measure would destroy the trade of London, by diverting all its trade to other ports; but had these predictions been verified? No: it was true that it had given increase of trade to other ports of England, but, at the same time, it had materially added to the trade of the port of London with India. The noble Baron had laid great stress, too, upon the supposed Inflection this measure would cast upon the East-India Company; but he was far from conceiving that any slur Would fall upon that honourable body; indeed, he thought it rather extraordinary that such an idea could occur to any man at a time when the Legislature was concocting a measure which would put into the hands of a private Company the whole government of such an empire as India. Nothing but the fullest and most entire confidence in them, justified by past experience of their good conduct and ability in administering the affairs of India, could have induced the Legislature to intrust them with such a charge. Indeed, it appeared to him the proudest day in the existence of the East-India Company to be so honourably intrusted with the government of 60,000,000 of people. With reference to the fears expressed by the noble Baron as to the delay in communication with India, bethought them unfounded. Government was, however, determined to make the most eligible arrangements possible with reference to this important subject. The noble Baron objected to the clause which required that the Company should in the first instance subject the estimates to the Board of Control, but this very clause, he was happy to inform the noble Lord was adopted at the suggestion of the Board of Directors; and so far from there being any intention of adding to the number of the Board of Control, there was proposed to be an immediate diminution. It appeared to him very inexpedient to delay so important a Bill any longer by making any great alterations in it after it had undergone such laborious and frequent discussion in its present shape. He did not see that there was any reason for raising such strong objections to the clauses in the proposed measure with reference to the Governor General, which were rather intended
318
to simplify and confirm the powers of the Governor-General, than augment them. It was most essential that this Supreme-Officer should be possessed of adequate authority. As to the proposed formation of a fourth Presidency, this was rendered essential by the disturbed and lawless state of the upper provinces, which nothing would obviate but the promptness and energy of a local government. The necessity of that part of the arrangement was fully established by the opinion of Lord William Bentinck and other competent authorities. The law could not be maintained nor the north and western provinces be considered secure, unless a local government was established in them. At present the whole of these provinces were in a state of insecurity. And it was to provide against that, that the fourth presidency was established. He begged however to state, that it was proposed to add a clause, whereby it would be provided that a Council should be established iii each presidency. It was the duty of Government to make the law effective and equal in India; the necessity for vesting the proposed power in the hands of the Governor in Council had been suggested by the legal authorities in India. With respect to the education of persons intended to be sent to India, he must say, that he had strong objections to the plan proposed by the noble Baron, which would make the education of such persons, whether eventually placed in military or civil capacities, chiefly military. Though fully impressed with the importance of promoting an efficient military establishment, he strongly objected to giving the whole government of that great empire a military character. He had no wish, however, to lay down as a rule, on the other hand, that no military cadet should be admitted to act in a civil capacity. The great object was, to provide, that whoever the person might be who was put into a situation, he should be fit for performing its duties, if not the fittest who could be found—a point which had not been so much attended to as it ought. Hitherto all these appointments had been a matter of patronage and favour, without reference to the qualification of the individual; so that a boy was put into Haileybury College without any reference as to his capability for profiting by the instructions which alone could fit him for his destined position in India. It was now, however, intended to ascertain this point by previous examination;

319
nor did he think that the fear of this examination would deter respectable persons, as seemed to be supposed by the noble Baron, from putting their sons forward to make the trial. There were few fathers who thought their sons open to rejection. This principle of emulation for patronage had been successfully tried by a right hon. Gentleman the predecessor of the noble Baron (Mr. Wynn), who made some of the appointments to India a matter of competition among the Westminster boys—an experiment which had the best results, and which certainly had not by any means had the effect of preventing sons of people of family from entering into competition. Neither would such an effect be produced by the present measure. He believed, on the contrary, that the highest orders would be induced, from a spirit of emulation, to come forward to compete for the appointments. The noble Lord had likewise called upon them to recollect that all the branches of the service of the East-India Company were in a state of despondency. He had expected that the noble Lord would have given some serious reason for this despondency, and he had felt anxious till it was stated. He was greatly relieved, however, when the noble Lord explained that the cause of that despondency was, that the country was now in a state of profound peace—all hope of further conquest being ended, and consequently the hope of quick promotion was gone. In that sense he willingly admitted, there was some despondency felt; but that was a despondency which was common to all countries which had been engaged in a long-protracted war, and returned to a state of profound and lasting peace. The noble Lord's complaint reminded him of the complaint of Alexander the Great, who pined because he had no more kingdoms to conquer. But what was the misfortune of military men—the want of employment, was the happiness of nations, which flourished during the cessation of the soldiers' toils. It was the same in this country, where the army was likewise in a state of despondency from the slowness of promotion, and the little prospect of advancement to high honours and glory, as in India. But would the noble Lord on that account contend that this country had not acquired great and incalculable benefits by the many victories of the noble Duke opposite, and especially by the glorious victory of Waterloo, which had produced that state of peace? He
320
looked on the present state of India, as that country was in profound peace, with sentiments very different from alarm. He thought it was such as to hold out the expectation that the happiness of India would be much increased, and by the continuance of the same state an eventual remission of the present taxes might be granted to the people of that country. He could see nothing in this Bill to entitle the noble Lord to describe it as a Bill by which the period of the remission of taxation would be indefinitely protracted. There might be some small additional expense incurredat the commencement, from the change in the system of government which would he effected, but ultimately the country would be relieved considerably. He thought, therefore, that nothing had been said by the noble Lord which ought to induce the House to consent to the instruction, to divide the Bill, and thereby to defer the advantages which this measure was calculated to give to the Indian Empire.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that his noble friend (Lord Ellenborough) had objected to the present Bill, on the ground that it protracted the period at which a remission of the taxation on the people of India might be accomplished, to an indefinite period, and that the change to be accomplished was of too sudden a nature. He thought that his noble friend was right in both his views. To the latter objection the noble Marquess had answered, that the change now to be effected was not sudden, for it had been contemplated by the Government which preceded the Administration, of which he (the Duke of Wellington) had the honour to be the head, and it had been kept in view by him self. That was, however, not the case. No change had been contemplated by any former Government, by which the Company was to be prohibited from trading with China. It had been stated, as a reason for this change, that the trade with China had been of late a losing concern. A losing trade! It was a trade which produced not only 10½ per cent on the capital invested in it; but he had a statement in his hand, which showed that, besides the 10½ per cent, the debt of the territorial government had been relieved by the commerce of China, to the amount of three millions sterling. With these facts before them, it could not then be said, that the China trade had not been carried on advantageously. The noble Duke referred to several papers on the table to show, that the noble Lord

321
was right in stating, that the period of the remission of taxation had been protracted by this Bill. The duties on tea, under the new system, would not only be more uncertain, but the expense of their collection would be greatly increased. The amount of duties at present derived from the article of tea alone was three millions sterling, which was collected at an expense of about 10,000 l. Did they think that such a sum could be collected, under this Bill, at so small an expense, or with anything like the same degree of certainty? He (the Duke of Wellington) objected to the measure likewise on account of the great injury which it would do to the trade of the port of London. At present, the East-India Company carried all their trade to London, and had a capital invested in it, to the amount of between twelve and fourteen millions sterling, all which must be withdrawn in consequence of this measure. Could the House conceive that such a circumstance would be without a very baneful effect on the trade and shipping of the city? Thousands of those at present employed by the Company would be thrown out of employment if this Bill were carried into a law. He doubted if it ever were in the contemplation of the merchants of this country, who petitioned in favour of the opening of the China trade, that the Company's trade with that country should be wholly discontinued. They prayed not for the discontinuance of the trade, but for the removal of the monopoly; and so far was he from thinking that the continuance of the China trade, on the part of the Company, would be disadvantageous to the private traders, he thought that the private trader would derive a great deal of assistance from the Company's servants in that country, who, being already established, would assist them to carry it on with advantage. He, therefore, thought there was no sufficient reason given for putting down the East-India Company's commerce with China. He agreed with his noble friend (Lord Ellenborough) in thinking that the East-India Company had been treated with little courtesy, in the manner in which the Bill was introduced. Their opinion had never been asked on any single provision of the Bill; and their influence in the government of India was to be so much reduced, that it was nearly impossible they could exercise it with advantage. There was a material difference between the power given to the Governor General in Council, by the Act of 1813, and the present Bill.
322
The difference was, that, by the present Bill, he would be empowered to enter more into the details of the acts of the Governors of the other Presidencies, than he was by the former Act. Formerly, the Governor General had merely a general superintendence of the governments of the other presidencies, but now he would have to go into the details of their governments. And, at the same time that he was empowered to go thus into the details of the acts of the other Governors, the number of his Council was increased from three to six. Now, he would ask the House if they thought that the Governor General would be better able to manage those additional details with a Council consisting of six, than one of three persons? The addition to his Council would alone occupy more of his time than formerly, and prevent him paying that attention he ought, to the general superintendence of the affairs of India. The Governor General would, he believed, be involved in details. He concluded, that the intention was, that the Governor General should have two Councils—one to assist him in the control of the government of India in general, and another to assist him in that of Bengal. He (the Duke of Wellington) was satisfied that the measure would require alteration, in respect to the powers to be given to the Governor General, and likewise in respect to the number of his councillors. He was one who thought that the Governor General should have a general control over the government of the country; but that the Governors should be allowed to manage the details of their own presidencies, and that they should be liable to account for the manner in which they conducted those details, not so much to the Governor General, as to the Government at home. He thought it impossible that the plan by which the Governor General was to move about from place to place, could work well in practice. He objected also to the new Presidency, both on account of the great expense which it would entail, and because, in his opinion, the same advantages might be obtained by a continuance of the system at present pursued. He felt decidedly opposed to the Law Commission, because he felt satisfied that a uniform system of laws could not be formed for the whole of India. There was as much difference between the inhabitants of the different parts of our Indian empire, as there was between the nations of the north and south of Europe. He had no objection, how-

323
ever, that the Governors should have the power of framing laws for particular districts, which should be submitted to the Governor General for his approbation. Then, with respect to the clause, declaring the natives to be eligible to all situations. Why was that declaration made in the face of a regulation preventing its being carried into effect? It was a mere deception. It might, to a considerable extent, be applicable in the capitals of the Presidencies; but, in the interior, as appeared by the evidence of Mr. Elphinstone, and by that of every respectable authority, it was impracticable. He certainly thought that it was advisable to admit the natives to certain inferior civil and other offices, but the higher ones must as yet be closed against them, if our empire in India was to be maintained. With respect to the clause abolishing domestic slavery, he entreated their Lordships to give it their most serious attention. He knew, as a fact, that domestic slavery existed to a large extent in India; the Governor General in Council bad already power to redress any abuses under it, and he called upon their Lordships to deal lightly with the question, as they valued the maintenance of British India. After a short explanation of what had fallen from his noble friend (Lord Ellenborough) with respect to the power given by the Bill to the Governor General of altering all the laws, the noble Duke said, that he had now gone through the points he had felt it his duty to touch, and, in the course of the Committee, he should take an opportunity of recording his objections. He must again repeat, that he was extremely anxious that the House should weigh well the consequences of shutting out the Company from all trade with China, and he should rejoice much if it was not considered too late to amend that part of the Bill he fully concurred in the views taken by his noble friend who had moved the Amendment.
Lord Aucklandcontended, that to leave the trade in the hands of the government of India would only be an injury to them, and a still greater one to the general interests of the country. All experience had shown, that where the Company had come into competition with the free traders of this country, they had been completely beaten out of every market. He was satisfied, therefore, that their trade in tea would soon dwindle to nothing when exposed to the same competition. As to the remittances, he had no doubt that in a short
324
time they would speedily be effected by bills, without inconvenience. With regard to the distress that would be at first inflicted upon the port of London, by the destruction of the East-India Company mono poly, he could only say, that it was one of the misfortunes of such monopolies to draw about them a sort of factitious industry, which must give way as soon as fair competition in trade was allowed to operate against them. But the advantages which such bodies possessed were enjoyed at the expence of the community at large, and could not be justified. The particular injury likely to accrue, therefore, would be more than counterbalanced by the public benefit. The noble Lord then referred to the increased tonnage of shipping employed in the trade to the east of the Cape of Good Hope since the opening of the trade, as a proof of the great national advantage resulting from getting rid of monopolies. He also defended the clause relating to the abolition of slavery, and maintained that it had been framed with the utmost caution consistent with the destruction of an odious system; as well as the utmost care not to interfere with the domestic manners of the natives.
Lord Ellenborough, in reply, stated, that the low profits of the Company were party occasioned by the restriction, compelling them always to keep on hand two years consumption of tea, and by the great fall in the price of coffee, which had beaten down the price of tea. He admitted that remittance would be made by bills, but it would be at a great expense. He still maintained his opinion, of previously giving the officer a military education, for none of the Presidents of India had been superior to those who, like Sir John Malcolm and Sir Thomas Munro, had received a military education.
The Amendment negatived; the House went into Committee.
Clauses from 1 to 48 were agreed to, with verbal amendments.
The House resumed—Committee to sit again.