Sitting of 9 July 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. WALKER, an Account of the Number of Stamps issued to each Newspaper in Ireland, during the Quarter ending 5th April, 1833.—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, the Number of Changes made in the Diplomatic Department Abroad, in the year 1832, and the Number of Individuals entitled to Allowanec for Outfit, accounting thereby for the Sum of 16,570 l. stated in a Return.—On the Motion of Mr. CHARLES WOOD, the Quantities of British Wool, Haw and Manufactured, Exported from the United Kingdom, from 1820 to 1852, inclusive.—On the Motion of Captain DUNDAS, an Account of the Money received by the president and Governors of the Merchant Seamen's Hospital and their Agents, in 1830, 1831, and 1832: the same from the Trustees of Bristol, and the Trinity House at Hull.—On the Motion of Mr. R. CLIVE, an Account of the Number of Writers and Cadets appointed each year, from 1823 to 1833, by the India company.—On the Motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, Copies of Papers relative to the Dublin and Kingstownship Canal.
Bills. Read a third time:—Public Works; Merchant Sea-men's Wages.
Petitions presented. By Mr. WILSON PATTEN, from the Medical Practitioners of Warrington, against the Apothecaries Bill.—By Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON, from several Places, for Restoring Poland to Independence.

TITHE COMMUTATION (ENGLAND).
Lord Althorp Lord Althorp moved the Order of the Day, "That the House resolve itself into a Committee on the English Tithe Commutation Bill."
Mr. Jameswished to ask the noble Lord a question respecting the inequality of the Assessments for Taxes. There
376
were a great number of his poor constituents in Carlisle, who were unable to pay Assessed Taxes from their great poverty. In consequence they were, by the Commissioners of Taxes, deprived of the right of exercising the elective franchise. He thought it an exceedingly hard case, that they should be deprived of one of the most invaluable rights of a British subject, merely because they were too poor to pay the King's Taxes. Another circumstance which called for observation was, that those who were far richer, were only taxed the same as the poor were—the rich thus paying for the right of exercising the franchise only the same amount as the poorest were charged. This, he thought, was an act of injustice towards the poorer classes, as it was generally admitted that they already bore a greater proportion of the burthen of the House tax than their richer neighbours.
Mr. Baringrose to order. By a stretch of courtesy, and a straining of the rules of the House in his favour, the hon. Gentleman was permitted to put a question to the noble Lord opposite. If, however, he entered into an argument on the subject when an interrogatory only was permitted, he (Mr. Baring) thought the House for its own sake ought to interfere.
Mr. Jamesreplied, that he had not taken up a single moment in the House during the Session, and he did not mean to occupy the attention of the House but for a few moments. The noble Lord must have observed that the argument against—
The Speaker: The hon. Member certainly knows the distinction between argument and statement. If he had any question to put to the noble Lord, he was in order in doing so; but he could not be permitted to go into any argument upon a subject not before the House.
Mr. James: He wished, then, to ask the noble Lord, if his Majesty's Ministers had authorized the assessments that had been made?
Lord Althorpthought, that it would have been apparent to every one from the discussions which took place on the Reform Bill, that all persons who claimed to vote as proprietors or occupiers at 10 l. yearly value, would be liable to be rated. It was a natural consequence of their claiming to vote, and it was not for his Majesty's Government to say now whether it was right or not. He might

377
say, however, that the Government could have no right to dispense with the assessments, but that such houses must be expected to be so rated as long as the occupiers continued to claim the right of voting.
Mr. Baringsaid, that as there was so much important business for determination in the present Session, it might, perhaps, save time, if he were to ask the noble Lord whether it was his intention merely to state his views on the question before the House, and then postpone the matter until the next Session, or to pass any part of the Bill in the present Session?
Lord Althorpsaid, it was his intention to omit every part of the Bill which was compulsory, and to retain those which were merely permissive. The Bill consisted of two parts—the first permissory, by which composition for tithes and liberty to contract for their commutation, was permitted and encouraged; the second compulsory, which made commutation imperative. The latter part he proposed to omit altogether, because he was aware, that a great deal of opposition existed to it in the country, where people had not thought much about tithe composition until he introduced the Bill. Therefore he would omit all the clauses subsequent to the 12th, with the exception of one or two, which he should explain to the Committee. Before the hon. Gentleman opposite originated a discussion on the present question, the hon. Gentleman would do well to wait for the Bill, as he should propose it to the Committee.
Mr. Baringwas of opinion, from the noble Lord's own explanation, that in consequence of the number of important questions before the House it would be better to postpone the Bill altogether to next Session. This was a subject which he hoped the House would decide on its own merits, for it affected the peace and tranquillity, as well as the property of the country; and no Gentleman in that House could be suspected of supporting it, or any part of it, on any other grounds than for the public good. Certainly, if the noble Lord had been able to bring it in at a proper period of the Session, he (Mr. Baring) should have looked upon it as a most desirable measure for the House to take into consideration; and he knew, that there was no person in the House move capable of
378
judging of the whole question than the noble Lord. But the difficulties with which the question was embarrassed were such, that it was impossible for the House at this stage of the Session, to find time to examine it with sufficient care. The noble Lord had said, that the subject of Tithe Commutation had not been fully considered throughout the country; and that it was not talked of until he brought it before the House. That was perfectly true; and the noble Lord ought, therefore, to consider, before he called upon the House to pass any part of his Bill, that the measure had not been fully before the House itself more than nine or ten days. He was convinced, that from one end of the country to the other, the general opinion was, that it was not the intention of the noble lord to pass the Bill this Session. The simple question was, whether it would do any good to pass the permissive part of the Bill, without at the same time passing the other. He very much doubted whether the imperfec measure would be of any service. The uniformity of the whole system would be destroyed by that patchwork manner of doing business. It would be much better to postpone the Bill and take the whole question into consideration next Session, than to take only half of it now, when there were upwards of six different questions, of very great importance, before the House in the middle of July. In fact, it was an unprecedented thing for a Bill of such importance to be read a second time at three o'clock in the morning. Well, then, it might be two o'clock; for he had gone away at one, not at all thinking the noble Lord meant to press that stage of the Bill, upon which the principle of it was usually discussed, at such a late hour. Had he waited, he should have been prevented from speaking by that impatience which was usually shown by a majority of that House to press forward any measure of the noble Lord's. If the proposition of the noble Lord were entered upon, when the compulsory clauses came to be entered upon in any parish, both parties would find themselves embarrassed with the patchwork commutations already existing in different parts of the country. The Bill, in the permissive part, rendered the sanction of the Bishop necessary to make any contract of commutation binding. But how was the Bishop to judge of the terms, before

379
the valuation to be effected under the compulsory part of the Bill should have been placed before him? Under these circumstances, he trusted that the noble Lord would consent to postpone the measure; but if these reasons were not sufficient, he might add the numerous objections which had been made by several different descriptions of persons to the plan of the noble Lord. He believed that all the witnesses examined before the Committee on Agriculture, of which the right hon. Gentleman, the first Lord of the Admiralty, was Chairman, had given opinions unfavourable to the details of the Bill. They approved of the principle of the Bill, but they were averse from the proposed mode of carrying it into execution. It was a measure which should be settled at once; and the best way to ensure this would be to lay the Bill before the country, and allow it to remain till next Session in order to give time to discuss its details.
Lord Althorpwas surprised at the observations of his hon. friend as to the time at which this Bill had been read a second time, it was by no means unusual to dispose of Bills, at such a stage, in such a way, without at all prejudicing the right of hon. Members to object to their details, and he was, therefore, he again said, surprised to have heard such an objection urged upon the present occasion. His hon. friend had been pleased to compliment him as very competent to bring forward a measure upon this subject and to say that the Bill would have been much more satisfactory had it not been for the pressure of official duties. He could not take the compliment intended by his hon. friend, because he had given to this subject all the attention of which he was capable before the commencement of the Session, and had brought forward the best measure he could frame. He had taken into his consideration a great number of suggestions, and had endeavoured to frame a Bill liable to the fewest exceptions. He again said, that he was prepared to give up the compulsory part of the measure, but he was desirous of carrying the permissive part of it to discover the objections which might exist. Suggestions had been made for taking the valuations of tithes, on the amount of the rent; lint this he believed to be a mode very difficult of adoption, as in many cases it would be
380
found almost impossible to ascertain what the amount of the rent was. His hon. friend had objected to the provisions which made the Bishop the Judge of the commutation proposed. He had said, that the Bishop would find it difficult to discharge this duty with satisfaction; but it should be borne in mind, that the Bishop was not the sole arbiter; there was the patron of the living to be consulted, and in order to guard against any partiality on his part, there was the check of the Bishop. He could not see any reason for giving up the permissive part of the Bill, though he would the compulsory, and he, therefore, felt it to be his duty to press the question forward to a Committee, that the measure of the Government might be seen by the country.
Mr. Herriessuggested to his hon. friend, the member for Essex, that it would be better to withdraw his opposition at the present stage of the Bill, and reserve it for a future time, when it would be before the House in an amended form. Before sitting down he begged leave to call the attention of the House to the position in which the various Committees were placed by the order which passed the House a few days since. Under present circumstances, there were several Committees which were in doubt as to whether it was competent for them to sit while the House was thus proceeding with the business.
Sir Matthew White Ridleysaid, he would have joined in the opposition to this Bill, if the compulsory part was to have been pressed forward; but as this was not the case, he should take no exception to the Motion for going into Committee. He could have wished, however, that, instead of such a Bill as this, the noble Lord had introduced a simple Bill, giving permission for tithe-receivers and tithe-payers to make a commutation for twenty-one years. This would materially have facilitated a permanent settlement of the measure, which he did not anticipate from the present Bill.
Mr. Estcourtagreed with his hon. friends who intended to withdraw their opposition at the present stage of the Bill; but he was of opinion, that the Bill should be ultimately postponed until the House was in possession of further information.
Lord John Russellobserved, that whether the measure which his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed, in relation to the present ques-

381
tion, was crude or otherwise, depended on the condition of the Bill to be laid before the House. If the House did not suffer it to come before them, how could they decide upon its merits? Therefore it was that he deprecated the present discussion. The omission of the compulsory parts he believed to be a wise and a good arrangement. He did not anticipate that any very great good would be produced by the Bill, even in its amended shape, for the present; but enlightened as the country would be by the labours of the Agricultural Committee now sitting, he hoped before another Session of Parliament should pass over, that something effective might be done for the relief of the people and the support of the Established Church. With respect to the question—as to whether the Committee should sit during the hours the House was transacting public business?—he should only observe, that the Warwick Election and another Committee got special leave from the House to sit yesterday during the time of business, and when leave was required, it must be the understanding of the House, that Committees were not to sit unless permission were obtained.
Mr. Gilbert Heathcoteas the Representative of a large agricultural constituency, might be permitted to say a few words on the subject before the House. His hon. friend, the member for Essex, did right, he thought, in withdrawing his Amendment until the plan proposed by Government was fairly before the House. Until then they could hardly decide, with any show of reason, upon its merits. He could not, however, help thinking that his noble friend, the chancellor of the Exchequer, did perfectly right in expunging the compulsory clauses from his Bill. He would take that opportunity of protesting against the hon. member for Newcastle's plan of commutation for twenty-one years. He thought it neither wise nor feasible. Every man could learn the price for the past twenty-one years; but no man could tell what would be the price for the twenty-one years ensuing.
Mr. Charles Kemeys Tynte, as Representative for a large agricultural district, begged to assure the hon. member for Essex, that the Bill had been sufficiently circulated through the county he had the honour of representing, to cause petitions to have been sent in masses against it. He thought the noble Lord, the Chancellor
382
of the Exchequer, had acted wisely in postponing the most objectionable portions of the Bill, but he trusted that the noble Lord would assure the House and the country, that the whole question should be fairly met, and finally settled, at the early commencement of the next Session, for he could assure the noble Lord, that if not speedily settled, a spirit of resistance to the payment of tithes would be raised, which might lead to the most disastrous consequences.
Major Beauclerkagreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that the noble Lord had done well to postpone the compulsory part of the Bill. The House had passed the Session most un-profitably. They had passed Coercion Bills and other measures of a similar nature, but not one measure of public utility. He was glad that the noble Lord had put off that part of his measure which would have met the expectations of neither party. If the noble Lord thought that he possessed sufficient enchantments to win the affections of both parties, he would find himself mistaken. It was vain to suppose, that without compulsion it would be possible to bring the Clergy and their parishioners to a fair and equitable arrangement. This was a question of paying and receiving taxes, and in all such questions it was impossible to lead to a fair settlement, by attempting to please both parties. He hoped the noble Lord would wait until next Session, when, perhaps, by pursuing a straight forward course, the noble Lord might do justice to both parties, without exactly consulting the pleasure of either.
The House wont into (Committee pro formâ; and certain clauses and Amendments having been read, with a view to having the amended Bill printed, the House resumed.

LETTERS PATENT.
The House went into Committee on this Bill.
Mr. Jervisobjected to that part of the Bill which contained the definition of a patent, and moved an Amendment.
Mr. Lloyd, as a member of the Committee, would give the Amendment his most decided opposition. The definition was the only really important part of the Bill, and had been agreed to almost unanimously by the Committee. He was sorry the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment, had not attended the meeting

383
of the Committee and heard the reasons assigned for the adoption of the definition. It was almost unfair of that hon. Member not having attended the Committee, to come down to that House and oppose the definition by an Amendment which seemed to him, unintelligible verbiage. He hoped his learned friend would not press a Motion which would have the effect of destroying the Bill.
Mr. Rotchsaid, no clause had received more attention by the Committee than the one under consideration; for, knowing it to be the almost vital one, they had spent hours and days in drawing it up. His hon. and learned friend had said, that the law as it at present stood was clear and definite enough. Now how did that stand? Why the books showed that no two Judges took the same view of it, which led to great difficulties.
Mr. Godsonthought it was important, for the security of inventions, that the law on the subject should be settled. He hoped his hon. friend would not press his Motion, but would allow the Report of the Committee to be made. The recommendation of the Select Committee was, that the Bill be divided into two Bills.
Mr. Aglionbywas afraid that the Bill would prevent the increase of improvement in manufacture, and be productive of endless litigation. He wished that the further consideration of the Bill should be postponed till the next Session, and he called upon the House on behalf of the manufacturers of the country, to postpone the Bill. He was quite satisfied that the whole county of Lancaster would rise up against it.
Mr. Godsonsaid, that he had received letters from almost every county in England, proposing an alteration in the law on the subject of patents, but more especially from Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds, at which places, as well as at London, public meetings had been held, and the greatest anxiety displayed on the subject. The object of the Bill was the protection of the poor but ingenious inventor, who, from want of capital, was encroached upon by the rich.
Mr. Aglionbywas an advocate for paying ingenuity, but there were daily taking place throughout the trade of the country minor improvements, which he considered the present Bill would have a tendency to check.
Mr. Lloydobserved, that if he thought the tendency of the Bill would be to injure manufacturers, he should be the last man to support it: but he was convinced it would have a directly contrary effect. He hoped, for the honour of the county of Lancaster, that the House would receive a denial of the statements made by the hon. Member.
The House resumed, and the Report, that the Committee had divided the Bill into two Bills was brought up. To be taken into further consideration.

OBSERVANCE OF THE LORD'S DAY.
Mr. Peter, having presented petitions from Lutterworth and Pimlico for the better Observance of the Sabbath, moved the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Bill for the better Observance of the Sabbath.
The Order read.
Mr. Petersaid, though it might be regretted that the subject had not fallen into abler hands—into hands more competent and accustomed to labours of that kind—he felt assured, that,—with the wishes of the people so strongly expressed as they had been on the question—with so many petitions lying on the Table from all parts of the kingdom, and from all classes of the community—the House would concur with him in thinking, that the time had arrived for considering the subject, for revising the existing Laws in relation to the Sabbath, and for modifying and amending their several provisions in such manner as might seem most consistent with the true interests, and most conformable to the just feelings and habits of society. In whatever way they approached the subject—whether they regarded the Sabbath as of divine, or of human institution—whether they considered it as a day set apart for religious and moral improvement, or for mere purposes of bodily rest and worldly relaxation—in whatever view they contemplated the subject—the House, he was confident, would concur with him,—it would concur with a much higher authority than his—(he meant that of the learned commentator on the Laws of England)—that the observance of one day out of seven was of essential service to a State—that it tended to humanize the manners of the lower classes, which might otherwise degenerate into sordid ferocity and selfishness of spirit.—that it enabled the industrious tradesman and labourer

385
to return to his weekly occupations with renewed health and cheerfulness—and that it imprinted upon the minds of the people that religious feeling, that sense of duty towards God and man, which was so necessary to make them good citizens, but which would be in danger of being worn out and defaced by unremitted labour, without any interval of leisure and repose, without any stated period for recalling them to the worship of their maker. But he was not considering the question in a religious point of view; he was not arguing it on scriptural grounds; he was not discussing the difference between the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday, or how far the regulations which were applicable to the former, might have been abrogated or superseded in regard to the latter. Into these topics he would not enter,—not because he felt doubts as to the true grounds and extent of religious obligation for the observance of the Sabbath—not because he deemed less reverently of that sacred day than others, who might be more prominent in enforcing their own opinions,—but because—knowing, as he did, the vast diversity, the great contrariety of opinion which prevailed, even amongst the wisest and best of mankind, on the subject,—he was loth to open a field of theological debate and idle controversy—of controversy to be deprecated on all occasions, and never more than on an occasion like the present. In former ages the most erroneous notions prevailed upon the subject, and religion had been rendered odious by Laws having for their professed object to enforce duties, the very essence of which consisted in their being the free-will offerings and pure homage of the heart, and for the neglect of which we were accountable not to man but to our Maker. Of this nature were some of the Statutes, passed in the reign of Elizabeth and confirmed by subsequent Parliaments, which compelled under pains and penalties for disobedience, all persons above the age of sixteen to resort to their parish churches or usual chapels of worship—Statutes, which though repealed as far as they affected Dissenters, might be still enforced against members of the Church of England. He should be told perhaps, that such Laws were a dead letter—that they were never executed. If so, then of what utility were they on the Statute-book? But these Laws were not a dead letter. They were sometimes enforced, or attempted to be
386
enforced, in the most invidious and oppressive manner. He knew many instances of their being So. He knew an instance of a clergyman attempting to enforce them against several of his most respectable parishioners with whom he had quarrelled on the subject of tithes, he knew another—a still more recent case, (and one, he had no doubt with in the knowledge of many members of that House,) where a Minister, a man of the most licentious habits, had actually prosecuted some of his neighbours for refusing to attend at the parish church—at that Church from which he himself had driven them away by the daring impiety of his demeanour, and the unblushing profligacy of his life. And ought Laws, which upheld such tyranny, which sanctioned such injustice, to remain? Such Laws were wholly inoperative for all purposes of good—they were weapons of persecution and annoyance in the hands of the evil, and could be attended—if generally enforced—with no other result than that of making men either hypocrites or martyrs. Such Laws ought no longer to disgrace the Statute-book, and one great object of the proposed Bill was to repeal and get rid of them altogether. With respect to the other Laws which were in force on the subject, and which lay scattered through the Statute-book from the reign of Edward 3rd down to that of his present Majesty—these Laws also, in the first place, he proposed to repeal—in order, however, to amend their discordant provisions, and to modify and consolidate the whole into one Act. The measure, therefore, which he (Mr. Peter) proposed, could hardly be called a new one. It contained little more than re-enactments, (modified indeed and rendered more practicable and better adapted to the present state of society, but still little more than re-enactments) of previous Laws, it prohibited labour and trading, with certain exceptions as to servants engaged in the necessary service of their employers—venders of medicine—sellers of milk and fruit—and bakers at certain hours and in certain cases. With respect to houses of entertainment, mere drinking houses, such as gin and beer shops—would be shut up. There was to be no drinking on the premises during any part of the day; though retailers of beer would be allowed to supply family at then own houses. Inns, however—public houses—cooks' shops, and

387
other places of refreshment—supplying victuals as well as liquor—would be left open for the reception and entertainment of travellers and lodgers at all times, and were only closed, as far as regarded other persons, during the hours of divine service. With regard to travelling,—drovers with cattle, waggoners, and others, licensed to carry goods for hire, were prohibited from pursuing their journeys between the hours of nine and six; whilst coaches, omnibuses, and other carriages for the conveyance of passengers, were not to commence their journeys during the hours of morning and evening service. There were other clauses, rendering null the service of process, prohibiting gaming, dog-lighting, hunting, shooting, &c. &c.; which were also re-enactments of previous Laws. The principal and indeed almost only novelties of the Bill were two clauses—the one, changing the days of vestries and of other public meetings from Sundays to Mondays; the other, enabling persons who, by grant, prescription, or otherwise, were entitled to hold fairs and markets, to postpone them, when falling on Mondays, to some subsequent day of the week. The penalties for violations of the Act (the amount of which might be settled in committee) were to be recoverable before two Magistrates, against whose decision an appeal lay to the Quarter Sessions. Such were the principal clauses of the proposed Bill, which, as he had before stated, were little more than re-enactments of previously existing laws. That the Bill was imperfect—that it went too far for some, and not far enough for others—that it had excited the opposition of the more violent on each side—he was fully aware. But whatever might be its real or supposed defects, it possessed one redeeming quality. It disencumbered the Statute-book of seventeen Acts it substituted one Law in the place of eighteen. He might also say of it, that was not a Bill of invidious distinctions and petty partialities. It made no difference of rank or person—no difference between rich and poor—between the hotel of the one and the pot-house of the other. Again, it was not a Bill of fast and gloom, interfering with innocent exercise and diversions, keeping the poor labourer immured within his smoky cabin, and excluding the sickly tradesman and artizan "from the common air and use of his own limbs." God forbid that it should do so, for he believed, that if there was one mode
388
more calculated than another to drive a population into vicious indulgences, it was the prohibition of harmless ones, it was the exclusion of them from every relaxation and pastime of a cheerful and innocent nature. Lastly, he would say, that it was not a Bill of coercion and intolerance, but of protection. It sought not to compel, but merely allowed and enabled people to be religious, if so inclined, by relieving them from situations in which their worldly interests were frequently at war with their religious principles, and where they might be tempted to sacrifice their duties to the fear of loss, or to the hope of gain. He would detain the House no longer. The Bill before them had its defects, but believing that those defects might be remedied in a Committee, and knowing that the wishes of all moderate men were in favour of the measure, he should move that it be read a second time.
Mr. Slaneyseconded the Motion. The Bill was not altogether a perfect one, but its imperfections might be remedied in Committee, and relieving the Statute-book of seventeen or eighteen inoperative Statutes and framing out of them one like the present, was an act which did the hon. Member no small credit. As he had said, there were one or two details to which he should object in the committee more particularly with reference to the novelties introduced into it, several of which, by their over-strictness, were more calculated to throw an air of ridicule over the observance of the Sabbath, and to make the law inoperative than otherwise. The Bill steered a fair course between extreme severity and extreme laxity of legislation upon a subject, regarding which the feelings of the people had been distinctly manifested by their petitions to this House; and it was from the extreme anxiety which he felt to avoid too great strictness in legislation upon this question, that he ventured to support this measure. In addition to these considerations, he would merely observe, that some legislative enactment was necessary as to the observance of the Sabbath for the sake of the humbler classes. If the Bill went to trench upon the rational and necessary recreations of the middling and labouring classes on the Sabbath, it would be a great evil, and would encroach upon one of the greatest blessings which that portion of the community now enjoyed. But they must take care that the higher classes

389
were induced to prevent those in their service from breaking through the repose and quiet of the Sabbath. Much must be left to the example of the upper classes; but, if, for instance, men of rank gave dinner parties on the Sundays and kept their domestics employed during the day, the moral influence of such an example could only tend to render the lower classes worse off than they were. He said, that all those who took an interest in the welfare of these classes, and wished to improve their condition, must be anxious to carry into effect a measure which had that object in view. He must confess he could not agree with those who were for screwing up the Sabbath regulations to the tightest point, taking away that relaxation which the middling classes had been always used to, and to which they were entitled. It was on this latter account that he could not assent to one or two of the details of the proposed measure; but as his hon. friend was not pledged to them, he gave to the principle of the Bill his hearty concurrence. He saw, for instance, no objection to giving greater facilities to the opening of houses where refreshments might be obtained for persons who go out to walk in the country for relaxation during the evening, or after the morning service. It was unnecessary to make the Sabbath a day of gloom. All these however, were matters to be considered in Committee; but in his opinion it would be for the temporal benefit of the humbler classes, at the same time that it would more induce them to improve their minds, and to make them cheerful and contented, that the Sabbath Day should be kept holy. It was the duty of the Legislature to protect this class from the power of the avaricious employer on the one hand, and on the other to guard them against the results which might ensue from too severe a system of legislation. He supported the Bill, although he had great doubts whether the House could give it that attentive consideration which would justify them in passing it this Session.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that he should feel less induced than at present to oppose the Motion, if it repealed or counteracted the numerous and contradictory Acts already in existence. But the repeal was not confined to restrictive Acts, it revoked also some Acts of indulgence. For instance, there was, in one Act of Parliament, a proviso by which
390
hackney-coaches were permitted to ply for hire on Sundays. Now, that Act was to be repealed without any exception in favour of hackney-coaches.
Mr. Peterexplained that the hon. member for Bridport was in error. It was meant to leave the law precisely as it stood on that point.
Mr. Warburtonbelieved that the effect of the Bill in its present state, whatever might be the hon. Member's wishes, would be such as he had stated; and this was only one of the many enactments to which he must give the most uncompromising opposition. Again, by the present laws, the sale of mackerel on Sundays was allowed. But the Bill would put that down. Did the hon. member for Bodmin mean to compel the fishermen to observe the Jewish Sabbath, and to work upon the Christian Sabbath, for the Monday market. It would be of little use for them to fish upon the Saturday if they were not allowed to sell what they caught upon the Sunday, unless they did it for mere amusement and threw the fish upon the dunghill. The hon. member for Bodmin did not seem to be aware that there must be very numerous exceptions to any general measure of this kind. There were a great many of the most indispensable employments which could not be laid aside on the Sabbath. The shepherd must attend to his flocks just as much on Sunday as on any other day of the week; and the navigation of a ship upon the seas could not be suspended to enable the crew to obey the hon. Member's Bill. If the Legislature attempted to interfere too far and too minutely, the law would become a dead letter and a matter of derision, rather than of respect and obedience. If the Bill were to pass in its present state, nothing could be worse calculated to ensure the Observance of the Sabbath, in the way in which the hon. Member himself (Mr. Peter) desired it to be observed. There was one clause which forbade the navigation of barges on the Sabbath. But was not the hon. Member aware, that on many rivers, and some of them communicating with the river Thames, there were shallows over which barges could pass only on the Sunday, when the mills were not at work, and the water being consequently let down from the mill-dams afforded sufficient depth for the barges? The hon. Member (Mr. Peter) had said, that his Bill did not interfere with the recreations

391
of the people; but here was a clause which prevented watermen from plying for hire on the Sabbath; and the hon. Gentleman must know that a great part of the people of this metropolis had no other amusement on the Sabbath. A great number of working-men were in the habit of taking their families on the river on Sundays, and to all that class the operations of the Bill would be very oppressive; and to the watermen themselves it would not be beneficial, as they could not have the employment of that class on any other day.
Mr. Peterexplained that the clause referred to was mistaken by the hon. member for Bridport; barges and wherries were to be prohibited only from carrying "goods" for hire on the Sabbath.
Mr. Warburtoncertainly saw somewhere in the Bill a clause which would have the effect of which he complained, and it gave besides an encouragement to informers to cause it to be enforced. However, he thought that the Bill ought to be allowed to pass this stage. He was not disposed to deal with it as the Bill of the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Agnew) near him had been dealt with. But even this Bill would require very great alteration before he could consent to its becoming the law; and he was by no means certain, that it was possible to make the necessary changes in the present Session.
Mr. Bernalgave every credit to the hon. Member who brought in the Bill for his meritorious and praiseworthy intentions, but he doubted very much whether the evil would not be increased tenfold by the measure. It could not be expected that sufficient consideration could be given to the Bill, so as to correct its faulty clauses, at that late period of the Session. He thought, that the best mode of increasing moral and religious feelings was by good example. But the Bill did not at all promote that, for by it the poor man would be prevented from commencing a journey, however urgent, at certain hours in the morning, by a stage-coach, while there was nothing to prevent Gentlemen from following their own wishes or duties by the employment of post-horses and nothing to prevent them from travelling at any hour. Could it be borne, that a person wishing to visit a sick or dying friend, for instance, should be prevented from doing so on the Sabbath, until a certain hour, unless he could afford to hire post-horses?
392
He maintained, that this inequality of legislation could not be upheld; and that any such measure should be scouted. It might appear, perhaps, a little irregular to advert to the clauses of the Bill, and to discuss them, when the Motion was only for the second reading; but the principle of the Bill was an innovation upon the existing law, and it was only by referring to the clauses that he could more particularly state his objections to it. In the last clause the hon. Gentleman added many sweeping exceptions to the Act; but the delivery of beer or cider, dressed meat, &c., at persons' houses was limited to between the hours of five and nine in the evening; so that persons in this metropolis, particularly, will be prevented from getting refreshments on their return of a Sunday from a walk or a ride, unless they reached home during these hours. A similar regulation applied to hackney carriages, such provisions trenched upon the enjoyments of the middling and lower classes, while they left the higher classes unmolested. So far as this Act repealed various statutes, he concurred in it; but he was not prepared to give his assent to the measure, inasmuch as, in its present shape, it would materially affect his constituents. He alluded to the navigation of the Medway as connected with that of the river Thames; where the commerce in hops and flour was considerable, and where the detention of barges for a day would prove of most serious consequence. Again, fruit was conveyed by barges, and by losing a good wind or tide, and by conforming to the provisions of this Bill as to hours of sailing, &c., the whole produce of an orchard might be destroyed. On these grounds he should oppose the Bill, and he was sure as long as it contained as many anomalies as at present it would not obtain the sanction of that House.
Mr. Finchsaid, the Bill was a Statute of protection; it ensured to the poor man one-seventh of his time as was done by the common law of the land. It ought, however, to have been brought in earlier.
Lord Granville Somersetthought, that the objections to proceeding with this Bill, this Session, were unanswerable. The Bill might be made useful; but to be useful it must be materially altered. It ought to be withdrawn; and if introduced in another Session, he trusted that many of the clauses would be materially altered, particularly as regarded manufacturers.
Mr. Wilbrahamsaid, he had presented many petitions on this subject, urging well-founded complaints. Various operatives represented that they had no opportunity of observing the Sabbath; the like was the complaint with large bodies of manufacturers; and surely those classes ought to have some remedy for such a grievance. He doubted, however, whether it could be passed this Session.
Mr. Estcourtapproved of the principle of the Bill, but not of its details. He hoped his hon. friend would withdraw it for the present Session, and introduce it next Session in more than one Bill.
Mr. Petersaid, he had no objection to send the Bill to a Committee above stairs, and adjourn till the next Session, after those parts had been corrected which were deemed objectionable.
Sir Andrew Agnewreminded the House of the remarks of the hon. member for Cheshire, who alluded to the petitions which he had himself presented, from men actually working on canals in his county, and which showed that they were desirous of a day of rest. This entitled him to say, that much false sentiment had been uttered about the indulgence and pleasures of the lower orders. The fact was, that all the false sentiment which had been spoken about Sunday indulgence had only reference to the pleasures of the upper and middle classes, while the actual lower or working classes were left altogether out of the account: for instance, it might be very agreeable to gentlemen of the upper classes to travel in their own carriages to Richmond, and those of the middle classes might find it agreeable to go there by public coaches; but would the House keep in mind that there was another class—the working class—the ostlers, horse keepers, and all other operatives connected with travelling, who had petitioned that House for protection on the day of rest, and which was now no day of rest to them? He took this as an illustration, and he warned hon. Members who had laid on the Table so many petitions (signed chiefly by the humble classes), and who were about to return to their constituents, who had manifested so much anxiety on this subject, that such a Bill as that now before them would not meet the wishes of their constituents. Opposed to all this false sentiment, this morbid sensibility, he stood there as the advocate of the poor man, now in many trades condemned
394
to work for the pleasure or profit of his master. His objections were very different from those of the hon. members for Bridport and for Rochester. He strongly protested against the Repealing Clause, which took away many excellent Statutes without providing substitutes. He should, therefore, if the Bill went into Committee, divide the House against that clause. He likewise objected to the absence of au acknowledgment of the divine origin of the institution of the Sabbath—a defect which he should seek to amend in Committee, by moving a preamble, and dividing the House upon it. He should be very glad if the hon. member for Bodmin would restrict his Bill to the clauses for suppressing Sunday trading, to which extent be would support it; and he felt that in giving any opposition he was placing himself in a delicate position. As a further roof that the Bill was not calculated to afford protection to the working classes, he would instance the travelling clause, which prevented the travelling of waggons between nine o'clock in the morning and six o'clock in the evening—that was for nine hours, and for that length of time a waggon mast stop out of the twenty-four hours. That might suit the master, whose object was profit and gain. But if the waggon might travel onward, both morning and evening, on all but the forbidden hours, the desire of the poor waggoner was altogether defeated—he was denied a day of rest.
It being three o'clock the Speaker retired, and the debate was adjourned.

AFFAIRS OF POLAND.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonpresented two Petitions—one from the Glasgow Political Association, and the other from the inhabitants of Birmingham—praying the House to interfere in order that the Polish nation might be restored to independence.
Petition laid on the Table.
The hon. Member was proceeding to make his Motion on the subject to which the Petition related, when
Lord Ebringtoninterrupted the hon. Member and said, he had a petition to present which he was afraid could not be received, but as he had been asked to present it he could not do otherwise than mention it to the House. It was from the members of the National Committee of Polish Emigrants at Paris. It was signed by several distinguished persons but he

395
would not present it, as the forms of the House would not allow it to be received.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that it was now twelve months since he had for the second time called the attention of the House to the present unfortunate condition of Poland, to the wrongs and sufferings of her brave and heroic people, and to the claims which they had to the protection of this country, which was by a solemn treaty pledged to the independence of Poland. He rose once more to submit a Motion upon that subject, which he hoped that the Ministers would not consider it either their duty or their interest to oppose. He had no wish to embarrass the Government, nor did he think that the success of his Motion would have that effect, but on the contrary, it would strengthen their position as regarded Russia, and enable them more effectually to obtain redress for Poland, if they had it in their power to say, that the British House of Commons considered the conduct of Russia towards Poland to be in contravention of the tenor of existing treaties. The Motion which he intended to conclude with was as follows:—"That a humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased not to recognize, or in any way give the sanction of his Government, to the present political state and condition of Poland, the same having been brought about in violation of the Treaty of Vienna to which Great Britain was a party." When the Hungarian Diet at the very gates of Vienna had ventured to protest against the attempt of Russia to blot Poland out of the map of Europe, surely the British House of Commons would not hesitate to act the same liberal part. The world expected of England, and of England's House of Commons, that they should raise their voices against the usurpation thus daringly perpetrated in the face of Europe. It was expected by the whole nation, it was expected by all Europe that the Parliament of Britain should declare its reprobation of the outrage committed against the laws of nations and in violation of a treaty to which Great Britain had been a party. The question before the House was not that they should engage in war, but merely that a declaration to the effect which he had stated, should be put forth, and that they should state, that Russia had been guilty of a shameful infraction of treaties. He felt
396
great difficulty in addressing the House for the third time on this subject, as he feared it would be necessary for him to repeat much that he had already said. The points, however, which he conceived it necessary to establish, and which, by the terms of his Motion, he had undertaken to make out, were—first, that the Treaty of Vienna, to which this country was a party, had been violated by Russia; and secondly, that the House of Commons might, without public inconvenience, be called upon—and that a sense of justice, as well as policy demanded of them—to record their solemn judgment of that transaction. On the first point, he should have little difficulty in satisfying the House that the terms of the Treaty of Vienna, under which the emperor of Russia obtained the sovereignty of Poland, and by which alone he held, or could hold it, had openly, and without disguise—in contempt of the law of nations, and of the authority of the other contracting powers—been broken by the emperor of Russia. He would not trace back the history of Poland to the ages of her former glory; nor dwell upon her services to Europe, in which religion and independence were more than once saved by her valour; nor would he bring-back the House to the recollection of her former wrongs, exhibited in that series of nefarious and detestable transactions—the successive partitions of Poland; he would take the affairs of Poland as they stood at the time of the Treaty of Vienna. It was well known, that the question of the restoration of Poland to its ancient independence and power, was entertained by several of the great powers, parties to the Treaty of Vienna; such as England, France, and also Austria, the minister of which declared, that the re-establishment of Poland, as an independent state, with a national administration of its own, would accomplish the wishes of the Emperor of Austria, and that he would be willing to make the greatest sacrifice to promote the restoration of that ancient and beneficial arrangement. The restoration of ancient Poland was, in fact, proposed, and was made a subject of formal deliberation at Vienna among the ambassadors of the great Powers assembled in Congress. When that object could not be accomplished. Lord Castlereagh declared, that it was the wish of England, to see some independent State

397
(of more or less extent) established in Poland, under a distinet government of its own, as a separation between the three great Powers of Europe. The emperor of Russia proposed, that the duchy of Warsaw should be ceded to him, and become a part of his dominion. Napoleon had just lauded from Elba, and the ambassadors being pressed, the conclusion was a compromise. The duchy of Warsaw was ceded to the emperor of Russia, not as an integral part of his empire, but to be erected into a distinct and separate kingdom, upon certain specific conditions, conditions which were essential lo, and inseparable from, the holding of Poland in sovereignty by the emperor of Russia. After this had been concluded. Lord Castlereagh, without retracting his former representations with regard to Poland, expressed a hope, that the arrangement proposed by Russia, would not be followed by any interruption to the tranquillity of the North, or the balance of power in Europe. He entreated the Powers, on whom the fate of Poland depended, not to leave Vienna till they had pledged themselves, that the Poles, in their respective dominions, should be treated as Poles; that their customs and manners should be respected. It was thus, he said, that the Poles would become peace-fid and contented; and his royal highness the Prince Regent would not have to fear any danger to the liberties of Europe from the union of Poland with the Russian empire; a danger which would not be imaginary, if the military force of the two countries should be united under the command of an ambitions and warlike prince. These were memorable words, and seemed to have been uttered in a prophetic spirit. The Poles, since that period, had not been treated as Poles; their manners and customs had not been respected; au ambitious and warlike prince was at the head of both countries; and the liberties of Europe were endangered. By the Congress of Vienna it was intended that the nationality of Poland should be preserved, both for the happiness of the Poles themselves, and for the security of Europe. It was stipulated, that the duchy of Warsaw should be erected into a distinct and separate kingdom, with a Constitution of its own, and a distinct and separate administration; and that the other Polish provinces should obtain representative and national institutions from the respective
398
Powers to which they were subject. These different stipulations, although they had all been violated since, were guaranteed by the Powers at Vienna, less for the sake of the Poles (for they were not consulted) than for securing the rest of Europe against the dangers contemplated by Lord Castlereagh. The arrangement, uniting the duchy of Warsaw to Russia, was a concession by the other Powers, upon certain conditions, and under certain securities, clearly specified. In the general Ads of Congress, the arrangement respecting Poland was the first in order, as It was admitted lo be the first in importance. It was this:—'The duchy of Warsaw, with the exception of the provinces which have been otherwise disposed of, in the following Articles, is re-united to the empire of Russia. It shall be irrevocably bound to it by its constitution, and to be possessed by his majesty, the emperor of all the Russia", his heirs and successors in perpetuity. His imperial majesty reserves to himself to give to this State, enjoying a distinct administration, the territorial extension which he shall deem lit; he will take, with his other titles, that of "Czar, king of Poland," according to the customary formula used for his other possessions.' As to the other Poles, it was said:—'The Polish subjects of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, shall enjoy a representative and national institution, regulated according to the mode of political existence, which each of the governments to which they belong, shall judge useful and fitting to grant them.' Poland was to be irrevocably bound to Russia, not by hereditary descent, not by conquest, not by right of any description on the part of Russia, but by the constitution secured to it by treaty, and by the concessions of the other Powers. The other Polish provinces were to receive representative and national institutions. It was for the security of Europe, that the duchy of Warsaw was to form an independent kingdom, under the emperor of Russia, but protected and guarded by its constitution, and strengthened by a powerful mass of nationality, contained in the other Polish provinces. It was clear, that Lord Castlereagh looked to this body of Polish feeling and Polish nationality, as a check upon the ambitious designs of Russia, and as a security to Europe against the dangers which might otherwise arise from the union of Poland.

399
The engagements of the emperor of Russia, that the duchy of Warsaw should be erected into a distinct and separate kingdom, with its own Constitution, and that the other provinces should have representative and national institutions, were engagements made, not with the Poles, but with the other Powers, for the security of Europe. The emperor Alexander, and his brother Nicholas, had subsequently bound themselves, by the most sacred engagements, to the Poles; but the engagements specified by the Treaty of Vienna were altered into with the Powers of Europe, including Great Britain. All those engagements had been broken. The engagements of the emperor of Russia towards the Polish nation might be collected from his own acts. He gave to the kingdom of Poland a constitution, in fulfilment of his engagements with the other Powers. In a letter, addressed by the emperor Alexander to count Ostrowski, president of the Senate, dated the 30th of April, 1815, he said:—'It is with peculiar satisfaction that I announce to you, that your destiny is about to be fixed by the concurrence of all the Powers assembled at the Congress of Vienna. The kingdom of Poland shall be united to the empire of Russia by the title of its own Constitution, on which I am desirous of founding the happiness of the country.' And in a proclamation, dated in May, 1815, after enumerating the benefits to be secured by the Constitution—a constitution adapted to their wants, and localities, and their character—Alexander said:—"Such are the advantages which you will enjoy under our dominion, and which you will transmit, as a patriotic inheritance, to your descendants." A free constitution was given to Poland: but it should be remembered, that the duchy of Warsaw, which became the kingdom of Poland, previously had a free constitution; and it had been argued, with some force, that "its constitution," mentioned in the Treaty of Vienna, whereby it was to be united and bound to Russia, was the constitution which it had received when it was erected into an independent State, under the government of the king of Saxony, by the Treaty of Tilsit, and which constitution existed by right at the time of the Treaty of Vienna, it mattered little, whether a constitution then existing, or a constitution promised, was meant by the term of the first article of the latter Treaty. A constitution
400
having been, in fact, given to Poland by the emperor Alexander, the first Diet was opened by a speech from the emperor, containing an important passage, to which he would solicit the attention of the House. Alexander said:—'Your restoration is defined by solemn treaties; it is sanctioned by the Constitutional Charter. The inviolability of those external engagements, and of the fundamental law, assures henceforward to Poland an honourable rank among the nations of Europe.' The words "Inviolability of external engagements, and of the fundamental law," that was, of the Treaty of Vienna and the Constitutional Charter, through the inviolability of which, Poland was thenceforward to hold an honourable rank among the nations of Europe, deserved great attention. The proclamation of the emperor Nicholas, on his accession to the throne in the year 1825, contained these words:—'We declare to you, that the institutions which he (Alexander) gave to you, shall remain without any change. I, therefore, promise, and swear before God, that I will observe the Constitutional Act, and that I will bestow all my care in maintaining the observance of it.' Did any prince upon earth ever contract a more sacred and binding engagement towards his subjects, than the emperors Alexander and Nicholas did, to preserve the constitutional liberties of Poland—and that condition was inseparable from the right to the allegiance of the Polish people. It was provided by the Constitutional Charter, that the successors of Alexander should swear to maintain and execute it to the utmost of their power. The oath of the subject was an oath of fidelity to the king and the Constitutional Charter. They swore allegiance, upon the condition of the king maintaining and executing the charter of their liberties. It would be quite superfluous to repeat the details formerly stated, to show the violations of the Constitution, which were commenced by the emperor Alexander himself, and continued under his successor, till not a vestige of liberty remained in Poland. Unhappy Poland was delivered over to the cruelty and caprice of Constantine, who had been declared unfit to govern the empire, to the throne of which he had, by birth, been destined to succeed. Alexander had, of his own authority, abrogated the article of the Charter, which provided

401
for the open deliberation of the two Chambers. Constantine imprisoned such of the members as indulged in the constitutional liberty of speech to which they were entitled. The liberty of the Press—the personal liberty of the subject—the independence of the Judges—the regular holding of Diets—the right to impose taxes—in short, every security given to the Poles by their Constitution was annihilated and destroyed. Councils of war were substituted for the constitutional tribunals of the land; and their sentences were set aside, because they were not sufficiently severe;—prisoners were sent from one council of war to another, till a sentence was obtained sufficiently severe to please Constantine. At length, the high court of justice was assembled to try a multitude of the prisoners, with whom the gaols at Warsaw had long been crowded, under the suspicion of offences against the State. They were tried and acquitted; but not discharged—they were sent into Russia, and detained in the fortresses and dungeons of that country, whilst the Judges who had acquitted them were kept under surveillance at Warsaw?, and publicly reprimanded for having done their duty in a manner which was not approved of by the tyrannical government! This course of tyranny was unrelentingly pursued, till further forbearance was impossible. The Poles had recourse to arms. In the glorious but deadly struggle which ensued, they were defeated; but not till they had performed deeds of valour, and heroic devotion, such as, in the same period of time, were not to be equalled in number, or in brilliancy, in the history of any nation. Poland, abandoned by the rest of Europe, succumbed in a contest against a power which she had miraculously, for ten months, single-handed and successfully, resisted. Had England and France, during that period, made a bold and decided demonstration in favour of Poland, the independence of that country might have been preserved. That they had a right to interfere could not be questioned, any more than the policy which would have dictated such interference could. Before the taking of Warsaw, the Poles received encouragement from France. They were told, "Hold out for two months, and you will be acknowledged by Europe." The address of the Chamber of Deputies of France, in July, 1831, in accordance with the speech of the king,
402
conveyed the assurance, that "the nationality of Poland should not perish." On the 19th of September, of the same year, general Sebastiani, the minister for foreign affairs, said, in the Chamber of Deputies, 'that the French government had given the Court of St. Petersburgh to understand, that the stipulation of the Congress of Vienna had created a kingdom, and that that kingdom of European creation ought to continue to exist; that, on that very day, the government had received assurances from St. Petersburgh, that Poland should be preserved; and that, therefore, the assurances made by the Chamber, that the nationality of Poland should not perish, the formal and reiterated promises of the emperor authorized to be considered as well founded.' In March, 1832, M. Casimir Perier, that great minister, whose loss France still deplored, in the Chamber of Deputies, expressed himself thus:—'One political question, only, arises out of these events—that of the nationality of Poland. It is the question of the maintenance of treaties. By the result of these events, Poland is, in fact, subject to a provisional regime, but she has not lost the rights which she holds under treaties.' Almost at the moment when this speech was uttered by the prime minister of France, and when Europe had received so many, and such solemn assurances, that the nationality of Poland should be preserved, the emperor of Russia, utterly regardless even of his own promises, promulgated his famous "Organic Statute," whereby those treaties were torn in pieces, and the rights of Poland and her nationality were sought to be for ever extinguished. But the rights of Poland were not lost. "Facts change," as was well said by M. Bignon, in his amendment to the address to the king, in the Chamber of Deputies—"Facts change, but right and justice cannot change." The Organic Statute was accompanied by a Manifesto, wherein the emperor of Russia stated the return of his misled subjects to their duties, and the restoration of public tranquillity. And what did he, in consequence, resolve? To restore to the nation her constitutional liberties? No; he resolved, that "a new form and order of things should be introduced into Poland." The Constitutional Charter, to the observance of which he had sworn, was to be taken away, and the nationality of Poland,

403
which that Charter, and the Treaty upon which it was founded, had guarded and secured, was to be annihilated for ever. Hon. Members might easily satisfy themselves, by the slightest reference to the Organic Statute and the Charter, that the Constitution of Poland was, in every material point, subverted and destroyed by the provisions of the former. It was not even contended, that the Constitution of Poland, and the liberties intended to be secured by it, were not taken away by Nicholas; it was said, that he had a right to take away the constitution to which he had sworn—to strip of their liberties a whole nation, because part of it had rebelled—though tranquillity had been restored, and the misled had returned to their duties. It had been also said, that although the constitution was taken away, the nationality was not destroyed. What! a people once free, left without a constitution, and without a legislature! Was that not sufficient to extinguish its nationality? If the parliament of Scotland or of Ireland had been forcibly taken from them, in consequence of insurrection or rebellion, could it be said, that although their parliaments had been destroyed, their nationality was preserved? Rebellions had broken out and been suppressed in Scotland and in Ireland, yet their constitutions survived. But what signified to Russia the constitution or the nationality of Poland, the law of nations, or the faith of treaties? Russia arrogated to herself the right, by her own authority, without conference, or even communication, with other contracting Powers, to reject the stipulations of the most solemn treaties; assuming a supremacy in Europe, insulting those other Powers, and endangering the security and independence of every Stale. But how had Nicholas observed the terms of the Organic Statute itself? The Catholic religion was placed under the special protection of the State. Had it been protected? No; its property had been confiscated—its churches plundered—its priests persecuted—its religious institutions suppressed—its schools shut up; in short, every species of persecution exercised towards that religion which was to be specially protected. By the Organic Statute no one was to be arrested or judged but by the forms prescribed by law; yet the governor of Warsaw had been authorized, by a ukase of the emperor, to send whom he pleased to be
404
tried by councils of war. Had the atrocities—some of which, on a former occasion, he had detailed to the House—ceased since the promulgation of the Organic Statute? So far from it, that they had gone on increasing in number and enormity. On a former occasion he had mentioned the carrying away of children; not on light authority—not on vague rumour, nor on the loose statements of newspapers—but upon original and authentic information, which had since, on every point, been confirmed. The right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, had doubted the correctness of his statement; but he would satisfy the right hon. Member, by official documents, that orders had been given which could have no other result, and that atrocities, such as he had stated, had been continued up to the very last accounts received, and were the necessary consequence of the execution of those orders. The orders themselves, independently of the execution of them, were barbarous, unnatural, and cruel. The first which he would mention was, an official communication from the chief of the general staff, Gorcrakoff, general aide-de-camp of the emperor, addressed to the councillor of state, Tymowski, exercising the functions of secretary of state in the Council of Administration of the kingdom of Poland. It was dated the 24th of March, 1832, and was in these terms:—'The chief of the staff in the military colonies, general Tolsty, communicated, on the 19th February last, to the commander-in-chief of the array, the order of his majesty the emperor, to collect together, in the kingdom of Poland, all the male vagrant, orphan, and poor children, to direct them towards Minsk, and there to deliver them to the commanders of the garrison, that they might be placed in the battalions of military cantonists, and sent to the places pointed out by the regulation of the general staff of the military colonies. The Commander-in-chief of the active army has ordered all the military commanders of the Palatinates to execute rigorously the order.' A copy of the order issued by his Highness, the Prince Lieutenant of the kingdom, was at the same time communicated to the Governor of Podolia, in order that it might be presented at the sitting of the Council. On the 29th of March (10th of

405
April), the Council assembled, and in the procès verbal of their sitting, the foregoing communication was referred to, as containing the order of his Majesty the emperor, to seize, in the kingdom of Poland, the male vagrant, orphan, and poor children, and to send them to Minsk, in order that they might be placed in the battalions of the military cantonists, and afterwards despatched for the colonial companies. Then, again, there was an order of the Commander-in-chief, Prince Paskewitsch, which stated, that all the infants, male vagrant, orphan, or poor in Poland, should be incorporated in the battalion of the military cantonists. All male infants, vagrant, orphan, or poor! What a frightful latitude given to the agents charged with the execution of these inhuman orders! It was sufficient that the children should be deemed by them to be vagrants, orphans, or poor. Nineteen-twentieths of the infants in Warsaw and in Poland might be brought within one or other of these denominations. Orphans were such as had lost their father: it mattered not that their mother remained to them, or what was their means of support,—they were considered orphans, and, included in the terms of the order. The right hon. Baronet, the member for. Tamworth, stated on a former occasion, that he had it from authentic information, that the children carried away were orphans,—made orphans by the calamities of war,—and that they had been placed in Russian schools, not for the purpose of separating them from their parents, for they had none,—but for the purpose of providing for their helplessness and giving them education. The right hon. Baronet, whose observations were always entitled to respect, would find, that the information he had received was incorrect; and that other Polish children, and in great numbers, besides orphans, had been carried away, and sent to the military colonies of Russia, not for education,—for that they might have had in Poland,—but that they might become Russians, and forget their country. Look also at the means taken to carry these orders into execution. A notice was published by the Administration of Warsaw, stating that as his imperial majesty, in his paternal solicitude, was desirous of coming to the relief of his indigent subjects, all parents whose means were inadequate to the maintenance of their children were invited to inscribe their
406
names in a register to be opened for that purpose. It might well be imagined that the number was not small of the inhabitants of Warsaw who were desirous of obtaining, and who were in a situation to require, assistance for the maintenance of their children. Numerous applications having been made, and the names of the children of such parents as had applied having been inscribed on the register, would it be credited that those lists were resorted to, not for the purpose of administering relief, and affording assistance to the parents to maintain their children, but to enable the public officers to proceed to carry off the children whose names had been so inscribed? Never was there a more nefarious system of kidnapping-resorted to in any country. In the beginning of the month of May, 600 children were carried away in the night in four different detachments. On the 17th of May a convoy of children was despatched in open day. Every where were heard the cries and lamentations of the unhappy mothers running after the waggons on which their children were placed, some of them attempting to throw themselves under the wheels, that they might not outlive the separation from all that was dear to them in the world. It was there that might have been heard the exclamation of the Polish mother which had resounded throughout Europe.—"Oh! that he could be drowned in our tears! "On the 18th, the children found in the streets at work, or selling different wares, were carried off'; and, on the 19th, the parochial and charily schools, and the orphan institution, called the Infant Jesus, in which alone there were several hundred children, were emptied, and the whole of their infant inmates hurried away, never to return. That many must have perished on the march could not well be doubted, for the caravan could not stop for them, if taken sick, or worn out with fatigue; but this was not a matter of conjecture. Eyewitnesses had borne testimony to their having seen the dead bodies of children extended near the public roads, near to the crust of bread which had been left with them, but which they had not had the strength to touch. Nature had no part in the death of those unhappy children—those slaughtered innocents. Oh! since the days of Herod no such scenes had been acted on the theatre of the world! To add, possible, to the frightful picture,

407
it was stated, that notwithstanding the loss of children, calculated to be upwards of three-fourths during the journey, the number arrived almost complete, as the Cossacks seized and carried off any children they met with, to replace those who had died during the journey, and that the account current of death and robbery was settled daily. The latter fact, of the replacing of children by the robbery of others was stated in accounts which had obtained credit; but the fact of the enormous loss of children by death was ascertained beyond a doubt; and, indeed, must necessarily have ensued to a great extent, from the nature of the transaction itself. But the forcible abduction of children, in the manner stated, was not all that Poland suffered from this horrible system. There appeared to be a regular conscription of children of all ranks. The letter to which he was about to refer was from a Polish father—a man of rank, and an exile from his country. It stated, that he had just learnt, that by an order which there was no means of resisting, his son, a child of tender years, had been taken from his home to be sent to join a corps of cadets in a distant part of Russia. He continued thus:—I have lost my child! The only consolation which could flatter me with hope—could mitigate the pains of exile, and the thousand adversities and sufferings of my sad existence—has been torn from me. There remains only for me to make this vow, as I do it sincerely, that my son may die, before they can make him forget that he is a Pole, and of right free, or that they shall be able to make of him a machine of Russian despotism. This vow, I trust, will be heard in heaven, and that Divine Providence will preserve in the bosom of my son the sentiments of his father.' These were the sentiments of every Pole; never, no never, could they be eradicated from his breast. He might be exterminated, but he would still die a Pole. The indignities offered to the Poles of every rank had not been diminished, if they had not increased, since he had last had the honour of addressing the House. He had then mentioned the treatment of a noble youth, Prince Roman Tangousky. An additional fact on that subject had been related: the Prince condemned to be degraded from his rank and name, and to be seat "on foot" (the addition made to the sentence with his own hand by the emperor himself)
408
to Siberia, there to work in the mines, being about to depart on this journey of eight months, chained with convicts, and branded on the back with a number like a beast, was desirous of receiving the consolation of his religion. Being, like his countrymen, a sincere Catholic, he desired that a priest of that persuasion might be permitted to attend him for the purpose of confession. He was answered, "You are a serf, and the religion of a serf is the religion of his master." This request was refused, and a Greek priest was sent to him, whose ministry was of course rejected. Another outrage was "the transplantation of families." This had taken place in the Polish province to which a representation and national institution had been promised by the Treaty of Vienna, and which treaty had been as grossly violated by Russia, in respect of the provinces, as of the kingdom of Poland. The first official document, by which the transplantation of families, as it was called, was ordered and regulated, was an order addressed by the Minister of Finance to the Governor of Podolia, dated the 9th (21st) of November, 1831; in these terms:—'His majesty, the emperor, has deigned to issue a supreme order to make the necessary regulations for transplanting, in the first instance, 5,000 families of Polish gentlemen of the government of Podolia to the Steppes of Tartary, and, in preference, on the line, or in the district of Caucasus, that those transplanted may be enrolled in the public services.' It would, of course, be expected that the persons so sent should be criminals under the sentence of the law, and that this transplanting was intended in mercy, as a commutation of a sentence which would otherwise have been carried into execution. Not at all. The official documents said, To effect the said transplantation, there must be chosen, first, persons who, having taken part in the late insurrection, have returned within the time fixed to testify their repentance—those, also, who have been comprised in the third class of offenders, and who, in consequence, have obtained the grace and pardon of his Majesty. Secondly, the persons whose manner of living, in the opinion of the local authorities, excite the distrust of the Government.' Those persons who had come in under the faith of the amnesty of the emperor, who had been pardoned, and were as if they had never

409
offended, and persons whom the local authorities looked to with distrust—that meant, all persons whom they chose, at their discretion, to select for punishment—were, with their families, to be the victims of this barbarous order. The order went on to enjoin the governor of Podolia as follows:—'Your excellency will make use of all necessary means (without publishing or making known the tenor of this order) to register the families that are to be transplanted, in order that you may begin, without delay, the execution of this order, according to the rules which will be afterwards communicated to you.' In the answer of the governor of Podolia, dated the 29th of November (11th December 1831), he divided the Polish gentlemen into four classes, ending with the advocates and men of the law, whose interest, it was stated,—'is to prolong civil suits: who acquire their fortunes to the injury of the citizens, and possess so much more influence over them; and it is desirable, for the good even of the country, that their number should be immediately diminished by transplantation.' He was sorry he did not see his friend, the Solicitor-General, in the House, that he might ask him his opinion on this part of the case. The class of proprietors was not much better treated than that of the gentlemen of the long robe; for it was stated in the order, that that class did not promise much good for the prosperity of the country. But all classes of gentlemen seemed to have been equally subject to this order; although pardoned, amnestied, and suspected persons were in preference to be selected, at all events, 5,000 families in the first instance were to be transplanted from the province of Podolia alone. But the transplanting was not to be confined to the province of Podolia. By an order of the Minister of the Interior, it was extended to the whole of the provinces. This order dated the 6th (18th) of April 1832, stated that his Majesty, in confirming the regulation that had been made, had deigned to add, in his own hand-writing, that those regulations were to serve not only for the government of Podolia, but for all the eastern governments. The number of provinces was eight, and thus the number of families to be transplanted "in the first instance," from the Polish provinces, was 40,000. It had already been executed in the case of the province of Podolia, and was now
410
in the course of execution in the other provinces. It might be added, that the order last referred to, stated that his Majesty had ordained, that in no one case would the government be responsible for the debts of the persons transplanted; nevertheless, those who were to be transplanted should not be previously apprized of it; that the creditors should act according to the laws, but that that should be no obstacle to transplantation. Another order of the minister of the interior to the governor of Podolia, of the 14th (26th) of August 1832, stated, that the governor of Caucasus had received a supreme order to be ready to receive the ci-devant Polish gentlemen destined to be incorporated into the corps of Cossacs, and added: "If the Polish gentlemen have no desire to be transplanted, you are authorized to constrain them to do so by force." These orders were given to root up 40,000 families from their native soil; to carry them off by force, without notice, to remote and barbarous regions. Transplant they could not. They might root up and destroy; but the plant would never take root again. The Pole would perish, but never would become a Russian. Never were the horrors of despotism depicted in their native colours more truly, than in the official orders which he had read, and in the acts which he had related; and he would leave these detestable proceedings to the indignation and disgust which they must excite in every human breast. But he would next refer to a document called an amnesty, for which the clemency of the emperor of Russia had been much lauded. It was dated the 7th of June, of the present year, and respected the officers and others of the former Polish army, then in Russia. It stated, that the emperor had, on the 20th of October, 1831, granted a most gracious amnesty, from which he had not excluded the superior officers of the Polish army, who had participated in the clemency shown to the less guilty, "their punishment" (mark the word "punishment,") being confined to their being conveyed into the interior of Russia." It then granted leave to all such persons, and the officers of all ranks, of the former Polish army (with some exceptions) who had been removed from Poland, and had not been taken into the Russian service (or in other words forced into the Russian service), to return to their country. This was, in fact, an amnesty to persons who

411
had been already amnestied, and who had been detained in Russia, in violation of the former amnesty. But it was very doubtful whether these persons would be willing to avail themselves of this new amnesty, whilst Poland remained under its present government. There were 1,000 Polish soldiers who preferred working with convicts at the fortifications of Russia to returning to their country under its present tyranny. He hoped he had clearly shown, that Russia had violated a treaty to which this country was a party—had broken her solemn engagements with Great Britain and the other Powers of Europe. That this breach of treaty involved in it consequences dangerous to the security and independence of Europe could not well be doubted. The subjugation of Poland left Russia at full liberty to pursue her schemes of aggrandizement, and to advance, with rapid strides, towards that unusual domination in the affairs of Europe, which she looked to as the means not merely of increasing her own power, but of subverting the independence of all free states, and destroying all free institutions. The foreign policy of Russia, founded on a system which knew no change, had, during more than half a century, been pursued with a steadiness, an ability, and a success unequalled, in the history of modern times. Her territories had been extended on every side—everywhere Russia was to be found—and everywhere her power and influence were dominant. She was more than suspected of having encouraged the king of Holland to resist the settlement of the Belgic question. No one could believe, that if she had been sincere in her wishes for that settlement, and had pressed with the force of her influence on the king of Holland—as for an object, in the success of which she herself felt an interest—the question between Holland and Belgium would not have been settled at an early period, and much expense of blood and treasure would" have been saved. It was curious to observe, in reference to the policy of Russia respecting Belgium, that the convention between that power and Great Britain, for the continuation of the payment of the Russo-Dutch loan of the 16th of November, 1831, recited, that the object of the former convention was to afford, on the one hand, to Great Britain, a guarantee that Russia would, in all questions concerning Belgium, identify her policy with
412
that of Great Britain; and, on the other hand, to secure to Russia the payment of a portion of her just debt, "in consideration—(let the House mark this well) in consideration of the general arrangements of the Congress of Vienna, to which she had given her adhesion—arrangements which remain in full force." So that whilst Russia was trampling under foot the Treaty of Vienna, we paid her our money in consideration of the general arrangements of the Congress of Vienna, and of her having given her adhesion to that treaty, and of its remaining in full force? Was not the nationality of Poland a part of the general arrangements of the Treaty of Vienna; and was it not a mockery to speak of the adhesion of the emperor of Russia to those general arrangements, and of their remaining in full force? In Germany, Russia was seen aiding and abetting, and protecting Austria and Prussia in their attempt to crush the liberties of that country, whilst she intrigued in the same cause in Portugal and in Spain. In respect to Austria and Prussia, she maintained a supremacy over those powers, apparent in every public transaction that occurred in the north of Europe; and whilst she was suffered to destroy Poland, in the independence of which Austria and Prussia were so peculiarly interested, she seemed to meet with no opposition from them in her designs on Turkey. Whilst the other powers of Europe seemed sunk in security and repose, Russia, with her fleets and armies, appeared suddenly in the Bosphorus as the ally and protector of the Sultan, whose dominions were at her mercy, and would be incorporated into her empire, as Poland had been, whenever it might suit the views of her policy. She commanded in Persia still more absolutely than in Turkey; and she turned her views, beyond all question, towards our Indian possessions, for the dominion of which, should Russia meet with no check in her career, we might yet have to fight on the plains of Hindoostan. The master principle of Russian policy was its fearlessness. She violated treaties, put her will in the place of the law of nations, and set the nations of Europe at defiance. Whilst a voice was not raised—he had almost said dared not be raised—above a whisper by other nations, lest it should involve them in a war with Russia, she broke her solemn compacts with other powers, and had no

413
such fear. She gave just cause of war, and war was not made upon her; nor did he call for war now. What then did his Motion call for? Not for war certainly—not for a demonstration of war—not even for a remonstrance—but he wished the House to call upon the Government to abstain from any act by which the present state of Poland might be recognised, or treated as a part of the law of nations, or of the admitted system of European policy. That the emperor of Russia would attempt to obtain the recognition of the other Powers of Europe to the great change in the public law of Europe, which of his own authority he had made, could not be doubted; that he would obtain the recognition of some of the Powers of Europe, if they had not in fact already recognized that change, was possible. But France and England would never submit to such a degradation. They would not, he trusted, even be guilty of a silent acquiescence in that usurpation. He called on the House of Commons of England to proclaim, in the face of their country and of Europe, their sense of this flagrant violation of a treaty, and of the law of nations. Let not the rights of Poland, by treaty, and by the law of nations, still in full force and untouched, be affected, or weakened by the formal or even silent acquiescence of this country, in those acts by which it was attempted to destroy them. If nothing could be done for Poland at the present moment, let her wait for events, and rest upon her rights. Let the rights of France and England, in respect of this great question, also continue unimpaired,—and the fate of Poland might yet be changed. Sooner or later the Powers of Europe must intervene, to put an end to the state of things that now existed in Poland. The civilized world could not suffer it to go on. Had the war been protracted, and had it continued to the present time, those Powers would have intervened to stop the effusion of human blood. Well! the war did continue, and blood still flowed. It was true, that it was the blood of the vanquished; but humanity commanded that that blood should cease to How. Nicholas had one of two courses to pursue—unbounded clemency towards the Poles, or their extirpation as a people. He embraced the latter course—he had pursued it, until it had become a system—a system of necessity: reconciliation
414
he had rendered impossible; every Pole must become a Russian, or he must die; resistance everywhere appeared where resistance was pssible—where it was not, the sentiment of resistance remained, and waited only for the opportunity of showing itself in action. It was a war of extermination—nothing could end it, but the intervention of the other Powers of Europe. Belgium was thought deserving of that intervention. The affair of Belgium, in the eye of a statesman, was of parochial importance compared with that of Poland. His Motion tended in that direction. He desired the British Government to abstain from any act which might fetter them in their course towards the object which they could not but desire—the restoration of Poland. He entreated them not to oppose this motion. The nation had its eyes upon them; the Press was unanimous in favour of the cause of Poland. This was a circumstance which proved above all others, the general interest which was taken in the question by the people of this country. In the town of Hull, a periodical publication of great merit, the Polish Record was exclusively directed to that cause. There was no other example of the kind in this or any other country. Let not Ministers resist, either by a direct negative or by the previous question, the Motion which he had to submit to the House. If it was to be opposed, let it be opposed by a direct negative, and not by the previous question. Let his Motion be negatived, if he had not made out his case; but if he had, he asked the support of Ministers. If he could not obtain this, he would ask his noble friend, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to follow the example of the Due do Broglio, in the Chamber of Deputies of France. So late as the 3rd of December last, M. Bignon (one of the first of French diplomatists, a person, too, whose character stood deservedly high, not merely for his excellent talent, but for the moderation and good sense for which he was distinguished) moved an amendment to the address to the king, in which amendment the cause of Polish nationality was stated to be "guaranteed by the law of nations and by treaty," and it conveyed the sense of the Chamber that both had been violated by The emperor of Russia. The Due de Broglio, minister for foreign affairs, did not oppose this amendment—

415
he said the government referred itself in that respect to the wisdom of the Chamber. He would ask his Majesty's Government to do the same in this instance, and he could have no fear as to the fate of his Motion. If the noble person, now at the head of the Government of the country, whom he respected above all living; statesmen—a man who, during a public life of half a century, had at all times shown himself the protector of the oppressed, and the enemy of the oppressor,—were now a Member of that House, of which he was long so distinguished an ornament;—he should not hesitate, for a moment, in claiming his support, and should be confident of obtaining it. He would call the attention of the House to the Address moved by Lord Grey, on the 21st of February, 1793, It was shortly after the second partition of Poland, and ran thus:—'We have been called upon to resist views of conquest and aggrandizement on the part of France. We admit that it is the interest and duty of every member of the commonwealth of Europe to support the established system and distribution of power among the independent sovereignties which actually subsist, and to prevent the aggrandizement of any state, especially the most powerful, at the expense of any other; and for the honour of his Majesty's Councils, we do most earnestly wish, that the Ministers had manifested a just sense of the importance of the principle to which they now appeal, in the course of late events which seemed to us to threaten destruction. When Poland was beginning to recover from the long calamities of anarchy, combined with oppression—after she had established an hereditary and limited monarchy like our own, and was peaceably employed in settling her internal government, his Majesty's Ministers, with apparent indifference and unconcern, have seen her become the victim of the most unprovoked and unprincipled invasion;—her territory overrun—her free constitution subverted—her national independence annihilated—and the general principles of the security of nations wounded through her side.* He would ask the friends and supporters, and colleagues of Lord Grey, would they resist his Motion? He earnestly trusted that they would not.
* Parliamentary History, xxx, p. 456.
416
He trusted that they would see, that their character, and that of the Government was at stake. But, above all, he looked for support to the independent Members of that House—he called upon them to speak the sense of the whole of the Commons of England, by pronouncing judgment on a question in which were involved not only the rights of the Polish nation, and the national peace of this country, but the cause of freedom throughout the world. He should move,—"That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty will be pleased not to recognise, or in any way give the sanction of his Government to the present political state and condition of Poland, the same having been brought about in violation of the Treaty of Vienna, to which Great Britain was a party."
Mr. Thomas Attwoodseconded the Motion. The history of Poland inspired the most heroic sentiments. So imbued was her soil with the blood of Patriots, that John Sobieski once said, if you grasp a handful of it, it will distil drops of gore. It was customary in England to speak of Poland as a land of slaves. But it was a great mistake to suppose that slavery was common in Poland. That kingdom had never been reduced to slavery. There was no word in the language to express "slave;" they had no nearer approach to it than the words expressing "prisoner of war." It was only from choice the serf was attached to the soil—not from the operation of slavery. Poland had suffered much—she had contended in many wars—she had attained most glorious distinction; but she had, till her friends destroyed her, always been free. The very motto which had been adopted by Poland, and which, he hoped, would yet bring her through her difficulties, proved the love of liberty—"Poland is not lost as long as we have life." Poland had always, until the usurpation of Russia, enjoyed national and political independence. He would not speak of the horrible cruelties of the emperor Nicholas, he would only remind the House of the vast encroachments of Russia, and of the necessity of England, for her own safety, setting bounds to the further aggrandisement of the barbarian. He had, within the last 150 years extended his arms on all sides, and now embraced half the world. England ought now to interfere, because, as the hon. and learned Member had

417
proved, she was a party to the Treaty of Vienna, and by that Treaty the independence of Poland was guaranteed. The duchy of Warsaw was attached to Russia. Hanover was attached to England by the golden link of the crown, but was independent of her Government. By what right did Russia destroy that independence, and set at nought all the treaties of Vienna? By the violation of the Treaty of Vienna, the insurrection of the Poles was no rebellion. It might be said, that the Poles should have appealed to England: but had they done so, they would have been punished by the Russians with the knout. Hon. Members probably knew but little of the nature of this terrible punishment. It was an instrument of torture, which, he trusted, would never be applied to Englishmen, though, he must say, they would deserve it, if they should yield to the encroachments which Russia was endeavouring to make on all Europe. Hon. Gentlemen might not be aware, that the knout was about seven times as severe an instrument of torture as the cat used is this country, and the only good he (Mr. Attwood) knew of it was, that in the hands of a skilful executioner it would kill a man, and end his miseries, in three blows. It was Russia which rebelled against principle, and against all the powers of Europe, and not the Poles who rebelled against Russia. Such were the horrible outrages committed by the Russians against the Poles, violating the laws, extorting their property, refusing them all redress, ever punishing the judges when they objected to be the instruments of tyranny—that the Poles had no alternative but to take up arms or submit to a degree of tyranny which would first have degraded, and ultimately have extirpated the people. France was, perhaps, under greater obligations to Poland than England, for resisting the northern barbarians in 1782, and, therefore, greater shame was to her than to England for not having interfered. But we had shame enough. A declaration had been made by the French king, and followed up by his ministry in 1831, of their intention to maintain the nationality of Poland, and a similar sentiment had been expressed by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the noble Lord, the Secretary at the head of Foreign Affairs, in April, 1832; yet nothing had been done. A French gentleman deputed
418
by the French cabinet, had, he understood, asked our Cabinet to join the French in going to war, and he received a decided negative. The Government ought to have demanded of Russia that she should discharge her duty in the same honourable and upright manner that we had done ours—to fulfil her treaties in the same manner as we had kept our compacts. It was very probable that Russia would have refused, but if England sent a fleet to the Baltic, and another to the Black Sea, it would have been impossible for Russia to have resisted such a force. If this had been done, he was satisfied Poland would have been restored to the Poland of 1772. Russia, however, was allowed to pursue her own course. He could not think, without regret and disgust, upon the series of insults, which England had endured from that Power. He had warned the noble Lord opposite last year, that Constantinople was in danger. The noble Lord disregarded the warning. Constantinople was now in the possession of the Russians. Scutari was also in their hands, and before long they would obtain possession of the Castles of the Dardanelles, which it would cost this country 100,000,000 l. of money to wrest from them. But recover them she must, if she would not see the Russian arms paramount all over Europe. Gentlemen were very ready to resent any thing which might be said in that House affecting their honour. Why were they not equally sensitive with regard to the honour of their country? The giant Russia was at present weak, but, once possessed of the Dardanelles, she would indeed become truly formidable. Now, then, he would say, was the time to strike, when in a moment Persia could be raised against her, and Poland would not be inert, and Russsia might be broken like a potter's vessel. But give her fifty years, and her empire would acquire cohesion and unity, and she would become irresistible. The hon. Member then, entered at great length into a history of the past conduct of Russia; contending, that she had fur a series of years, insulted England and aggrandized herself, at the expense of honour and humanity. In 1827, he said, Russia had entered into a treaty with France and England, stipulating that they should assist her in compelling Turkey to give independence to Greece, each party binding itself not to seek for any private advantage. But no sooner was this com-

419
pact entered into, than Russia seduced England to destroy the Turkish fleet at Navarino. She immediately set France and England at defiance, and declared war upon Turkey. The treaty was entered into in December 1827, and this violation took place in April, 1828. The Duke of Wellington remonstrated against this abandonment of all national good faith, but the only satisfaction he received from Nesselrode was, that Russia would confine the war to the Black Sea. Notwithstanding the stipulations of December, 1827, she now declared that she had commenced hostilities, not to compel Turkey to emancipate Greece, but on account of her own quarrel, which had subsisted since the treaty of Bucharest. Having declared that she would not carry the war into the Mediterranean, she again broke her word, within three months from the time she pledged it, by ordering a fleet to blockade the Dardanelles. All this the Duke of Wellington pocketed. And yet this was the man who went out to fight duels. Would to God that he were as much alive to insults offered to the honour of his country, as to those which affected his own honour as an individual, The Duke of Wellington took credit to himself for having saved Constantinople from the Russians at that time, and he believed, that such was the case. But of what use was it to preserve Constantinople from the Russians in 1829, if it was to fall into their hands in 1833. he wished the Duke of Wellington had stopped Russia at the Pruth. It would have been as easy to stop her there as at Adrianople. It was said, that if we interfered in behalf of Poland or Turkey, it would lead to a general war. He did not believe it would, He believed the present state of things more likely to lead to a general war. If England, supported by France, and, as he took for granted, she would be by Austria, said to Russia, "You shall deliver up Turkey and Poland," she would meet with no resistance—she could command Russia to do what she pleased. But, even supposing it should lead to a general war—if we could not preserve the honour and the political interests of England without war, let war come. We had never shrunk from war before, why should we now? Russia was ready to go to war, although her resources would not bear any comparison with ours. Why then should we fear to go to war? Was it that the people of
420
England could not pay the taxes whose fault was that—He had evidence that the people could, under a proper system of Government, pay 40,000,000 l. of taxes per annum more than at present, with less suffering. Did Gentlemen recollect that the people had paid 80,000,000 l. a-year, for three years together during the war. And did they then suffer more than at present, paying 45,000,000 l. The Government had emasculated England. He would tell his Majesty's Ministers, that they were no Government for the people of England, unless they were prepared to go to war if necessary, or to protect the honour and interests of the country without war. The people did not want war for its own sake; but they wished to protect the honour and the political interests of the country, and they would protect them under this Government, or under another. It was not thirty-five years since Mr. Pitt declared, that sooner than let Russia have a single village on the Black Sea, he would risk the whole empire on a war. The words Mr. Pitt used were, toto imperio certare: and such was the interpretation which he affixed to those words; and yet we are now going to let the Russians have the whole of the Black Sea, and the whole of the Turkish empire! Did hon. Gentlemen recollect, that, seventy or eighty years ago, a poor English sailor came home from the Havannah, and told a piteous story of the injuries he had received, and of the manner in which he had been tortured by the Spaniards. He said to this House that—"in his agonies he commended his soul to God, and looked up to his country for revenge." How did that House act? Why, they one and all took up his cause, and, upon this single insult, war was declared against Spain, and carried to a triumphant issue. He was rather surprised to see the present hydrophobic dread of war; he suspected it was a mere fear of the fall of Consols; he would rather see Consols abolished than the honour of England insulted. But he was quite satisfied, that if this country once took its proper stand, and resolutely declared that the system of Russia should have an end, Russia, with her nobles, would at once submit—the march of tyranny would be stopped—and the ruthless hand of oppression would be stayed. But, if Europe remained quiet, if England and Frame did not combine, it was in vain to expect that Russia would not go on, step

421
by step, increasing her power and committing new enormities. If this state of things was to go on, what was to prevent Austria from falling under the surveillance of Russia? What was to prevent Austria becoming as much a part of Russia as Poland was, if Russia exercised a despotic influence uncontrolled and unrestrained over Turkey? She would embrace Austria in a crescent. On the present occasion, the Resolution which had been moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Kirkcudbright, was so very moderate, so prudent, and so guarded, that he hoped there was no Gentleman in this House who would oppose it. He trusted the noble Lord would not oppose it, and would use his influence to prevent its being negatived. No man could possibly be more attached to the noble Lord and the Ministry than he was, until they brought forward the Coercion Bill for Ireland, and no one would more willingly forget and forgive than he would, if they would revert to their old sentiments, and return to the support of the great cause of liberty and humanity all over the world! He should then be their humble follower and advocate; and they would have no more sincere, zealous, and ready supporter; and he was sure, that in such a case they would have the support of the people. The people of England were rich and powerful, and full of virtue and public spirit; and was it possible after voting a sum of 20,000,000 l. to save 800,000 negroes (a vote of which he approved), that we could not spare one-tenth of the money to save 20,000,000 of Poles. He did not wish to undervalue any portion of the human race, but he did not hesitate to say, that for the life of one Pole be would sacrifice the lives of ten of these negroes. He knew, that in the eye of the law a negroe a Pole, and an Englishman, were all equal, but in the eye of honour and humanity, and common sense, these uneducated black men could not be placed upon a level with a gallant, intelligent, and a noble race. The persecution which many noble Poles endured, was as bad as the worst sufferings that the slaves were compelled to undergo. The hon. Gentleman then read a paper with which he had the honour to be intrusted, being an address to the Representatives of Great Britain and Ireland, from the National Polish Committee, depicting the unhappy condition of their country, and imploring them to lift up
422
their voice in behalf of Poland. It was dated, he said, Paris, June 30th, 1833, and was signed by the celebrated General Dwernicki and a committee of glorious patriots. He hoped the House would not turn a deaf ear to this affecting appeal. He said, with truth and sincerity, that any sacrifice that he could make as a man, he would most readily make, to regain the liberties and the independence of Poland. He had four sons, and if their services, or even their lives could benefit the cause of the Poles, to that cause they should willingly be devoted. He was sure the majority of the English people entertained similar opinions. He hoped the House would not be behind the people in honour and liberality. He could not believe, that the Reformed House of Commons would separate, without expressing in a voice of thunder, and in a way that could not be misunderstood, the determination that Poland should be free. The hon. Gentleman also read an extract from the "Official Gazette" of Moscow, which spoke of the impotence of England, encumbered as she was with debt. He hoped, that these repeated insults would not be submitted to. They could not be, without degrading England. The hon. Member again repeated, that England was better able to sustain the exertion of war than Russia. He hoped, that the name of William 4th would not go down to posterity, with the stigma of having tamely endured the overbearing insulting conduct of Russia. Insulted humanity, the true policy of England, the outraged liberty of Europe—all called upon the people of this country to interfere. He hoped and trusted, that where such great interests were at stake, that call would not be disregarded. The House was merely required by the Resolution to address the Sovereign, requesting him not to do that which he had notdone—not to give his sanction to the present state of Poland. They would thus only confirm his Majesty's own conduct, and suggest to him to express, in a little bolder and more decided language, the sentiments of his royal mind. Let his Majesty's wishes be strengthened by the declaration of Parliament, and encouraged by that to declare to Russia, that he would never recognize the present political state of Poland, and that sooner or later she must be restored to the state in which she existed, as to liberty and independence, in 1772. He called on Ministers not to

423
suffer the barbarian power to fortify itself at scutari, but, if necessary, to send an English fleet and an English army to drive the Russians away. He hoped, that the Ministers would not move the previous question on the Resolution, and it they did, be prayed that they might be defeated. He again repeated, that the cause of Poland was the cause of liberty and humanity; and as England must fight against Russia in its behalf at some time or other, it would be better that she fought now, before Poland was finally and completely subdued, and incorporated with the Russian empire.
Sir Harry Verneycomplimented the hon. and learned member for Kircudbright, for the excellent manner in which he had introduced the question to the House, and regretted, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had taken such a different view, and should have represented this question as a question of making war upon Russia, and as if he were prepared for that alternative. Certainly, if England had any thing to fear from any power, it was from Russia; and he regretted, that the hon. Member should have described her as a barbarian power. He wished she was a barbarian power. There was, however, no power which adopted such wise means to attain its ends as Russia. She was intent on promoting civilization, extending commerce, and establishing in every part of her empire the most useful institutions. She sent abroad the most enlightened of her citizens to collect correct information of the improvements of other countries. Did the hon. member for Birmingham know, that steam-boats were navigating on the Wolga, and that you might travel in Russia with almost as much facility as in the United States of America? The hon. Member had libelled Mr. Canning, for never, in that statesman's time, did any power insult England without that insult being resented. He regretted, that the House should have been diverted, by the observations of the hon. Member, from the excellent speech of the hon. and learned Member who brought forward the Motion; for it was of great importance to give a temperate and firm support to the cause of Poland. Poland was the only power which could form a barrier against Russia, and preserve that balance of power which it was the interest of England, and all other European states to preserve. Napoleon had said, that
424
Russia would succeed him in the empire of Europe, and the Abbé du Pradt had said, that Russia and England must contend for supremacy; that there were only two powers in Europe; and if Britain was the power that was to contend, as she had always contended, for liberal institutions and freedom against barbarism, it was of consequence that she should support the good cause by good means. The hon. Member concluded by reminding the House of the terms of the Motion, and by again expressing his regret, that the House had been diverted from them by the speech of the hon. member for Birmingham.
Sir Robert Inglis, after eulogising the speech of the hon. and learned member for Kircudbright, expressed his regret that any person should have diverted the attention of the House from that speech:—a speech combining better taste, better feeling, and higher talent he had never heard. On a former occasion when the subject was introduced, he felt reluctant to come forward and state his opinion, particularly after the language used towards the Sovereign of Russia—language unblamed by his Majesty's Ministers. He regretted to hear it, because he thought that no language ought to be used in that House respecting any of the Sovereigns of Europe, allies of the King, which could not be uttered in the presence of their representatives. He had on that occasion carefully abstained from giving any opinion on the subject of Poland itself. He would now say, that he thought the cause of Poland was the cause of Europe and of Christian civilization. The Emperor had unwarrantably assumed a power over it which was equally condemned by the law of nations and repudiated by facts. He had assumed that he possessed it by right of conquest; and he might as well have applied that assumption to Paris, or to any other place which his armies had ever entered. The phrase applied to it in the Organic Statute, which was on the Table of the House, was, that Poland, by the law of conquest, was possessed by Russia. The phrase was: "The Kingdom of Poland once heretofore conquered by the victorious arms of Russia." But the fact was, as it had been stated by his hon. friend, that Russia held Poland by a compact with other powers. The Emperor Nicholas held it by the same right as the Emperor Alexander; and Alexander held it on the ground to which

425
he and his allies, at Vienna, were alike parties, that a constitution was to be given to Poland. Since the last discussion, papers on the subject bad been laid on the Table, with an extract from a despatch of Lord Heytesbury, inclosing what was called, by the courtesy of diplomacy, the new Constitution. If the new Constitution approached at all in principle to that given by the Emperor Alexander—though he should regard it as an untoward event, that the Constitution which on the 21st of May, 1829, the Emperor Nicholas had sworn to maintain, should have been subverted by his single will—still, if the substantial ends of justice had been obtained, he should say, that the contracting powers to the Treaty of Vienna would have no right to complain; but when he compared the two documents, he found that the new Constitution was nothing more than the mere decree of a despotic Sovereign. The House would feel, that this new Constitution was drawn up in singular terms. By the Treaty of Vienna, by which Poland was committed to the care of Alexander, he was bound to give it a Constitution; and there would be ground of complaint if that had not been the case. And so careful were the powers who were parties to that treaty, that in the first phrase in which Poland was mentioned, it was stated that her nationality should be preserved. But he must observe, that the very first word in the Organic Statute was an unfortunate word; for it said, that Poland should be "re-united" to the empire of Russia. The use of the word might open the question of the former union; but he contended that, in all history, Poland never was united to Russia, except when Russia was subdued by Poland; with the exception, however, of that unfortunate term, the first phrase was a recognition of Poland as a distinct state—meaning a distinct kingdom. The Emperor Alexander and the Emperor Nicholas were both crowned at Warsaw, and were both bound to be crowned at Warsaw by the Constitution. By the Organic Statute, however, or the new Constitution, Poland was declared an integral part of the Russian Empire. How was that to be reconciled to the principle that Poland was to be an integral state, and that the Sovereign was to be crowned at Warsaw? Why, Poland now was not different from Siberia or any other dependent province incorporated with Russia, and had lost all the distinctive
426
characteristics of a separate kingdom. The Constitution of 1815 was completely violated by the Organic Statute. He would proceed to compare the two.
By the Constitution, a regency was to be appointed, which gave something like nationality, and that regency was taken away. By the Constitution of 1815, four members of the regency were to be elected by the Senate; and that regency, so elected by the Senate, gave a separate existence to the state. Now the Polish nation was to be regulated by a regency, appointed wholly by Russia.
Again, by the Constitution of 1815, the Diet was to be assembled every two years, and it was declared illegal to suspend it; but that was totally disregarded; it was not even mentioned; it was superseded without a word; and the Diet was swept away as if it had never existed. If there were any one thing which better than another preserved a national character, and which was a distinct mark of nationality, it was a separate language. A national language was a consolation under oppression, and an honour when independent. But now the Polish language which, by the original Constitution, was to be employed in all public proceedings, administrative, judicial, and military, was guaranteed in the administrative and judicial proceedings only; and it appeared that even in these, the Russian language, so far as the bulletin of the laws was concerned, had become equally the original.
By the Constitution of 1815, none but Poles were eligible to office in Poland. That gave nationality to the Poles; but now any persons, natives of Russia, and subjects of its many governments, were equally eligible with the Poles to any employment in Poland. The question was not as to the abstract expediency of the principle, or as to the fitness of the people for the offices; but as to the conformity of the new Statute to the Constitution originally granted to Poland by the Government in 1815. By that Constitution, all offices in Poland were secured to the Poles; by the Organic Statute, they were thrown open to all the inhabitants of Russia, and now any of the subjects of the forty dependent provinces of that empire might hold office in Poland. Let the House always recollect that it was only upon the faith of the stipulations that Russia should give a Constitution to Po-

427
land, that Alexander had received Poland. Let it then be recollected, that he did give a Constitution to Poland; and that Poland, with such Constitution, had been secured to Nicholas. He did not object to the changes in an abstract point of view, but mentioned them to show that the promises of a Constitution—a Constitution, too, which had been actually given—were broken by the present government of Russia, and these promises had been guaranteed by this country and the principal powers of Europe. What, however, he wished particularly to call the attention of the House to was the Treaty of Vienna; and every one who attended to the substance of that treaty must see, that this Government was pledged, as one of the parties, to see it fulfilled. Poland had, for a long time, been the barrier of Christendom; and if, as the Abbé de Pradt had said, England and Russia were the only two powers which, hereafter, were to contend for superiority, it ought to be one of the first objects of this country to recognise the kingdom of Poland. No man regretted more than he did the speech of the hon. member for Birmingham—a speech which so directly tended to provoke war between the two countries. Disapproving, as he did, of that speech, he would, at the same time, say, that the great difficulty of the question was to ascertain when they had gone far enough, without doing too much. Burke said, that no word was so difficult as the word "enough." It was difficult when the circumstances were all within one's own power; but it was infinitely more difficult when other persons, or other states and powers, were involved in the question. Difficult as the question, however, was, he must say, that, looking at the Treaty of Vienna, it was the duty of this country to call on every power who was a party to that treaty, to see it carried into effect agreeably to the terms agreed upon before assembled Europe. When the powers of Europe committed Poland to the care of Russia, they did it on certain conditions. The army was to be distinctly Polish, the nationality was to be preserved, and the Polish Diet was to assemble at stated times. All these were now to be abolished. That army, too, which was so blended with the chivalry of Europe—which had ever been foremost in the most gallant actions—was it nothing to say, that it was to be annihilated? He could not speak from personal
428
knowledge of the character of the French army; but this he might safely say, that if the Polish squadrons were not the flower of the French army, they at least were not surpassed in bravery and skill by any corps of it.
It was said by the hon. member for Birmingham, referring to an article in the Moscow Gazette, that, from the relative situation of newspapers in Russia to the Government, such article was of great importance. Though too much importance was, perhaps, attached to that particular article; still, to a certain extent, whatever appeared in a Russian paper, must be considered as an authorized declaration of the mind and will of the Sovereign; or, at least permitted, since not prohibited. Now, he had lately read in some extracts, he believed, from papers under the Russian Government, that the estates of a particular individual prominent in the late events in Poland had not been confiscated. This was most delusive, if not untrue, since the individual in question had been equally deprived of the property. By the original Constitution, there could be no confiscation. By the 159th clause of that compact, the Emperor Alexander engaged, that no confiscation should take place under any circumstances. By the Organic Statute part of that contract was repealed, and it was declared, that confiscation of property could be made but only on account of state crimes, to be determined by a specific law. Now, what security could there be for property by such a decree? No property, in fact, could be secure. He had seen two advertisements in The Morning Post, of the 26th of February of this year—and he believed that was the only paper in which they had appeared—offering for sale some estates which had been confiscated in Podolia and Volhynia. From these it appeared that 200,000 serf's had been confiscated, and were offered for sale under the order of General Sacken. It might be necessary here to state, that every Polish estate was valued, as in the West Indies, by the number of slaves on it. In the list of these forfeitures, he recognized Czartorinski and many other great Polish names.
Another of the clauses of the Constitution was, to prevent deportation or banishment from Poland; yet that had been violated, and violated too by the deportation of infants. He had the circumstances of the case from authorities on which he could

429
rely. When the subject was formerly be fore the House, he had expressed his disbelief of such conduct on the part of Russia; but when he found that other acts of the Russian Government, which had been officially denied, had turned out to be correctly given, he therefore could not be to blame in giving credit to such statements regarding; the banishment of children, particularly when they were communicated to him from such authority.
But he would ask, above all, what had been the conduct of Russia to that gallant army which had so bravely defended its rights? No civilized state had ever, for the last 300 years, refused to treat prisoners of war according; to the regulations laid down by the law of nations. But had Russia done this? No! She had not treated them as prisoners of war, but had sent them to serve on board fleets in remote regions of the empire. No civilized nation ever degraded its prisoners, or employed them in base and servile work. But the Poles were sent off to Siberia, and to labour in the fleets and galleys of Russia, both to the Black Sea and to Cronstadt. 4,600 had been sent to the Black Sea; 3,500 to the Baltic; 7,000 Polish troops had been incorporated in the corps of the Ural and Siberia, while the Polish artillery had been sent to the Caucasus, to garrison the block-houses, if even, as it was contended by Russia, the Poles were to be considered as rebels, all that she was at liberty to do in that case was, to punish them as rebels in the country where the rebellion took place. But she was not at liberty to destroy the nationality of a whole people for the offences of a few; and even if the offence were universal, no conduct of such a kind could, on any principle whatever, be justified; more especially was this the case when it was considered that Poland was an ancient and an independent nation; that she was not part of the great empire of Russia; that at the settlement of Europe in the Congress of Vienna, the kingdom of Poland was not given to the emperor of Russia in absolute subjection and sovereignty, but rather as a precious deposit intrusted to his care by all the Powers of Europe.
what, too, had taken place in Poland with regard to religion? he was a sincere member of the Protestant Establishment; and as he should view with the Strongest disapprobation, any attack upon
430
the religion which he professed, so did he regard, with equal disapprobation, any injury or insult inficted upon a nation professing a religion different from his own. The House would boar in mind, that Poland was essentially a Roman Catholic country; and perhaps no nation in Europe was more ardent or sincere in its attachment to that form of worship. What was the conduct of Russia with regard to the religion of Inland? She had exerted herself to the utmost to destroy and overthrow it. In whole provinces, all the convents had been suppressed, and I he priests banished. Russia thought proper to declare the convents to be nurseries of sedition and of anti-Russian feeling; and as Poland was to be incorporated with the empire, she felt it necessary Id transform its inhabitants from Catholics into followers of the Greek Church. When he saw conduct such as this to a nation, whose religious faith had been guaranteed in the strongest manner, not only by Russia, but by all the nations of Europe, he must say, such wilful uprooting of all the religious institutions of the country demanded an expression of feeling on the part of that House which he would not trust himself to niter. He would give one instance of the manner in which the Church of Rome was persecuted by Russia in some parts of the Polish provinces. He bad in his hand a letter from Warsaw of the 5th of January last, by which the writer (on whose information he could depend) slated, that in one province 200 Roman Catholic convents had been suppressed, and between 2,000 and 3,000 priests banished. In one of these convents, near Bialystock, the monks requested permission, for the last time previous to their departure, to celebrate mass, which was granted notice was given for a certain day, when an immense concourse of people attended mass was celebrated. (He would translate, as he proceeded) "And when the service was over, amid the tears and sobs of the multitude, the Priests carrying the Host, moved forwards in procession, towards Bialystock, where they were to deposit the Holy Sacrament. Their march was slow, the way was long, and the crowd augmented at every step, and with it the cries and lamentations augmented. The Governor of Bialystock was informed of the approach; alarmed at the number and at the; tumult, he ordered a squadron of cavalry to disperse

431
the people at all hazards. The commander set forth; but when he saw the venerable men, some eighty years of age, bearing the Host; when he saw the multitudes following, whose silence was interrupted only by sobs and groans; he, far from scattering them by force, threw himself from his horse, with his face on the ground, and joined his prayers with theirs: and when they had passed, rose, and followed them on foot, and bare-headed with his troop. On reaching Bialystock, he was arrested, degraded, and exiled to Siberia. I would have had 1,000 deaths before mc (said he) rather than have acted otherwise." He would not occupy the House any longer by these details; but he could not help feeling that no great national sin had ever been perpetrated without bringing down national punishment. For our individual sins we were individually responsible, and our punishment was, doubtless, wisely deferred to a future state; but national sins involved national punishments, which could be inflicted only in this life. He firmly believed, that the great national crime of Europe in the eighteenth century was the partition of Poland. He saw there three mighty Powers combined to perpetrate one of the greatest acts of injustice ever heard of. But on examining further into the history of those Powers, he saw the hand of the oppressor and spoiler fall heavily on them. He saw their Capitals, in succession, made the prey of a great and hostile Power—so surely did national punishments follow national crimes. All the military reputation of Prussia, perhaps at the moment before its fall, unrivalled in Europe, could not preserve its capital. Austria, the most ancient of European empires, twice yielded its capital to the mercy of the conqueror; and Russia, even, the mistress of so many nations, was saved as a nation but by the loss of her capital. When he saw these things, he asked, was he not justified in saying-, that national crimes involved national punishments? He could not, therefore, but indulge the hope that this crime—indeed it might be said in the language of a distinguished diplomatist, that it was worse than a crime, for it was a fault;—he repeated, that when he reviewed the conduct of Russia towards Poland, he could not but believe, that the day of retribution must shortly come. It was, at least, a matter of some consolation, that this country had not by any false
432
encouragement been a party to the present prostration of Poland. He did flatter himself with the belief, that a recognition by that House, in the face of Europe, of the right of Poland to different treatment, would not be without its use; and his only apprehension had been hitherto lest such a proposition should have had the effect of doing more harm to the Poles than good. R would be a consolation to ourselves to make this recognition, and thus to liberate our own souls; it was consistent with the purest and best feelings of human nature; and if it should, as he hoped and believed it would, eventually serve the cause of Poland, he, for one, should most sincerely rejoice that his hon. and learned friend had brought forward the present Motion.
Viscount Palmerstonthought, that his hon. and learned friend needed no apology for having introduced the present question, for he knew of no subject which deserved more to command the attention and engage the sympathy of an English assembly than anything connected with a nation distinguished for its gallantry and devotion as well as its misfortunes; and if any Member more than another was qualified to bring this question forward in such a way as to secure the goodwill and attention of the House, it was his hon. and learned friend, who, with those generous feelings which peculiarly characterized him, combined talents adequate to do justice to any subject, however difficult, and who brought to its discussion that good temper, discretion, and judgment, which never failed him. In most of the arguments—he might say almost all, of his hon. and learned friend, he was prepared to say, that he was willing to concur. It was true, as stated by his hon. and learned friend, that the kingdom of Poland was not an ancient part of the Russian empire—it was not held by old right, but bore the date of the Treaty of Vienna, and the possession of it was founded on the sanction of Europe. The British Government, therefore, felt, as one of the contracting parties to that treaty, that they had a right to entertain and express an opinion on any Act which tended to a violation of or a departure from those stipulations to which they were pledged in common with the other contracting parties. The first article of that treaty stated, that the kingdom of Poland was inseparably united with Russia by its constitution; and if he were called on

433
to interpret the meaning of that article, he should say, that its true intent and spirit were, that the constitution, whatever it might be, which should be given to Poland in pursuance of that article, was the connecting link between that country and Russia. Therefore the constitution given by the Emperor Alexander, in pursuance and after the execution of that treaty, was and ought to be, considered as resting upon the sanction of that treaty, and Russia was bound in good faith to its maintenance. He did not think that the revolt of the Poles absolved the Russian Government from the obligations which, he contended, were imposed upon it by that treaty. In the first place, he was not prepared to say, that the revolt of a people (and be it remembered, that the Russian government always maintained in all its proclamations that the revolt in Poland was partial and not participated in by the whole nation)—but he repeated, he was not prepared to say, that the revolt of a people would entitle the sovereign, after having re-established his authority by force of arms, to abrogate the constitution which such people previously enjoyed; he should therefore say, that if the matter lay simply between Russia and Poland, and no other parties were concerned in the question, he did not think the Polish revolt justified the Russian government in abrogating the constitution, when the authority of the Emperor had been restored. Even though the Poles had taken the uncalled-for, and, in his opinion, unjustifiable step, of not merely asserting their rights and claiming the maintenance of the privileges guaranteed to them, but declaring the dethronement of the emperor. But in this case there were other parties concerned in the matter. By the treaty of Vienna the assignment of Poland to Russia was regarded as a European arrangement, to which the European powers were parties. That treaty defined the relation in which Poland should stand to Russia, and on that ground alone, he contended, the other powers had a right to require of Russia that the constitution should not be touched. This opinion was one which had not been concealed from the Russian government. It had been communicated by anticipation to the Russian government previously to the capture of Warsaw, and whilst the contest was yet undecided. When Warsaw fell, and Poland was at the disposal
434
of the conqueror, before any definitive arrangement was made, that opinion was again distinctly and unreservedly conveyed to the Russian government. Russia, however, took a different view of the question, and contended, that, by the revolution and by the reconquest of Poland, it was put in the same situation as that in which, according to their argument, it stood prior to the treaty of Vienna and the grant of a constitution. The Russian government contended that all the institutions of the country must be considered as having been swept away by the revolution; and that it rested solely with the Emperor to determine what form of government should be substituted in their place, and to what institutions he would give his sanction. The reply of the English Government was, that having taken into full consideration the statements of the Russian Ministry in support of their view of the case, England still adhered to the opinions before expressed; and thought that the true interpretation of the Treaty of Vienna required that the constitution of Poland should remain as it did before the revolution, Russia having no right to touch it. Austria and Prussia, however, took the same view of the case with Russia, whilst France supported the opinion of England. The question, then, which the British Government had to consider was not what they had a strict right to do—not to what extent they might be justified in enforcing their interposition—but what, on a general view of the whole circumstances of the case, in reference to the state of Europe, and more especially to the interests of Poland herself, would be the wisest course of policy for Great Britain to pursue. Upon a full consideration of those circumstances, certainly, it was not deemed prudent to support by force of arms the view taken by England. He could not but think, that however the House might concur in the exposition of the treaty made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, however they might have wished to see a different result of the contest, and however strong might be their sympathy with the English people on this subject in lamenting the fate of Poland, yet upon a calm, deliberate, and dispassionate view of the then existing state of Europe, they would agree with him, that it was wise on the part of his Majesty's Ministers not to involve Europe in a

435
general war in the hope and expectation of ultimately rescuing Poland from the oppression under which it suffered. A general war it must certainly have been, when Austria, Russia, and Prussia, would have taken one side, and England, France, and Poland the other. Austria and Prussia both possessed Polish provinces, and had, or, what was the same thing, fancied they had an interest in upholding the opinions of Russia. These great Powers were ready to maintain their opinions at all risks. They had each of them large armies assembled on their respective frontiers next to Poland, ready to march at a moment's notice, and long before England or France could come to the assistance of Poland, they could have overwhelmed the unfortunate Poles, who could scarcely bear up as it was against the single power of Russia. If, therefore, the Government wished to render the fate of the Poles certain, by involving them in a contest with forces greatly superior to their own, they had but to declare their determination of enforcing the Treaty of Vienna by arms. He thought, therefore, whether he considered the question in reference to the general results of a war in Europe, or in reference to the interests of the Poles themselves, that his Majesty's Government had adopted the wisest policy by contenting themselves at that time with expressing their sentiments as they did, clearly and decidedly, to the Russian Government. The question now under consideration was, whether at the present moment it was expedient for the House to agree to the Motion before it. It was not to be disguised that, however they might lament the change that had taken place in the national organization of Poland, no vote of that House would have the slightest effect in reversing the decision of Russia. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not ask the House to go to war for the purpose of enforcing his views. But he would ask them was it likely that a mere vote of that House would have such weight with the Russian government as to induce it now to retrace steps which had been taken in opposition to the strong and repeated remonstrances of England and France—steps, too, founded not on the personal feeling of individuals, but on a general and national feeling of resentment on the part of the Russians towards the Poles. He was not prepared to deny the statement of the
436
hon. and learned Gentleman with regard to the cruelties practised towards the Poles; but he thought it not unlikely that the accounts which had reached England had exaggerated the degree of their severity. With regard to the transportation of families, he believed that, in some instances at least, they were induced to remove voluntarily, by the otter of grants of land. He was strongly inclined to think that these removals were not altogether compulsory but were in some degree optional with the parties. Most of these cases, however, happened in the provinces which were incorporated with Russia, and which did not belong to the kingdom of Poland. They, therefore, were not subject in the same degree to the stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna, and consequently this country had no right to interfere. For instance, many of these cases occurred in Podolia and Volhynia, which were strictly part of the Russian territory. His hon. and learned friend had stated that England had quailed before the power of Russia. He assured the House, that it was not the fear of Russia, which determined the conduct of the British Government on that question. He trusted, that the British Government knew too well the power and resources of this country, to entertain any apprehensions of encountering in a just cause, and with the support of the people, any war with any power, however formidable. No apprehension, therefore, of Russia, or of any power in Europe, would induce the Government to shrink from any course of proceeding which was just in itself, or wise in respect to the interest or honour of the country. It was on general considerations connected with the peace of Europe, and from a conviction that any demonstration or attack on our part would not have any effect on the immediate scene of action, or if any, that it would occasion the union of the armies of Austria, Prussia, and Russia, who would then have crushed Poland in the shortest possible time, that the British Government were prevented from interfering, knowing, as they did, that their interposition would have been too late to save the Poles from destruction. His hon. and learned friend had stated, that it was not his object to launch this country into war, but only to prevent any formal acknowledgment on the part of the Government of this country, of arrangements inconsistent with the stipula-

437
tions of the Treaty of Vienna. The Motion of his hon. and learned friend was perfectly unnecessary for this purpose; for no circumstances could arise under which the English Government could give their sanction or acquiescence to the arrangements which the emperor had made in Poland. The arrangement was one which the Russian Government considered they were competent to make of themselves; and so far from asking the consent of other powers to it, they denied the right of other powers to interfere at ail. Therefore the Russian government would not ask the sanction of England, if that had not been already entirely precluded by the communications of the British Government with the Court of Russia. For these reasons he thought it was not necessary for his hon. and learned friend to call on the House to interpose to prevent the British Government from acknowledging the disposition made by Russia with regard to Poland. Some expressions had dropped in the course of the Debate with regard to the persecutions of the Poles, which required some little notice. He thought no blame on this score attached to the emperor of Russia personally. It was well known, that the present emperor of Russia was a man of high and generous feelings, and if it were possible for the emperor to follow the bent of his own inclination, he was convinced that none of the atrocities which had been spoken of would have been practised against the Poles. It was well known that in the course of the contest the emperor personally had shown a disposition to more lenient measures. It might, perhaps, be observed, that the emperor of Russia was a despotic monarch; but when persons spoke of arbitrary and despotic governments, they should remember, that even in such governments things were not conducted according to the mere will and pleasure of the individual sovereign. A despot depended nearly as much upon the opinions and wishes of others as a limited monarch. The only difference was (and a very important difference certainly) that the despotic monarch was controlled in his actions by the opinions and wishes of a few, while the limited or constitutional monarch was guided by the opinions and wishes of the many—of the nation at large. The seventies which had been practised upon the Poles were, in his mind, the
438
clearest proof that the power of the emperor of Russia was by no means unlimited, and that on many occasions he was compelled to follow the dictates of others. The hon. member for Birmingham, who seconded the Motion, did not appear to him to be a good ally of the hon. and learned mover. He had taken a view of the question which was certainly more extensive than that which had been taken by any other hon. Member, but in his (Lord Palmerston's) opinion, it was a most extraordinary view. His voice was all for war—a general war; and he was generous enough, while he made his declaration, to offer the Government what he considered ample means for the prosecution of such a war. He offered the whole of the National Debt—40,000,000 l. a-year of additional taxes, and his four sons. These were the ways and means which the hon. Member proposed for carrying on this general war. He doubted however much whether the public creditors would agree to waive their claims on the country in order to carry into execution the projects of the hon. Member. Nor could he say whether the people of England were prepared to pay 40,000,000 l. a-year of fresh taxes for the purpose of carrying on a war in favour of the Poles; nor did the warlike member for Birmingham state whether he had consulted his four sons about the sacrifice which he was ready to make of them upon the altar of liberty. The hon. Member, no doubt, had splendid ideas of the manner in which the affairs of Europe ought to be conducted. His views, indeed, were not less extensive than his resources; and while he denounced the crime of partition of Poland, and censured the arrangements of 1815, he proposed a reconstruction of Europe more extensive than the changes made by the Congress of Vienna. Could the plan of the hon. member for Birmingham only be carried into effect, his name would indeed be immortalized! The hon. Member proposed to take from Russia the kingdom of Poland and probably some part of Lithuania; and to take from Austria, Gallicia, and to erect these countries into a new Polish state. He would then take Moldavia and Wallachia from Turkey, and give them to Austria, and would probably compensate Turkey by bestowing upon her the Crimea, and all this was to have been done by a squadron in the Baltic and another in the Black Sea. As to the

439
practicability of the hon. Member's views, the House had the hon. Member's word. But if they were to plunge into war at the bidding of the hon. Member, no doubt his constituents would supply them with guns and cannon ad libitum; and so far as the consent of the hon. Member went, there would be no difficulty in obtaining an abundance of paper money. For his part he could not so easily consent to involve the country in such a war as that which the hon. Member proposed. Nor could he admit, though the hon. Member asserted it, that this country had been the mere tool of Russia for the last fifteen years. With respect to the conduct of Russia in her late war with Turkey, he was quite satisfied that there did not exist any just ground for our interference. Turkey had in 1827, broken her engagements to Russia, and given her just cause of war. The Turkish government had expelled Russian subjects, seized upon Russian ships, and declared they would not execute the Treaty of Ackermann. Russia in that war was right and Turkey wrong. With respect to the present occupation of Turkey by Russian troops, he firmly believed, that the Russian troops, if they had not already left Constantinople, would leave it in a very short time, and he had no doubt of the good faith with which the Russian government would fulfil the engagements which it had entered into upon that subject, not with England only, but with all Europe. He did not believe that it entered into the views of the Cabinet of St. Petersburgh (as it seemed to be believed by some parties) at present to make a partition of Turkey. If she were to make the attempt it must be unsuccessful; but he was perfectly confident that no such attempt would at present be made, and that the Russian troops would speedily evacuate all that portion of the Ottoman territories which they occupied. After the warlike speech of the hon. member for Birmingham, the speech of the hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, was quite refreshing. That hon. Member did not appeal to the passions, but to the reason of the House. That was the way in which such a subject ought to be discussed; and he (Lord Palmerston) was happy to say, that he concurred in many of the hon. Baronet's observations. With regard to the Motion immediately before the House—having stated that his Majesty's
440
Government had not only refused to acquiesce in the arrangements which had been made, but that it had done more than his hon. and learned friend required, since it had formally expressed its dissent from the arrangements established by Russia, and had denied the right of Russia to make the changes in Poland which she had effected. He would put it to his hon. and learned friend's judgment and discretion, whether it was proper to press the Motion at present? Would the hon. and learned Member not be satisfied by the present declaration? After what he had said, it could not be necessary to proceed to a division, and he put it, therefore, to his hon. and learned friend, whether, even for the sake of those of whom he was the advocate, it would not be better to with-draw his Motion? To persist would only increase that exasperation which already rankled in the breasts of the Russians without effecting any thing towards the redress of the wrongs of the Poles. The House knew, the country knew, all Europe would know, what the opinion of the British Government was upon the subject. Every object which could be gained by the Motion had been already attained. He was confident that the appeal which he now made to his hon. and learned friend would not be made in vain.
Mr. O'Connellwas extremely glad to find, that the noble Lord who had just sat down did not directly oppose the Motion; but that, as far as feelings went, there was perfect unanimity upon this most important subject. Many of the observations of the noble Lord deserved the highest applause. Some of them were, perhaps, to be regretted; but he (Mr. O'Connell) would not say, that there was anything to be censured. He was sincerely glad to find, that all parties in the British House of Commons joined in condemning the cruel, barbarous, and abominable conduct of Russia towards the people of Poland. He (Mr. O'Connell) had on a former occasion applied the term miscreant to the Emperor Nicholas, and though an hon. Baronet then thought proper to censure him for the use of such an epithet, the hon. Baronet's own description of the conduct of this individual—this miscreant—justified the application which he had made of the term, unless indeed a stronger epithet, an epithet more expressive of the atrocity of his conduct, could

441
be found in the English language. According to the accounts of the on. Baronet, and according to the authenticated statements of the facts, the emperor of Russia had violated every religious feeling, and had sacrificed every principle of humanity at the shrine of ambition. The Motion would not at all commit the Government; but he thanked God it would commit the British nation, and he was of opinion, that the expression of the feelings of the British nation, through that House, would teach the ruthless despot of Russia, that he could not violate the rights of humanity with impunity. The Treaty of Vienna conferred upon this country a right of interference in the arrangements made by Russia in the state of Poland; but the rights of the people of that unfortunate country rested upon higher grounds than any Treaty. They existed long before, and he trusted they would exist long after, every trace of that infamous Treaty should be entirely destroyed. The noble Lord perhaps recollected, that he was Secretary-at-War to a Ministry which concurred in all the measures of spoliation and robbery perpetrated by that Treaty, when he commented so severely upon the remarks of the hon. member for Birmingham. It was said, that the emperor of Russia was a man of a good natured disposition, and that he was not personally responsible for the severities to which the Poles had been subjected. Was not the emperor of Russia an autocrat, and had he not the power of selecting his own instruments? He had no House of Commons to restrain him in his conduct if he were inclined to employ bad instruments, and no House of Lords to control him if he should feel inclined to employ instruments of a better class. If the emperor of Russia was a good man, how came he to drop upon such bad Ministers? He (Mr. O'Connell) was of opinion, that he had chosen such instruments as were likely to carry his purposes into effect, and that he had chosen men who were worse than himself. The noble Lord had asserted, that 40,000 families, who were said to have been transported, had gone of their own accord. Never had he heard a more fantastic idea. The Poles were not likely to wish to quit their native country; and who could be supposed to desire a change from a fertile and a cultivated soil to a barren desert? It was idle to talk of the personal
442
humanity of the emperor of all the Russias. Had not the severest and the cruelest ukases against the Poles been signed with Nicholas's own hand? Those who surrounded him were no worse men than himself; and there was nothing monstrous of which he was not in his own person perfectly capable. What could be a stronger proof of his disposition than the case of prince Tongousky—who was degraded from his rank, stripped of his property, and sent as a slave to Siberia; and, when his wife petitioned for a mitigation of his punishment—a mitigation was ordered by the generous, the humane Nicholas;—but how? Why the wretched man was made to march on foot, and in chains, every inch of the journey, instead of being, as before, conveyed in a carriage. Such acts, and they were numerous, were derogatory to the national character of the whole people of Russia. For his own part, he would as soon keep company with a thief who had been tried at the Old Bailey, as with Nicholas, or any of the nobles who were the instruments of his abominable cruelties. Shame on the nobility of Russia! Were they men, and suffered such deeds to pass unnoticed? If such conduct was tolerated in Russia, it was the only country in Europe in which it would be so. A great moral feeling was now abroad. The autocrat must be taught that these are not days when that outrageous public prostitute, the notorious Catherine, the grandmother of this emperor, could display her profligacy in the face of day—when the prostitute of 5,000 lovers had her praises sung by poets—was celebrated by philosophers—and lauded by orators. That most infamous of women—placed as she was in a situation in which her example could not fail to be most mischievous—was allowed to continue upon a throne; while, had she been one of those unfortunate creatures who walk the streets at midnight, she would, and justly, have been consigned to the tread-mill or the ducking-stool. But she was enthroned, and she lived applauded, and died surrounded by honours, to be enshrined as a model of human virtue. The days when such things were tolerated had now, however, passed. The days of rash wars had also gone by. Every Statesman now felt that war was an evil to be avoided by every possible means. Napoleon rose and shone like a meteor, but, like a meteor too, he fell in a moment, and was extinguished for ever. With all his faults,

443
he had one redeeming quality—he had generosity. England had Generals who had no generosity. England had Generals whom neither the malice of enemies nor the sycophancy of friends had ever charged with the possession of one generous weakness. The world was now beginning to appreciate these great Commanders. It was not by a certain number of horse, foot, and artillery, that the world was in these days to be governed. The mode of war fare would in future be totally different from what it had been in former times. It would be a war of opinions, not of swords. It would only be necessary to direct the artillery of public indignation against the most powerful Monarch, and he would be compelled to submit. That artillery would open upon the Russian autocrat upon the present occasion. The miserable stock-jobbing government of France had disappointed the expectations of all Europe, for the noble purpose of keeping up the funds one and a-half per cent. All parties, however, he was happy to say, appeared to be unanimous in this country upon the subject of Poland. The hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Inglis), who belonged to what was called the Opposition, and he (Mr. O'Connell) who was of the Movement, or Radical party, fully and cordially concurred with ail the people of Europe, not in the disavowal, but in the reprobation, of the atrocious and cruel conduct of Russia towards Poland. In conclusion, he had only to observe, that the manner in which the subject had been introduced was extremely creditable to the hon. and learned member for Kircudbright, and met his (Mr. O'Connell's) entire approbation.
Lord John Russellsaid, that although his Majesty's Ministers might possibly concur in the sentiments which had been expressed by the hon. and learned Member who had brought forward the Motion, it was their duty to protest against the language made use of by the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down. He agreed with his hon. and learned friend, who brought forward the Motion, that there had been a violation of the Treaty of Vienna on the part of Russia; but, nevertheless, the hon. and learned member for Dublin was not justified in applying the epithets "wretch," "brute," and "monster," to a Sovereign with whom his Majesty was on terms of amity. Were the Motion carried accompanied by such
444
remarks as had been indulged in, it would go a great way to destroy the good understanding which at present existed between countries which were now happily at amity. He trusted, therefore, that his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Cutlar Fergusson), after the turn which the discussion had taken, would see the expediency of withdrawing his Motion. The beneficial consequences which might be anticipated from the knowledge, that the opinion already expressed by the Government was unanimously embraced by that House, and by the whole people, would not ensue, if the House were divided, and Ministers were compelled to resist the Motion. At the same time the terms of the Motion were an insuperable obstacle to its being adopted. The Resolution declared, that Poland has been reduced to its present situation in violation of the Treaty of Vienna, to which Great Britain was a party. He appealed to hon. Members, whether, after such a Motion should have been carried, the British Government would not be bound to use such a tone of angry remonstrance towards Russia, as would be incompatible with the maintenance of peace—the more especially as the Motion had been seconded by one hon. Member, who avowed a desire to support his views by war, and by another hon. and learned Member, who had indulged in an eloquent, but a violent, and, somewhat course philippic against the individual exercising the legal powers of government in Russia. He implored the House to consider whether, after the success of this Motion, it would be possible for the British Government to conduct negotiations with Russia on those terms which ought to be employed between friendly Powers. He took it for granted, that, notwithstanding the conduct of Russia towards Poland, it was the wish of the House to preserve the peace of Europe. He hoped he was not assuming too much in saying, that the object of the House was not to produce a war. If a hope were entertained after the contest in Poland had ceased for many months of re-exciting the nation, and by hostilities restoring Poland to what she was in 1782, his argument would certainly go for nothing; but the object of the Motion being, to elicit an expression of the sentiments, in the first place of the King's Ministers, and in the second place of the independent Members of that House, in order that no sanction might be given on the part of

445
England to the present arrangements respecting Poland, and that her honour might by kept pure from any participation in the violation of the Treaty which had taken place, that object would be better attained by his hon. and learned friend's letting the matter rest where it was, than by pressing his Motion to a division, and causing it to make less impression on the government of Russia than it otherwise would.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that the deep interest which he felt in the subject now before the House, had made him anxious to deliver his sentiments upon it at an earlier stage of the debate. But he did not at all regret his having given way to others, as every successive speech delivered, only tended to confirm him more and more in the propriety of supporting the Motion now submitted to their consideration. If the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had introduced this question (Mr. Cutlar Fergus-son) had convinced his judgment, by the historical evidence which he had produced, and interested his feelings by the melancholy and touching details with which he followed this up, in support of his Motion, he must say, that the speech of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had served even still more to satisfy him of the necessity of such a Motion as that now proposed; and if the speech of the hon. and learned member for Dublin had roused his indignation at the atrocities to which he alluded—the speech of the noble Lord the Paymaster of the Forces (Lord John Russell) had strengthened his conviction of the necessity of pronouncing a solemn opinion on the conduct thus brought under review. With the permission of the House, then, he would briefly state the reason which induced him to give his cordial support to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman; and the grounds on which he would entreat him not to withdraw it, however strongly he might be urged to such a course, but to persevere in his determination to press it to a division, by whomsoever it might be opposed. I He conceived it to be both the duty and the interest of England to exert the full weight of her influence on behalf of the unhappy Poles; first on the broad principles of justice and humanity; secondly, on the grounds of national honour and national safety; and thirdly, for the preservation
446
of that moral force which a noble and a generous policy could alone secure to us. He would ask the House to consider what it was, that constituted the difference between men living in a state of nature, and men living in civilised society. Was it not that in the former every man considered his own selfish interests, and pursued them in hostility to, and in defiance of, the rights of others; while, in the latter, every man considered himself as a member of a social community, bound by the strongest ties to protect the rights of others, in order to secure his own, and ready to make some sacrifice of ids own enjoyments for the common good, by extending his aid to all who had a just claim upon his succour in the hour of their distress Such was the difference, also, between barbarous and civilized nations. The former thought and acted only for themselves, in defiance of the rights of others. The latter bound themselves in social compact, not merely by treaties, and by international law, but by that still stronger bond of public justice and public honour, which knit them together in a union that it was the interest, as well as the duly, of each of them to maintain. It was in accordance with this feeling, that while uncivilized tribes made war upon each other, by piracies at sea, and incursions by land, the civilized countries of Europe interfered to put them down, as outrages to the common rights of humanity. It was on this principle alone that we ventured to interfere in the suppression of the slave trade, by whomsoever carried on, and for the extinction of piracy, wherever it should be found. If, then, the cruelties practised by the Russians upon the Polish people equalled in atrocity any that the horrors of the slave trade or of piracy could produce, he would ask, whether we were not equally bound to stretch forth our arm for their delivery from their oppressors? These cruelties had been so eloquently detailed by the hon. and learned mover of the address proposed, and had been so distinctly admitted by the noble Lord, whose official station made that admission of so much importance to the case, that he would not say a word in addition to what had been already stated; although, if there were ever a subject on which it might be pardon-able to enlarge, it was this of the unparalleled cruelties practised on a high-minded and a gallant people, by the most

447
oppressive and the most relentless, of rulers. In addition, however, to the claims which this unhappy people had on our justice and our humanity, there was a strong legal claim, if he might use the term, on our fulfilment of a treaty to which we had been a party, and the violation of which, though distinctly admitted by the ministers of the Crown, the Government of this country had submitted to with a degree of weakness altogether unbecoming the character of the country, as one of the great European powers. The noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) had detailed the progress of the events connected with the Russian and Polish contests, with an ability and clearness which left nothing in doubt, and to which he had listened with pleasure as well as attention; but he confessed that this feeling was soon changed to one of shame as well as pain, when he heard the noble Lord avow, that though his Majesty's Government considered the destruction of the Polish constitution to be a violation of the Treaty of Vienna, and though the government of France concurred in this interpretation, yet that, because Austria and Prussia did not take the same view of the subject, they did not deem it prudent to do more than state these views, and were influenced in their forbearing to enforce the observance of this violated treaty, by the fear of provoking a general war in Europe. He used the term fear, because, divested of the courteous phraseology of diplomatic communications—translated into the plain language of ordinary life, it was admitted, that this fear, and this alone, prevented the enforcement of the treaty thus broken. To what a humiliating degradation was England reduced; impeded in her progress of domestic improvement and reform at home, by the fear of a collision between the two branches of the Legislature that House bending itself in humble submission to the other, shaping its measures, not as the House conceived they should be shaped, but in that subdued and humbled form in which it hoped the Lords would accept them; and paralyzed in her foreign policy by the fear of a collision with other countries, which we condemned as violators of solemn treaties, and oppressors of a gallant people, whom England had solemnly undertaken to protect and defend—yet taking no steps whatever to enforce those duties, for fear either of the powers opposed to us, or of the cost at which justice
448
was to be obtained. It was not thus that the rulers of England had always acted; and it was not thus that they should act now. Time was, when the hour for demanding redress was the hour in which the injury was received—when years were not consumed in fruitless negotiations and endless protocols, but when justice was demanded in a tone that could not be mistaken, and redress insisted on in a spirit that could not be dismayed. It was not thus that solemn engagements should be treated—to be enforced, if no sacrifices were required, but to be disregarded, if costs were to ensue. Our first duty was to ask whether we had bound ourselves in a compact to effect a certain object; and next, whether that compact had been fulfilled. If we had so bound ourselves, and had not fully redeemed our pledge, it was our duty so to do, cost what it might—for justice was above all earthly price; and no consideration whatever should absolve us from the solemn engagements to which we stood publicly pledged. It was the interest, however, as well as the duty of England, to interfere in the present case; and this he hoped he should be able to show satisfactorily and briefly. There was no man who travelled much beyond the limits of his own country, but must have been struck with the uniformly high character which England and Englishmen enjoyed abroad. If England were party to a treaty, and the national honour pledged to its observance, the greatest reliance was placed upon its fulfilment; and the universal sentiment was, that whatever England had undertaken, England would complete. The same sentiment was extended to individuals as to the nation. The word of an English gentleman was regarded as his bond; and whatsoever he had promised, the strongest belief was entertained, that he would, to the letter, as well as in the spirit, perform. It was to this general sentiment of her high superiority to other nations in unblemished honour, that England owed the moral force connected with her very name. She was not powerful from her extent of territory, for that in Europe was insignificant. She was not irresistible, because of her gallant army, undaunted as it had proved itself in many a well-fought field: nor was she omnipotent, even through her unconquered navy, though it still floated in triumph on an element peculiarly its own. No! the proud and exalted station

449
which Great Britain enjoyed at the head of the nations of the world, was more attributable to the moral influence exercised by her reputation for unsullied honour, and uncompromising integrity, than from all other causes combined. He would ask the House, whether, already there were not symptoms of that influence beginning to wane and decline; whether, in the saloons of Paris, and the circles of the other capitals of Europe, there were not already to he heard whispers of suspicion that England had passed the summit of her glory, and that, either from the pressure of her enormous debt, or from some unaccountable pusillanimity which had infected her councils, she was no longer the undaunted protector of the weak against the strong—no longer the scourge of the oppressor and the shield of the oppressed. It was time then to hush these whispers, and to calm these fears, and this could only be done by the bold and spirited declaration of this House, speaking, as the voice of the country, on behalf of the insulted, the oppressed, and the cruelly-persecuted Poles. In addition, however, to the claim of justice and humanity, and the sense of national honour and reputation, which should each impel us to the glorious work—a regard to the national safety should influence us to make a stand. In characterizing the policy of the Russian Government, there had been some difference of opinion among the Members who had spoken upon the subject. One hon. Gentleman (Sir Harry Verney) had spoken of the great efforts made by Russia to extend civilization, and to give to her own people, at least, the benefit of valuable institutions; while other hon. Gentlemen had spoken of Russia as a purely barbarous and despotic state. He (Mr. Buckingham) would venture to give a different character from either of these; and to say, that the policy of Russia was pre-eminent for the vastness of its ambition, which desired to bring every other country within its grasp, and for the cunning with which it systematically pursued its views of aggrandizement in every quarter. As to the first, it was notorious that to whatever point of the horizon the Russian Cabinet directed its attention, it was chiefly with a view to conquest. In every part of the track, from India onward to Europe, through Persia, and the countries lying between Constantinople and Calcutta, were to be found traces of Russian in-
450
fluence, Russian agents, and Russian spies; and, although one hon. Gentleman had treated as chimerical the assertions hazarded in the Moscow Gazette, that the Russians might one day dictate terms to England in her Indian capital of Calcutta; and had thought that the moon might as reasonably be assigned as the scene of such a treaty—yet it was not quite so inconceivable that a Russian army might find its way to India, when it was remembered that Alexander of Macedon had penetrated across the Tigris and Euphrates, given battle to Porus on the banks of the Indus, and left colonies behind him in Bactria, to perpetuate the memory of his Indian conquests. But it was not on the route to India only that Russian agency was employed. In every country in Europe and Asia, as well as in America, were to be found men of acuteness and intelligence employed by the Russian government, all acting as promoters of one great, general, and systematic plan, to promote Russian interests in every quarter, and to leave nothing undone that could advance or promote Russian influence and Russian dominion. In pursuit of this national object, Constantinople had recently been taken under Russian protection; and now that the ambitions ruler of Egypt, Mohammed Ali Pacha, had added Syria to his dominions, nothing was more probable, than that these two chiefs might arrange between themselves a partition of the Turkish empire, giving Asia Minor and Mesopotamia to the Egyptians, leaving European Turkey, with Georgia and Circassia to the Russians; and by an alliance of both, adding the command of the Red Sea to that of the: Caspian, and the Euxine, the Baltic, and the Mediterranean, and thus making India as accessible to their fleets as Europe was to their armies in Asia, so as to facilitate the ambitious plans of Russia to subjugate the entire Eastern world to her dominion. It was high time, then, to make a stand at some point, to prevent our being overwhelmed by this unchecked torrent of Russian domination; and that point was to be found in the independent nationality of Poland. It might be thought by some a matter of indifference to yield a little here and a little there, and thus pass quietly on in our career. But it should he remembered, that no nations were subdued, and no people were enslaved at once. It was only step by step, link by

451
link, that, the chains of slavery were riveted around the necks of the free. A resistance to the first aggression generally prevented the second; a yielding to one injustice invariably provoked another; and though, on many considerations, but, above all, in consequence of the heavy debt which weighed us down and paralyzed all our energies, there would be a great reluctance on the part of the people of England to give unnecessary provocation to any foreign power—yet, to enforce the fulfilment of a solemn treaty—to fulfil our national engagements—to rescue an oppressed and gallant people—and to defend the helpless and unprotected—he believed that the people of England would readily afford the necessary support to the Government of their country, and hail such a declaration as the carrying of this Motion would convey, as one of the most popular and redeeming ads of the present Administration. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Fergusson) had adduced, in proof of the deep interest felt on be half of the Poles, the fact of a publication existing in Hull, a provincial town, devoted exclusively to that object, he was happy to bear testimony to the intense feeling that pervaded every part of England, Scotland, and Ireland that he had visited, on this subject—having been present at many of the public meetings that had taken place on behalf of the Polish people, and nowhere was that feeling more deep and general than among the inhabitants of Sheffield, the borough he had the honour to represent. The town of Hull, however, partly, perhaps, from its position as a port of frequent communication with the Continent of Europe, and partly also, undoubtedly from the intelligence and public spirit of its inhabitants, possessed a Polish Literary Association, in which most of the respectable families of the town were enrolled; it published "The Hull Polish Record," a work of which he had been a constant reader, and which contained a degree of talent, of patriotism, and of benevolence, that placed it in the highest rank of public journals, and the profits of which, with a judgment and a disinterestedness that reflected on its conductors and supporters the highest honour, were devoted to the great and holy purpose of educating the Polish youth now in this country, perpetuating in their infant minds the detestation of Russian tyranny, and keeping alive the sacred flame of
452
Polish patriotism, and love of universal liberty. A word or two in reference to what had fallen from the two noble Lords who had spoken from the Ministerial benches, and he would conclude. The noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs had endeavoured to impress the House with a belief that the Emperor Nicholas himself, was personally a kind-hearted and an amiable man, and that the cruelties practised in the name of his Government, were rather the acts of the wicked counsellors by whom he was surrounded, than his own. If this were so, he would say, that for the sake of Nicholas himself, in order to rescue him from this disgraceful thraldom, and to furnish him with the means of overawing, if not of discarding, those counsellors, and acting on his own behalf, the House should hasten to record its solemn denunciations of the cruelties thus perpetrated, and the violations of solemn engagements thus committed. And as, when the Ministers of England were desirous of doing good, but were prevented by the evil influences in higher places, it was of the utmost importance to bear them up in their good intentions, by the declaration of the popular will—so when humane, but weak and feeble monarchs, were well-disposed themselves, but were overruled by evil counsellors, it was but just to them, and useful to the world, to support their good intentions, and denounce the evil-doers by the strongest and most unequivocal expression of public opinion that the Legislature of the country, backed by the press and the people could give. The other noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had said, that if this Motion were carried, it must be followed up by an angry remonstrance from this Government to the Court of Russia, which would be answered by another, and that the inevitable result must be war. Now, that a remonstrance should follow the carrying of this Motion, he did not think unreasonable—how much or how little of anger might be infused into it, he would not now inquire; but he thought, that the declaration of what we really thought and felt, was a solemn duty; and that if the utterance of truth, and the advocacy of justice, led to consequences which we would not willingly provoke, it was our first duty to be true and just; and when that duty was per-formed, we might safely leave the issue to Heaven. On the grounds that he had

453
thus briefly and imperfectly stated, he intreated the hon. and learned mover not to be prevailed upon to withdraw his Motion, to which he had thus given his humble but most hearty and cordial support, in the assurance that not merely the people of Poland, but those of England also, would hail its success with intense delight, and in the conviction that its moral influence would be felt and acknowledged wherever the English name was known, or intelligence of its proceedings extended.
Lord Althorphad trusted, that his hon. and learned friend would have been content with the statements of his two noble friends, and that he would not have pressed his Motion. The House was well aware, that one of the principles upon which his Majesty's present Government took office was, the preservation of peace. His hon. and learned friend, however, seemed disappointed by the tone which his Majesty's Government assumed towards Russia respecting Poland. He seemed to think that his Majesty's Government ought to have gone further. How they could have gone further without involving this country in war, he (Lord Althorp) knew not. He could assure his hon. and learned friend, that his Majesty's Government had not been actuated by any pusillanimous fear of war. But when they knew, that the governments of Prussia and Austria differed from them, they felt, that if war were entered into at all, it would extend over Europe; that, in fact, it would be a war between England and France on the one side, and all the northern Powers of Europe on the other. He did not mean to say that he should entertain any fear of success in such a contest; for he always felt, that if France and England were united, they need not fear all the Powers in the world. But although he did not fear the event of such a contest, he well knew, that it must be attended with such calamities, that he sincerely hoped, such an event would never occur. What was the Address? A statement of the opinion of that House, that the emperor of Russia had been guilty of a violation of the treaty of Vienna. Now, what answer could his Majesty be advised to give to such an Address; or what conduct could he be advised to pursue? It was quite impossible that his Majesty's Government should consent to become parties to such a vote, and not follow it up by some strong measure,
454
It was for that reason, that his noble friends had urged his hon. and learned friend not to press his Motion. It was with the greatest regret that he took the course which he now must take, and which he had been most desirous to avoid; but as he could not possibly agree to such a proposition, under such circumstances, he was under the necessity of moving the previous question on his hon. and learned friend's Motion.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, there was not one word in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who brought forward this question, and not one step in his argument, in which he did not concur: but it was one thing to entertain such opinions as an individual, and another thing for the Legislature to express them in a recorded vote, unless it was prepared to follow up the vote by an appeal to arms. The question, therefore, which he put to the House was this; was it prepared to support the vote by an appeal to arms? Was it prepared to see the Government come down to the House with a proposal to take such a course in the present state of this country and of Europe? The pledges which his Majesty's Government had given to the country on taking office he had approved of; and as the vote must compel the Government to hold a language towards Russia, which would be anything but conciliatory, and must lead to warfare, he could not support it. If the House were to say, that the Poles shall be free, that they shall have a Constitution, was that an attainable object? Did those who looked to an alliance with France against Russia, Prussia, and Austria, think the object attainable? He doubted whether it was. If we went to war, we ought to have a precise object in view; that object was not to ward off an invasion of India, or a partition of Turkey, but to secure to Poland independence and a constitution. Even if the object were attainable, it could be attained only at a vast sacrifice, and all hopes of internal improvement must be adjourned to a distant day. He could not concur a vote which would lead to such a result as war, of all possible evils the greatest.
Mr. Humeprotested, that there was no-body more anxious to keep the country from getting into war than himself; but he was surprised at the course just taken by his hon. friend, the member for Bridport. Did his hon. and learned friend, who made the

455
Motion, propose any recourse to arms? By no means. There was nothing which required such a proposition. He really could not understand by what train of reasoning his hon. friend, the member for Bridport, had arrived at the conclusion, that if they agreed to the Motion, they would pledge themselves to war. He (Mr. Hume) could see nothing in the Motion, but a declaration of the determination of that House not to be a party to the violation of the Treaty of Vienna. It was the moral effect of the Motion to which he looked for benefit. Strong as had been the speech of his hon. and learned friend, the member for Dublin, yet nothing-could be more distinctly insisted upon in that speech, than the expediency of avoiding the evils and horrors of war, and of preserving the relations of peace and amity, looking to moral influence alone to attain the object in view. The conduct of Russia ought to be reprobated by that House in the face of all Europe. It was a violation of treaties and an outrage on humanity. The annals of history did not afford any instance of more cruel and persevering persecution of a nation, than that which Poland had sustained at the hands of Russia. Why was the noble Lord so unwilling to allow this? The proposition of his hon. and learned friend, was in strict conformity with the statements of the noble Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whose speech was one of the most satisfactory that he (Mr. Hume) had ever heard.
Mr. Secretary Stanley, far from condemning the warmth of expression which had been used in reference to the treatment of the unfortunate Poles, considered it honourable to the House and to the country. But they were bound to ask what effect the course which they were by this Motion called upon to pursue, was likely to have on our already delicate and complicated foreign relations. The hon. member for Middlesex, and his hon. and learned friend who had introduced the Motion, declared they had no wish whatever to force the country into a war; but the House was bound to look, not at intentions, but at probable consequences. And he would ask, if it were probable, that the proposed Address, coupled as it was with speeches, in which the Emperor of Russia was so personally attacked, by the grossest abuse, could go forth otherwise than as a direct offence and personal insult, and as a provocation to war and enmity?
456
The hon. member for Birmingham had, indeed, expressly said, "Go to war;" but in that he really believed, the hon. Gentleman was pursuing the single object to which all his efforts tended. The hon. Gentleman thought, that if we went to war, we must again have a plethora of paper-money. War, no doubt, would be anything but disadvantageous to certain trades in the great town of Birmingham, though it might not prove equally advantageous to other towns, quite as much entitled to their sympathy and consideration as Birmingham. But he did not hesitate to express his belief, that the hon. member for Birmingham, supported the present Motion only as a simple means to lead to that state of things which, as he thought, would compel an unlimited paper currency. What was the great principle of Ministers, when they first entered upon their situations?—Peace at all hazards—at all risks—at all sacrifices—save that of national honour. Now, he asserted, that the treatment of the Poles by the Russians, was not only no cause for our entering on a war, but would be no justification whatever for any such a step. But he should say more than that, and contend, that we were bound by every political motive, to abstain from rushing into any war, the chief recommendation of which would be, that it had been taken up from chivalrous feelings. And let it be remembered by the House, that though we interpreted the spirit of the treaty of Vienna in a certain way, there were other Powers, whose relations, territorial and otherwise, with Russia, were of a much more delicate character than ours, who took a different view of it. And though he should never counsel that House to resign our own principles, still, in common foresight, in common prudence, and in common reason, we should not be justified in adopting measures which the other contracting parties—much more interested than we were—did not approve and would not agree to. He asked them, then, if they were prepared to take any steps which might lead to a war—a war of principles, the commencement of which would be fatal—the termination of which no human foresight could tell? Then, supposing they consented to pass this declaration, how did they propose to back it? You send a remonstrance to Russia, and, perhaps, receive in return a contemptuous and angry refusal. Were they then to go to war?

457
Did he hear any man say they must go to war? Let that man stand up and avow his opinions. Let the advocate of war, he said, stand up and appear as the disturber of that peace in Europe, the infraction of which Ministers had pledged themselves to postpone to the latest moment. Was there none such, then [An Hon. Member: Yes.] Well, the question, he admitted, had been fairly answered; and he hoped, before the conclusion of the debate, to hear the grounds on which the hon. Gentleman justified his opinions. Did the hon. Member suppose that a general war would be advantageous to our manufacturers? Would it be consistent with the honour of that House—would it be consistent with the honour of the country—would it be consistent with the high character England had hitherto maintained amongst the nations of the earth, that we should provoke a war, and afterwards flinch from it? There could not but be a great moral impression produced throughout, not only England, but all Europe, by that night's discussion, and by the unanimous expression of the feelings of the people of England on the conduct pursued by Russia towards Poland. This he himself rejoiced in. But with this he should rest satisfied, and he trusted hon. Members would not, in their legislative capacity, lead the country to what assuredly might produce danger, if not degradation. He trusted, that after all that had passed, the hon. member for Kircudbright, would yet consent to withdraw his Motion, satisfied with the moral impression the debate could not fail to produce in every quarter of the globe.
Lord Dudley Stuartsaid, that the expression of detestation of the conduct of Russia which had been heard in the House that evening, only echoed the sentiments of the country at large. It was, in his opinion, a proof of the weakness of the position which Ministers had thought proper to assume upon this question, that they had done little else than endeavour to ridicule the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Birmingham. The constant appeals which they had made respecting the danger of war, when nothing of the kind was contemplated, were merely ad captandum, and quite unworthy of consideration. Did not the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies know, that the man who pocketed an affront, was, after all, much more likely to be dragged into hostilities, than he who boldly repelled the
458
first approach to insult. Why should the world be told that England was the only nation afraid of going to war. Might not Russia also fear to embark in hostilities? Ministers had, throughout the discussion, manifested an unwillingness to meet the question fairly. The noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had attacked the hon. member for Birmingham for his notions respecting paper money, and the hon. Secretary for the Colonies could do nothing better than repeat the stale joke. This showed, that Ministers must have been hard pushed for arguments against the Motion. The contest between Poland and Russia was not yet at an end. Poland might be stunned with the blow she had received, but when an opportunity arrived, she would start up and shake off the odious, galling, and never-to-be-endured yoke. He hoped the hon. member for Kircudbright, would not withdraw his Motion, but would go to a division; for if the Motion should be withdrawn, what would be said by foreign nations, but that Ministers came down to bamboozle the House on questions suiting their own views, but when there was any practical measure they shrunk from it?
Mr. Sheilsaid, that he thought the Government ought rather to have dissuaded the hon. member for Kircudbright, from bringing forward his Motion at all, than now to suggest the propriety of withdrawing it. The noble Lord, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, had made two most important admissions—first, that the greatest horrors had been perpetrated and committed in Poland; and, secondly, that a treaty had been violated. Such admissions being made, was it proper that the House of Commons should not come to some decision upon the subject? Or, should not such a decision be come to, it might well be said, that the British Legislature refused to interfere, when the most monstrous outrages upon humanity by Russia were permitted to pass without notice. The hazard of a war had been urged upon one side as an argument against the Motion; but it should be remembered, that, on the other hand, the certainty of the loss of national honour presented itself in opposition. The inferiority of Russia, as compared with this country, was acknowledged; and could it then be said, that the British Legislature was only to make speeches, and leave Poland to perish? There had been expressed a convenient sympathy for the

459
miseries of Poland; but if the Motion were withdrawn, such sympathy, barren as it was, would be all that was achieved. The present Ministry, when they came into office, had called for a weir establishment, equal to meet an European war, and having such a force, could they submit to the indignities which had been heaped upon the nation by Russia? That nation, with Prussia, were engaged on the one side, while England and France appeared on the other; and it had been said, that the latter ought to give way, notwithstanding the horrors which it had been admitted had been practised, and still were persevered in, against Poland. The fear of war had been the ground of all the arguments against the Motion, but it could not be tolerated that this country should tacitly submit. Perhaps his hon. friend, the member for Kircudbright, ought not to have brought forward his Motion, but having now done so, he should not consent to withdraw it.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that he had brought forward the Motion after due and deliberate consideration, and having done so, it was his intention to adhere to it. The step he had taken in submitting the Resolution he had moved was one which he was justified in taking, and having done so, he should not hesitate to bring the question to the test of a division. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Colonies, had, instead of answering his (Mr. Fergusson's) arguments, addressed his observations entirely to the hon. Gentleman who had most widely departed from the question before the House, and the whole tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was calculated to deter Members from bringing any Motion of such a nature before the House. He must, however, remind hon. Members, that neither in his speech nor by the terms of his Motion, did he call for war; indeed, the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had gone much further than he had done. The noble Lord's declaration was most extraordinary, because the noble Lord had acknowledged, that he would have gone much further than the Resolution, and had voluntarily declared to Russia that she had violated a treaty, and had persisted in that declaration after such an interpretation of the treaty had been denied by that power. What he wanted was, a record of the solemn opinion of the House upon this topic, and to gain the
460
moral effect which such a declaration would, he was sure, produce throughout Europe. His Motion had been supported by reasons which remained unanswered, and he should, therefore, not withdraw it.
Sir Robert Peelhad not the slightest notion that the hon. and learned Member had risen to reply, but merely to answer a question put to him, or he should have interposed before the hon. Gentleman had spoken. He was aware of the inconvenience of speaking after a reply, but the hon. Gentleman having expressed his determination to press the Motion to a division, that circumstance imposed upon him the duty of stating the grounds upon which he could not acquiesce in the Motion. He did not deny the right of the House to offer advice to the Crown with reference to the diplomatic relations of the country. He could conceive circumstances to arise of so grave a nature as to impose upon the House the duty of declaring its opinion and tendering its advice to the Crown; but he must contend, that the House ought to have a clear foresight of all the consequences which might ensue from their intercession. Care ought to betaken not to trench upon the royal prerogative, without a clear perception of the necessity of such a step: nor without scrupulously and carefully weighing the probable results of the interposition. Above all there ought to be nothing equivocal or ambiguous in the advice tendered to the Crown. The import of the present Motion, however, was in his judgment equivocal and ambiguous. It contained two distinct propositions; first, that this country was party to the Treaty of Vienna; and secondly, that that treaty had been violated. If the House were prepared to place this Motion upon record, the next step surely ought to be to offer some advice to the Crown, in language, clear and decisive, as to the course to be pursued. If this question related distinctly to any interest of our own, what language, consistently with the dignity and honour of England, would be used by the House? It would say to his Majesty—"Your Majesty is a party to a treaty—that treaty has been violated—the national honour is implicated—and we, the House of Commons, demand redress." But what was the Resolution of the hon. Gentleman in which advice was tendered? Not that the Crown should enforce the observance of those rights of Poland of which Eng-

461
land was the guarantee, but that the King should not recognise, or in any way give the sanction of his Government to the present political slate and condition of Poland. If the House were satisfied that the treaty had been violated, and were prepared to record their opinion to that effect, then, in consideration of its own character—in consideration of what was due to the Crown—and in consideration of what was due to the people of Poland—there ought to be no misconception as to the real intentions of the House of commons. But as he had already said, the language of the Resolution was ambiguous; they merely asked the Crown not to recognise or sanction the political situation and condition of poland. But was the recognition or sanction of England in any way required? If withheld, how did the refusal better the condition of Poland? The emperor of Russia claimed for himself—whether right or wrong, he stopped not to inquire—an authority to control his subjects, who were in a slate of revolt; and the hon. Gentleman contented himself with calling upon the Crown not to give its sanction to the present state of Poland, he did not comprehend what the hon. gentleman meant; and when he referred to the language used in the debate, be was left still more in doubt. One hon. Gentleman said, that the Motion meant nothing—that it was of a negative character. Be it so, but surely it was not befitting the dignity of the House of Commons to place, upon the Journals a record, that a treaty, to which England was a party, had been violated; and then to offer to the Crown advice of a negative character as it was termed. The hon. Gentleman said, that he expected no advantage from this address, and that the condition of the unhappy Poles would not be ameliorated by its adoption, Then why adopt it? The hon. and learned member for Tipperary said, that it was a question of ignominy or war, and that he had no hesitation in declaring for war in preference to ignominy. Yet he deprecated war, and said that this was not a step toward it. What then was it? Was it a mere brutum fulmen? Were no steps to be taken in consequence of this address If not, then he implored the House not to set the example of an interposition, from which no fruits were to be expected. But if those who supported the Motion expected any fruits, he had a right to ask
462
the nature and character of them. One hon. Gentleman said, let Government make a strong remonstrance to Russia, and if Russia made a strong remonstrance in return, then he had no doubt the people would support the Government in a war. But he for one would not involve the country in this collision of angry remonstrances, if war was to be the probable result. The Gentlemen who supported the address were much divided in opinion—some looked lo war as a consequence scarcely lo he deplored; others denounced war; but he deprecated making hostile remonstrances to a power like Russia, on a subject of this nature, unless they were prepared to follow them up by some decisive measure, in the event of their failure. All hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the time was come when the illusions of military glory were dissipated, and the true character of military heroes was justly appreciated. From such a declaration, he expected that the hon. Gentleman would have been a strenuous advocate for the maintenance of peace. But he found him among the most reckless partisans of war. Me could not acquiesce in the address. If the national faith required the interposition of that House, he should be prepared to advise much stronger measures. He would have asked the Crown to remonstrate in the first instance, and, if necessary, to enforce that remonstrance by maintaining the rights of Poland. While he could not support the Resolution, he begged distinctly to state, that he participated in all the sentiments of admiration which had been expressed on the gallantly of Poland; and, at the same time, to express his sympathy and deep regret for the sufferings of that nation, by supposing the statements of the hon. Gentleman founded on fact. On a former occasion, when the hon. Gentleman had introduced the subject before the House, he bad deprecated a too ready belife of the hon. and learned Member's statements, though be did not undertake to contradict, those statements, and particularly that with regard to the removal of orphan children; but if the statement was well founded, that children, not orphans, were forcibly removed—not, as he had supposed, for the purposes of protection—it were really true, that 5,000 families had been driven into exile without any proof of guilt, while he could not conceive the policy of such a course of conduct, yet if such was pursued, no man was

463
prepared in stronger terms than him self to express his deep regret and indignation, at such a violation of the rights of common humanity. He would remind Russia of her own expressions as to the existence of those rights, and the claims of powerful nations to enforce them, during the war between Turkey and Greece, when the Porte threatened to remove the inhabitants of the Morea. Russia then declared, that such a proceeding was a violation of all the rights of humanity, and that it should not be allowed. After such an opinion pronounced and acted on by Russia, he still clung to the hope that the statements were exaggerated. If, however, the statements were true, he begged that his non-acquiescence in the present Motion should not be considered as a proof that he was indifferent to the wrongs and sufferings of a gallant people, or that he did not share in those feelings of indignation, which, if the conduct of Russia were truly described, would be unanimous throughout the House and the country.
Lord Sandonfeared much lest the arguments of the hon. mover's supporters might be taken as a part of his Motion, and that its passing would only add to the difficulty which now prevailed, and perhaps excite delusive hopes amongst the Poles, which might be productive of dangerous consequences. These were the reasons which would oblige him to vote against a Motion which he had formerly supported.
The House divided on the previous question or, that Mr. Fergusson's Motion be put. For the Motion 95—Against it 177.

List of the AYES.

ENGLAND.

Gaskell, D.

Aglionby, H. A.

Godson, K.

Attwood, T.

Guest, J. J.

Barnard, E. G.

Halse, J.

Beauclerk, Major

Harvey, D. W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Hawkins, J. H.

Buckingham, J. S.

Howard, hon. F. G.

Bulwer, H. L.

Hughes, H.

Cayley, E. S.

Hume, J.

Clive, E. B.

Hutt, W.

Cobbett, W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Cornish, T.

Jervis, J.

Curteis, H. B.

Kemp, T. R.

Curteis, E. B.

Kennedy, J.

Darlington, Earl of

King, E. B.

Dashwood, G. H.

Langdale, Hon. C.

Dawson, E. S.

Langton, Colonel G.

Denison, W. T.

Lowther, Hon. Col.

Dykes, F. L.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Evans Colonel

Parrott, J.

Ewart, W.

Philips, M.

Faithfull, G.

Poulter, J.

464

Rippon, C.

IRELAND.

Robinson, G. R.

Bellew, R. M.

Romilly, E.

Browne, D.

Scholefield, J.

Butler, hon. P.

Stavely, J. K.

Chapman, M. L.

Tayleur, W.

Finn, W. F.

Tennyson, Rt. Hn. C.

Fitzgerald, T.

Thompson, P'. B.

Fitzsimon, C.

Throckmorton, R. G.

Jephson, C. D. G.

Townshend, Lord C.

Macnamara, Major

Tynte, C. J. K.

Martin, J.

Verney, Sir H.

O'Brien, C.

Welby, G. E.

O'Connell, D.

Whalley, Sir S.

O'Connell, J.

Wilks, J.

O'Connell, M.

Williams, Colonel

O'Connor, F.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Wood, Alderman

Perceval, Colonel

Young, G. F.

Roe, J.

SCOTLAND.

Ruthven, E. S.

Agnew, Sir A.

Ruthven, E.

Johnston, A.

Sheil, R. L.

Marjoribanks, C.

Vigors, N. A.

Maxwell, Sir J.

Walker, C. A.

Oswald, R. A.

Wallace, T.

Pringle, R.

TELLERS.

Sinclair, G.

Fergusson, R. C.

Wallace, R.

Stuart, Lord D. C.

List of the NOES.

ENGLAND.

Fitzroy, Lord J.

Althorp, Lord

Forster, C. S.

Atherley, A.

Fox, Lieut.-Colonel

Baring, F. T.

Frankland, Sir R.

Baring, H. B.

Gladstone, W. E.

Barnett, C. J.

Gordon, R.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Graham, Rt. Hn. Sir J.

Biddulph, R. M.

Grant, Right Hon. R.

Blamire, W.

Greene, T. G.

Briscoe, J. I.

Grey, Hon. Colonel

Brocklehurst, J.

Grey, Sir G.

Brotherton, J.

Gronow, Captain

Butler, J. W.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Duller, E.

Grote, G.

Bulteel, J. C.

Hanmer, Colonel H.

Burdett, Sir F.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Burton, II.

Harland, W. C.

Byng, G.

Hawes, B.

Campbell, Sir J.

Heathcote, J. J.

Carter, J. B.

Herries, Rt. Hn. J. C.

Cavendish, Hon. C.

Hodges, T. L.

Cavendish, Hon. Col.

Hodgson, J.

Chandos, Marquess of

Hoskins, K.

Chaytor, Sir W.

Howard, P. H.

Clive, Viscount

Howick, Viscount

Crawley, S.

Hudson, C.

Dilwyn, L. W.

Hurst, R. H.

Divett, E.

Hyett, W.

Dundas, Capt. J. W.

Irton, J.

Dundas, Hon. Sir R.

James, W.

Ebrington, Viscount

Johnstone, Sir J. V.

Ellice, Right Hon. E.

Key, Sir J.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Fancourt, Major

Langston, J. H.

Fazakerly, J. N.

Lee, J. L.

Fenton, J.

Leech, J.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Lefevre, C. S.

465

Lennox, Lord G.

Vernon, G. H.

Lester, B. L.

Walker, R.

Littleton, E. J.

Warburton, H.

Lumley, Viscount

Ward, H G.

Lyall, G.

Warre, J. A.

Mabcrley, Colonel

Waterpark, Lord

Macaulay, T. B.

Watson, Hon. R.

Mangles, J.

Whitmore, W. W.

Martin.

Wilbraham, G.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Williamson, Sir H.

Molyneux, Lord

Willoughby, Sir H.

Mostyn, Hn. E. M. L.

Winnington, Sir T.

Newark, Viscount

Wood, G. W.

Nicholl, J.

Wood, C.

North, F.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Palmerston, Viscount

SCOTLAND.

Peel, Rt. hon. Sir R.

Abereroraby, Rt. Hn. J.

Patten, J. W.

Adam, Admiral

Pendarves, E. W.

Bannerman, A.

Peter, w.

Callander, J. H.

Pigot, R.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Plumptre, J. P.

Dulmeny, Lord

Poyntz, W. S.

Elliot, Capt. G.

Price, Sir R.

Ewing, J.

Rickford, W.

Ferguson, Capt.

Rider, T.

Fleming, Hn. Admiral

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Grant, Rt. hon. C.

Rolfe, R. M.

Haliburton, Hn. D. G.

Rooper, J. B.

Hay, Col. A. Leith

Russell, Lord J.

Jeffrey, Rt. Hon. F.

Russell, C.

Kennedy, Thomas T.

Scrope, C. P.

Mackenzie, J. A. S.

Sandon, Lord

Macleod, R.

Sanford, E. A.

Maxwell, J.

Scarlett, Sir J.

Murray, J. A.

Scale, Col.

Ormaelie, Earl of

Shawe, R. N.

Sharpe, General

Slaney, R. A.

Stewart, R.

Smith, J. A.

Stewart, E.

Smith, J.

Stewart, Sir M. S.

Smith, R. V.

Trail, G.

Somerset, Lord G.

IRELAND.

Stanley, Rt. Hn. E. G. S.

Acheson, Viscount

Stanley, hon. H. T.

Cole, Hon. A.

Stanley, E.

Gladstone, T.

Stewart, P. M.

Hill, Lord A.

Strutt, E.

Howard, R.

Tancred, H. W.

Jones, Capt. T.

Thicknesse, R.

Lefroy, D. T.

Todd, R.

Mullins, F.

Torrens, Col.

O'Callaghan, Hon. C.

Tracy, C. IL

TELLERS.

Trelawney, W. L. S.

Duncannon, Lord

Thompson, Alderman

Rice, T. S.

Vennon, hon. G. J.

MINUTES
Papers ordered. On the Motion of the Marquess of LONDONDERRY, an Account of the total Expenditure in the Department of Foreign Affairs, from 5th January, 1827 to 5th June, 1833 specifying the Expense of each year: Account of Sums issued since 5th January, 1833 to 5th June, 1833, for Secret Service in the Foreign office Admiralty, and Colonial Department: Account of tile total Expenditure of the Extraordinary Embassy of the Earl of DURHAM to St. Petersburgh in 1832: a similar Account of the Duke of WELLINGTON in 1826 Account of the total Expenditure of the Extraordinary Embassy of Sir Stratford Canning to Madrid.
Bills, The Royal Assent was given by commission to the following Bills:—Exchequer; National Debt; Serjeants' Inn Agreement, and several private Bills.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of RODEN, from the Synod of Ulster, &c., against the Ministerial System of Education in Ireland.—By Lord GODOLTHIN from the Dissenters of Wisbeach, fur Relief with regard to Marriages, Registration,

303
and Church Rates.—By the Earl of ABINGDON, from several Places; and by Lord HAMILTON, from Kilbachan,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.

CHURCH TEMPORALITIES (IRELAND).
The Church Temporalities' (Ireland) Bill having been brought up from the Commons,
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, seeing the noble Earl at the head of the Administration in his place, and having observed that a Bill materially affecting the rights of the Church of Ireland had just been brought up from the Commons he begged to ask the noble Earl when he meant to move the first reading of that Bill.
Earl Greysaid, that he meant to follow the usual custom on such occasions, and move the first reading forthwith. It was not usual to make any objection to the first reading of a bill, because the House had an ample opportunity, in the after stages, of considering it. If their Lordships had no objection, he would therefore move, that the Church Temporalities' Bill be read a first time.
The Duke of Buckinghamwished to know from the noble Earl, as the Bill involved the Prerogative of the Crown, whether he was authorized by his Majesty to introduce it? According to the Orders of the House, such Bills only could be introduced on a direct Message from his Majesty.
Earl Grey, as one of his Majesty's responsible servants, was prepared with his Majesty's consent to the introduction of the measure before them. It had always been the custom to communicate his Majesty's consent by one of his responsible servants.
The Duke of Buckinghamsaid, that as his Majesty's sanction to this measure was necessary, it was requisite that their Lordships should know upon what evidence his Majesty had been induced to surrender such an important part of his prerogative. It was not enough for the noble Earl to say that his Majesty had given his consent. It was the duty of the noble Earl to bring down to their Lordships' House a Special Message to that effect from his Majesty.
Earl Greybelieved, that the usual course was to communicate his Majesty's consent to their Lordships by some one of his confidential servants, and he saw no reason to deviate from that course on the present occasion. Besides which, it would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that his Majesty had recommended the consideration of this subject, in his Speech from the Throne, at the commencement of the Session.
304
The usual course was to bring down a Message from his Majesty at the second reading.
The Duke of Buckinghamstill thought, that it would be better to bring down a Message conveying his, Majesty's consent before the Bill was read a first time.
Earl Greysaid, that a Minister was authorized to convey his Majesty's consent. A direct Message had, in many cases, not been brought down, till the Bill was in Committee. He would persevere in his Motion, that the Bill should be read a first time.
The Duke of Buckinghamwould appeal to their Lordships whether they ought to receive this Bill without knowing whether it was introduced with consent of the head of the Church. They were entitled to know whether the head of the Church had consented to what he must call the spoliation of the Church.
Earl Greysaid, that if the House would wait a little they would have an opportunity of seeing whether or not the noble Duke had just cause to call that measure spoliation. He would (as had formerly been done by the responsible servants of the Crown) take the responsibility of the introduction of this measure on himself; and further than that, he did not think it was necessary for him to say.
Bill read a first time.
The Archbishop of Dublinrose to present a Petition from Dublin relative to the Church Temporalities' Bill, which their Lordships had just read a first time. On a former night he presented the same petition, but withdrew it on account of its informality. He stated then, that he would not say whether the petition was for or against the proposed measure. It was either for or against the measure, according to the alterations that might be made in it; that was to say, if certain alterations were made, it would be in favour of the Bill; if they were not, it would be against it. He would not enter into the details of the petition, further than to state, that some of its objections were taken away by the removal of certain clauses of the Bill, against which it seemed especially directed. Lie wished, however, briefly to call the attention of their Lordships to the present petition, as well as to others that had already been presented. A certain charge virtually lay against those petitioners, since they said that the clergy were ready to assent to the measure, provided certain alterations were made in it. As it had been asserted before,

305
that the Coronation Oath hound his Majesty not to make any alterations in the Church, therefore a charge was brought against those petitioners who said, that they would consent to the measure, if it were altered in certain parts. Those petitioners thought, as he did, that the Coronation Oath affected his Majesty in his executive, and not in his legislative capacity, and that it could not prevent the King from assenting to any Bill that might have been passed by both Houses of Parliament. If one branch of the Legislature were to be restricted by an oath, Parliament should also be bound by one; and if it was the intention of our ancestors that the Oath should have the construction put upon it by some, they would have been more watchful to impose such a restriction on both Houses of Parliament, than to impose it on the King, Restrictions should have been placed rather on the two other branches of the Legislature than upon one alone. He used the words two branches of the Legislature designedly; because, if the Coronation Oath could be interpreted as some would interpret it, there would be, as it were, a fourth branch of the Legislature. And, although the King, Lords, and Commons might agree to a measure, still it would be impossible to pass it, on account of this fourth branch—the Coronation Oath. Certainly the King was bound to be tender and careful as to the measures he consented to, yet he was not prevented by any Oath, from assenting to measures which had passed through Parliament, and which he thought fit and proper measures. For his own part, he was no partisan of innovation; but all that was said to be innovation was not; and it should be left to fair argument to prove what was innovation and what was not. But if the Coronation Oath was to have the power some said it had, it would be impossible to know what was innovation or what was not—what measures were necessary or useful, or the contrary—since there would be no room left for discussion. The petitioners considered the matter as left to the discretion of the King, Lords, and Commons; and they considered the Oath was intended to prevent the King from encroaching upon the laws, or from acting against them.
The Earl of Eldonwould not at present enter into a discussion as to the object of the Coronation Oath; but certainly it was for the first time that he had heard from an Archbishop of the Established Church that they all—King, Lords, and Commons
306
—had taken the oath. [A noble Lord said: The right reverend Prelate said no such thing.]He would be ready at a fitting opportunity to discuss the question with the first dignitary of the Irish Church; and then, if the right reverend Prelate would reconcile what he said now on the Oath with the arguments that would he then adduced, all he would say was, it seemed to him that no oath was of any use.
Earl Greythought, it would be better to discuss the subject on a fitter occasion, and he should at that moment no further engage in it than say, that he was ready to adhere to the opinion on that matter of his right reverend friend. The best authorities in the country were of opinion, that the Coronation Oath related to the executive and not the, legislative functions of the King. He rose chiefly to correct an error the noble and learned Lord had fallen into when be said, that be understood his right reverend friend to say, that not only the King, but both Houses of Parliament, had taken the oath. The noble and learned Lord had misinterpreted the words of his right reverend friend. What his right reverend friend said was, that the oath was binding in the King's executive capacity, but not in his legislative capacity; for if it was, it was singular that Parliament should not he bound by it also. So far, therefore, from stating that both Houses of Parliament were bound by it—that they were not, the right reverend Prelate adduced as an argument that the oath related only to the King in his executive capacity. The matter might be better discussed when the Bill was before the House.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that if the most reverend Prelate had met with persons who were of opinion that the Coronation Oath was not binding on the King in his legislative capacity, the most reverend Prelate had met with persons whom he (the Bishop of Exeter) had never met with. He would discuss the matter under debate on a future opportunity, and would then only say, that he entirely differed from the views of the noble Earl and most reverend Prelate; and as the noble Earl had appointed a time for the discussion of the point, namely, when the Bill should be discussed, he should reserve his arguments on the point until then.
Earl Greyhad not appointed a particular time for discussing the point. What he said was, that when the point should he

307
discussed, he should be ready to maintain his former arguments on the subject. He begged to state distinctly, that it was his opinion that the present Bill did not in the least affect the Coronation Oath, and therefore he thought it wholly unnecessary to discuss what was or what was not the interpretation that should be put upon that oath.
The Bishop of Exclerbegged to explain. He did not allude to what the noble Earl had just then said, but to what he had said on a former night, when he observed that he should be on a future occasion ready to adduce arguments that he considered would be irrefragable and unanswerable. The announcement of those arguments was not given as a pledge; but he understood that the noble Earl promised to adduce those arguments when the Bill should be discussed.
Earl Grey: if noble Lords insisted that the point should be argued, he should be ready to repeat arguments which he considered perfectly unanswerable.
The Duke of Cumberlandasked the noble Earl whether he was to understand that the Coronation Oath had nothing to do with the present Bill? For himself, he never saw an occasion when the Coronation Oath was more nearly touched, nor did he ever see anything it had more to do with than with the present Bill.
Earl Greyhoped that the illustrious Duke would favour the House with his arguments upon the subject, and not con-fine himself to mere assertion.
The Duke of Cumberlandwould refer the noble Earl to the fifth article of the Union. Had the noble Earl read it? And if he had, could he say that the Coronation Oath was not binding, and that the present Bill had no collection with it?
Earl Greyhad looked to the article of the Union alluded to—he had examined it as carefully as the illustrious Duke could have done, and he challenged the illustrious Duke to prove by argument that his Majesty would be violating his oath if he assented to the present Bill in case it should pass that House; and he sincerely hoped that it would pass, as he was sure that it would be beneficial to the country.
Petition laid on the Table.

LOCAL JURISDICTION.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that as he had stated on several occasions before what was the nature of this Bill, it would be now unpardonable in him to occupy the attention
308
of their Lordships an instant. He would, therefore, simply move, That the Bill be now read a third time."
Lord Wharnclifferose to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be he read a third time that day six months. He said, that as this was a bill emanating from the first Law-officer of the Crown, and from Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the law in this country, he thought it more advisable not to offer any opposition to it in its former stages, but to wait until it had received all the amendments which were to be made in it, in order to see what shape it would assume before it became a law. He would now state his objections to the measure. He hoped, that neither he nor their Lordships would be actuated by any improper feeling on the occasion, although great pains had been taken on several occasions to throw odium on their Lordships, and they had now been over and over again warned, that the eyes of the people were upon them—that the people were jealous of their proceedings, and thought that they did not Wish to give the poorer classes the relief those classes required. It was the duty of that House to be actuated by no improper feeling; it was its duty to carefully watch the provisions of every measure that was to pass into a law, and if their lordships saw that the measure was not good, but, on the contrary, tended to do hurt to any portion of society, they were bound to do their duty, no matter what might be the construction put upon their conduct. He was of opinion, though a different doctrine had been held, that that House was peculiarly well qualified to pronounce an opinion on a bill of the nature then before them, containing, as it did, so many eminent persons who had been educated in the profession of the law. The House of Lords was more capable than any other assembly of pronouncing an opinion upon the efficacy of the proposed Bill, and its applicability to the present state of society; and he, for one, would not shrink from the performance of that duty. He had examined the Bill as attentively as he could, and the result of the consideration which he had given it, was a conviction that their Lordships ought not to pass it. Amongst the objections which he entertained to the Bill, there was this—that it was presented to them, as it were, under false pretences. He was as ready as any man to admit that the state of the law, so far as it related to the recovery of small debts, did require amendment, and

309
did demand, perhaps, the immediate interference of the Legislature; but the Bill before them, instead of effecting the Amendment which confessedly was wanted, went to create new Courts, and did more, in his opinion, to disorganize the Administration of the Law, than any single measure that he could recollect. Let it be admitted that there were some faults in our system of jurisprudence, he would say, let those faults be removed, but do not introduce new institutions. Nothing was more easy, when a grievance seemed to press with undue severity, than for any one to say, I will remedy this grievance by removing it altogether, overlooking all the while the chances of other and worse evils which the removal would inevitably introduce. It was very easy for any one to say, I will remove existing institutions—I will make the whole as a sheet of white paper; and when I have done that, I will write my own scheme thereon. That might be all very easy; but was it safe? Had they not much better adhere to the institutions of the country as they found them established, and preserve the principle of those institutions in its full integrity, only adopting such modifications in the true spirit of the ancient establishments of the land, as might effect improvement without producing essential alteration? In looking at the Bill then upon the Table of their Lordships' House, it should be borne in mind, that many of the counties, especially in the North of England, were very large; and it was a strange way of giving cheap and speedy justice, to send men from the remotest parts of Yorkshire or Lancashire to the county town, for the trial and settlement of their disputes. Perhaps it would have been better if the Assizes had been made more frequent; and now that there were enough of Judges, he saw no reason why there should not be more frequent circuits. It was stated further, that the proposed alteration of the law would lead to the reduction of fees. It was not necessary to have a special Act of Parliament for that purpose, seeing that the Judges at Westminster had full authority to regulate fees to any extent necessary. Again, great stress was laid upon the bene cial effects which the Bill would produce in the introduction of speedy justice. He confessed himself one of those who very much doubted the utility of enabling people speedily to settle their personal quarrels with attorneys at their elbows; and the profession contained amongst some of the
310
most honorable, some of the basest of mankind; through the agency of such men litigation beyond calculation would be created. In his opinion, some part of the delay had a beneficial tendency, as leading to the compromise of suits. One of the evils which could not fail to arise from the Bill was, an immense increase of vexatious litigation. In all cases of assault, libel, slander, or personal quarrels of any kind, parties well knowing that they had at their hands the ready means of commencing actions would be always sure to do so, and petty suits would be multiplied without end. The Bill proposed that no action could be brought in these Courts for any sums above 50 l.; but why, he would ask, should not suitors for that amount have an opportunity of availing themselves of the professional services of respectable men, instead of the low persons that would be sure to infest the several County Courts if this Bill were passed into a law. His noble and learned friend, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, had told them only a few nights since, that almost all the bar were opposed to the Bill, and so likewise were the Judges of the superior Courts. They were opposed to it on various grounds, and amongst others on this—that it would tend to lower the high character of the profession. At present, the advocate in any cause pleaded that cause before a Bench, which he held in the highest veneration, and in the presence of a bar whose vigilance and rivalry he must fear. Under the Local Courts Bill, he would plead his causes before a Bench necessarily of an inferior order, and opposed to perhaps the very lowest amongst the attorneys. Was not such a change calculated to produce effects not only derogatory from the character of the profession, but seriously injurious to the interests of the public? Let him ask, also, how would the Bill affect the bar, as to its immediate interests? He wished their Lordships would look at the effect of this Bill in connexion with the measure which had changed the constitution of the Bankruptcy Courts. By that measure, offices of considerable importance were created; not similar in value to the abolished Commissionerships, which were scarcely worth the acceptance of any but those just rising in the profession, but places of considerable consequence, which it might be an object of ambition and desire with persons having practised for a long period at the bar, to obtain. Their Lordships were now asked

311
to sanction a measure which would enable the Crown to create as many more places of equal importance as it might deem lit. There were fifty-two counties in England; and whether or not it was intended to provide each of these counties with a Local Judge, he did not know; but it would be evident to their Lordships, that from the provisions of the Bill, the appointment of a considerable number of Judges and Registrars was contemplated he did not mean to attribute the introduction of this measure to any desire of patronage on the part of the noble and learned Lord; but he requested their Lordships to consider what must be the power and influence of the Chancellor for the time being, if, besides possessing the appointment of the bankruptcy Judges, he should be enabled to dispose of the places created by this Bill, which the noble and learned Lord had valued at 2,000 l. a-year each? He confessed, notwithstanding the great respect he felt for the talents, the dignity, and disinterestedness of the bar, that he was afraid that this Bill would have a tendency to lower the character of that profession. He would ask the House also, in what way could such a bill as that benefit the poor man? In what way did the rich tyrannise over the poor from any lack of ability on the part of the former to go to law." He would affirm, that the rights of property were never better protected than at the present moment; and, as to talk of benefiting the poor man by promoting the recovery of small debts, he should only say that, in writs for small debts, the poor man was generally the defendant. It had been said, that some analogy was to be found in the Scotch system with that which the present measure proposed to establish; perhaps there might be such an analogy, but with him that was no recommendation, since it was one of the objections to the Bill that it tended to encourage useless litigation, and the Scotch had shown themselves a people much more ready to go to law than the English, as the frequent appeals before their Lordships fully testified. His Lordship concluded by moving, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
The Earl of Rossesaid, that the Bill was no experiment; that forty years ago a similar measure had been introduced into the Irish Parliament which had been in full operation from that time to this, and produced most beneficial results. The Law Commissioners appointed to investigate
312
the proceedings of the Courts of Law in Ireland, expressed the strongest approbation of the effects of the measure in that country. The Registering Barristers in Ireland were, in his opinion, of the same sort of character as the Local Judges to be appointed under the present Bill, and their services in Ireland had been eminently beneficial. It had long been to him a matter of great surprise, that something of the sort had not been set on foot in this country. Noble Lords seemed to say, that the Bill would render justice cheap and speedy and near, and that that formed an objection. Did they mean to say, that justice ought to be slow, and dear and distant?
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that the noble Earl who spoke last was quite mistaken in supposing that the Irish Assistant Barristers at all resembled the sort of Judges who would be appointed under the new Bill. The Assistant Barristers were not stationary—they practised in the Courts above, and had about them all the good influence of metropolitan practice—each year acquiring fresh knowledge, and gaining from day to day upon the confidence of the people. If their Lordships, therefore, supposed that this Bill had the sanction of forty years' experience, and voted for it under that impression, they would be totally deceived. The courts in Ireland did not resemble the Courts it was proposed to establish in England. He agreed with the noble Earl, that the Assistant Barristers were of the greatest utility, and he should very reluctantly oppose the Bill, if the Judges under it were to resemble the Assistant Barristers; knowing, however, that no such resemblance existed, be should have no difficulty in supporting the Amendment which had been moved by his noble friend near him.
Lord Lyndhurstthus early presented himself to the notice of their Lordships, that he might fairly and candidly state his objections to the Bill. Out of doors he had been charged with party motives; but his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, when he introduced it, said expressly, that it was not to be viewed as a party measure, and that it rested entirely on his own responsibility. He (Lord Lyndhurst) had sent a note from the Circuit, stating his dissent; and his noble and learned friend must, therefore, have known of his intention to oppose it. If it had since been adopted by Ministers, that was no reason why he should shrink from the opposition

313
he had before avowed, or hesitate to express with openness and confidence the reasons which he thought should induce their Lordships to reject the Bill. He would first direct their Lordships' attention to the very-commencement of the Bill, which, on principle, seemed liable to the strongest objections. The first clause gave an unlimited and undefined power to his Majesty, or rather to his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, to create any number of offices he might think fit—Judges, with salaries of 2,000 l. a year—an equal number of Registrars, with salaries of 700 l. or 800 l. a year—and any number of subordinate officers which he might think fit to attach to those Courts. He would venture to say, without the fear of contradiction, that such a principle of legislation as this had never before been adopted by the Parliament of this country. He was well aware that, personally, his noble and learned friend bad no wish for this unlimited power; his noble and learned friend did not desire this vast patronage; and, if given, it would be safe in his hands; but the Great Seal might be placed in a different trust. His noble and learned friend had observed, that he had endeavoured to find out some quarter in which he could place this patronage; but he had not been successful in his search, and had, therefore, been obliged, as a dernier resort, to place it in the bands of the Lord Chancellor himself. He was ready and willing to give his noble and learned friend credit for the most patriotic views, and the most disinterested intentions; but their Lordships were not, on such a subject as the present, to legislate for individuals. His noble and learned friend might not always hold the office which he now so honourably and usefully filled. It might be filled by a person of very different views, motives, and intentions. He could suppose a person possessed of the popular talents, of the commanding eloquence, and of the transcendant abilities of his noble and learned friend, but not possessed of the moderation and disinterestedness for which his noble and learned friend was so distinguished, holding the office which his noble and learned friend now filled—he could imagine such a person, anxious to devote the whole of his power to the purposes of personal aggrandizement and ambition, and indisposed towards those institutions of the country, which appeared to him calculated to check him in his career—he could fancy such a person, about to bring forward a
314
new system, fully sensible of the fleeting nature of popular support and applause, and anxious to establish and consolidate his power upon some securer and more substantial foundation. Should there happen to be at any time such a person of such a character filling the high office of Lord Chancellor of England, the patronage which such a measure as this would vest in him would give him ample means so to consolidate his power and to establish himself in almost unlimited and permanent authority in tills kingdom. Let their Lordships for a moment advert to the patronage and consequent power which the Lord Chancellor at present possessed. The Lord Chancellor had the disposal of Church patronage to an immense extent, and he thereby possessed immense influence among the clergy of the country. He appointed to the magistracy of the country, and he, in that way, possessed a strong influence over the whole of that powerful body of persons. In addition to all this, their Lordships should bear in mind, that the Lord Chancellor had the direct nomination of thirteen out of the fifteen Judges of the land—that he had considerable influence and control over the appointment of the other two—that he had also, almost absolute influence over the appointment of the two equity Judges, and that he held in his hands the sole appointment of the Judges in the new Court of bankruptcy, with all the subordinate officers attached to that Court. The Lord Chancellor had also the power of selecting, for the honours of the profession, those whom he might be most disposed to prefer at the Bar, which gave him enormous influence and power over the profession at large. But this very great influence existed, merely, as things were at present. Now, if, in addition to it, their Lordships were to throw into the scale the appointment of thirty or forty new Judges (as proposed by this Bill), with thirty or forty new Registrars; and, at the same time, an immense influence was to be established over the commercial classes by the creation of an unlimited number of official assignees (all of which appointments would be at the disposal of the Lord Chancellor)—if, in addition to the power already possessed by the Lord Chancellor, their Lordships were to add the powers of this Bill—would they not make the office of Lord Chancellor of more substantial power than any other in the State? Suppose the office of Lord Chancellor to be filled by a person possessing

315
the popular talents of my noble and learned friend, but prepared to take a course of which he was incapable—suppose a Lord Chancellor, anxious to pervert the influence he possessed to private purposes and personal aggrandizement, what more desirable means could any such individual wish to unite in his own person, in order to extend and consolidate his power, than would be afforded to him by the Bill which his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack (with, no doubt, the most honourable and disinterested motives), now proposed for their Lordships' adoption? This was one of the grounds, amongst others, which induced him to oppose the Bill. He objected to it because it would place, in the hands of an individual, powers which would be inconsistent with the Constitution of the country; and which might, in the hands of a crafty, able, and designing Minister, he employed for the most unconstitutional purposes. He gave his noble and learned friend full credit for having endeavoured to divest himself of that patronage—he had wished to vest it in the Judges of the land—but he found, that no where could it be so properly lodged as with himself: he had judged rightly; and no man acquainted with the Constitution could decide otherwise. Leaving this point, however, he would call the attention of their Lordships to the expenditure that would be occasioned by the Bill. By means of an Act lately passed, he was able to state, that the cost of the Court in which he (Lord Lyndhurst) presided, was 35,000 l. per annum; each of the two other superior Courts of Westminster-hall might be stated at the same amount; so that the expense of the whole three Courts of Westminster-hall did not much exceed 100,000 l. a year. For this sum the whole body of the criminal and civil law of the country was administered; but the new system of judicature of his noble and learned friend would cost not less than 150,000 l. a year, or one third more than the three superior Courts of Westminster-hall. He agreed, that where it was certain that a new system was a good one, the cost ought not to be taken into consideration; but, if the change were of doubtful policy, like the present, the expenditure of such a sum seemed the excess of extravagance. He would next proceed to his great objection to the plan—that which had been stated by the noble Baron, viz.—that it established local Judges to administer the law. Nothing could be more pernicious than the establishment of
316
such local Judges, subject to local influences, partialities, and feelings. He begged their Lordships to consider the immense number of such local Judges which this measure would spread throughout the kingdom, and the danger of their being influenced by the prejudices of the narrow districts in which they would be placed. His noble and learned friend stated, that four of these Judges would be established in one of the Ridings of Yorkshire; in a comparatively narrow district, permanently residing there, subject to the influences arising out of the private friendships and private partialities which they must naturally form in their neighbourhood. They would be exposed to the charge of partiality, and liable to that which was as bad—the suspicion of it—in the discharge of their public and official duties. That would be the case with all the other local Judges which it was proposed to establish in the other districts of the country. It was, as he had stated in a former discussion, on the principle, that local jurisdictions were liable to such abuses, and had generated such evils, that the local judicatures which formerly existed were abolished. It was the abhorrence of such abuses which should induce their Lordships now to resist the establishment of such local judicatures. The principle, indeed, formerly existed in the jurisprudence of this country, but it was abandoned, to use the words of Sir Matthew Hale, on account of the "brocage and partiality," to which it gave rise. Would it not then be folly—would it not be wickedness, to re-establish a system exploded for such a reason? Several Acts of Parliament had been passed to prevent a Judge administering the law even in the county where he was born, and the preamble of the 33rd of Henry 8th expressly set out, that it was intended to remedy the evil that might be occasioned by the residence of Judges in the country. It said:—'Since the making of which good Act and law, divers justices and men learned in the law of this realm, for their own commodity and ease, have obtained, contrary to the form of the said Act, to be justices of assize, in the counties where they were born, or where inhabiting, whereby some jealousy of their affection and favour towards their kinsmen, alliance, and friends, within the said counties, hath been conceived and had against them by the King's most loving subjects. For reformation, &c., that no justice nor other man learned in the laws of this realm shall use nor

317
exercise the office of Justice of assize within any county where the said justice was horn or doth inhabit.' He admitted, that this law was afterwards repealed, but the ground of the repeal was, that practically the Judges never did reside, excepting occasionally, anywhere but in the metropolis. The principle of our law was, therefore, against the administration of justice by local Judges. Another objection, of considerable importance, was, that there would, in the course of a short time, he a material distinction—a marked separation between the practice and the law of these Local Courts and the superior courts of Westminster-hall. Supposing that men of legal practice and of high consideration in the Courts of Westminster-hall should be selected to fill the situations of these local Judges, he would take upon himself to affirm, with confidence, that by being removed to a distance from the great centre of law and legal information, and residing constantly in their local judicial districts, without competition—without motives to exertion—without the constant watching of an independent and jealous Bar—they would, by degrees, become incompetent to discharge the duties which would devolve upon them. In stating this opinion to their Lordships, he did not rely upon his own unsupported authority. He would direct their Lordships attention to a very high authority upon the point—to a passage in an article contained in a publication, of great celebrity, which was for many years conducted by a learned Lord, now a Member of the other House of Parliament, and to which his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, if he had not been greatly belied, had, from time to time, contributed the aid of his powerful pen. The article from which he was about to quote appeared ill the Edinburgh Review; and he the more readily quoted it as it referred to those very local tribunals in Ireland, which had been appealed to by a noble Lord, that evening, ill support of that Bill. The writer, in reference to these tribunals, thus expressed himself:—'The objects of legal research, the occupations that quicken the faculties for the transaction of legal business, are among the least attractive exercises of the human mind; and it may be safely asserted, that nothing will keep the mind habitually exercised them but the pressing stimulus of a present necessity. A retired anatomist may cling with fondness to the inquiries of his past life— a superannuated astronomer will often
318
think of the stars; but there is no such thing in natures a Platonic affection for the Term Reports—no such variety of the human species as a middle-aged or elderly lawyer soothing his hours of legal ease with endearing recollections of Vesey junior.' That extract read as if it had proceeded from the powerful pen of his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. The writerded:—Take a barrister from the superior Courts, and place him on provincial bench—detach him from a scene in which every motive of gain, of ambition, of personal responsibility, are incessantly exciting him to keep himself in a stale of intellectual fitness for the details of legal business, and transplant him to one upon which the two first of these motives cease to operate, and where his character as a lawyer, has little to apprehend from the criticisms of a rural auditory—do this, and the probable result will be, that the process of professional deterioration will immediately begin; that, relying upon his store of present knowledge, he will take little pains to continue or increase it; that much of that knowledge will rapidly and imperceptibly fade away.' He objected then to the establishment of these local Judges, on the grounds and for the reasons so well stated ill that extract, and the authority of which his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would hardly question. But there was another consideration to which he desired to direct their Lordships notice, namely—as to the mode in which the appointment of these local Judges must necessarily be made. With regard to the appointment of the superior Judges in Westminster-hall, there was little or no room for the exercise of improper influence or partiality in their selection or appointment. Those appointments were subject to the vigilant control of Parliament, and were made under the scrutinizing eye of a vigilant Bar. Public opinion was always alive as to the manner in which any vacancies might be tilled up; and no man, in the situation of a Minister of the Crown, would dare to appoint improper persons to the situation of Judge of the superior Courts, lint will the case be so with respect to these provincial Courts of Judicature. Had not their Lordships and the public heard, not many years since, of the abuses which existed respecting the provincial judicature in Wales? Who could forget the vehement denunciations which his noble and learned friend on the Wool-

319
sack—then a Member of the House of Commons—poured forth against that system of provincial judgeships in Wales, which was, a few years ago, finally abolished? He would not make any personal allusions in discussing this measure, he would suppose that, in the distribution of these appointments, the Ministers would be guided by the best and purest motives; but what reason was there that their successors—that all Ministers hereafter—should have intrusted to them the appointment of thirty or forty Judges in different parts of the country? He would ask whether it was not likely that these appointments would be turned into parliamentary jobs, to extend the influence and promote the objects of the Ministers of the day? He would next proceed to another leading objection which he took to this Bill. People were very generally accustomed to say—referring to the expense of legal proceedings—that it was a monstrous thing to be obliged to go to a court of justice for the recovery of a small sum, at the risk of incurring, comparatively, enormous costs. Now, to argue the subject thus, was to look at it in a very confined and partial point of view. One great object of the law was, to prevent litigation; and the law had, therefore, been laid down so precise and so certain, in this country, that a man, in the great majority of instances, was enabled to know and ascertain his rights without litigation. He would take upon himself to say that, comparing the system of law that was established in this country with the law established in other countries, the certainty and precision to which the law here had been brought would appear to the greatest possible advantage. The consequence was, that when a man conceived himself to be aggrieved, he went to his counsel and asked his opinion. He was enabled to ascertain his rights almost with certainty, and thus was not obliged to resort to a court of Justice but in comparatively rare cases. Therefore, he could not bring himself to believe that the system was radically bad, in consequence of the expenses attending the going into Courts of Justice, when, such good results flowed from it. Since he had last addressed their Lordships on this subject, a fact had been mentioned by Mr. Park, the professor of the London University, which was of great importance on this point; he had said, in one of his lectures, that Mr. Preston had given opinions on move than 40,000 cases during his life, and that
320
not more than one in thirty had been made the subject of future litigation. On a former occasion his noble and learned friend had adverted to the right of appeal, which he contended, would make the system work perfectly well; but an appeal could only be had in plain and broad cases of error; and he little understood the operation of the plan who thought that it would he kept free from all objection because a right of appeal was given. No man was more anxious than he was to facilitate the recovery of small debts: he should be most happy to co-operate with his noble friend in any plan to accomplish such an object. When he did co-operate, his noble and learned friend knew that he neither wanted zeal nor industry; but when, on a former night, his noble and learned friend had applauded the system prevailing in Ireland, and the jurisdiction then existing, he must know that it was as different from the present proposed plan as possible. The jurisdiction of 20 l. in Ireland only applied to cases of Bills, bonds, or notes, not easily liable to dispute, but in other cases it was of a much less amount. In personal torts there was not the remotest similarity, although in some eases between landlord and tenant the jurisdiction of the Court of the Assistant Barrister extended to 50 l. But the main distinction on which he relied was, that by this Bill the Judges were to be local, while in the Irish system that vice did not exist. On a former night something had been said regarding the Bar, and he must refer to it again in spite of the denunciation of his noble and learned friend. He came from that Bar, and to that Bar he owed a duty which he was determined to discharge. In times of difficulty and danger the Bar had never been wanting. Its Members were the foremost supporters of freedom and the most resolute opponents of oppression; and never did a poor man stand in need of assistance that it was not instantly volunteered. The effect of the Bill upon the Table would be to degrade, and, ultimately, to destroy that Bar. Their Lordships were peculiarly bound to vindicate and protect it, for to it many of them owed their justly acquired honours. When he saw his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, who had so lately emerged from that Bar—his noble and venerable friend on the floor, who had for so many years been the ornament of that House—his noble and learned friend opposite (Lord Plunkett), who was one of its brightest lights—and

321
his noble and learned friend near him Lord Wynford), who had been one of its most brilliant examples, he could not doubt that the bar would scarcely stand in need of his advocacy. Many rivals, opponents, and successful competitors were still at the bar, and deserved, as they ought to receive, the support of his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. From him (Lord Lyndhurst) they should ever obtain that meed of praise to which they were entitled, as far as his humble abilities enabled him to express it. He was convinced that more than one-half of the present business would be taken from the bar by this Bill; and in proof of this point, he begged to refer his noble and learned friend to the Report of the Commissioners. Besides, a number of provincial counsel would be encouraged by the Bill in the different districts: they would obtain the principal part of the business, and the junior portion of the bar would be deprived of that course of education which fitted them to mount the ladder of preferment. The plan would also operate destructively to attorneys and solicitors. His noble and learned friend had been cautious not to affix any schedule of fees to the Bill, or to give any verbal explanation of them; but it was quite evident, that no man of education or respectability would transact business in these Local Courts, so that the business in them would be left to the lowest retainers of the law, with all the other consequences of degradation. He had, on a former night, referred to the operation of a similar system in America and France: regarding the latter he would then only speak in general terms, from deficiency of information; but he was now furnished with the authority of an unexceptionable witness, M. Royer Collard, who had called what were here termed Local Courts, a deplorable system which the Empire had bequeathed to the Restoration. With the leave of the House he would read the opinion of that eminent and eloquent advocate—Such is the deplorable system the Empire has bequeathed to the Restoration. The necessarily-resulting evils have developed themselves, and never, perhaps, has France possessed a more inefficient and less respected Magistracy. It is now easy to understand the weakness of the bar. The Courts have little taste for questions of law; their whole art consists in avoiding cassation. The consequence is, that the advocate only studies to present his case in such a manner as to conciliate the Judges, and despises a
322
science which would be rather prejudicial than useful to him. I repeat, learning is almost as rare at the bar as on the Bench.' There was also another authority, that of Lord Hale, to which be would refer. It was true, that the Commissioners themselves had quoted that authority; but they must have read, almost in the same page to Which they referred, that to which he should now call their Lordships' attention. Lord Hale was quoted as an authority for a cheap mode of recovering small debts, as an authority for the establishment of Local courts in certain fixed places in each county. He should read the opinion of Lord Hale; but, before he did so, he wished first to mention that it was a part of his noble friend's Bill that these Courts should have jurisdiction in matters to the amount of 50 l. That was the limit at which the jurisdiction was to be fixed and what did Lord Hale say on the subject? "The greatest danger imaginable in this is, that it may give a handle to the erecting of country judicatures, to the countermining of the kingdom. And I must confess, were this to be the effect of it, I think it were the most pernicious thing imaginable. If men, indeed, will be giddy and unsteady, and if we should suppose Parliaments not to be wisely sensible of their own and the public concern, men may suppose that 5l. may in time arise to be 50 l. (that was the amount in the present Bill); and so the Courts of Westminster be destroyed. He that supposeth this, may suppose things yet more dreadful." Such were the opinions of that great, that learned, and constitutional Judge. It had been said, by his noble friend, who commenced this debate, that this had been described as the poor man's Bill. Why, there was not a morning on which he did not find the same doctrine instilled into him, in one of those documents which it was not necessary more particularly to mention. It was said, "You must have some underhand motive for opposing a measure of this description." The statement was not true. Never was there a bill less a poor man's Bill than this. It was a bill to enable a man of property to obtain judgment, to sue out execution, and to seize the property of the poor man, to assign it to the Registrar, to sell it, to turn him and his family into the streets in six weeks. It was emphatically a bill to oppress the poor. It was a bill to satisfy the creditor, by compelling a poor debtor to render him more speedy payment than could be obtained from a wealthy debtor

323
—it wan a bill to give the wealthy every possible menus of oppressing the man in an humbler station of life. The operation of the Bill would be this—tradesmen, shopkeepers, and others would allow the poor man to run into debt to the extent of his property, and if he failed to make instant payment, they would destroy him without mercy let their Lordships refer to the evidence of Sir John Cress, who was examined by the Commissioners:—Sir John Cross was asked: "Have you found any inconvenience from the facility with which small debts are recovered in the Court you have mentioned?" he answered, "I had frequent occasion to observe that the facilitating the recovery of small debts tended much to facilitate the contracting of them by the poor and improvident, and to the consequent increase of litigation and poverty. It was a frequent practice for publicans to allow drink to their customers upon credit to an extent which I thought they would not have done if there had not been a Court in which they could recover the amount of the debt so contracted; and I observed, in a great many instances, that small shopkeepers who dealt in provisions dealt largely in credit to the poor, The wives and even the children of workmen, who were from home engaged in their occupations, could go to one of those shops and obtain what they wanted., which was charged as a debt to the absent muster of the family; and the account would run on in this way as long as the shopkeeper thought it safe to risk his property upon such credit. He would go on with a great many customers of that description at the same time, and at a convenient season he would sue out in one day summonses against twenty or thirty of such customers, and carry his accounts into the court of Requests against them all at once." That was the testimony of a Gentleman who had presided for several years of his life over one of these small Tribunals in the town of Manchester, which was one of the best administered of the small debt Courts in the kingdom. In his Judgment, implicit reliance might be placed; and after that, it might be asked, whether this was to be considered as the poor man's Bill? He should wish to direct their attention to the nature of the evidence on which the Bill had, been founded. It was called the poor man's Bill. Were the poor, then, the witnesses who had been examined? No the witnesses were wholesale tradesmen, shopkeepers, and sometimes bankers. One
324
man said, there was nothing so abominable as the law of debtor and creditor in this country; that there ought to be a power for the creditor to imprison the debtor, and compel him to work till he had discharged the debt, or a percentage upon it. Another said, that there was no such abominable system in the world as that of the Insolvent Debtors' Court. Another, that these Courts should be without attorneys, and without professional men altogether. And if their Lordships were to read the evidence, they would find that the chief object of those who were examined seemed to have been to have a law which would enable the creditor to oppress, to grind, to destroy, with the utmost facility, his poor debtor. Let not this Bill be called the poor man's Bill; for, of all other Acts, it was the most oppressive towards the poor man. He should now direct their Lordships' attention to the provisions of this Bill. He should not go through them all in detail—he bad touched upon them in the observations he made when the Bill went through the second reading, because he thought they were capable of being amended in Committee. He had attended the Committee, and made suggestions for their amendment; but he was constantly told, that this Bill was brought in as the result of five years' deliberation—that such a Bill had once before passed one of the Houses of Legislature—that it had been amended—made the subject of examination by the Commissioners—reported on and amended again—and could not be further altered, and accordingly none of his suggestions were adopted. He had in the first instance, objected to the principle of the Bill—he had discussed it on principle—and he should now call their attention to its provisions. These courts would absorb all the cases of personal tort. Every case of personal tort would be taken from the Superior Courts: and for this reason—their jurisdiction was to extend to cases of the amount of 50 l. Where the damages were uncertain—where they must depend on the caprice of a Jury—he who had to bring the action would not, on the chance of getting a verdict for more than that sum, bring it in one of the Superior courts. He had looked into the cases of this kind, and he found that there were twelve or fourteen in which the verdict was for a sum below 50 l., for one case in which the verdict was for a sum exceeding that amount. The result, therefore, would be to transfer to these Local Tribunals ail actions for libel, for malicious trespasses—in

325
short, all actions for person torts. What would be the consequence? Why, that all such cases would be decided before the day of trial. Before then the merits of the whole question would he discussed and determined; and would the noble and learned Lord introduce a bill which would have such an effect? He had suggested that some remedy should be applied to this evil. The noble and learned Lord had undertaken to find a remedy, and let them mark what was the effect of that remedy. It was this—the defendant might remove the case to the Superior court. But on what terms? Why, that he should give security for the damages and costs which might be awarded in the action. The wealthy man would be able to give such security. The Bill in this, as in other respects, was in favour of the wealthy man, but the poor man could get no such security. What, then, was his situation? Why, that if the circumstances attending the trial were such as to preclude the hope of its impartiality in the Local Courts, he must suffer all the inconvenience of such a result. And were they so destitute of understanding as to be told after this that the provisions of this Bill were in favour of the poor. The noble and learned Lord said, that the Bill followed the recommendation of the Commissioners. It did no such thing—they recommended twenty pounds as the limit of the jurisdiction of these Courts, the Bill raised it to fifty pounds. The former Bill was for one hundred pounds—it might be easy hereafter to advance the jurisdiction. If it were raised to the sum originally proposed, the King's Bench would be ousted of nineteen-twentieths of the causes which now came before it. And let them observe the consequence with regard to the suitor. A man might have a good cause of action for a sum exceeding the limit of the jurisdiction of the inferior Court, on submitting his case to Counsel he might be so advised, and his demand might be most just. If he went into the Superior Courts, the absence of a witness, the impossibility to procure a certain document, might reduce the verdict to a sum within the jurisdiction of the Local Courts, and then he would be mulcted of his costs. Besides questions of the greatest importance and difficulty often occurred whore the real sum in dispute in that action did not exceed 2l.; where a balance of accounts, according to the decision of an important principle, did not exceed 10 l., and many most important
326
questions of insurance had depended on a claim of less than 10 l. Yet on this Bill a man must go into the Local Courts to have these questions decided, instead of having them decided by the first law authorities of the country. Here again, the Bill departed from the recommendation of the Commissioners, who said, that the costs should be in the discretion of the Superior Courts, though the sum recovered might be within the jurisdiction of the Local Courts. Again, with respect to the venue or the place of trial. The venue was arbitrarily fixed in the district of the defendant, provided the plaintiff or one of the plaintiffs resided in the same district. But it frequently happened, that the partners of mercantile houses were resident in different parts of the kingdom, and if it should so happen, as was by no means improbable, that the partners of one of these great houses should become plaintiffs in a cause within the jurisdiction of the Local Courts, and one of them should be resident in the same district as the defendant in a distant part of the kingdom, the defendant would have the power of fixing the venue there, and the plaintiffs, under this cheap system of justice, might have to carry their witnesses 200 or 300 miles. Hero again the recommendation of the Commissioners was departed from. He had a right to discuss these matters in this stage of the Bill, and to ask their Lordships whether they could adopt this Bill, the result of five years' deliberation, as a specimen of sound legislation. There were no means to give the party aggrieved by an unjust; verdict the benefit of a new trial. A new trial could not be had without a reference of some important point of law to the Judges. But any man who was conversant with courts of justice, knew that jurymen sometimes gave verdicts against the opinion of the Judge, and against the manifest weight of evidence. The remedy was in the hands of the Court who granted a new trial. He would put a case of this kind. Suppose an action brought against a man for charging another with an infamous crime—a justification pleaded, and the Jury, contrary to evidence, and to the opinion of the Judge, find that the justification was made out. What would be the result? A record of infamy would exist against an innocent man. And that was the specimen of the legislation of the Lord High Chancellor of England, after five years' deliberation. Then again, in other actions, wherever the plaintiff resided, the defendant might compel him to come up

327
and be examined, and if he neglected, he was to be forthwith fined. A Bill to the same effect bud been proposed by a noble and learned friend near him (Lord Wynford), with an infinite variety of bars, indeed, which were not to be found in this Bill; but that Bill was deemed so unjust and oppressive, that the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Plunkett) took horror at it, and urged him (Lord Lyndhurst) to oppose it, which he had done. Then again, with respect to Juries. He had read lately an opinion to this effect on Juries:—"Juries, no doubt, may be got rid of, and ought to be got rid of, in the Local Tribunals, as a cumbrous and troublesome piece of machinery, for which, in the Superior Courts, the only argument is, that in cases between the Government and individuals, they are not so liable to be biassed as Judges. In all other cases, a Judge is to be presumed a better instrument than a Juror." Such was the language of one of those journals which espoused the cause of the Whig Government of this country. By this Bill the Local Judge was to sit, assisted by a Jury of six persons. The Local Judges would be men of influence in their neighbourhood, and the more they diminished the number of the Jury, the more they increased the power of the Judge. Was it right, therefore, in cases affecting the property and character of all men, that any one man should be the exclusive administrator of justice, and that, too, without the power of review, except in the case of the grossest error in law. But that was only a small part of the matter. How were the Jury to be summoned? He prayed their Lordships to mark this provision of the Bill. In the Constitution of the country the greatest possible caution had been used as to the summoning of Juries. The Judge had nothing to do with it. He went down and met the Jury, and possessed no influence over them except that which his character and station justly gave him. The case in this Bill was very different, and in respect of Juries it departed widely from the most wholesome principles. Who did their Lordships suppose was by this Bill to be intrusted with the summoning of the Juries? The Registrar of the Court—the travelling companion of the Judge—a person selected by the Judge himself. If the Jury were to be selected by the Judge himself, it would be far better, for he would be a responsible person; but to allow the Registrar, who was not a responsible person, and was the friend of the Judge, to select the Jury was a monstrous
328
violation of principle. The Jury besides, were to be taken from the immediate neighbourhood, so that the Registrar, to please a wealthy acquaintance, might pack the Jury; and yet that was what was called the poor man's Law. Throughout this Bill, the poor man was bound and fettered—he must take such law as they pleased to give him; but the rich man could evade the law with ease. It was said, that if the Judge was wrong in point of law, the party might appeal. The appeal was to be on a case settled by counsel on both sides, and if they disagreed, by the notes of the Judge. But the counsel always would disagree; and suppose the Judge to alter his notes so as to evade the point, how then could any appeal be made? It might be said, that an alteration in their notes could now be made by the Judges in Westminster-hall. That was true, but there was this difference; the Judges in Westminster were watched by an independent and enlightened bar, and if the bar did not like to trust the Judge, they need not appeal in that form, but might tender a bill of exceptions, make him seal it at the time, and if the Judge were in the habit of misrepresenting his opinions, the bar would cease to trust him, and would invariably have recourse to that method of proceeding. There was no analogous provision to that in this" Poor Man's Bill" in his favour against a partial Judge, and suffering as he was now said to suffer under the scourge of dear and uncertain law, this Bill would only add to his misfortunes by making his oppression certain. He could point out more objections of a similar kind; but he thought that these were a sufficient sample of the whole measure. The noble Lord had, on a former occasion, mentioned Lord Somers—clarum et venerabile nomen—and had described that nobleman as having to struggle in an attempt to improve the law against petty and paltry objections. There never was, however, a more cautious man than Lord Somers, nor any one more attached to the ancient institutions of the country. His character had been thus described by a contemporary:—"He was very learned in his own profession; he had a great capacity for business, with an extraordinary temper; so that he had all the patience and softness, as well as all the knowledge, the justice, and equity becoming a great magistrate. He had always agreed in his notions with the Whigs, and had studied to bring them to better thoughts of the King." Lord

329
Somers was a most cautious man, and caution was marked in every line of the Bill of that noble Lord. Lord Somers, too, was warmly attached to the institutions of that country, and the principles of those institutions were carefully adhered to in his great measure. If his noble friend, by referring to Lord Somers, meant to compare his Bill to that of Lord Somers, he must say, that no two measures could be more opposed to each other, both in principle and in their details. With reference to the general principles of Law Reform, he would trouble their Lordships with one extract more from Lord Hale's writings. "The truth is (said Lord Hale) if upon the discovery of some inconvenience in lawes the business were only to provide a plaister for that sore, the reformation of any law was very easy; but the great business of a Reformer is, not only to see that his remedy be apposite, but that it doth not introduce some other considerable inconvenience, or at least with the inconvenience that it remedies takes not away some other considerable convenience, which the former Constitution, before the alteration, brought with it." That was the true principle of Reform which their Lordships should adopt; and having thus described it to them in the words of that great lawyer, he would ask their Lordships whether this Bill proceeded upon that principle, or was characterized by that spirit which actuated the conduct of Lord Somers, and prevailed in the writings of Lord Hale. "He had, in stating his opinions, discharaged the duty he owed to the country, and to the station which he had the honour to fill, his duty to their Lordships, and to that profession of which he was proud to be a Member; he had stated the arguments which, in his mind, were sufficient to condemn the Bill; and had endeavoured to lay before their Lordships the reasons which would make him vote against the third reading of it, and the decision, he confidently left to their Lordships' wisdom. He had no personal ends to answer—he had no private motives whatever to gratify. To their decision—whatever it might be—he should cheerfully bow, although his own opinion was decidedly against the measure. He had only, therefore, in conclusion, to declare his assent to the Amendment proposed by his noble friend.
Lord Plunkett: could not but express his admiration of the very able, eloquent, and masterly speech of his noble and learned friend who had just sat down; and in
330
doing that he must also express a hope that their Lordships would not suppose that he came forward in the hope of answering his noble and learned friend, or with the intention of following him through the great variety of matters on which he had so ably and amply dilated. It neither suited his place, nor the scope of his information, to enter into a great portion of the subjects which the noble and learned lord had introduced; and, indeed, he should not conceive himself warranted in addressing the House at all upon this subject, except upon that part of it which related to the country of which he had some local knowledge. Following the example of his noble friend upon the Cross-Bench, he ought, perhaps, to confine himself solely to a statement of what experience and observation had taught him of the working of these inferior jurisdictions in Ireland; but he could not entirely pass over all the topics which had been adverted to by his noble and learned friend. A great proportion of his noble friend's speech was occupied, not in discussing this particular Bill nor in reference to the patronage which might be exercised under it by the Lord Chancellor, put upon the Chancellor's general patronage—a subject on which his noble friend had spoken with a great deal of warmth. That part of the speech, if it had any application at all, would go to the total abolition of the office of Chancellor; seeing that it was directed against his present patronage in the appointment of the superior Judges and in bestowing the preferments of the Church quite as much as against the patronage to be given by the Bill. His noble friend had described the character of individuals who might exercise the patronage attached to the high office of Chancellor, improperly; but as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack stood acquitted on the admission of his noble and learned friend himself from any such imputation, it was unnecessary to dwell upon that topic. He should merely observe, that no man had ever ventured to cast blame upon his noble friend on the Woolsack, for the manner in which he had exercised the patronage, legal or ecclesiastical, at present vested in him by law. With respect to the latter, he believed that the right reverend Bench would be ready to admit, that the Lord Chancellor had paid a proper deference to their opinions on this subject. It was true that, in reference to the framing of the Bill, it was fair to examine its provisions in the abstract, without adverting to

331
the individual by whom its patronage was now to be exercised. He admitted, with his noble and learned friend, that Lord Brougham was not to be Lord Chancellor for ever, although he did not precisely know what date his noble friend had assigned in his own mind to the Chancellor's tenure of office. His noble and learned friend had asked him, with somewhat of a smile, whether the noble Lord who had moved the Amendment, had not adopted his lesson? His noble and learned friend, did him an honour to which he was not entitled. He recollected that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Wynford) introduced two Bills, to which the public attention had not been very much called; and it was his misfortune to differ from the noble Lord upon both those Bills. He had, however, the good fortune to call the attention of his noble and learned friend who addressed their Lordships, to the latter of those Bills; and, in consequence of that, the first Bill was withdrawn, and the other postponed. But the ground upon which he opposed those Bills was totally different from the ground upon which the present Bill was attacked. He conceived that one of those Bills was taking a liberty with the freehold property of the country somewhat hastily—however he did not wish to involve himself in a discussion of those Bills again—whether right or wrong they were totally different from the present measure. His noble and learned friend (Lord Lyndhurst) was partly indebted to him he believed for the zeal which his noble and learned friend showed for the public interest on that occasion; but he could not compliment his noble and learned friend on his zeal in opposing the course of legal Reform, of which the Bill before their Lordships was a part. The object of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Wynford) was not to establish local jurisdictions; he was not for removing causes from Westminster-hall, but was for drawing additional practice to it; and though he was doing a thing which, in principle, was extremely good, (so good that if it had been brought forward with proper modifications, he should have been happy to have offered it his humble support), yet as it was not so brought forward, he could but oppose it. He thought that in considering this Bill their Lordships were hound to look to the actual state of the country, and determine what might be most useful to be done; this course was preferable to going into the former state of the law, and groping after precedents. If
332
however they were to be guided by precedents, they would find, that the ancient administration of justice in this country rested entirely on local jurisdictions, upon which the establishments of Courts in Westminster-hall was an innovation and improvement. Did he (Lord Plunkett) say, that that reformation was not of a valuable nature, and that we must abandon it, and go back exclusively to the old and exploded system? No such thing. No man revered the system more than he did. But he thought that in like manner, as great men had formerly made alterations in the then existing system, with a view to suit it to the wants and circumstances of the times, the Legislature was now bound to follow their example in the course of improvement. The noble Lord had rested his case a good deal on principle and authority: first, with respect to authority, he had quoted Lord Hale that night and Judge Blackstone on a former occasion, but in doing so the noble and learned Lord had not acted with his usual candour and fairness, for if he had taken into account the spirit of the whole passage from either authority, he must have seen that the objections made by Blackstone and Hale to local jurisdictions were not applicable to Courts such as it was proposed to establish under this Bill. Those learned persons, in reference to the general administration of justice, had contrasted the system of local jurisdictions with the Courts in Westminster-hall, and they gave a preference to the latter; but they made no comparison between the propriety of having Local Courts for the recovery of small sums, without trenching on the authority of the superior Courts, and the plan of devolving all upon the higher jurisdictions. Their main objection to Local Courts arose out of their dislike of permanent local residence on the part of the Judges. He was free to admit, that objections might reason ably be taken on that point; and that in reference to residence, the measure was susceptible of improvement. He would venture to call this the "poor man's bill," notwithstanding the somewhat whimsical and sarcastic observations of his noble friend on that subject, and he trusted that the House would do its duty by supporting the measure as one calculated for the advantage of a class which was peculiarly entitled to protection. His noble and learned friend on the Woolsack proposed to introduce one or two of the new jurisdictions in the first instance, partly with a view to an ex-

333
periment as to their operation and effect when a greater number of Courts should be established it might be prudent to transfer the Judges from one district to mother, in older to obviate the objection to local residence, which might be justly made. That ought not to prevent their Lordships from assenting to the Bill, for it was only one of the imperfections which time and a little arrangement would be sure to remedy, The object of the measure was not merely to cheapen justice, but to expedite it, by relieving the superior Courts in Westminster of part of the business by which they were now overwhelmed, transferring it to a summary and speedy jurisdiction. The commencement of a system of this kind in Ireland was even more ancient than many noble Lords might imagine. It was to be dated from the 2nd of Geo. 1st (about the year 1717), when a portion of their jurisdiction was taken from the superior Courts in Dublin, and given to the Judges going the Assizes, at which they were empowered to decide causes of a certain amount in a summary form, and not according to the established principles of the superior courts. This system was continued down to the year 1796, with some trilling variations. It should be borne in mind, that the Act of 2nd George 1st went the length of taking away the system of pleading bills of exceptions, and the power of carrying causes to the House of Lords, which his noble friend seemed so much to desire for the poor man. Undoubtedly their Lordships' jurisdiction was very satisfactory to the parties who could pass through it, but it was exceedingly troublesome and costly to get their Lordships' decision. Desirable as it was to have the power of making such an appeal, it would he a proceeding still more desirable if it were a little less expensive, if their Lordships looked at the preamble of the Act of 1796 they would perceive that, after an experience of seventy or eighty years, the jurisdiction established by 2nd George 1st was found to be so burthensome and expensive to the people, that it became; necessary to take it away from the Judges of Assize, and give it to assistant barristers. By taking away a cumbrous mode of proceeding, and afterwards transferring the jurisdiction of the Judges of Assize to the assistant barristers, whose Courts were established on the principle of the present Bill, the whole proceeding in Leland, which had been attended with many advantages, was a precedent for the measure of the
334
noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, The noble Earl (wicklow) had said, that the assistant barristers' Courts were different from the jurisdiction new contemplated in the amount relative to which the courts could decide, and also in the circumstance of the Judges not having fixed Circuits. It was argued by the noble Lord, that the Irish assistant barristers were shifted from one Court to another, but in this the noble Lord was misinformed From 1796, down to the period of the passing of the Reform Bill, no change had been made in the locality of assistant barristers, and, during all that time, no complaint, or hint of complaint, had arisen out of the circumstance. After the passing of the Reform Bill, it was said, that as assistant barristers had considerable power intrusted to them with respect to the registration of voters, it might be desirable to change their position, with a view to prevent the possibility of local prejudice or prepossession: accordingly a change was made in some cases, but not universally. So far as the experiment in Ireland was a test of the soundness of the principle of the present Bill, he was entitled to rely upon it. Justice was well administered under the system, which had proved itself the "poor man's system; "and the character of the Bar had not been degraded by it he felt no apprehension that the Bar would be degraded in this country by the adoption of a similar system, which he was persuaded would be found beneficial to the community, and not injurious to the interests of individuals. His noble friend had fallen into two errors—he under-rated the existing mischief, and over-Stated the inconveniences of the proposed remedy. Had his noble friend read the Report of the Common Law Commissioners when he extenuated the evils of the existing system? The Report stated, that 'The mischief arising from delay is particularly felt in the great commercial districts at a distance from the metropolis. Where a cause of action arises previously to the summer Assizes, but not at such an interval as to admit of the cause being tried at those Assizes, a defendant is often able, at a small expense, to set his creditors at defiance for nine or ten months; the plaintiff cannot go to trial till the next spring Assizes, nor obtain execution, in the ordinary course, before the following April. In other cases, the delay may amount to nine, eight, or seven month, and it may be stated that, on the average, judgment cannot be obtained through the

335
medium of a trial at the Assizes in less than six months.' Delays such as those could not but prove very inconvenient and burthensome to the poor man, for though a creditor, a man might be still but poor. His noble friend had adverted to passages in the newspapers (in which he appeared to concur), that vulgar attempts were made to arouse the feelings of the people by describing this as the poor man's bill, and by characterising all opposition to it as unjust to that class of the community Certainly his noble friend was not liable to any accusation of an attempt to gain popularity by his proceeding upon the present occasion, unless he were in search of popularity amongst debtors, when he talked of "the oppression of creditors," forgetting that, in nine cases out of ten, the creditor, and not the debtor, was really the injured man. However, his noble and learned friend appeared greatly disgusted at the summary process contemplated by the measure, and he very pathetically observed, "you call this the poor man's bill, which enables a creditor to have execution within six weeks!" That was the grand enormity of the Bill. It was a monstrous thing in the eyes of his noble and learned friend, that a plaintiff should not only get a verdict, but, within a short period, obtain execution and payment of his demand, instead of having to wait some twelve months for it. He should trouble the House with another extract from the Report on this subject:—'The average expense incurred by a plaintiff in prosecuting a suit to judgment and execution cannot be estimated at less than 30 l., and of the defendant at not less than 20 l., independently of the costs of conveying and maintaining witnesses, which, in a country cause, constitute, with the expense of passing the record and of entering the cause for trial, the most considerable part of the costs. These are the more serious where the places where the Assizes are held are situated at a considerable distance from the populous parts of the county. When a witness from Manchester or Liverpool is taken to the Assizes of Lancaster, the costs of conveyance and maintenance do not average less than from 7l. to 8l.; it, therefore, frequently happens, that the costs of a plaintiff, when three or four witnesses are necessary to make out his case, amount to at least 50 l. or 60 l., but often, we believe, to a much larger sum. The combined effects of delay and expense are necessarily very
336
injurious to the interests of the creditor who sues for a debt to the amount of 20 l. or 30 l., or even to a much larger amount. If he sue in the County Court, the defendant may remove the cause as of course, without entering into a recognizance, into a superior Court, where the plaintiff has to encounter as great an expense, and greater delay, than if he had sued at first in the higher Court. If he sue in the higher Court, he cannot proceed to try the cause at the Assizes without incurring the risk of extra costs to the amount of from 10 l. to 20 l.; to these he is liable, even though he should succeed, not only in obtaining a verdict, but in levying execution. But the defendant may, pending a litigation of several months, have become bankrupt, insolvent, or have removed himself and his property beyond the reach of legal process; other more pressing creditors, by successive arrests, may have swept away the whole of the property. In any of these cases, the creditor would not only lose his debt, but a much larger sum in costs. The very probability that a creditor will be debarred by the apprehension of trouble and expense from prosecuting an action at law affords an additional inducement to a fraudulent debtor to set his creditors at defiance; and thus, whilst the law offers to the creditor a mode of remedy which is often only delusive, it in effect encourages the debtor to make a vexatious and fraudulentresistance. The Commissioners added, We think it probable that nearly one-half of the causes tried at the Assizes, are for causes of action not exceeding 20 l. each, and that the expense of litigating them is equal to at least four times the aggregate amount actually recovered.' And they concluded that part of the Report by saying, 'Upon the whole it is our duty to represent to your Majesty, that the inadequacy of the present Courts in causes of action from 40 s. to at least 20 l., amounts almost to a denial of justice; and that we believe the complaints made by numbers whose evidence is stated in the Appendix to this Report to be just, that creditors are, from want of sufficient means to obtain redress, obliged to abandon their just demands; that debtors are from the same cause tempted to a dishonest resistance, and that the result is great injury to public morals and to private rights.' That was a state of things which ought not to exist; and could it be said, that a Bill which went to remedy it was not a poor man's Bill. His noble and learned friend could not have

337
read the Report of the Commissioners, nor did he appear to be very correct in his recollection of what had been said by Lord Hale, when he quoted the authority of that learned Judge as against Local Courts. Lord Hale, whose words were quoted by the Commissioners, said, and he would beg leave to read the whole passage from the Report. The Commissioners observed, 'That the change in the value of money and the gradual depreciation of the coin through many centuries, have tended still further to abridge the ancient Local Jurisdictions. At the time when 40 s. was made the limit to the jurisdiction of the Ancient Local Courts, that sum was probably fixed upon from the proportion which it bore to the expense of a suit in the superior Courts and would amount to at least 25 l. of present money. From these causes the jurisdiction of the Local Courts has been gradually reduced from above 25 l. to 40 s in present money, and to the same extent has the jurisdiction of the superior Courts, in point of amount, been extended. The inconvenience resulting from the want of inferior Courts with competent powers to administer justice has long been felt. Sir Matthew Hale bestowed great attention on the subject, and the result of his consideration was, that the limit to the jurisdiction of the inferior Courts should be extended to 10 l. This conclusion of Sir Matthew Hale was founded on the principle, which we think a safe one to adopt, of restoring—He begged their Lordships to remark, that this was not innovation, but restoration.—the local jurisdiction to the ancient limit, regard being had to the change which has taken place in the value of money since the time when 40 s. was fixed as the proper limit. After stating this, the Commissioners then quoted the following words of Sir Matthew Hale:—By the true and wise Constitution of this kingdom, suits where the debt or damage amount not to 40 s. were not to be determined in the Courts of Westminster unless a title of land came in question, but they were to be determined in the County Court, Hundred Court, or Court Baron. And this was the ancient law; vid. Stat. Gloucest. 6th Edward 1st. At that time 40 s, was a considerable sum first, in respect of the intrinsic value of the coin, for then 20 d. made an ounce of silver, and at this day it is 5s., viz., 60 d, and upon that single account, 40 s. then ariseth now to 6l.; but second: that
338
was not all, for, as I may say, money was at that time dearer than it is now, because there was not so much, and hence it is that the prices of all things at this day are much dearer now than they were then, because money is much more plenty now than it was then.' Nor was this all, for he further said, 'That it was the wise constitution of the Common-law to keep small suitors from the great Courts of Westminster.' That was the opinion of Lord Hale, and so far from the opinion being in favour of the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, it was directly the reverse. But there was still a higher authority in support of the principle of the Bill; it was that of the Judges of the present day who had unanimously decided, that whatever might be the merits of a case in an action below 20 l., they would not grant a now trial, except upon some point of law, which the Judge who tried the case might have reserved at the trial, and this was on the principle, that it would be better for the party seeking it to give up his case of 20 l. rather than risk the costs of a second trial. Was not this, in effect, an admission that the superior Courts were not the places in which actions for such small sums could best be brought.? His noble and learned friend had laid some stress on the fact, that some of the merchants and traders who had been examined by, or who had sent statements of their opinions to the Commissioners, had sought to do away with the jurisdiction of any Law Courts in some cases of debt, and were anxious to have such cases decided by a certain number of merchants, without any reference to the ordinary legal proceedings. Now, supposing the fact to be exactly as his noble and learned friend had put it, did it not show the sufferings of that class of men from the operation of legal proceedings in such cases, and their willingness rather to have their causes adjudged by a tribunal where the enormous costs of such proceedings might be avoided? Was it in favour of the present system that the parties most interested should rather give up all law, and have the matter decided by members of their own body, than by legal process in the superior Courts? His noble and learned friend had argued as if these Courts would be presided over by unfit persons, but they were to be appointed by the responsible servants of the Crown, and to be chosen from that profession which his noble and learned friend had so justly eulogized. He believed that these circum stances would ensure the respectability of

339
the persons who were to be chosen as Judges under this Bill, and would be a guarantee to the parties who might come to sue in the new Courts. At the same time it should be considered that even this feeling of confidence on the part of suitors, would not bring away the great business from the superior Courts; for even if the new Courts were to be in full operation, still more than half the causes of action would be tried by the courts in Westminster. His noble and learned friend had said, that it would be no relief to the poor man to have his cause removed by certiorari to the superior Courts, where, besides the security for costs and damages, there might be damages to an unlimited extent; but his noble and learned friend forgot that the cause of action was limited to 50 l. and that there would be no necessity for taking out a certiorari. He would not delay their Lordships with any further remarks. His noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had already gone into the merits of the measure, and would, no doubt, fully answer any remaining objections that might be might to it.
Lord Wynfordwas surprised to hear from noble Lords opposite an assent to propositions which they had opposed in a Bill which he had introduced on a former occasion. He had introduced a clause for the examination of parties to the suit, by which much time and expense might be saved, but that was objected to by noble Lords who now supported an examination of parties to actions under this Bill, which was more extensive in its nature. He could not account for this inconsistency.
Lord Plunkettbegged to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, what he said, was, that he objected to the noble and learned Lord's measure on two grounds. First, because the interrogatories established by it affected freehold property; and secondly, because Courts of Equity would not have a proper check on the decisions of other Courts.
Lord Wynfordwould not pursue the subject, but come at once to the merits of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord said, that his noble and learned friend might as well object to the office of Lord Chancellor as to his patronage. The patronage which this Bill would give the Lord Chancellor was undoubtedly very great, and if that were the only patronage at the disposal of that noble and learned Lord, it would form no great ground of objection to the Bill, and would not make the office of that noble
340
and learned Lord extremely dangerous; but it should be recollected that the patronage which the Bill would give was united with other patronage already too extensive, and that the addition would make both dangerous in one individual. This was a matter which, in a constitutional point of view, ought not to be lost sight of. Their Lordships should look at it as the patronage of the Government after the Revolution was looked at, when it was said, that though the country had got rid of the government by prerogative, they had not lost the government by influence. Indeed, his noble and learned friend (the Lord Chancellor) seemed at one time at a loss how to dispose of this patronage, and was inclined to vest it in parties to whom he (Lord Wynford) should, on principle, object to its being given, but at last his noble and learned friend decided on vesting it in the Crown. If the patronage were to exist at all, he did not object to its being so vested, at least he would prefer that mode of disposing of it to others which had been suggested; but he thought it was a fair ground of objection to a measure of this kind, not called for, as he contended, by any great necessity. But let their Lordship consider what would be the extent of the patronage thus accruing, supposing those Courts were to be spread over the country. There were to be some forty or fifty Judges at 2,000 l. a year, an equal number of registrars at 700 l. a-year, besides a large number of clerks and other officers. This was an extent of patronage which, united with that already held by the Lord Chancellor, was a power vested in the hands of one individual which could not be contemplated with satisfaction by any man attached to our Constitution. At the same time he would say, what he had said on a former occasion, that he had no objection to try this Bill as an experiment, the operation of which was at first to be limited to two or three counties, but when his Motion in the Committee for making it necessary to apply to Parliament for a further extension of the measure was negatived, he felt himself bound to oppose the whole measure, for he could not consent to leave in the hands of the executive government the power of extending the provisions of the Bill all over the country. If the Bill were to pass in its present state, though avowedly as an experiment to be confined at first to two or three counties, but leaving to the executive the discretionary power of extending its operation, what security had they that in

341
three months there would not be appointed Judges, and registrars, and clerks, with the salaries he had mentioned, in every county in the kingdom? That was a power which he was not disposed to leave in the hands of any Ministers, however good might be their intentions (and he did not dispute those of the present Ministers with reference to this Bill); but, admitting the goodness of those intentions to the fullest extent which could be claimed, he did not think, that Ministers were the very best judges of the application of such patronage. Every man might express his indifference to patronage, but there were, he believed, few who would deny the advantage of possessing it. He him self was not aware of them in his own person, for he had never had any to dispense, but he knew, that men in general were not insensible to the advantages which resulted from it. Local Courts, however, had been tried of yore, but it was found then, and was ever found in modern times, that justice could not be administered in them. It was for that reason, that Judges in Eyre were appointed to bring justice nearly to the point that it was intended to be brought by the present measure. All the evils attendant on the appointment of these Local Courts would be obviated if the two or three clauses he proposed in Committee had been agreed to. A Bill with a somewhat similar aspect had formerly been introduced into the other House by the noble Lord, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was sure, that the machinery of that Bill, which was for the better recovery of small debts, was much less complicated, and would have been much less expensive in its operation, than the machinery of the present measure. On comparing the provisions of the Bill with those of the Act for establishing the Courts of Assistant-barristers in Ireland, he was persuaded, that the advantage was much greater from that Act than could be expected from this Bill. In Ireland the Assistant-barrister was not resident in the county; he generally resided in Dublin, and had the advantage of a constant attendance in the Courts there, and by that means a thorough acquaintance with their practice; but of this the Judges under the Bill before the House would be deprived by their residence in the counties in which their Courts were situated. There was, then, he contended, no necessity for such extensive machinery as was proposed by this Bill. The same results might be produced by a new modification of the Court of
342
Quarter Sessions. If the proposition that had been made in the Committee to assimilate the proceedings and fees in small actions to those in the Courts below had been assented to, the whole object would be gained, for then the public would have that which this Bill proposed—cheap and easy justice, and have it too from those Courts in which they had the greatest confidence, for it was idle to say, that the public had full confidence in those small Courts. These Local courts, he repeated, had been tried; they existed in former periods, but fell into disuse. Local Courts existed still in all the great towns of the kingdom. They existed in the metropolis. There were in it the Lord Mayor's Court, the Sheriff's, and the Palace Courts, in which, actions under 20 l. might be tried. Yet, though the gates of those Courts stood gaping wide, no suitors could be tempted to enter scarcely, as was proved by the fact, that 300 cases that might have been tried in those Courts, were carried to the superior Courts. They were found to be expensive—that was the chief reason; and he appealed to the noble and earned Lord, if, by his Hill, the expense of the inferior Courts on the subject of witnesses, would not be as great, if not greater than they were at present in the other Courts. These Local Courts were not popular; the public in general had no confidence in their decisions, but the public would be satisfied with the superior Courts if they found, that their proceedings were carried on at a less expense. Let it be recollected also, with reference to the Courts at Westminster, that if law was dear in those Courts, it had the effect of deterring men from entering heedlessly into actions, and that, in this respect, it was sometimes a protection to the poor man, for few men would be disposed to go to the expense of an action against a poor man, when they knew, that in the result they could obtain nothing but the imprisonment of his body. Another objection which he had to this Bill was, that it was not the measure recommended by the Commissioners. They had never contemplated carrying actions for seduction and for libel, and actions of that kind, before these Courts. They confined themselves to a certain relief, which they thought might be afforded for the recovery of small debts. What sort of a bar would exist in these courts." There was nothing so essential to the proper administration of justice as a good bar. Now, it was impossible, that in the Courts created by this

343
Bill you could have a good bar. The framers of the Bill saw that, and therefore determined to let attornies practise in them as barristers. There were not more respectable characters in the world than many attornies; but it ought not to be forgotten, that there were not worse characters than many of that profession. In these small Courts it required no witch to foretel with which class of attornies the local Judges would have to deal. He repeated, that if this experiment were fairly tried, and if Parliament had to decide upon its success instead of the Government, and if some clauses were added to protect the characters of those who sued and were sued in them, he should not oppose it; for he had always been of opinion, that for the recovery of small debts the remedy in the superior Courts was worse than the disease. He was ready to correct the abuses of the superior Courts, and to propose other Courts in aid of them; but he could not assent to the third reading of a Bill to the details of which there were so many objections as had been stated by his noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Baron. Neither could he assent to the principle of the Bill, as it confined the administration of justice to Judges living constantly in the midst of a society whose claims they had to try, and whose prejudices he thought they must contract.
The Lord Chancellorassured their Lordships, that he rose with great anxiety to address them, and that anxiety was occasioned by the vast importance of the subject, admitted to be important by all their Lordships who had spoken upon this Bill in its former stages, and universally felt to be so, though in different ways and from different motives. It was a question which had excited great interest within the walls of Parliament, and which had excited no less without; and he said this without having the slightest intention to have recourse to any one of those topics, of which his noble friend the Chief Baron had forbidden the use with so much anxiety on this occasion—a prohibition which, as far as he (the Lord Chancellor) was concerned, was entirely superfluous. The fact, however, of the paramount interest of the subject was sufficient to impress on his mind no ordinary anxiety, intrusted as he was with the success of this measure. In addressing himself to the arguments of his two noble and learned friends, he would occupy as short a space as the length of their speeches, and the respect due to their
344
remarks would permit. He promised not to trespass upon their Lordships attention more than was necessary; and if he should exceed their patience, he trusted that their Lordships would impute it to the real cause—a sense of the importance of the subject. First, with regard to the remarks of his learned and noble friend who had just sat down, and to whom he should address but a few observations, not from any want of respect to his noble and learned friend, but because it appeared to him (the Lord Chancellor) that his noble friend laboured under such gross ignorance of the question from inattention to its details, and that he had so mistaken, not the principle of the Bill, not the provisions of the Bill, not the grounds on which the Bill rested, not the arguments by which the Bill was supported, but the documents which were to be found on the Table, the papers which he held in his hand, including among the rest his own Bill, that he could not impute the hallucination of his noble and learned friend, and the proportional errors which had arisen from his mistake of the premises, to any ether cause, except to his having been deficient in that attention, that acute attention, which his noble and learned friend was in the habit of giving to all other matters which came before their Lordships. His noble and learned friend had said, that the county Courts—and he took this argument in the outset, as going at once to the root of the question—were not wanting in the country, but were to be found in almost every district of it. "Hardly a country or a city," said his noble friend, "is without them; but the fact is, they are not beneficial—the people do not like them. The doors of them gape for suitors, but they will not enter, and therefore no causes are tried within them." His noble and learned friend then proceeded to mention the Palace Court, the Sheriff's Court, the Lord Mayor's Court, and various other provincial Courts. Now, he (the Lord Chancellor) held in his hand a return from the Steward of the Palace Court, the deputy of his noble friend the High Steward, which showed, that in the year 1832, he had himself tried 921 causes. [Lord Wynford: Was not that the number of writs issued?] He was going to answer that very question. The number of writs was 7,189. So much for the observation that the Palace Court exists—that the process is cheap—that its doors yawn for suitors, but that no suitors can be persuaded to enter them.
Lord Wynford: —I said no such thing; I said, that there were not 300 causes tried there which could be tried in the superior courts.
The Lord Chancellor: —No! I beg my noble and learned friend's pardon. His statement was, that no suitors could be induced to enter these Local Courts, and that therefore Local Courts ought not to be encouraged. He did not exactly recollect the number of causes tried in the Sheriffs Court over which his learned friend Serjeant Heath presided, but he believed, that the number was stated in the Report of the Commissioners; but of that he believed his noble and learned friend know nothing, for his noble and learned friend had shown himself quite impartial in his ignorance—that is, be knew as little of the appendix to the Report, as he did of the Report itself. Serjeant Heath, in giving an account of his jurisdiction, said, that, 9,000 causes were tried in it in one year. He might also be permitted to inform his noble and learned friend, that in some of the provincial local and district courts 9,000 or 10,000 causes were tried within the year. He did not recollect the exact numbers for Manchester and Liverpool; but in one of them—he forgot which—10,000 causes, and in the other 20,000 causes, were disposed of annually, by a local jurisdiction. The Courts at those places were, however. Courts of the best kind; the Courts in other places might be of the worst. He had before stated, that those Courts, if they were ill-regulated, were held to be any thing but an advantage by the people; but that those Courts, even when ill-regulated, were resorted to, was undeniable; and it was as true as it was undeniable that the evidence taken before the Commissioners, though it did not show the opinion of the witnesses as to the remedy to be applied to the evil, established the fact that the evil existed—that it was wide-spread—that it was deep-rooted—that it was sorely felt—and that even the badness of the jurisdiction did not prevent suitors from availing themselves of it on account of its proximity and cheapness. Whatever other disadvantages might attach to these Courts, they had this advantage at least—they were near and cheap, and therefore the oppressed suitor gladly resorted to them. Another instance of the marked inattention with which his noble and learned friend had treated this Bill astonished him still more. His noble and learned friend had said that this Bill had not been recommended by the
346
Commissioners. Now, it had been referred to their consideration in consequence of the recommendation of his noble and learned friend the chief Baron. It had been postponed in order that it might undergo investigation by them. They had investigated its principles and its details, and in the course of their investigation had amassed a collection of evidence which was now before their Lordships. After that investigation they came to a conclusion. Was that conclusion favourable to his Bill or not, was at that moment the question. He said, that it was favourable and nothing but favourable, to the principle of his Bill; and that his Bill, altered as it now was from its original form, was, in all its essential principles and details, the Bill in favour of which the Commissioners had reported. "But," said his noble and learned friend, "that is all a mistake; you have not the authority of the Commissioners on your side. You have gone further than they recommended. They have not gone your length. Your Bill is not their Bill." Upon that point his noble and learned friend and himself were at issue, and the trial was now before their Lordships. The evidence was the Report which was at that moment in their Lordships' hands. That Report proved, that he was correct, and that his noble and learned friend, innocently enough—for he had either not attended to the Report, when he read it, or, if he had read it, he had forgotten its contents—had misstated, and that grossly, the opinions of the Commissioners, and had stated them to be exactly the reverse of what they were. "They only recommended," said his noble and learned friend, "that actions of debt should be tried by these Local Courts. They said, that they were only to be small debt Courts, and I have reason to know that the commissioners do not approve of the Bill as extended by the Chancellor." Now, he (the Lord Chancellor) held in his hand a record of the Report, which he again repeated that his noble and learned friend had read as inaccurately as he had read the appendix. The language of the Report was as follows:—"It appears to us that the jurisdiction of the Local Courts should extend to all personal actions where the demand does not exceed 20 l., except cases in which any right or title to freehold or copyhold, or to tithe, toll, fair, market, or any other franchise, or any title under commission of bankruptcy, is in question." These were the exceptions in his Bill;

347
to everything excepted in them his proviso extended, and he had not deviated from them by the diameter of a single hair. He had confined the jurisdiction of these Courts to personal actions in tort as well as in contract. If his noble and learned friend wanted to refresh his recollection of the Report—if, indeed, his noble friend had ever read it—he had the Report ready for his noble friend's inspection. He supposed, that a king's Serjeant and four other gentlemen of high character in their profession could not doubt that actions in tort as well as actions in contract were personal actions. But if his noble and learned friend had any doubt on that point, let him look at page 24, where he would find the notice of plaint proscribed to be used in all actions of trespass to the person in the Local Courts, of which the Commissioners had recommended the erection, and had extended the jurisdiction to all cases of tort. "But," said his noble and learned friend "actions of trespass and assault the Commissioners allow you to try, but they do not allow you to try actions of tort in which injury is done to character." Now, let his noble and learned friend end his doubts on this subject by passing quickly over the three nest pages of the Report to page 27, and there he would find for a defendant in slander a plea of justification, that the words spoken were true. Need he go further to elucidate the ignorance of his noble and learned friend upon the question which he had thus incautiously ventured to discuss." Need he show further, that he had, in favour of this Bill the authority of the Commissioners, which he valued much, which he prised highly, and which he would not permit to be wrested from him, because of their high professional character, their great abilities, their long standing and experience in the pursuit of the law as a profession, and because they were the last men in the world to let their opinions on a question of Law Reform be biassed either to the right or to the left even by an inclination of their political opinions? Political opinion! Both his noble and learned friends knew well enough that, if the political bias of those learned persons had interfered at all it would not have been in favour of any plan of sweeping Reform. No man who had the honour of knowing the Commissioners would attribute to them any such unworthy motives [Lord Lyndhurst had not imputed any such motives to the Commissioners.]
348
He had not said that his noble and learned friend had imputed such motives to them, but his noble and learned friend must forgive him for alluding to such an imputation, especially as his noble and learned friend was not the only party to this discussion. He was also a party to it He was put upon his defence by his noble and learned friend (Lord Lyndhurst) in the first instance, and by his other noble and learned friend (Lord Wynford) in the second, who had shown a degree of knowledge and accuracy and correct attention, which explained the reason why he had been so eager to enter second into this affray. He was put, he repeated, upon his defence by his two noble and learned friends, and in his defence he had a right to avail himself of the authority of the Commissioners. His noble and learned friend the Chief Baron took credit for not having attacked those Commissioners, but he could not give his noble and learned friend credit on that score, as the Commissioners were placed far above even his attacks. In addition to their talents and professional learning, he had much pleasure in stating, that they were above exception on the score of political bias—for if they had any bias, it was as he had before said, against sweeping Reforms; and if they had any political opinions—and in these stirring times who had not—they were wedded—some of them more and some of them less—to the opinions of his noble and learned friends, and not to his opinions or to those of the Government. There was one of them, he believed, who agreed with him in politics, but the rest differed from him widely, especially his hon. and learned friend the member for Huntingdon (Mr. Frederick Pollock), who was at the head of the Commission, and who deservedly held a very high place in the other House of Parliament. No wonder, then, that he should be jealous not to have wrested from him the stall which the Commissioners had placed in his hands. The fact was, that he had stopped short of, instead of going beyond, the recommendation of the Commissioners. They had recommended one kind of action, to which he had not thought it right to extend the jurisdiction of these Courts—he meant to cases of ejectment between landlord and tenant, where the annual value of the premises did not exceed 20 l., and the tenant was alleged to hold over. They had also recommended that the jurisdiction should extend to the recovery of pecuniary legacies where

349
the estate was of small amount. Both these recommendations were, to be found in the 19th folio of the Report. His defence then, was complete, that he had stopped short of the recommendation of the Commissioners. But no marvel that his noble und learned friend had so short a memory as to the contents of records drawn up by other people, when he had treated his own Bill of last Session with the same inaccuracy. Their Lordships would recollect—for they had cheered loudly when his noble and learned friend mentioned the circumstance—that his noble and learned friend had taunted the Chancellor of Ireland with gross inconsistency in supporting this Bill, which sanctioned the examination of the parties, when he had opposed a bill with a similar clause of which the noble and learned Lord was himself the author. And why had the Irish Chancellor opposed that Bill? Because it affected the title to freehold property. "No," said his noble and learned friend, "that was not the case with my measure of the present Session." Now, the very first clause of that Bill was, that any plaintiff should have a right to examine the party in "any action and afterwards there was another clause, enabling the Judge to order judgment to be signed for such lands and hereditaments as should by affidavits be proved to be unjustly withheld. Now, he (the Lord Chancellor) had supported the second Heading of his noble and learned friend's Bill, and had even assented to its going into Committee. His language had been this—"Let it go into the Committee; I do not think it will be made good there, but do not strangle the poor bantling at its birth. Let it breathe a little while, and let us see whether it is worth educating." But no, his noble and learned friend, the Chief Baron had called it an abortion, had treated it as a mere embryo, and had prevailed upon their Lordships to fling it out. He (the Lord Chancellor) had stated at the time, that the proposal of trying the title to land by affidavits, and of taking land from a man without viva voce evidence was sufficient to stagger him a little. [Lord Wynford: That was no proposition of mine.] He would suggest to his noble and learned friend the propriety of looking at his Bill again before he ventured upon giving an explanation of it, else he would get further into error and flounder on from one blunder to another. Leaving his noble and learned friend for
350
the present, he would now remind their Lordships of the remarks which had been made by his other noble and learned friend, and also by the noble Baron at the table, who, very much to his surprise, had made the Motion that this Bill be read this day six months. Two great objections—and the two most relied on by all the noble Lords who had taken part in the debate—rested on the local residence of the Judges in ordinary, and on the expense of the system as connected with patronage. These objections had also formed a large proportion of all that had been said on the other parts of this question. He was in the recollection of their Lordships whether he had ever done otherwise than confess, that there were many reasons why he should prefer, if it were possible, that the Judge in ordinary should not reside in his district, if it were a narrow one. That consideration would prevent him from trying this Bill as an experiment any where, except in a populous district. This difficulty, which he had never concealed, was felt also by the Commissioners, but they, after considering it, came to the same conclusion with himself, not binding themselves to the contrary conclusion drawn by persons who thought that individuals residing in the country should not try actions of tort brought by and against individuals of their own vicinity. They felt the difficulty, but they said, On a balance of inconveniences, the advantage of having a local judicature, where justice can be brought to men's doors at all seasons, and where their complaints and their defences can be promptly and cheaply heard, counterbalances the evils of a continued residence in the country, and therefore we unhesitatingly report in favour of this provision of the Bill." A balance of evils and a choice of difficulties were incident to the present as well as to every other measure of legislation, and he only wished that he could see the measure in which men did not from the inevitable lot of human infirmity expose themselves to some counterbalancing disadvantage. The question being which path was least beset with danger and with difficulty, he trusted that their Lordships, when they had sifted the arguments and the facts, would find them operate in favour of his conclusions. "But," said his learned friend, the Chief Baron, "the Assistant Barristers in Ireland locally resident in their counties but reside in Dublin, and practise ill the four Courts." It might be true that the Assistant Barrister was not a local

351
resident, but then he always went to the same county, and, except in ease of promotion, went it for life. He went it six times in the year, besides going to the ordinary Sessions. The Assistant Barrister's visits to his county would be as frequent as those of the Judge in ordinary to any part of his district, save that town which was his headquarters, and which, in all probability, would he the metropolis of the district. The objection which his noble and learned friend, the Chief Baron, had raked up out of the debates on the Welsh judicature was important in another point of view. First of all, he must remind his noble and learned friend of the principle in which all the alteration in the system of Welsh judicature was made. He admitted, that much was said respecting their always going the same circuit, but that was not the only, much less the principal argument for changing the Welsh judicature. His noble and learned friend must recollect how much stress had been laid on two other particulars by the authors, as well as the advisers, of the change. One was, that the Welsh Judges were practising barristers—that they one day acted as counsel, and the next sat as Judges in the same cause. They could not tell when their opinion was asked upon an anonymous case, as between A and B, whether it might not be a trap to get extra-judicially the very opinion which they might afterwards be called upon to deliver judicially. That circumstance, and the impolicy of allowing a man to practise as counsel in Westminster-hall one day, and to sit upon the Bench the next, was one of the main reasons for impeaching the system of Welsh judicature. Another reason was, that those judicial offices were considered political patronage, because the Welsh Judges were entitled to sit and vote in Parliament. When noble Lords talked as if it was so clear and certain, that no resident local judicature could be an impartial judicature, let him ask them which of these two classes of judicial tribunals required the greater impartiality, and the more complete removal of the members above the sphere of the parties and their petty disputes and prejudices—that which decided actions of debt where the cause of action did not exceed 20 l., and actions of tort and slander, where the damages in the declaration did not exceed 50 l.; or that which exercised those most important functions which were exercised by the magistracy of counties, by justices of peace, whether acting singly in
352
their own mansion-houses, and despatching matters of no slight importance, or acting by pairs, or threes, or fours, at petty Sessions, and disposing of matters still more important; or acting at quarter Sessions on all but matters of the highest importance, on matters of party and political feuds, which made men enemies to each other, bitter in proportion to their vicinity, and trying men for felonies punishable by transportation for life? And yet this tribunal, by the practice of the law of England, was that part of our judicial system against which no man, who had any regard to his character or station, would venture, in any assembly, much less in that assembly, to breathe a suspicion, so general was the idea of its perfect purity and its appropriate fitness to perform all functions which the law had invested it with. Those justices were locally resident Magistrates; they exercised a jurisdiction daily in their own parlours and studies. Out of that jurisdiction, be their county large or small, be it as extensive as Yorkshire or as confined as a Welsh county—out of that jurisdiction they had no power; yet, within it, among their neighbours, their friends, their tenantry, among those with whom they might, in friendship or in enmity, or in a dubious state of neutrality—among and over all those with whom they might be committed by differences on county politics, or the still more bitter hostility of parochial feuds, they were authorized to administer justice; and nevertheless they had never been impeached, at least in that House, for partiality in administering it, because they administered it under two strong and efficient safeguards—the Court of King's Bench, the powers of which were rarely called in to exercise, because the misconduct of the magistracy was rare, but which might be appealed to if need arose; and public opinion, which was the best safeguard of all, as they exercised all their authority in the eyes and before the face of the community. For himself, he had no anxiety on either of the points adverted to by his noble and learned friend, the Lord Chief Baron. He neither apprehended that improper appointments would he made, nor did he think it probable, that the persons receiving the appointments would abuse the important trusts delegated to them. What Minister, who was responsible for those appointments to Parliament—what Minister over whom the eyes of the public were, he would not say glaring, but absolutely frowning, merely because he was Minister—what Minister

353
with the eyes of the public so upon him, would be insane enough to job away judicial places? What man would be so regardless of his own personal honour, of the voice of his country, of the censure of Parliament—what man would be so regardless not merely of his official existence, but of his personal safety (for safety from impeachment he could not warrant), as to appoint an improper person to a judicial office to serve a friend, or to promote a political purpose? But was there no watch over, no check upon, the Local Judge so appointed? He put that question frankly to his noble and learned friend, the Lord Chief Baron. Was there any town in which these Judges were likely to reside in which there were not one or two newspapers? He heard noble Lords laughing at the mention of a newspaper; but he would tell those noble Lords, that though he had never seen a judge who did not, like their Lord ships, laugh at the mention of a newspaper, yet he had never known one of them who was not very cautious of exposing himself, through the medium of a newspaper, to the animadversions of the public, by even a hasty or intemperate expression. He believed, that it would be impossible for a local judge, so long as there was a vigilant and able press watching all his proceedings, to commit himself so far as to do any wrong, show any partiality, mix himself up in any local disputes, give way to local prejudices, exhibit haste or ill temper, or be guilty of any of those corruptions, which, in former times, aye, not even 300 years back, stained the purity of the ermine. He treated it as a vague and groundless apprehension, that they would be led away by unworthy motives, or that they would abandon their duty, either from local partialities or from excited party feelings. He had already explained to their Lordships, that there was a necessity, that the judge should reside on the spot, in order that justice should be at once cheap, prompt, and accessible. It was desirable that their Lordships should come to a right understanding upon this point, for hitherto there had been no devices in any of the bills presented to Parliament, in which any substitute could be found which avoided the evils while it provided the advantages, derived from this local judge. In Lord Althorp's Bill, and in Sir Robert Peel's Bill, which was only an Amendment of Lord Althorp's Bill, there was a local Judge, with this difference, that he was not to be appointed by the Crown, but by the Sheriff. All these measures were attended
354
with two difficulties: one of them was, that the Judge would be on the spot. But then it ought to be recollected, that he would be respectable from his station, from his rank at the bar, from his rank on the bench. He would be removed from those associations which were likely to break in upon his respectability; he would have no temptation, and no time to meddle with party polities; he would be frequently away from his head-quarters in the districts, on visits to the less important parts of it; and, taking it for granted, that it would be in a populous district, that this Hill would be tried as an experiment, he thought that the difficulty was over-rated, and ought not to be put in competition with the advantage of obtaining cheap and speedy justice. The other difficulty connected with this question was the patronage, on which he would now say a word or two. The noble Baron at the table (Lord Wharneliffe) who began the debate, had surprised him not a little by his unsparing opposition to this measure. If the noble Baron had only opposed the details of it, he should have been less surprised, and should have reminded the noble Baron that he ought to have attended on the Committee to amend them; but, when he recollected that the noble Baron had expressed no objection to the principle of the measure on the second reading, and, that he had attended the Committee, and had proposed certain clauses as amendments, he was surprised that, after a short wavering as to the second reading, the noble Baron should come out of the Committee with no wavering at all, but with a decided spirit of hostility, not only to this measure, but to every measure of the kind. The argument of the noble Baron was as good against all bills for the recovery of small debts, for supplying the people with a means of obtaining speedy and cheap justice, as it was against this Bill. The degradation of the bar,—the perpetually going the same circuit,—the local residence of the Judge,—his liability to share in all the feuds and party differences of the county,—the increased patronage of the Crown,—these were all radical blemishes of universal occurrence, applying to all measures of this kind. He was exceedingly mortified at the opposition he had received from I he noble Baron, for his authority was most important, when it was recollected how long and how ably the noble Baron had been engaged in the administration of justice. But where had the eminent character of the noble Baron been formed?

355
He would not say, ask the gentlemen of the northern circuit, but, ask any barrister in Westminster Hull, who had the highest reputation for skill, and talent, and ability, and purity in the administration of justice in the Local Courts of the country, and they would point with one accord to his noble friend—for so he trusted he might call him—the chairman of the sessions in the West Riding; of Yorkshire. That any personal feeling ever crossed his noble friend's mind—that any antipathy to his neighbour ever interfered with the performance of his duty—that any knowledge of the parties, their barristers, attornies, or circumstances, ever intervened to cast even the shadow of a shade over the bright path of his career, was as monstrous a supposition as that he would ever be tried at his own bar by his fellow justices; and yet his noble friend, with all this pure and unsullied reputation, acquired in that capacity, must permit him to say, and to remind his two noble and learned friends, who had not been local Judges, but in whom freedom from all political bias was not more undeniable than it was in his noble friend—that lhs noble friend had been, and was, a local Judge,—in all respects a local Judge, and nothing but a local Judge. That he had been member for the county of York, after a contest or two,—that he had lived in that county, and in that district of that county, the West Hiding, which had been the scene of his judicial triumphs,—that he was known to entertain (like his two noble und learned friends, not local Judges) strong political feelings; and that he was as capable of personal affection, and, he must also add, of personal animosity, as any member of that bench of which he was so distinguished an ornament. Let him be talked to now of the impossibility of combining the purity of administering justice with a local resident magistracy. He had answered the allegation out of the mouth of him who had advanced it., by appealing to his long and useful judicial career, he wished to make no invidious comparisons, but he would repeat of his noble friend, who so highly valued the purity of general as contrasted with local Judges,—that that man at the table (Lord Wharncliffe) as a Judge,—a local Judge be it remembered,—was as free from bias,—but no freer,—as either of his noble and learned friends, though they had never been charged with any crime, nor sympathised with for the misfortune of being local Judges, administering
356
justice where they resided. He next came to the question of patronage; and, he would here say, that he did not much thank his noble and learned friends for having exempted him from the charge of creating patronage for himself. That charge they could not bring against him, and, therefore, could not with hold from him the credit which they had pretended to give him,—for he had framed this Bill for their benefit, and not for his own, when he introduced it in April, 1830, into the House of Commons. No one ever dreamt that this patronage would amount to 150,000 l. Besides, if it had amounted to such a sum, it would have been for the benefit of his noble friend, the Lord Chief Baron, who was then on the woolsack he could not feel such gratitude as he might otherwise have felt for their allowing him the credit, which they had given him certainly, but he must say with rather a stingy hand. After that scanty and compulsory tribute, however, there came a cloud of sneers. They knew the subject to be dull, they knew the party to be attacked were Ministers, and the latter knowledge furnished the motive for enlivening the discussion with a few taunts, which they thought the former knowledge justified. He did not complain of that, but he did complain of their constant practice of misstating fads. Fancy was good to enliven facts, but though to be amusing-it might be necessary to draw a little upon imagination, it did not follow that it was right to get rid of facts, and the semblance of facts altogether, and soar into the highest regions of pure fiction. Unfortunately for him all the mistakes of his noble friend—all the fictions in which his noble friend had indulged—were favourable to his noble friend's views and injurious to those which he had sought to recommend to their Lordshihs. They all aided the point of his noble friend's sarcasm, and took away the shield by which he might be protected. Why did his noble friend say,—what right had his noble friend to say,—that there were to be four local judges for the West Hiding of Yorkshire? True, it was proposed to divide the West Hiding of Yorkshire into two districts, but then there was to be only one judge for each district; and thus, from over indulging his fancy, his noble and learned friend the Chief Baron had got into as gross an inaccuracy as would have done honour even to the late Chief Justice of the Common Pleas himself.
Lord Wynford: I have submitted to this for a long time, but I will not be held up to ridicule in this way any longer. [Cries of "order."]
The Lord Chancellor: my noble and learned friend, the late Chief Justice, is most disorderly certainly, but I do not complain of it. When I spoke of his inaccuracy and forgetfulness, I merely meant that he had forgotten, or perhaps had never read, though I have no doubt he thought he had, the contents of the Report. Therefore it was, that I spoke of him as misstating the recommendation of the Commissioners. I was not holding up to ridicule my noble and learned friend, the late chief Justice. It was no holding up of mine; and I hope my noble friend will remember what Dean Swift said of persons who were laughed at—
Lord Wynford: I will bear this no longer, [cries of "Order."] I rise, my Lords to order. The noble Lord has attacked me by name, and I therefore move that the fifteenth of your Lordships' Standing Orders be read, and I will then ask your Lordships if the individual who is charged with the preservation of order in this House, should be himself the first to break it.
The clerk read the fifteenth Standing Order, as follows:—'To prevent misunderstanding, and for avoiding of offensive speeches, when matters are debating, either in the House or at Committees, it is for honour sake thought fit, and so ordered, that all personal, sharp, or taxing speeches be forborne; and whosoever answereth another mans speech, shall apply his answer to the matter without wrong to the person: and as nothing offensive is to be spoken, so nothing is to be ill taken, if the party that speaks it shall presently make a fair exposition, or clear denial of the words that might bear any ill construction; and if any offence be given in that kind, as the House itself will be very sensible thereof, so it will sharply censure the offender, and give the party offended a fit reparation, and a full satisfaction.'
The Lord Chancellorwould confine himself, as far as modern usages would permit (for modern practice had somewhat modified it), to this order, and would avoid most carefully the example set by the other side, of making offensive, sharp, and taxing speeches. He trusted, that while he complied with one of the exigencies of the order, his noble and learned friend would
358
comply with the other exigency, namely, that as "nothing offensive is to be spoken, so nothing is to be ill-taken." He could assure his noble and learned friend that he meant him no offence. If his noble and learned friend supposed that he meant anything offensive by charging him with gross inaccuracy—[Lord Wynford: You said inaccuracy that would have done honour to the late Chief Justice of the Common Pleas.] All that he meant by it was, that his noble friend had not considered the subject. He had been himself interrupted in replying to a sharp and taxing speech of his noble and learned friend, the chief Baron. He had taken no offence at that speech, and was just in as ranch charity with his noble and learned friend as he was before his noble and learned friend made his very able and ingenious, but, he must say, not very fair nor conclusive speech. He repeated, he did not think it fair that his noble and learned friend should just double the number of Judges for the West Riding of Yorkshire. It was as unfair to state the amount of patronage at 1,50,000 l. upon the authority of an answer which he (the Lord Chancellor) had given to a question asked him in the Committee as lo the number of these Judges, and the amount of their salaries. He had said, that the salary must depend upon the House of Commons, but that he thought that it ought not to be loss than 1,500 l. a-year. Some of the noble Lords on the Opposition benches had prompted his noble and learned friend to say 2,000 l. a-year; but all that he (the Lord Chancellor) had said was, that he thought that the salary of the Judges in ordinary should not be less than 1,500 l., or more than 2,000 l. a-year He had also to complain of what his noble and learned friend the Chief Baron had said, and, after him, his other noble and learned friend, as to the expense which the machinery of this Bill would require. His noble and learned friends—the one reechoing the misrepresentation of the other—had both said, that the Bill would cost 150,000 l. a-year. Where did they get this estimate? Not from the Commissioners—not from him (the Lord Chancellor)—not from any authentic document; no, but from their own fancy, their own invention. And yet his noble and learned friends had propounded their scale of expense as though it had been a thing certain, and not possible to be disputed; and their Lordships had been good enough to cheer this part of the

359
learned Chief Baron's speech with great heartiness. He had slated, over and over again, that the expense would not be more than 60,000 l. or 70,000 l. a-year, probably not quite so small a sum as the first, nor so large a sum as the latter. This sum—a sum between 60,000 l. and 70,000 l., was, he admitted, a very large sum; but even the noble Lords who cheered his noble and learned friend so loudly must also admit, on their part, that it was not so large a sum as 150,000 l. a-year. Those who heard only the speech of his noble and learned friend, the Chief Baron, would never have supposed that there had been an actual statement upon the authority of the authors and advisers of the measure, that the cost of putting it into full operation would not amount to half the sum mentioned by his noble and learned friend. These were matters which evidently had some weight with their Lordships when they heard the speech of the noble and learned Chief Baron; and, had perhaps, sunk deep into their minds, requiring an effort—an effort, however, which he had a right to expect, in justice to the measure, their Lordships would make—before they could get rid of the impression. On this part of the subject his noble and learned friend had suppressed one important fact while he had invented another. His noble and learned friend had omitted to state, that this expense would not fall upon the country. He had always been of opinion that the country, not the suitors, ought to defray the charges of the administration of justice; he thought this a sound principle, but the circumstances of the country rendered a deviation from it inevitable in this case and at this time; and he had invariably said, and he repeated now (he said it in the House of Commons, and he had said it in that House), that the expense of the machinery of this measure would be defrayed otherwise—would be defrayed without imposing any additional charge upon the public purse. It appeared by a return recently made, that in the Local Courts of Scotland there were annually tried 22,000 causes, for sums which would come within the jurisdiction of the Courts proposed to be established by this Bill. Supposing the number of actions for debts rot exceeding 5l. to bear in England the same proportion to the whole number of
360
actions for debts of all amounts, as in Scotland, the number of these actions would amount to 130,000. That was sufficient to show with how much ease, and with how small a cost to each individual suitor, a sufficient fund might be raised by fees, to defray all the charges incurred by the Bill. If left to his own judgment upon the subject, he should certainly object to this mode of payment, on principle; but he had repeated, over and over again, that the House of Commons would most probably resort to it. So much for the expense which the imagination of his noble and learned friend had so magnified—so much for his noble and learned friend's care and generosity in desiring to relieve the public from a charge which he never once had proposed to put upon the public. He would now pass on to what his noble and learned friend bad said touching the patronage which this Bill would confer. His noble and learned friend, with his usual candour and smartness, had attributed to him no less than five years of meditation as to where this patronage should be vested, and had said, that all this meditation had ended in the conviction, that he (the Lord Chancellor) was the fittest person to be intrusted with it. This sneer of his noble and learned friend was received with great cheering by noble Lords near him, even on its repetition, while in its originality it was hailed actually with a shout of delight as clamorous as it was irrepressible. Now he should be sorry to disturb the pleasure which noble Lords must naturally take in the recollection of what had thrown them into such ecstacies when it first fell like music on their ears; but he must nevertheless take the liberty to remind them that he had stated distinctly in the Committee, and most of their Lordships had probably heard him make the same statement on many other occasions, that long-before he came into office he had arrived at the conviction, after much consideration, and with great reluctance, that this patronage could only be properly vested in the responsible advisers of the Crown. He stated, that in discussing the subject as far back as the year 1826, when Lord Althorp's and Sir Robert Peel's Bills were before the other House of Parliament, that he was one of those who felt the strongest repugnance to the increase of

361
the patronage—not of this or that Minister, but the patronage of the Crown; and he had said at that time that others, as well as himself, had suggested various expedients in order to avoid the necessity of giving rise to an increase of that patronage. Some, he had said, talked of giving it to the Lord Lieutenant of the county—some of giving it to the Judges of Westminster Hall—some of giving it to the Justices of Sessions—some of giving it to the Sheriff—some of giving it to two consecutive Sheriffs serving for two consecutive years—all these various plans, he had said, had been once and again proposed, and all had been rejected because, upon investigation, every one of them was found to be open to the strongest objection. He had added that, therefore, as a matter of necessity—as a matter of unavoidable and inevitable necessity—it became utterly out of the question to think of intrusting to any other hands than the Executive Government and its responsible advisers the execution of this power. To this conclusion he was necessarily driven, by the impossibility of placing it elsewhere. But then it was said, if this inevitable necessity existed, it was an objection, an insurmountable objection, to the present measure. Why, if it were an objection to this measure, it was an objection to all measures of this nature, because without these Judges it was not possible to have cheap justice, and without patronage it was not possible to have these Judges; the patronage must be vested in some hands or other; and, consequently, if the objection was to prevail against this Bill, it must prevail against every Bill that could by possibility be devised by man, for securing to the King's subjects the blessings of the administration of justice at a cheap, instead of an extravagant rate. It was said, that the Great Seal ought not to have this patronage, because it had too much already. His noble friend at the Table was pleased to say, that the patronage which the Great Seal had given up was in effect nothing, and that the patronage given by this Bill, added to the patronage it already possessed was infinitely more objectionable than any power which could be bestowed upon it. His noble and learned friend said, "What signified Commissioners of Bankruptcy? who cares for a Commissionership of Bankruptcy? who
362
has ever looked for, who has ever sought after, such appointments as these?" That observation argued a happy ignorance on the part of his noble and learned friend of this circumstance—of the daily, the nightly, the hourly persecution which he suffered who had the giving away places of that description. Commissionerships of Bankruptcy not pursued, not looked after, nor run after! If his noble and learned friend had held the Great Seal for twenty-four hours, his doors would have been darkened, his couch would have been disturbed, his meals would have been interrupted, his solitude would have been broken in upon, with applications for much less valuable places than the late Commissionerships of Bankruptcy; seventy placcs—seventy places, my Lords, in the absolute and uncontrolled gift of the Lord Chancellor; each of those places averaging somewhat between 400 l. and 500 l. a-year; each of those places compatible with professional practice; each of those places not only compatible with professional practice, but leading to professional advancement; and therefore pursued by men entering into the profession, and even by men who had been some time in the profession, as the most desirable acquisition which that profession could offer; and all these places to be given, not to distinguished individuals, with respect to the choice among whom the Chancellor was watched by the public, and watched by the profession. Could the Chancellor appoint an unfit Judge? He might not take the most efficient man, and within certain limits a license would be allowed; but that he could take a man who was unfit for the office—a man whom numbers would cry out against—that he could choose a man from private affection, from personal attachment, in breach of his public duty—that the Chancellor could put on the Bench one who was unfit to try prisoners, and to try causes in this country—was as impossible, as that a Judge should sit on the Bench and try his own cause or suit,—a case which in these days was not only impossible, but never entered into the imagination of man. But the patronage of appointing to office such as he had referred to, which were comparatively of little value; which had no responsible duties of a public nature annexed to them; with reference to which there was no jealousy on the

363
part of the people; such patronage was as absolute, as irrevocable, as the giving away of an exciseman's place. No Chancellor ever yet was accused of appointing an unfit Commissioner of Bankrupts, though it was in vain to deny, that every Chancellor must have appointed Commissioners not fit to manage the duties of their office. That was, therefore, a great and important branch of patronage—of patronage properly and strictly speaking, which was entirely lopped off from the Minister of the Crown who happened to hold the Great Seal. He persuaded himself that he then had given proof that he at least did not grasp at patronage, and that to him official power meant something more than the mere receiving and dispensing of official emolument. It was well known to not a few that it was contrary to his wishes or intentions that there were ten bankruptcy judges appointed under the new bankruptcy jurisdiction—that he had maintained that seven at most would be fully adequate to its functions. Practical men were, however, unanimous that a larger number was requisite; and he took the lowest number, ten—many contending that twelve or fifteen would be required. Then one of the same judgeships had since become vacant, and though eight months had elapsed, the vacancy had not been, and would not be filled up, so anxious was he to seize hold of every occasion to exercise the patronage and influence of his office. How greatly he had been misrepresented in reference to the patronage which the present Bill would confer on him, it would not be easy to estimate. His learned friend, for example, had asserted that he would have the appointment of fifty Local Judges at one slap, together with registrars and official assignees, though he had distinctly stated on a former occasion that there would be but twenty-five altogether; and that, as to the official assignees, it would be only in some ten or twelve of the larger towns, such as Liverpool, Manchester, Exeter, &c., that the office of Official Assignee would be worth holding. A word as to the appointment of the Official Assignees tinder the Bankruptcy Bill, which had been thrown in his teeth that evening as another instance of his love of patronage. He chose eighteen persons out of a list of thirty. How was that list of thirty
364
formed? He begged the House to recollect the circumstances. He had not less than from 1,100 to 1,200 candidates for these eighteen Official Assigneeships—many of them strongly recommended by friends and supporters, private, professional, and parliamentary; others with testimonials from some of the first merchants in the city; and this, too, though he had long before resolved and openly declared that he would not name a single person for the office—that he would exercise no influence, directly or indirectly, in framing the list of assignees, and that he should leave the whole matter to a Committee (to but one or two of whom he was personally known) consisting of persons, some official—such as the Governor or Deputy Governor of the Bank of England—or some of the leading merchants of London, and two of the Judges. Well, these gentlemen selected thirty persons as fit for the office, and all that he did was, to select the first eighteen, and this was the "head and front" of all his patronage-offending on that score. But then, said his learned friend, there was much other patronage annexed to the great Seal—there was the great patronage connected with the appointment of the magistracy. Of all men his learned friend was the last man from whom he could have expected so—he would say—absurd an insinuation. His learned friend had himself held the great Seal for upwards of three years, and could not but know that the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor, in reference to the appointment or removal of magistrates, was very little more than a formal sanction of the acts of the Lord-lieutenant, in whom the appointment to the magistracy practically lay. The cases in which the Lord Chancellor interfered with the Lord-lieutenant were extremely rare, and were limited to the appointment of such gentlemen as he, as Lord Chancellor, might think entitled to be raised to the magistracy, and whose claims it appeared to him had been overlooked. Even in these cases he, in conjunction with the Home-office, first applied to the Lord-lieutenant to show cause why such and such persons had not been recommended by him as fit persons for the magistracy, and it was only in very few rare instances that, on the Lord-lieutenant failing to show cause for overlooking the individuals that he the (Lord Chancellor) did place on the com-

365
mission, the gentlemen whom the Lord-lieutenant had neglected. But was this patronage? Was it not his bounden duty, and, as his learned friend well knew from his official exercise of the functions of the Great Seal for three years, that he should have neglected his duty had he acted otherwise? The knowledge of this fact, however, had not prevented his learned friend, for the purpose of inflaming the account of patronage against him, from prominently putting it forward, and in a tone not of judicial, but he would say of extra-judicial solemnity, dwelling on what he called the enormous amount of magisterial patronage annexed to the office of Lord Chancellor, as if there was something mysteriously awful in the charge. He owned that, coming from his noble and learned friend who had been himself Lord Chancellor, such an unfounded insinuation astonished him. With respect to the appointment of Judges, he need only remind his learned friend, that but one vacancy had occurred since his accession to office, and that in the filling up of that vacancy the choice was strictly limited to one of three persons. No matter whether they were enemies or supporters of the Government, whether they were his personal friends or his foes; the whole range of his patronage was tied down to those three persons, and, in choosing one, surely it could not be said he had abused his privilege. His learned friend had earnestly disclaimed being actuated by party motives, and had taken elaborate pains to appear in his most impartial, and, he might say, most judgment-seat aspect. He had told them, that he wished to be understood as addressing them in his parliamentary capacity only; that he had risen early in the debate, because, being a judge, he thought it right that he should take no part in the contentious portions of the discussion, and that, by confining himself to a calm statement of his opinions, by sailing, as it were, in the smooth waters of the debate, it would be clearly seen, that he was not actuated by the spirit of party. He was ready to believe, that his learned and noble friend sincerely intended to act up to his professions, though never did the matter of the charge less correspond with the preface. Though his learned friend's professions were thus elaborately solemn and calm at the outset, this speech was, as their Lordships well knew, that of a warn, and active, and powerful partisan
366
against the Bill. No artifice—no resource which his ingenuity and skill in debate could supply was left untried by him, and so far from his delivering a judgment with the calmness of retirement in his study—or with the impartiality of that most sacred function which he exercised as a Judge of the land, his noble and learned friend had not stopped to take advantage of the widest range of partisan tactics, so as to inflame their Lordships against the present Bill—such as quoting long paragraphs from anonymous books, with an insinuation, that he (the Lord Chancellor) must have read them, if not actually written them—taunting him with being-greedy of patronage and the sordid emoluments of office; in fact, stopping at no lengths which the freedom of debate permitted to curry his purpose, namely, under the disguise of specious motives, under cover of an elaborate disclaiming of mixing up the judicial with his legislative capacity, and of approaching the subject at all in the respect of party—of damaging or throwing out the present measure. All this his learned friend did as effectively, notwithstanding his disclaimer, in the spirit of party, as when, some year and a half ago, he avowedly attacked another judicial reform measure, not in his judicial, but his parliamentary capacity. His noble and learned friend was completely at fault in insinuating that he had read, not to talk of written, the article referred to by him touching the efficiency of assistant barristers in Ireland. He was not competent to speak on the subject, further than that he could well conceive how the circumstances of Ireland (the intemperate party feeling which there pervaded all the relations of society) might render it highly inexpedient for a Judge to be a local resident, while no such objection could obtain in the different circumstances in this country. With respect to the great objection of his learned friend of the tendency of the Bill to interfere with the certainly of the decisions of the law on which so much of its usefulness depended, all he need observe was, that the Bill furnished precisely the same machinery for insuring a certainty, und one-ness of legal decision, as was in force in Westminster-hall; namely, the power of appeal to a superior jurisdiction. The Bill provided, that the decision of a Local Judge might be appealed from by direct appeal or a certiorari writ to the Judges in Westminster-hall, us a ver-

367
dict in Westminster-hall might be appealed from to a new trial, or to their Lordships, as the highest Court of Appeal. But his noble and learned friend, in urging his opposition, said, that be should have no objection to a Reform of the law, provided it was based on proper principles. He could not help considering his learned friend as one of those Reformers who confined their exertions to starting objections to and detecting flaws in the measures of others—as one of those Reformers who, without proposing any plan of their own, were for ever expressing their dissatisfaction with the well-meant and carefully considered plans of others—objecting to this measure that it was too extensive—to that that it did not go far enough—to another that it was inconsistent with itself—and so on through all the moods and tenses of systematic opposition. His noble and learned friend had had for three years the custody of the great seal, and the noble and learned Earl (Eldon) had filled the same high office for upwards of a quarter of a century. Where was the fruit of their labours in improving the Administration of Justice? Nowhere. They had neither of them proposed any measure of legal Reform—neither of them attempted to open wider the doors of justice to the poor suitor—neither of them had attempted to make justice cheaper and less difficult of attainment. Yet now, without having done anything themselves, they were zealous in their efforts to thwart the endeavour to repair the consequences of their own negligence by their cavils and their exclamations of "this won't do," and "that won't do"—in fact, nothing would satisfy them; and when they were asked, "What, then, will you do?" their only answer was, "Oh! nothing at all; that's your business and not ours." A more certain mode of perpetuating legal mischief, and of perpetually precluding legal remedy than this—of perpetually opposing every plan of Reform without ever proposing one of their own, could not be devised. He asked, could either learned Lord deny, that the costs and delay in suits of law were excessive and unnecessary? He held in his hand two bills of costs in suits tried in the Court of Exchequer, over which his learned friend presided in the year 1832, during which the regulations of his learned friend for diminishing costs in his court were in full force. In one case, in which judgment was suffered to go by default, the
368
costs were 13 l. for a debt of 10 l. In another case, the costs were 34 l. 8s. 10 d., of which 6l. 19 s. 6d. were disallowed. The sum to be gained, the cause of action, for which the plaintiff incurred a bill of costs to the amount of 34 l. 8s. 10 d., on which he lost 7l, was 7l. 19 s. 6d. After a year's litigation exposed to the chance of having a verdict found against him—after advancing 34 l., and after paying 7l. of that 34 l. out of his own pocket, which he never got jack—and after the risk of losing it—the balance of the acount upon winning the cause was just 19 s. 6d., although he was in the right, and although he had gained his point in every stage of the proceedings. The noble and learned Lord next referred to a case in the King's Bench, in which, for a debt of 16 l., the plaintiff had to lay out 115 l., of which he recovered but 66 l., leaving him 49 l. out of pocket, though justice was on his side, and proceedings all along were decided in his favour. This, too, was after his case was entered one year and a-half for trial, and after waiting two years before it was so entered. Well might Lord Hale, that illustrious Judge and law Reformer—a Judge who, instead of carping, and declaiming, and sneering at the reform plans of others, was ready with measures of his own—was not unwilling to sacrifice his own prejudices and interests at the shrine of justice—who chalked out the way where the knife should be applied with a steady and unsparing hand, to the excision of the rotten parts—well might this illustrious Judge cry out, "Let us return back to those ancient institutions which in better times furnished cheap and ready justice to the poor suitor. Well, too, might Blackstone advocate the same noble principle. Lord Hale was for raising the jurisdiction of the Local Court to 10 l. cases; he rightly argued that 10 l. in his time was not more than equivalent to 40 s. at the time of the enactment of the Statute of Glocester. But without confining themselves to the mere authority of illustrious names, every Local Bill in their own statute-book was a striking illustration of the principle of the advantage of local jurisdictions, and of the anxiety of the Legislature to provide a remedy for their absence. He would go further, and refer them to a still higher authority, which distinctly, and most clearly enjoined the establishing of local jurisdictions. What statute was that which declared that "you shall not

369
delay nor deny justice, nor make it a matter of sale? Was it not Magna Charta itself? And did they not deny justice when a suitor, to recover a debt, had to spend 50 l. more than he could legally recover? And did they not delay and sell justice when it was at a price which but few could afford to pay, and which, if even they could, they would be as wanting in sense as in money if they embarked it on the uncertainty of not being able to recover it even when, after some one or two years' delay, and after having run the gauntlet of Westminster-hall, a verdict should be given in their favour—a verdict, however, which left the costs higher than its award? He called upon their Lordships to afford a remedy for this monstrous state of things. The lime was arrived beyond which such a remedial measure could not be longer delayed. He gave them full credit for their earnest anxiety to provide the people with the means of speedy and cheap justice. He was confident that they would not allow party feelings, no nor any factious antiquated scruples as to the present measure, which was, in fact, a very slight change in the existing law, to influence them to reject that measure. He warned them to be cautious in adopting the statements of its opponents. One of these statements alone would show that such advice was not uncalled for. His learned friends, in asserting the proposition of a Jury consisting of less than twelve persons proved, that however well acquainted with the usages of the Courts below, they were very ignorant of the proceedings of Parliament. The proposition was not his—non meus hic sermo. Without referring to other proofs in order to show that five, and even three persons were proposed to constitute the Jury, he need only refer them to a bill introduced by Lord Redesdale some few years ago, in which seven was proposed as the number for a Jury, and which Bill was never objected to on the grounds of its lessening the number of Jurors below the usual number of twelve. He regretted the time did not permit of entering more fully into the details of the Bill, and that he was obliged to confine himself to those broader principles or features which had been so much misrepresented, because he would fain believe so much misapprehended. His learned friend had been jocose in reference to bestowing on the present measure the title of
370
"the Poor Man's Bill." He adopted the name—it was an honorable one—the Bill was the Poor Man's Bill. He called it a Poor Man's Bill which removed those obstructions which at present lay in the way of speedy and cheap justice, which enabled the poor suitor no less than the rich to obtain a ready redress of his wrongs. He called that a Poor Man's Bill which enabled the poor suitor to obtain redress for his wrongs, or the payment of a debt in the very next street to the cottage where he lived, without any of the expense, and delay, and vexation, and uncertainty of coming some hundred miles to London to look for costly justice. He called that a Poor Man's Bill which, without taking away the poor suitor from his daily avocation, from his family, or from the employment by which he earned subsistence, would enable him to go at once into Court, and face to face to his adversary obtain cheap and ready justice. His learned friend had impugned the title on the ground that it was absurd to call a bill friendly to the poor suito which afforded speedy execution against him; but it should be recollected, that if the Bill in one case provided speedy execution against the poor defendant, it, on the other hand, insured him speedy execution against the rich defendant, when the poor man was the plaintiff. He would have, therefore, no right to complain, particularly as, in the majority of instances, he would be the plaintiff. It had been said, that as the poor man would not be able to afford security of costs, so as to enable him to remove the trial in case of a wrong decision, the Bill could not be considered as favourable to his interests. Now, this clause, for the removal, by certiorari, of a trial, from a local to a Superior Court, was introduced at the instance of a learned Lord, and very contrary to his own feelings on the subject. He yielded, however, to the sense of the House, and guarded against the abuse of the privilege by the rich man, by compelling him in these instances to give security, not only for the taxed costs, but for the full costs of the action, so that the poor man would, in point of fact, receive just as cheap, though not so speedy, justice. Such was the Bill he then called upon their Lordships to sanction. Rumours were abroad, whispers filled the air, every species of tale was afloat, that it was intended to reject that

371
Bill. He could not believe it—he would not believe it—till their Lordships themselves had convinced him, and they could only do so by their solemn vote, that they would not pass this Bill. "My Lords," continued the noble and learned Baron, "I will conceal nothing from you; I will speak out frankly to you. I did not come here to flatter you. I will neither give nor take flattery, I will be neither its victim nor dispenser. I will give utterance to the plain truth, even though it be unpalatable; and I tell you plainly, that if you this evening throw out my Bill, your doing so will nowise influence me to relax my efforts in favour of law Reform, and any of your Lordships who expect that such a defeat will have the effect of damping or discouraging my prosecution of measures calculated in ray mind to promote the general weal, very much reckons without his host, and, if possible, still more mistakes his man. If I said, on the other hand, that your throwing out the Bill on the present occasion would not deeply mortify me, and, in one sense discourage, and, I might say, make mc despair, I should not be dealing fairly with your Lordships, and I should represent myself in a state of mind very different from the real one. To be able to carry into effect measures of judicial Reform which long consideration has convinced me are demanded by the wants and interests of the people was my great and primary motive in accepting office. To the effecting an adequate, but cautious, and prudent, and sale measure of legal Reform, I looked to the official influence of my present high station as the great means which alone rendered it an object of my ambition. Of course, if you this night check my efforts to make my official influence useful to the country, you compel mc not, I repeat, to relax my efforts to effect judicial Reform, but to propose measures less adequate to my views of the public exigencies, but measures more likely to be successful in attaining your approbation. I must propose measures less efficient, because, if you this night thwart my hopes, it would be useless to propose any measure of extensive reform, but within these limited bounds of practicability—I mean practicability as far as you are concerned—I shall endeavour, to the best of my powers, to discharge my duty, thankful even for half au inch of concession in favour of the people,
372
and hoping that more will follow at no distant opportunity. But, my Lords, I am not the only person whose just and rational hopes will be sadly disappointed by your throwing out this Bill, It matters little your damping my hopes—your dashing the cup of promise from my lips; but it does matter your damping the hopes and dashing the cup of promise from the lips of the people of England. I expected that smile, told and counselled as you have been, that it would be degrading to you not to disregard such consequences. I say yes, your Lordships have been told and counselled to disregard the feelings of the people. ["No, no."] Well, then, I am to understand that you do regard the feelings of the poor suitor, whose fate is so much involved in this Bill? I am rejoiced by that cheer; it restores the confident frame of mind in which I first ventured lo solicit your sanction of the present measure. It was, indeed, to be deeply lamented that you should take a step likely to damp the rational wishes of the people for cheap and speedy justice; and heartily I rejoice at your disclaiming cheer, as it makes mc confident that you will not hastily reject a measure which affords this cheap and speedy justice, I have only to hope, that the hopes and expectations of the country will this night be realized.
The original Question being "that this Bill be now read a third time," and an Amendment, "that this Bill be read a third time this day six months," having been proposed, a division took place upon the (Question, "that the word proposed to be left out (viz. the word now) stand part of the Question." Content (Present 81, Proxies 41) 122; Not content (Present 81, Proxies 53,134: Majority 12.
Their Lordshids divided a second time On the Question—"That this Bill be read a third time this day six months." Contents 76; Not-contents" 08:—Majority 8.
But a Question arising whether some Lords had come into the House after the question was put, not having heard the Question put, the tellers were heard, and certain Lords declared that they had so come in by mistake, and the numbers were reduced accordingly. Content 68; Not-content 73:—Maiority 5.

List of the NOT-CONTKSTS (first division).

PRESENT.

DUKES

Beaufort

Cumberland

Nawcastle

373

Northumberland

Aberdeen)

Wellington

Beresford

Buckingham

Combermere

MARQUESSES.

BARONS.

Salisbury

Willoughby de Broke

Abercorn

St. John of Bletso

Bute

Saltoun

Cholmondeley

Colville

EARLS.

Hay (Earl of Kinnoull)

Westmorland

Sandwich

Boston

Doncaster (Duke of Buccleuch)

Southampton

Rodney

Abingdon

Montagu

Moreton

Kenyon

Leven

Saltersford (Earl of Courtown)

Selkirk

Orkney

De Dunstanville

Dartmouth

Rolle

Delawarr

Northwick

Bathurst

Carbery

Digby

Dufferin

Beverley

Redesdale

Mansfield

Ellenborough

Wicklow

Arden

Belmore

Sheffield (Earl of Sheffield)

Caledon

Rosslyn

Manners

Limerick

Prudhoe

Charleville

Colchester

Lonsdale

Clanbrassil (Earl of Roden)

Harrowby

Harewood

Maryborough

Verulam

Ravensworth

Brownlow

Forrester

Beauchamp

Penshurst (Viscount Strangford)

Glengall

Eldon

Wharncliffe

Falmouth

Feversham

Vane (Marquess of Londonderry)

Lyndhurst

Melross (Earl of Haddington)

Cawdor

Cowley

VISCOUNTS.

Stuart de Rothsay

Sidmouth

Wallace

Gordon (Earl of

Wynford

PROXIES.

DUKES.

Warwick

Leeds

Norwich (Duke of Gordon)

Manchester

Dorset

Mount-Edgecumbe

MARQUESSES.

Fortescue

Exeter

Longford

Camden

Enniskillen

Ailesbury

Lucan

Thomond

O'Neill

EARLS.

Wilton

Pembroke

Clancarty

Winchilsea

Powis

Plymouth

Orford

Poulett

St. Germain's

Home

Bradford

Airlie

VISCOUNTS.

Macclesfield

Doneraile

Graham (Duke of Montrose)

Arbuthnot

Sydney

374

Lorton

Hopetoun (Earl of Hopetoun)

Exmouth

Gort

Churchill

BARONS.

Harris

De Roos

Ker (Marq. of Lothian)

Clinton

Oriel (Visc. Ferrard)

Forbes

Delamere

Sinclair

Downes

Monson

Wigan (Earl of Balcarras)

Grantley

Tyrone (Marquess of Waterford)

Heytesbury

Clanwilliam (Earl of Clanwilliam)

Carrington

List of the CONTENTS.

PRESENT.

DUKES.

Foley

Sussex

Suffield

Somerset

Auckland

Richmond

Lyttlelon

St. Alban's

Dundas

Devonshire

Lilford

Cleveland

Dunally

MARQUESSES.

Alvanley

Lansdown

Mounteagle (Marq. of Sligo)

Westminster

EARLS.

Granard (Elarl of Granard)

Huntingdon

Suffolk and Berkshire

Gardner

Thanet

Melbourne

Albemarle

Minster (Marquess Conyngham)

Radnor

Hillsborough (Marq. of Downshire)

Glenlyon

Somerhill (Marquess of Clanricarde)

Clarendon

Cadogan

Fife (Earl of Fife)

Charlemont

Plunkett

Craven

Rosebery (Earl of Rosebery)

Gosford

Rosse

Brougham and Vaux

Grey

Sefton (Earl of Sefton)

Morley

Clements (Earl of Leitrim)

Camperdown

Lichfield

Kenlis (Marquis of Headfort)

Ripon

VISCOUNTS.

Chaworth (Earl of Meath)

St. Vincent

Hutchinson (Earl of Donoughmore)

Hamilton (Lord Belhaven and stenton)

BARONS.

Howden

Audley

Panmure

Willoughby d'Eresby

Poltimore

Dacre

Wenlock

Stourton

Segrave

Paget (Earl of Uxbridge)

Tenmplemore

Dinorben

Howard of Effingham

Godolphin

Say and Sole

Hunsdon (Viscount Falkland)

Stafford

Byron

Western

Gower (Marq. of Stafford)

Solway (Marquess of Queensberry)

Elphinstone

BISHOPS.

Holland

Archbishop of Dublin

Vernon

Bishop of Llandaff

Ducie

Bishop of Chichester

Sundridge (Duke of Argyll)

Bishop of Hereford

375

PROXIES.

DUKES.

Dormer

Norfolk (E. M.)

Clifford of Chudleigh

Bedford

Ponsonby (Earl of Besborough)

Portland

Sutherland

Montford

MARQUESSES.

Sherborne

Winchester

Dorchester

Anglesey

Mendip (Viscount Clifden)

EARLS.

Essex

Yarborough

Carlisle

Erskine

Ferrers

Ranfurly (Earl of Ranfurly)

Tankerville

Cowper

Kilmarnock (Earl of Erroll)

Buckinghamshire

Fitzwilliam

Fingall (Earl of Fingall)

Hchester

Spencer

Rossie (Earl of Kinnaird)

Durham

Granville

Dover

VISCOUNT.

Ludlow (Earl of Ludlow)

Leinster (Duke of Leinster)

Mostyn

BARONS.

Cloncurry

Howard de Walden

De Saumarez

Grey of Groby

Stanley

Petre

BISHOPS.

Clifton (Earl of Darnley)

Archbishop of York

Bishop of Norwich