Sitting of 21 July 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Roads Act Amendment (Ireland); Punishment of Death; Common Fields Exchange.—Read a second time:—Turnpike Acts' Continuance (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Colonel L. HAY, and Mr. SINCLAIR, from three Places, against the Bankrupts (Scotland) Bill; from three other Places, for Support to the Church of Scotland.—By Mr. Alderman WOOD, from Petersfield, against the Trustees of the Churchers College, and for Inquiry into their Conduct; from two Metropolitan Parishes, in favour of the Hackney and Stage Coaches Bill.—By Mr. BERNARD, from two Places, against the Separation of Church and State—By Mr. CORBETT, from three Places, for the Repeal of the Malt Tax; from several Places, for Vote by Ballot; from several Places in Ireland, against Tithes; from two Places, for a Reduction of Taxation; from the Handloom Weavers, Leigh, for a Board of Trade; from Pitmen of the Tyne and Wear, for Repealing the Export Duty on Coal; from the Coal Men on the River Clyde, against the Tonnage of Vessels' Bill; from two Places, against the Poor-Law Amendment Bill; from East Ham, against Burial Fees; from an Association at Manchester, for Liberating John Cleaver, in Prison for vending Knowledge at a cheap rate. —By the same, and Mr. GILLON, from several Places,—for the Separation of Church and State.—By Sir ANDREW AGNEW, and Mr. A. JOHNSTONE, from a Number of Places, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. HAWES, from Battersea, against the Common Lands Inclosure Bill.—By Mr. CHILDERS, from two Places, for placing all Venders of Beer on the same footing.—By Mr. B. BARING, from Penn, in favour of the Sale of Beer Act Amendment Bill; from a Number of Places, in Support of the Church of England.—By Colonel PERCEVAL, from several Places, for Support to the Church of Ireland. —By Mr. A. JOHNSTONE, from Greenock and the Synod of Galloway, for a Better System of Church Patronage in Scotland; from the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr, for the Repeal of an Act relative to the Building of Churches.—By the Marquess of CHANDOS, from three Places, against the University Admission Bill; from a Number of Places, for Relief to the Agricultural Interest.—By Mr. BRISCOE, from Staines, against Prize-fighting.—By Mr. COBBETT, from Leven, for appropriating Church Property to Civil Purposes.—By the same, and Mr. GILLON, from Stratford-upon-Avon, and Biggar, for Relief to the Dissenters. —By Mr. GOULBLIRN, from a Number of Places, for Protection to the Church of England.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
Mr. Gillonpresented a number of Petitions, praying for a separation of Church and State. The first was from Lanark; the next was from the Royal Burgh of Hamilton, signed by 2,111 persons, which he had the honour to represent; and the others were from Paisley, signed by 5,100, Criff, Alyth, Leven, Dysart, Montrose, Kibbarchan, Biggar, and Dunning. These petitions, observed the hon. Gentleman, bore the signatures of upwards of 10,000 individuals. He felt assured, that the Dissenters would continue, as they had done to-day, to urge, in a calm and constitutional, but in a firm and determined manner, their claim to relief from the most practical of all grievances—the domination of a favoured sect—and also would continue to urge the great truth, that the

277
Church has neither a necessary nor a beneficial connexion with the State, and that while that connexion shall subsist, dissension and enmity will continue to disgrace the Christian world. Ample proof of these miserable effects was afforded in the state of a sister country, where there existed a Church in which the hierarchy and the ecclesiastical functionaries were richly provided for, but the people for whose instruction and advantage, as it humbly appeared to him that the Church was designed, were forgotten. Would any man venture to say, that the scenes of blood and devastation which that Church had engendered, were not a disgrace to a Christian people? He regretted the decision come to by that House, that the fitting time to alter and amend the appropriation of the revenues of that Church had not yet arrived, and that much time was being lost by the investigation of a commission into a subject already but too well known. Let but a different appropriation of the overgrown revenues of the Church of Ireland be sanctioned, and, he believed, it would do more to tranquillize that unhappy country than all the Peace-preservation Acts that House might pass. The House had a goodly specimen of the Christian spirit that animated some of the high supporters of that Church, in their regret that there was not now to be enough of tyranny extended to Ireland. Any partial legislation on this subject, any more diminution of the revenues of that pampered establishment, laid, as it appeared to him, but the foundation of future change; it was only by recurring to the original formation of the Christian Church, to the just principles of a voluntary support of the great truths of inspired religion, that anomalies in legislation would terminate, and dissentious among Christians be at an end. He trusted a more liberal spirit would animate the councils of the present Administration than had actuated those of their predecessors, and that they would set in good earnest about the remedying of abuses. He felt convinced, that the voluntary Churchmen never would descend from the high ground which they had taken up, but continue perseveringly to urge the truth of the great doctrines which they advocated, and patiently wait until the reason and the justice of their case should triumph over the intolerance which might be opposed to them; and the pub-
278
lic mind was fully prepared for so great and so important a change. But, forsooth, the "No-Popery" cry was to be got up, and the isle was to be frightened from its propriety, as if Protestantism were in danger. If Protestantism had nothing to depend on but the temporalities of the Church, the loaves and fishes to be divided among the Churchmen; if she had no more lasting and sound basis, she might, indeed, be said to be in danger. Such a cry might well suit the gowned devotees in the walks of their cloister—it might scare some of the owls in the darkness of their anticipated retreats; but its promoters would find it signally fail with the community, in an age of knowledge and information like this. Let him once more deny, in the most explicit terms, the base calumnies thrown out elsewhere, and repeated in that House, that those who defended the voluntary principle were actuated by a desire of acquiring plunder for themselves. Such a doctrine was universally and unequivocally disavowed. The spoliators were the Church itself, which had laid violent hands on the property of the Roman Catholic Church, and in appropriating to their own use the tithes and other Church property, had utterly disregarded the claims which the poor undoubtedly possessed to a share in those revenues. The voluntary Churchmen regarded the property so received of the Church, as national property, available for purposes of general utility, as Parliament might determine— they denied the right of one favoured sect to appropriate it to uses exclusively their own.
Mr. Sinclairmust protest against the assertion, that the doctrine contained in the petitions was the opinion of the majority of the people of Scotland. There were many Dissenters in that country who were adverse to the separation of Church and State.
Petitions laid on the Table.

MILITARY FLOGGING — CASE OF HUTCHINSON.
Mr. Tennysonheld in his hand a petition of very great importance; it was upon a subject which had seriously occupied the attention of the public for several days. The facts to which he was about to call the attention of the House were all detailed in the petition; he should state these facts to the House, not that be knew them to be true of his own personal knowledge, but to

279
afford the right hon. Secretary at War, an opportunity of stating to the House what were the true circumstances of the case. If the statements contained in the petition were true, it would become the duty of the House to take steps to put an immediate end to this most terrific, degrading, horrible, and disgraceful punishment by some legislative act; or, at least, if the House should deem it right that this punishment should continue to disgrace the country, to obtain a solemn assurance from the Government, that it should be administered with some discretion, and with a decent regard to the feelings of humanity. The petition proceeded from some of the most respectable of his constituents, and contained, among others, the signature of a clergyman of the highest character and worth among the parishioners. It complained, that J. Hutchinson, a private in the 1st battalion of the Scotch Fusileer Guards, was most cruelly and barbarously flogged at St. George's Barracks, Charing-cross, upon a charge of being drunk on sentry, and attempting to strike his sergeant when in confinement. The court sentenced him to 300 lashes, and 300 lashes were actually administered. What he complained of was, that after the pledge given by his right hon. friend, that the severity of the punishment of flogging should not be resorted to except in extreme cases, the greatest punishment should be inflicted for a comparatively insignificant offence. The hon. Member proceeded to read the petition, which stated, that the cries of the unfortunate man for mercy were of the most heart-rending and agonizing description, and that several of his fellow-soldiers fainted away, being unable to witness so horrible a scene. For the honour of the British army, he could also state, that two officers were equally overcome, and were compelled to quit such a dreadful spectacle. The petitioners prayed the House to inquire into the facts contained in the petition, with a view to the abolition of this practice, as a disgrace to the service, and an outrage to the feelings of society.
Mr. Hawesbore testimony to the high character and worth of the clergyman who signed the petition.
Mr. Ellicewould not attempt to say one word in reference to the motives which had induced the petitioners to come forward and represent the case to the
280
House. It did not surprise him that the reverend gentleman who had given his signature to the petition should have been the foremost to express his regret at such an occurrence. Such eases were undoubtedly extremely painful, but it was much to be deplored that when a case of this kind did arise—a case which he was sure had been justified in the opinion of the military authorities, who were responsible for all that had taken place—the complaint should be brought forward in that House. As far as his own opinion on the subject went, he confessed himself an advocate for restraining the practice of flogging in the army within the narrowest possible limits, consistent with the discipline and subordination of the army. With respect to the present case, it certainly came within the order of last year, which restricted the limits of corporal punishment. The charge against this man was for being drunk when a picket sentry on canteen. Now, a soldier was placed as picket sentry on canteen for the purpose of preventing those improper scenes that frequently took place there; it was a situation of peculiar importance, and one in which he was called upon to conduct himself in the strictest accordance with military discipline. In this situation the man was found drunk; and if he were to admit drunkenness as an excuse for all the crimes that were committed under its influence, the Government would have a most difficult duty to perform to restrain the outrages which occurred. The individual in question was guilty of frequently quitting his post and getting drunk, and though it had not been stated to him, that the man was drunk at this time, yet his language was most mutinous towards the sergeant who arrested him. He also threatened to strike the sergeant, and used expressions which were not fit to be repeated, but which amounted to mutiny. He was willing to admit, that if this was the first offence the man had committed, the sentence would have been undoubtedly a very severe one, but within two very short periods Hutchinson had been guilty of making away with his clothes and other regimental necessaries, and of using mutinous language towards the non-commissioned officer, when he had the opportunity of making drunkenness an excuse for his conduct. He was a person of notoriously bad character, had been several times

281
punished for former offences, and the sentence passed upon him was an affirmation of the finding of a Court-martial. With regard to the facts detailed in the petition, not one of them had come to his knowledge. He did not say they were untrue, or that they were correct; he only observed that they had not come to his knowledge. Then, with regard to the infliction of the punishment, under the circumstances of the case, he was certainly of opinion, that if the facts stated by the hon. Member were true,—if some of the officers and several men fainted away at their posts on witnessing the infliction of punishment, —these were circumstances that ought to have induced the commanding officer to consider how far it was proper to proceed in the execution of the whole of the sentence. He had no doubt it would so happen, that some persons of particularly sensitive feelings would have shown themselves strongly affected on the occasion; and, he felt convinced, that he himself should have been deeply affected if he had been present. When it was stated, however, that several soldiers had fainted away, he believed that would turn out to be incorrect; but if those statements should turn out to be true, it fully warranted the warmth of language adopted in the petition. The object of the punishment was, to strike terror into others by the example. He was afraid that those individuals who gave way to their private feelings on these occasions were not always the most correct Judges, and when the Legislature had intrusted the military authorities with the power to punish in all such cases, for the maintenance of that discipline which was necessary for the safety of the country, and held them responsible for the just administration of that power, it was too much to bring every case that occurred of its exercise under the cognizance of that House, and to censure military officers on no better authority than the facts contained in the petition. He would tell the House that they were coming to a pass in military discipline which would require their most sober and serious attention. It was impossible the law could remain as it stood at present; the power in the hands of the chiefs of the army had been so diminished by the continual check of public interference, that the increase of crime had taken a most frightful march. In the last two years, one-fifth of the whole army on English stations had passed through the
282
public gaols. Cases of violent insubordination and outrage were increasing beyond precedent, and therefore he entreated the House, however severe they might consider the infliction of the law, to pause before they interposed between the soldier and his superior, for, under such circumstances, some strong power was necessary to maintain discipline and subordination among men who had arms constantly in their hands. Beyond this statement, it was his duty to observe, as some justification of the military authorities, that the insubordination, which had greatly increased of late, had induced them to be more severe in the execution of the existing laws. He thought, before the House proceeded to condemn others who had a painful duty to perform, it would do well to reflect on the consequences that might result from the want of care and caution in the maintenance of discipline. It was but a fortnight ago, that a private shot a sergeant on parade at Chatham, for which he had been conveyed to Maidstone, and would shortly take his trial. As the facts were not disputed, the House must dread, that a frightful extent of insubordination would speedily prevail, if discipline were not strenuously enforced. And yet, since that period, a report had been made to him of another soldier who had been taken up while loading his gun with an intention of committing the same offence. He did not state these circumstances to defend all the practices winch prevailed in the army at present, but to show that it was absolutely necessary the power of punishment in the army should be maintained. He had been looking back on the floggings which had taken place in the army, and no case came under his notice without the most acute pain. He had the satisfaction however to find, that for a period of thirty years not a single military execution had taken place. Not a single soldier had been shot for an offence against military law during the whole of that period. Let the House take great care how it interfered with that state of things which would render it necessary for the ultimate course of law to be resorted to. What was it supposed would be the consequence of a soldier being brought out for military execution, when such feelings were entertained by the people on the subject of capital punishments? The whole subject had arrived at such a stage, that he felt it quite impossible it could stop

283
where it was. It was therefore his intention to recommend his Majesty to issue a commission, composed of a few persons of great experience, and well acquainted with our military laws, to inquire into the state of the present code, and also into the nature of other military codes, and to embody the whole into a system. He trusted, in the interval between the present and the next Session, he should succeed in obtaining his Majesty's consent to it. The feelings which had induced his right hon. friend to bring this subject before the House were entitled, he readily admitted, to the greatest respect; but he thought, that his right hon. friend had said quite enough to impress on his mind the necessity of paying the greatest attention to the military authorities; though he must add that consistently with the great responsibility which weighed on them of maintaining the discipline of the army, they were not desirous of preserving the system of flogging. It should be remembered that the habits of the people generally were opposed to rigid subordination, which made it the more necessary to maintain a strict discipline among those who had arms in their hands. He hoped that his right hon. friend would believe that in his answer he had stated nothing incompatible with their former agreement on this subject, for he could assure his right hon. friend, that the Government was anxious to limit punishment of all kinds as much as possible, and, was, he could assure his right hon. friend, not deaf to the voice of public opinion on this great and important question. He hoped the House, after this explanation, would see the propriety of not continuing the discussion until the whole facts of the case were before them, and inasmuch as it was very difficult to restrain the public opinion, nothing should be said to inflame it.
Mr. Ewartwas convinced, that other punishments might be found which would be efficient substitutes for flogging, and he trusted that the practice would be abolished.
Colonel Evanswas opposed to military flogging. He was of opinion, it defeated the very object it had in view. It was well known in the army, that a repetition of the punishment hail no effect upon the offender, when once he had become lost to a sense of shame. There was one great difficulty in effecting the object the right hon. Gentleman had in view. He must
284
necessarily attend to the opinion of officers in the army, and however great their experience might be, and however wise and humane their intentions, they would be very reluctant to give up the opinions they had so long entertained, or to alter a system in which they had been brought up. He would not recommend the appointment of a Commission such as the right hon. Gentleman had proposed: but if it should be appointed, he would earnestly advise him, that it should not be exclusively composed of military men, but that there should be some few persons among them who had turned their attention to legislation generally. In his opinion, the only way to remove violation of the military laws was to improve the condition of the soldiery, and that could only be done by abolishing the practice altogether. In time of war, the alteration would be attended with danger, but it might now be tried with safety.
Mr. Feargus O'Connortrusted, that the right hon. member for Lambeth would not give up the further consideration of the question in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. Secretary. He had read the account of the sufferings of this poor man, and he thought a more horrible a more appalling account, had never been published. He believed the feelings of the whole country were shocked with the occurrence, and that an investigation was loudly called for. He did not agree with the right hon. Secretary of War, that this was the way to maintain the discipline of the army, which would be better preserved by a remission of the horrible practice.
The debate was adjourned.

COLCHESTER ELECTION — ALLEGED BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. O'Connellbrought up a Report of the Committee appointed to consider the circumstances of Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey's exclusion from one of the inns of court, which was read as follows:
The Select Committee appointed to inquire into all the circumstances attending the rejection of the claim by Daniel Whittle Harvey, Esq., to be called to the Bar, and to report their opinion thereupon to the House, and who were empowered to report from time to time to the house, have agreed to the following Report:—
In the course of the examination of the right hon. Lord Western, the following evidence was given, which, though not immediately connected with the investigation in

285
which the Committee is engaged, they feel it their duty to bring to the knowledge of the House without delay:—
Did you not yourself write to Mr. Ellice, calling upon him, as an officer connected with the Treasury, to send down a sum of money for the purpose of carrying on Mr. Harvey's election at Colchester?—No, I wrote for it to carry on Mr. Mayhew's election at Colchester.
Do you mean to say, the letter was not written to support Mr. Mayhew and Mr. Harvey jointly?—Yes; it is my firm belief it was not to support them jointly; it was the furthest from my thoughts to have done so; it was to support Mr. Mayhew.
Your belief is strong to establish in your mind the distinction?—Yes.
Now, in point of fact, was any money sent from the Treasury to Colchester in consequence of your letter?—Yes, I understood there was.
Can you state who the parties were who shared the money?—No, I cannot state who the parties were that shared that money; but I understood, from yourself, I think, that there was a dispute about it, and an egregious dispute, and my recollection certainly is, that it was sent for Mr. Mayhew; I think he had three contests within a short time.
By the Committee.—How much was the money, do you know?—I think it was 500 l.
Did Mr. Mayhew and Mr. Harvey stand on the same interest?—Yes, I believe they did stand on the same interest; but they were most violently hostile to each other, as I understood.
By Mr. Harvey.—Who were hostile?—Mr. Mayhew and Mr. Harvey; that is my impression.
Does your Lordship know that Mr. George Saville, of Colchester, was, at the time we have been speaking of, the treasurer of a common fund to secure the return of Mr. Mayhew and Mr. Harvey?—No, I did not know that; you are asking me as to matters which I say are irrelevant; my desire was, that money should be deposited in Mr. George Saville's hands.
Did Mr. George Saville receive a sum of money, in point of fact, at your instance?—I believe so.
I ask you whether, if it shall appear that the sum of money which, through your influence, was obtained from the Treasury, was obtained in aid of my election at Colchester; that is consistent with your present answer? —I tell you I did not get it for your support; I did it for the support of Mr. Mayhew.
You were understood to say that, when you wrote to the Treasury to counsel money being sent down to promote the cause of reform, yours was a distinct application on behalf of Mr. Mayhew to Mr. Harvey's exclusion?— Not to his exclusion, but my application was for Mr. Mayhew.
As distinct from Mr. Harvey?—I did not say to Mr. Harvey's exclusion; but on Mr.
286
Mayhew's account it was that I made the application, and not on Mr. Harvey's.
By the Committee.—Did your Lordship, at the election, exert yourself on public political grounds, to assist in procuring the return of Mr. Harvey as well as the other Gentleman, he being a reform candidate?—No, I did not; the great battle was for Mr. Mayhew; he was the person in danger.
He was not returned?—Yes, he was:
And for that purpose the 500 l. was advanced by the Secretary of the Treasury for the purposes of the election?—Yes.
After a short conversation as to the mode of proceeding, it was understood, that Mr. O'Connell was to make a Motion on the subject whenever Mr. Ellice should be in the house. The Report was ordered to be laid on the Table.

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES— (IRELAND).
Lord Althorp Lord Althorp moved, that the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill, be read.
Mr. Poulett Scropesaid, he would not trouble the House with any observations on the present occasion, if any hon. Gentleman during preceding debates had happened to take the same view of the subject with himself; but, as this had not been the case, and feeling, as he did, that Parliament ought not to legislate for the suppression of local disturbances in Ireland, without fully inquiring into the peculiar state of society in that country, which created those disturbances, he should beg to offer a few words. It had been said, that agrarian outrage was intimately connected with political agitation; but when it was considered, that the character of the outrages had been the same for the last fifty or sixty years, he thought, the more correct conclusion would be, that they proceeded from want of sufficient work, of sufficient wages, and sufficient protection to the Irish peasant. The insurrectionary spirit which prevailed now, did not differ from that which had prevailed for the last sixty years. It sprung front the same feeling, and was signalized by the same outrages. The offences of the present day were exactly like the White Boy offences immediately after 1750. The Reports made by Committees of the House confirmed his view. He would refer to the Report of the Committee of 1832, which stated, that the chief cause of disturbance in Ireland was the removal of tenants from their farms.

287
He added, by the way, that he could not agree in the eulogium that had been pronounced upon that Report, for he saw, in every line of it, the finger of the Irish landlord. He believed that the real cause of the agrarian disturbances of Ireland was to be found in the competition of a starving peasantry for the possession of land, through which alone they could be certain of obtaining the means to support existence. The hon. Member quoted the Report of the Committee at considerable length, to show, that all these disturbances had originated in struggles for the possession of land. The hon. Member also quoted a letter from Dr. M'Hale, in which there was a melancholy account of the number of families which had been ejected in a district with which he was familiarly acquainted; and further, to show the frequency, he cited the statement of Mr. M'Guise of 174 families being ejected, from the Report of a Committee in 1831. In Ireland they had no Poor-laws, few manufactures, and not sufficient agricultural employment for the population; the possession of land accordingly was essential to the existence of the Irish peasant. He complained that the law of Ireland, which was always too severe, had given additional facilities of late to the ejection of tenants. In proof of this position he cited the authority of Dr. Doyle, and he maintained that the object of Whitefeet combinations was similar in practical effect to that of combinations in general—it was to protect the many against the tyranny of the few. A noble Lord had lately said, that no Government which did not grant protection to its subjects was entitled to their allegiance. Now, he asked if the Irish peasant was protected? No; he was neither protected against ejectment nor starvation, which was the consequence of ejectment. He was not protected against the mission of an absentee landlord, which practically amounted to a mandate of death, to the unhappy tenant, the landlord by his wholesale murders, taking away life, by taking the only means by which it could be supported. It was therefore because the peasantry were left without protection that they combined against the law, and shewed no more scruple at shedding blood in open day, than did the soldier in the hour of battle. They looked upon such acts as the sentences of the self-appointed tribunals to which their allegiance was due. Let the
288
noble Lord fancy himself for one moment in the condition of an ejected tenant—let him divest himself of the recollection of the happy home and the unnumbered comforts and luxuries with which he was surrounded, and, above all, the sense of freedom, giving a zest to them,—let him fancy himself in the situation of an Irish cottier tenant, who having striven assiduously to support himself by cultivating the few acres of ground which he had been fortunate enough to obtain possession of, at length, fell into arrear in the payment of his rent. His landlord came down with a distress warrant, seized his furniture, and his crops in the ground, and served a process of ejectment on him—he could not resist, for the law gave a cheap and summary power of ejectment. He would remind the House of the heart-rending picture given by Dr. Doyle of the condition of the ejected tenantry in Ireland, who resorted to hovels in the outskirts of towns, and there awaited in famine the diseases which want engendered. Dr. Doyle said that they died in a little time; and he spoke of a case in which thirty families were crowded into one small cabin in the neighbourhood in which he resided, and of which at the end of twelve months only ten were left! But did they all die? No; the feeble and impatient sunk under the weight of the oppression; but the able and energetic men, were not so easily got rid of—they survived, and became desperate and active members of the Whitefeet combination. The miseries which they had suffered induced others to combine together and form tribunals, which, by inspiring terror, prevented ejectments. That system was effectual, —it protected the peasantry, and would continue in force—more or less occasionally lulled by Coercion Acts—until the law of the land superseded these tribunals by providing for the tenant. Could that statement be contradicted? Could it be denied, that the Whitefoot system was a real and practical check on the ejectment system? If this were the cause of the disturbances which had so long continued to prevail through Ireland, it was in vain to hope to put them down by Acts of this description. Would more coercion, further Insurrectionary Acts, and more unconstitutional powers effect that object? No; they had been tried, and had failed. There was one simple means of putting an end to these disturbances,—do justice to

289
the Irish tenant—give that protection to his life which was lavished on the property of the landlord, and he ventured to declare that further outrages would not be heard of in Ireland. How was that to be done? In the way in which it was done in England. Who could be ignorant that the state of England, before the passing of the Poor-laws was the same as that now existing in Ireland—that the condition of the two countries might be described in the same words, and that the statements made by Hollinshed and others before the passing of that law, were equally applicable now to Ireland? Robbery, insurrection, murder, and outrages of violence were then common; in the county of Somerset alone, there were sixty executions in one year, and in the whole of England no less than 2,000. The measure applied by the Legislature to remedy this evil completely succeeded; why should not the same success ensue from passing a similar measure for Ireland? Was not such a measure called for, not merely in justice to the population of Ireland, but in justice to the population of England? Did not all classes in England suffer from the want of Poor-laws in Ireland, paying a large proportion of their Poor-rates for the maintenance of the Irish poor? Look at the condition of the farmer in England; after having paid a high rate of wages, and a large amount of Poor-rates, he was met in his own markets by persons who paid no Poor-rate, and the produce of whose land paid merely the labour expended on it, at the rate of only 4d. or 6d. a-day. The operation of the Poor-laws effectually prevented the English landlord from exacting as the Irish landlord did such a sum for land as would leave the tenant merely a bare subsistence; so that, when an unfavourable season came he was compelled to feed upon the weeds of the earth and the sea to avoid actual starvation. He could not reconcile it to his conscience, to vote for a measure for coercing the peasantry of Ireland, without making some attempt to ameliorate their condition. He felt it to be his duty, therefore, holding the opinions which he did, to submit a Resolution to the House, which propounded in moderate language what might be considered a truism, though it had never been acted on in Irish legislation. The Resolution was as follows; and he moved it as an Amendment to the original Motion:—"That in order to
290
secure life and property in Ireland, to remove all pretext for criminal outrages, and to give effect to whatever measures of severity may be enacted for their suppression, it is expedient that the population of that country be assured of the means of supporting life by peaceful and honest industry; and this House will, at the earliest opportunity, turn its attention to some measure for securing this desirable end."
Mr. Feargus O'Connorhad great pleasure in seconding the Amendment proposed by his hon. friend, and he could not do so without, as an Irish member, returning his thanks for the very able manner in which the hon. Member had brought the subject forward. Indeed, he was astonished how the hon. Member, in so short a time, had amassed such a heap of conclusive evidence. The hon. Member had shown—he had at least asserted—and he (Mr. O'Connor) coincided in the assertion—that the outrages which existed in Ireland arose, in a great measure, from the competition for land. The statement of his hon. friend was fully borne out by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the master of the Mint) (Mr. Abercrombie) in a very able speech which he made the other evening upon the State of Ireland; and he now asked that right hon. Gentleman could he refuse to agree to the Amendment? In Ireland, the most disgraceful means were frequently resorted to in ejecting the tenants from their farms; and the landlord was frequently actuated by the most disgraceful motive. When a tenant became possessed of a farm, if he, by the expenditure of labour and capital improved it, that moment the landlord fixed upon it a jealous eye; and the result generally was, that the occupier was turned out, that the landlord might obtain an additional fine, the price of the tenant's improvement. Ireland had nothing to look to but agriculture; and it was not, therefore, to be wondered at, if outrage was so generally and so intimately connected with it. No doubt, after the conclusion of the hon. Member's speech, proposing, as it did, specifically to pledge the House to relief, no doubt the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman opposite would take refuge behind the Commission at present in Ireland. But as yet there was no Report from that Commission; and was it too much to give, at least, a promise of relief, to a people

291
three-fourths of whom were in poverty while this commission was slowly wandering over the country? He could himself say, that he had seen one hundred families turned out, as his hon. friend had described, houseless upon the world. If that House could not be influenced by any feeling of humanity, he would appeal to their interests, to grant to Ireland a measure of relief such as that contemplated by his hon. friend. The hon. member for Oldham, when this question was formerly under discussion, showed distinctly that England, where a good system of Poor-laws existed, was comparatively prosperous; that Scotland, with a worse system, was better off than Ireland; and that the last country was wretched, because it had no system of Poor-laws at all. English landlords could not act like their brethren in Ireland. They did not drive their tenants out of their farms to make way for others, who would give them a few pounds more. And why did they not do so? Because they knew, that if they impoverished their tenantry, the burthen of supporting them must fall upon them by means of the poor-rate. The wise and humane system of Poor-laws which existed in England made it the interest of the landlords to maintain the population around them in a happy and comfortable state. The public institutions of England, from Greenwich Hospital to the meanest almshouse, were based no less on policy than humanity.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that as the Amendment had been submitted without any notice, he should not, he thought, be acting fairly towards the House if he were to enter into any discussion respecting it. He regretted that any language had been used which might by possibility be construed into an extenuation of the dreadful atrocities which unhappily were committed in Ireland. The hon. Member argued as if the Whiteboy parties were generally composed of ejected tenants; but, as far as his (Mr. Littleton's) knowledge extended, that description of persons had very little to do with them; in fact, they were for the most part formed of farmers' servants. He once more protested against the course which the hon. Member had pursued in bringing such an important subject before the House prematurely. The Commissioners were prosecuting their inquiries in Ireland, and their Report would be prepared before the next Session.
Mr. William Roche: Sir, not having had an opportunity of expressing my sentiments on this Bill during its introductory debate, and apprehensive of not being able to stay in town to the conclusion of its progress, permit me to offer a few remarks, considering it, as I do, a measure upon which my constituents and country are entitled to the opinion of their Representatives. I very much coincide in a great portion of what has fallen from the hon. member for Stroud, and from my hon. friend the member for Cork, who have just preceded me, I mean as regards employment and protection for the poor in Ireland; but before I apply myself to that interesting branch of the subject, I shall take the liberty of troubling the House with a few observations on the original and present character of the Bill now before us. When, a short time back, it was expected down from the other House of Parliament, I was amongst those who characterized it, in its then most obnoxious shape, as an unjustifiable and unwarrantable infraction of one of the most essential principles of the Constitution, and one of the most beneficial privileges of the people, "that of freely discussing and meeting to discuss the tenor and tendency of public measures and affairs"—a privilege, Sir, that combines, in a land of freedom, various indispensable advantages, constituting as it does a powerful safeguard of our public rights, exercising a salutary control over the conduct of our public men, affording a valuable opportunity for ascertaining public opinion on passing events, and not unfrequently of thereby correcting our own; and finally presenting a most useful outlet or safety-valve to the fervour of public feeling in moments of public anxiety. These, Sir, are advantages and safeguards which nothing short of the direst necessity would justify the slightest interference with. Sir, I then also designated it as indicating a peculiar and uncalled for disregard of the liberties and feelings of the people of Ireland, because I was of opinion that, under the same circumstances, no such restraint would be interposed to public discussion or complaint in this country—utterly uncalled for, Sir, I assert; for whatever cause or causes may be supposed to have existed when this Bill was originated in the last year, not the slightest has existed or occurred since, not even the shadow of a

293
shade to call for or justify such restraint on public discussion, and it would now, therefore, be justly considered a purely gratuitous assumption of wanton and arbitrary power. Indeed, Sir, you would be as much warranted in extending this restriction on discussion over the whole of the country as continuing it for the next year, for you would be equally legislating not on facts, but upon bare possibilities or anticipations, imitating, I may say, the "master," who is stated to have punished his servants not because they were then transgressing, but lest, perchance, they might futurely do so. But, Sir, as regards the other branch of the subject—agrarian outrages— I shall say, that whatever means be indispensably necessary and discreetly adviseable to suppress outrage and more especially nocturnal outrage, I would not be disposed to withhold, and I would be so disposed as much, or rather vastly more, for the sake and protection of the humble, but honest, peaceable, and industrious, who are so much more exposed to the violence and envy of the vicious of their own class, than the higher orders who necessarily possess various and superior means of prevention and defence. Residing, Sir, as I do in a city, I experience the comfort of retiring to rest with the consciousness, as far as regards external outrage, that I am protected from harm or disturbance, and that comfort and consciousness I would be anxious to procure, as far as practicable, for rural as well as municipal districts. Indeed, in this respect, I would be glad to see some proper plan devised calculated to enable the well-disposed to maintain, or co-operate in maintaining, the peace of their respective neighbourhoods, for, Sir, by calling the well-disposed to our aid and uniting all those interested in tranquillity, the vicious would soon discover, that they miscalculated in preferring turbulence to tranquillity, or mischief to industry. Tranquillity and prosperity are ever associated together, at least prosperity cannot exist without tranquillity, and the protection of person, property, and industry, constitutes the very elementary principles of civilised society. With these sentiments, Sir, I would be far very far from conceiving and co-operating, as I have so often done, with my hon. and learned friend, the member for Dublin, were I not convinced that he was as anxious or rather more truly anxious, than the loudest declaimers
294
for the tranquillity, the perfect, the permanent tranquillity of Ireland, a wish, I know, to be interwoven with every sentiment of his soul and every effort of his powerful understanding. But, Sir, he would endeavour to obtain that blessing, not through the exasperating and transitory impressions of fear and coercion, but through the more lasting and useful influences of kindness, justice, and consequent contentment. Sir, these sentiments must be the result of pure and unbiassed conviction, for I never asked nor never had occasion to ask, my hon. friend for any favour either personal or political. But, Sir, all our endeavours and devices must fail of their full effect unless we reach the root of the evil, unless we take away all just grounds of complaint, unless we correct the many causes of widespread poverty, want of employment, and consequent misery which pervades Ireland. Until then, Sir, we ourselves will be the primary offenders, nor can we expect that the poorer classes will escape the mischiefs of idleness and want, until we substitute in their stead the means and inducements of honest and steady occupation. As regards Poor-laws, Sir, or call them by any less obnoxious name, I fear that without some judicious system of that kind we shall not be enabled to extend to the mass of the people comprehensive or permanent protection, for I do not see how else we can counteract the evils of absenteeism, or back rents, or those desolating clearances of estates which, whether they have occurred to a greater or lesser extent, have been productive of deplorable consequences. What, Sir, I mean by "Poor-laws," is employment for those that are able to work, and protection to those that are incapacitated from doing so. Scarcely any one, Sir, is more to be pitied than the poor man who is able and to earn his bread, and yet, without any fault of his own, cannot obtain opportunity. I therefore trust, Sir, that this subject will be taken up in the next Session, at all events, with due spirit and maturely. Sir, I shall conclude by entreating that, when you legislate for Ireland, you reflect whether you would under similar circumstances legislate in the same tone and tendency for England, and that if you desire to reconcile Ireland to British connexion, you will grant her a full and cordial share of British freedom.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodsaid, no honest man could oppose the Motion. The want of labour was the cause of the miseries of Ireland. If men had no assurance of being relieved by labour they should not be bound by the laws of the land. He was opposed to the Coercion Bill, and he was sure that the noble Lord opposite also disliked it; if he did not, then he had not the same heart in his body that he had twenty years ago. The Coercion Bill did not check predial outrage: it was as bad as ever. There was no use in passing such a Bill. He read of a horrible case of predial outrage which occurred the other day. Thirty men were killed and drowned in the presence of the soldiers and police. He also read of three persons, while in the hands of the police, having been rescued and killed. [Mr. O'Connell: The report was not true.] He was glad to hear it. If the noble Lord opposed the present Motion, he should hope to see him before long reduced to the same pinching poverty as the poor. When the people asked for bread, the Government gave them a stone and a serpent.
Mr. O'Connellcould not let the Motion pass without saying a very few words. He would, however, trouble the House for only a very few minutes, especially as he should feel it his duty to address it at some length on the question, that the Bill be read a second time, in respect of the clauses which he thought ought to be omitted. He was anxious to see the present Amendment withdrawn, and the more so because it had taken the House unawares, and embraced a great principle which required the most deliberate discussion. He was really astonished at the ignorance displayed by some hon. Members as to the state of Ireland. His hon. friend (the member for Birmingham) had spoken of a lamentable feud lately fought in Kerry, and had treated that as resulting from agitation. It had nothing to do with agitation or predial disturbance. The parties fought for no other reason than that they had different names and liked fighting. It was a deplorable state of things; it could be removed only by a general amelioration of the condition of the country. He must say, too, that he regretted deeply that the language used by some hon. Members might be deemed palliative of the offence of White-boyism. That was most unfortunate. He had ever been most cautious to avoid utter-
296
ing a syllable which could have such an effect. He had been engaged in the defence of more men accused of White-boyism than perhaps any other Counsel; and yet he had never, to the least extent, defended one on the plea that for the offence there could be any excuse. The fact was, that the crime injured the class guilty of it more than any other. For a time it injured and distressed the landlord; but it likewise injured the humble peasant, and ultimately it brought upon him greatly-increased sufferings and oppressions. The county of Clare had been a prey for a year and a half to that description of insurgents. There were nine murders, and only one of the parties murdered was a gentleman, all the rest of the victims being of the same class as the murderers. Again, there were twenty-seven resident clergymen, and only one of those clergymen suffered any personal injury. And that case was worthy of notice. The son of that clergyman collected tithes in the name of his father, and, putting them in his own pocket, the father demanded repayment. The injured tenants struck the father eight or ten blows, and compelled him to furnish receipts to those who had paid their tithes.
Colonel Evansexpressed his astonishment at the cursory way in which the subject involved in the Amendment had been treated by the Secretary for Ireland. It was perfectly true, that no formal notice of bringing it forward had been given, but the House had a right to expect that a gentleman filling the position held by the right hon. Gentleman would at all times be prepared to go a little more into a matter so deeply interesting to Ireland. He felt grateful to the hon. member for Stroud for calling the attention of the House specifically to the subject, and he thought that some pledge should be given by the Government that it should receive particular notice and be fully inquired into.
Lord Althorpsaid, undoubtedly the question involved in the present Motion was one of the greatest possible importance; and therefore in ordinary circumstances it would require very full and ample discussion. But there were two reasons why it should not be now entertained. In the first place, the House had been taken by surprise, as had already been noticed; and in the second place, so

297
far from the subject not being under the consideration of Government, an inquiry had already been instituted, and when the result came before the House, they would be much more able satisfactorily to discuss the question. This was a subject, hon. Gentlemen must be aware, on which those who were avowedly most friendly to Ireland, most materially differed in opinion. It was not, to be sure, a mere question of inquiry; but it was most desirable to have the real state of the Irish population fairly ascertained and submitted to them, before they could judge whether the adoption of Poor-laws would have the effect of benefiting them, or whether it would have the directly reverse effect. No doubt the Irish population were in a state of very great distress, and it was the imperative duty of the Legislature to adopt every means in their power which they thought could have the effect of alleviating or removing their distress; but until the report on the state of the poor had been presented, it would be premature to discuss the general question. The hon. member for Birmingham had insisted that every man in Ireland was legally entitled to, and should have support. He (Lord Althorp) was only anxious to know how that most desirable object could be attained. But he had expected, when the hon. Member had said that every man in Ireland had a right to bread, that the hon. Member would have added, that every man had also a right to "paper."
Mr. Poulett Scropestated, in reply, that he had been prevented from giving notice of his intention to submit his Motion on Friday last; but if the House thought it would be more convenient, he was ready to withdraw it at present, and move a Resolution to the same effect on the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. Humesuggested, that the public time might be economized by taking at once the sense of the House upon the question.
The House then divided on the Amendment—Ayes 34; Noes 89: Majority 55.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, T.

Fielden, J.

Blake, M. J.

Gronow, Captain

Brocklehurst, J.

Hodges, T. L.

O'Connell, D.

Hughes, H.

O'Connell, M.

Irton, S.

O'Connell, J.

Kennedy, J.

O'Conor, Don

Lynch, J.

Dillwyn, L.

Miles, w.

298

Newark, Lord

Scholefield, J.

Nagle, Sir R.

Stewart, E.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Sullivan, R.

Richards, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Roe, J.

Young, G. F.

Roche, W.

Walker, C. A.

Ronayne, D.

Ruthven, E. S.

TELLERS.

Ruthven, E.

O'Connor, F.

Sinclair, G.

Scrope, P.

COLCHESTER ELECTION — ALLEGED BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. O'Connellrose to move, as the right hon. Secretary of War was in the House, that the Report he had that evening laid on the Table be printed.
Lord Althorp insisted, that the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Suppression of Disturbances, Ireland, Bill, should have precedence.
Mr. Ellicesaid, if, after the statement which he should have the honour of making to the House, the hon. and learned Gentleman thought fit to make the Motion, he should have an opportunity of doing so at some later period in the evening without any opposition. For the first time since coming into the House he had just seen, although he was not altogether unacquainted with the fact, that something had passed in the course of the morning, with reference to the subject, in a Committee up-stairs; for the first time, he had just seen the Report which had been presented by that Committee, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) was Chairman. In that Report it was stated, that a noble friend of his had applied to him, as Secretary to the Treasury, for an advance of money by the Treasury, for the purpose of paying the expenses of an election then going on in the borough of Colchester. He had no hesitation in stating to the House, that the facts so stated by his noble friend—he was satisfied quite unintentionally on his part—had been misrepresented, and were totally untrue. It was quite true, that during the course of that year (1831)—a year, he believed, which would be long recollected by the youngest Member in that House—when they, at least those among them who were reformers, were anxiously engaged in the arduous struggle to carry that question on which the previous Parliament had been dissolved, great preparations and exertions were made both by the friends and opponents of that important measure, On the part of its opponents a club was estab-

299
lished in Charles-street, to the fame of which he thought it unnecessary now more particularly to allude, but where it was notorious large sums of money were collected to pay the expenses and advance the interests of those who repudiated reform in different parts of the country. The advocates of Reform had no other way of meeting that state of things than by endeavouring to promote similar subscriptions in their turn, in order to prevent their friends being oppressed by the general contest. It would be recollected by many hon. Gentlemen, that at that period be had taken on himself the labour of making arrangements connected with the general election then about to take place—not so much in his official situation, as he knew some would be disposed to impute to him, but simply as an humble individual most anxious for the success of that great constitutional principle for which they were contending. In that character several Gentlemen who had superintended subscription funds to a considerable amount on the side of Reform, were in the habit of asking his advice, and, indeed, he might say of consulting his discretion, as to their appropriation when collected; and he had no hesitation in saying, that beyond the money applied towards the election at Colchester, various sums out of the funds raised were applied under his advice at different times, by different Committees throughout the Metropolis. Beyond the misrepresentation in the evidence of his noble friend, which he repeated he was quite sure had been altogether unintentional, it was stated in the Report, that the money in question had been advanced for the particular purpose of forwarding the interests of one individual in the borough of Colchester. Now, it would be recollected that they were then exposed to the execrable system of sending down all the out voters; and it having been represented to him, that one side had the means of sending down those voters while the other side had not, he stated to an independent friend of both parties, that he knew no individual, except as engaged for or against Reform, all he asked being whether they were in favour of the principle for which they were contending; and on a statement, that there was a Committee or some other means of conducting the general expense of sending down voters,—a perfectly legal expense,—he certainly did apply to the Committee who had the management of
300
the funds at that time, and procured the advance of 500 l. for the Reform interest. Such was his recollection of what had passed when the subject was first mentioned to him by his right hon. friend, the member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Wynn). Whether there had not been an indiscretion in bring the matter before a Committee up-stairs, he would not take on himself to determine; it was a matter of the most perfect indifference to him, whether it was discussed in a Committee up-stairs or in that House. His answer was, that he acknowledged at once the fact, that he had been the instrument at the time of apportioning the funds which had been subscribed throughout different parts of the country; and having stated that to the House plainly and candidly, he was content to throw himself on their impartial judgment. So far went his recollection, without having had the opportunity of referring to documents, or other means of ascertaining whether the facts were precisely in accordance with his impressions. But since he had entered the House, by the courtesy of the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Harvey), he had been put in possession of the letters which he (Mr. Ellice) had written to that hon. Gentleman on the occasion alluded to; and if the House would allow him to read them, for they were very short, it would be seen in the first place, that the funds had not been advanced for the exclusive use of one or other of the candidates for Colchester, but for the purpose of enabling the Reformers of that borough to send Members to that House who would support "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." He used those words because they formed, in point of fact, the test which had been put to all the Reformers throughout the country. The two notes to which he alluded completely bore out his own recollections, so that whatever opinion the House might form as to the propriety of the transaction itself, there could be no doubt whatever as to the facts of the case. The right hon. Gentleman then read the following Letters:—
Wednesday, May 4, 1831.
Dear Sir,—I hope all will go right. I have done everything in my power to contribute to it. 500 l. was sent from one subscription fund to Mr. Savill; and 200 l., I hear, has been contributed by the other—(Meaning the Crown and Anchor Committee, of which the hon. member for Middlesex knew something. That hon. Gentleman was very meritoriously

301
engaged at the Crown and Anchor, while he (Mr. Ellice) was occupied elsewhere.)—I am obliged to return to Coventry to-night, and shall not be again in town till Saturday, but if you are in difficulty in the mean time, you must press upon the Committee at the Crown and Anchor, who feel every disposition to exert themselves on behalf of Colchester.
Yours faithfully, E. ELLICE.
D. W. Harvey, Esq.
Sunday.
Dear Sir,—I had written (before opening your letter), according to the wishes of Mr. Western, to Mr. Savill relative to affairs at Colchester, and given him authority to do any thing which I held out to you the prospect of being able to do on behalf of the liberal cause.
I hope what has been done will be sufficient. At all events, it is all I have at present in my power; but if you send me up a good account of your proceedings to-morrow, I will urge the Committee to make further exertions. That, however, must depend upon their means and inclination, neither of which are under my control.
Yours faithfully, E. ELLICE.
D. W. Harvey, Esq.
After what he had stated, he thought it quite unnecessary to add, that not one single shilling of the fund had been contributed front the public money; indeed, it was much more likely that it had come out of his own private purse. Such was the explanation he had to offer, and which he trusted would be satisfactory to the House. Throughout the transaction he did not think he had done more than any other Member, agreeing with him on the great principle in question, would have felt himself justified in doing, under the circumstances he had described.
Mr. Humehad no hesitation in corroborating the statement that a Committee had sat at the Crown and Anchor for the purpose of receiving subscriptions to be employed in advancing the interest of the Reform Candidates; and he believed that an hon. Member of that House had acted as honorary Secretary on that occasion. He had been anxious to know whether the 500 l. had really come from the public money, and he was glad his right hon. friend had so satisfactorily answered that question.
Mr. Harveywas anxious to state, that he had not derived one farthing of benefit from the fund which had been collected at the Crown and Anchor. As to the 500 l. in question, it never should have come under the attention of the House but for the inquiry with which it was
302
incidentally connected, and which had occupied the attention of the Committee for some time past. Lord Western having stated that he applied for that money expressly and exclusively for Mr. Mayhew, and denying most positively that it had reference to any other party, he should say nothing as to the motive or tendency of that denial, but was perfectly satisfied to find that his (Mr. Harvey's) representations had been substantially confirmed.
Mr. Rigby Wason: Would any one say it was not as notorious as the sun at noon-day that the Government, during recent elections, had been in the habit of assisting Candidates favourable to their own views? Government had been long ia the habit of doing so. He put it to Gentlemen on both sides of the House, if that was not the fact. One advantage, at all events, would arise from the present conversation, namely, that the attention of Parliament would be directed to the expediency of discontinuing the secret service money, or at least of much reducing it.
Sir Henry Hardingehad no wish to protract the discussion, but having held two or three offices for a considerable time, he must say, upon his honour, that he had never known a single instance of the public money having been applied in the way alluded to by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. He by no means thought the question a light one. At the same time he implicitly believed the statement which had been made by his right hon. friend opposite; and he was satisfied that if the case were referred to the consideration of the Committee of Privileges, (and if he were his right hon. friend he should be most anxious to have it so referred), the Report of that Committee would be, that there was no ground for any further proceedings.
Mr. Baringsaid, it was necessary, if the House wished to preserve its own respect—if it wished to preserve the respect of the country, that the matter under discussion should be made a subject of inquiry; because no invasion of the rights and privileges of the people ought to take place without the fullest investigation. This was a question which ought not to be lightly passed over; it involved the most important privileges of that House and of the people. It was for the House to institute an inquiry, and then to determine whether any and what measure ought to be adopted upon it, He would

303
say, that no step could be taken by the House until the paper was printed. He had heard that paper cursorily read, and he would say, that he was not aware that the name of the right hon. Secretary of the Treasury was once mentioned in that paper. It was indeed stated, that a most respectable Gentleman connected with the Treasury had paid over a certain sum of money for electioneering purposes. True it was, that no Gentleman of greater respectability, of higher character, than his right hon. friend, the member for Coventry, could be found in the country. But yet, having received the Report of the Committee, they were bound to print it, otherwise they would depart from a course quite usual with the House. He felt that the paper ought to be printed, and it would then be for the consideration of the House whether any, and what ulterior measure ought to be resorted to.
The Report was ordered to be printed.

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES (IRELAND).
Lord Althorp Lord Althorp moved the second reading of the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. O'Connellfelt it necessary to state to the House the situation in which this Bill was introduced to the House. The second reading of this Bill was now proposed to them under circumstances perfectly unintelligible, without a reference to the Act of last year. In that Act there were certain objectionable clauses. In the Bill now before them some objectionable clauses were omitted, but they had no specific information as to which were to be retained. As the Bill at present stood, an unlimited license was to be given to the soldiery, because no proceedings could be taken at law for any violence or outrage they might commit without the authority of the Attorney General. There was an almost equal protection extended to those Magistrates who might interfere with the liberty of the subject. This was the measure of last year. What, he would ask, was the nature of the measure now before the House? What was the intention of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) opposite? Did he mean to leave these clauses in the Bill, which he had found it necessary to introduce? If such were the intention of the noble Lord he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon the subject. By the proposed Bill it was to be
304
enacted, that no meeting should take place for political purposes; that was to say, for instance, with a view to presenting a petition for a redress of grievances without giving ten days' notice, and having, at the end of that period, the signature of the Lord-lieutenant, or his Secretary, sanctioning such meeting. If the noble Lord would only leave out the necessity of the signature of the Lord-lieutenant, or his deputy, he would not object to the ten days' notice. He must, however, oppose the eleventh clause as it stood, which prevented the meeting for the purpose of presenting petitions to that House for the redress of political grievances. It was cruel—it was arbitrary in the extreme. He would say, that nothing had, during that Session, been done for Ireland—save, perhaps, the Tithe Bill—nothing else had been done for his unhappy country. Here, then, were the Irish Members and the Irish people grateful, and for what? Why, grateful that an English Government were willing to pass certain coercive measures without some few clauses of useless severity. Well, they were grateful for that—they were grateful for anything. But did it never enter the minds of Ministers that this Irish Coercion Bill had been proved to be of all others the least effective? When they passed the Irish Insurrection Act there was for a time a lull, a period of repose; when they passed the Algerine Act, again there was a lull; but with respect to this Coercion Bill, it had been found to be totally ineffectual. This, however, would not do; there existed a wretched faction—a Tory, an Orange faction—ready to pounce upon and hunt down the remaining liberties of Ireland. They stood upon the present occasion; they volunteered their services for the depression, the degradation of Ireland. They went out of their way for the purpose. But why was it to be thus? Why was it that the people of Ireland were to be the only persecuted people in the United Empire? For a long period had Ireland been left without remedy or redress of her many grievances. No measure, that was to say no effective measure, had been introduced into Ireland, save the Coercion Bill, or some such oppressive measure. Oh, what a misery it was for unhappy Ireland to be cursed with a party so prejudiced that they were anxious to inflict every injury on their country. And why? Merely, he would say, from an abstract

305
love of mischief. And how was it that such a state of things was endeavoured to be forced upon them? It was because the party, the rank Tory party, who recommended such a course, felt that while they were doing so they were relieved from all responsibility. But thank God that party was gone from the Councils of the Crown—from the Government of the country—never, never, he trusted, to return. He cared not what had been urged by the supporters of this Bill, and would deny altogether that there was anything in the documents on the Table which warranted its introduction. He denied that the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made out any case in justification of it. He would go further and say, that the only ground for the measure was made out by the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies. That right hon. Gentleman had put the question on a footing in which he (Mr. O'Connell), to a certain extent, concurred. He put it not upon the letter of the Marquess of Wellesley; but he had asked whether any man connected with Ireland could have witnessed the agrarian disturbances in Ireland, or have even read the statements contained in the report of 1832, without a desire to repress the outrages therein described. Upon that ground he went with the right hon. Secretary. It could not be denied that his statement was true. But it was an equally true statement, that during the last sixty years there had only existed the Whiteboy Act, and that without effect. He wished he could induce hon. Members representing English constituents, to read the report of 1832. If they would only take the trouble to do so, they would find the evidence of Mr. Barrington (a gentleman of whom the right hon. (the Secretary for the Colonies) could, if questioned on the subject, give a most satisfactory account). That gentleman stated, that he had had for a number of years the most ample means of judging of the agrarian disturbances in Ireland, and he was in a situation to prove, that they arose not from any political feeling, but altogether out of local circumstances. He would take an instance mentioned in the evidence of Mr. Barrington. Lord Stradbroke had, upon a particular occasion, thought proper to turn from his estate some sixty or eighty persons, and to let the whole of the land to a single tenant. This gave rise to feelings of discontent and revenge,
306
and the consequence was, that the unfortunate man who took the land was found murdered in his bed. He next came to the statements made by that gentleman relative to the management on the estates of Lord Courtney, a nobleman with reference to whom a kind of delicacy was used to which the management of his estates did not in any way entitle him. Upon his estates there were, from various causes, considerable arrears of rent. An agent carne and bought up these arrears, and immediately commenced proceedings for the recovery of the back rents. This gave rise to feelings of discontent, and to disturbances of a most serious nature. This they had from the evidence of Mr. Barrington, a most honest and faithworthy witness. That gentleman went on to say, that from all his experience he had been unable to discover the existence of any, even the slightest, connexion between these disturbances and matters of a political nature. It was, indeed, stated, that there was one conspiracy, that of Doneraile, which bore a political character; but let it be understood, that that was a conspiracy of the Magistrates against the people, and that, of the four persons there prosecuted three were now living comfortably at their homes, while the fourth was in New South Wales, where he certainly ought never to have been sent. Much had been said upon this subject, and he knew—he well knew—the quarter from which certain statements contained in the proclamations and other official documents came. He bad heard the right hon. Secretary for Ireland declare in that House, that the Irish Attorney General was a most liberal and upright man. He concurred with the right hon. Secretary in thinking the Irish Attorney General a most honourable man; but he was bound at the same time to say, that a more rank partisan, a more undisguised a more unmitigated, opponent of liberal principles did not exist in that country. What had been the conduct of that hon. and learned Gentleman? When the Marquess of Anglesea was canvassing and using his interest in favour of Mr. Perrin, the Attorney General, it was true, voted in his favour, but neither his family or those with whom lie had influence, did so; they voted the other way. It was enough for him to say, upon this difficult and delicate question that he could not countenance the charge of political agitation urged in support of this Bill,

307
They were told as a justification of this measure, of the outrages which took place in Ireland, in a communication made from the Irish Government, on the 18th of April; but he defied any man to show to him that these outrages were in any way connected with political feeling. They had heard, indeed, the statements of Lord Oxmantown, asserting that the agitations and disturbances in Ireland were of a political nature. This he denied; he felt convinced, that such statements were without foundation, and if he (Mr. O'Connell) could, in the course of the next Session, obtain the appointment of a Committee, he would undertake to prove that fact, and show that the noble Lord was as much mistaken as ever he was in his life. They had heard a great deal about political agitation—now, what was the meaning of the word? If he understood it, it meant the discussion of a real or imaginary grievance. Would it not, he would ask, be difficult to show that any grievance of which Ireland complained was imaginary? If this, then, were so, who was there hardy enough to say, that the Irish people had not an undoubted right to petition that House for a redress of the grievances under which they suffered? Let any man then show to him any imaginary grievance of which the people of Ireland complained. He defied any Member of that House to do it. Unfortunately their grievances were too deeply rooted, too sorely felt, to be cured by anything short of the most effectual remedies, What was the course pursued towards the city of Kilkenny? The county was proclaimed, though the city was known to be perfectly tranquil; but it was found that it would be convenient to quarter their troops in the city, and therefore they proclaimed the city too. Was it not the principle of the British Constitution—was it not the essence of the Government of this country, that every subject of the realm should have the means of petitioning Parliament for a redress of the grievances under which he laboured? Without further detaining the House, he would advert to the proceedings which had taken place against Mr. Barrett, who published a letter written by him (Mr. O'Connell) to the Irish people in his paper. The learned Judge, who tried that case, made it matter of aggravation on the part of Mr. Barrett, that he had reprobated the Algerine Act. He (Mr. O'Connell) did not quarrel with the power
308
claimed by Government of declaring portions of counties or parishes to be brought within the meaning of this Act, because, by doing so, they took the responsibility of this proclamation upon themselves. But if hon. Members would only look to the evidence given by Mr. Barrington, page 21, they would find that there existed under the Whiteboy Act sufficient power to repress or punish any attempt at seducing the people into sedition, or leading them to disaffection by public meetings. This Act made any attempt at leading the people to disaffection a transportable felony. He would ask the noble Lord then whether this was not, of itself, a sufficient power to be vested in the hands of Ministers? If they feared public meetings, the Whiteboy Act enabled the Government to transport any person found holding out inducements to disaffection and outrage. Why then was it necessary, in addition to the ten days' notice of a public meeting, to have the Lord-lieutenant's signature, or that of his Secretary, before such meeting could be legally held? He would not object to the ten days' notice if the noble Lord would consent to give up the necessity of such signature to render legal such a meeting. Now, he would take a case; last year it was found, that there were no more than seven or eight cases of felony in Dublin to be tried during three months in a population of 300,000 persons. Now, supposing that city even to be proclaimed by this Bill, would it be fair or just that its inhabitants should be prevented from the power of petitioning Parliament for redress of the grievances under which they laboured? What county in Ireland had presented a greater number of petitions against tithes than the county of Wexford? Every town and every parish in that county had petitioned. Petitions had been carried about from house to house for signatures, and what was the result? That Baron Foster, in his charge to the Grand Jury, congratulated them on the happy aspect which that great county presented; and stated that the calendar was the lightest that he had ever met with in his judicial career, there being only seven cases for trial, cut of a population of 245,000 persons. Here it appeared, that although there was great political agitation, yet there was little outrage. On the contrary, in the years 1821 and 1822, when, in consequence of the King's visit to Ireland, and other circumstances, there

309
were no political meetings, the agrarian disturbances were at a greater height than had ever been known. What was the reason, that when political agitation was considerable, agrarian disturbances were diminished? Because a hope of redress was generated by the former which tranquillized the people. There were parts of the Bill under consideration of which he approved. He approved of that part which had been called for by the Catholic clergy, and which provided that no man in a disturbed district should be allowed to go from his house at night without being able to assign a sufficient reason for his absence. No man knew better than he did how many cases of seduction, with acts of violence, were produced by these midnight absences. The provision, therefore, was a protection; and he was quite ready to embody it permanently in the Whiteboy code; but it was a calumny to say, that by so doing, he should take anything from the just liberty of the people. It was an injury to no man to prevent him from going out to commit outrages which deserved punishment. While he said this, he must repudiate the false calumny, that there existed any connexion between these predial disturbances and political agitation. The latter was the just and natural result of the neglect which had been shown of the interests of Ireland. He would now inquire what had been done by that House for Ireland? No measure had passed that House in favour of Ireland, save the stingy and unsatisfactory Reform Bill, a Bill doubly unsatisfactory when it was compared with what had been done in the way of Reform both in England and in Scotland. That Bill left the registration defective, as was exemplified before the Election Committee for the county of Monaghan. Nothing in the shape of redress was given to Ireland. He had, he thought, shown that these clauses were unnecessary, and if he could get an assurance from his Majesty's Government that they would not prejudge these clauses in the Committee, he would not divide the House upon the second reading of this Bill. But if that assurance were not given, he would certainly divide the House upon this Motion. He thanked the Government for the sacrifice they had made; and it afforded him no small pleasure that the right hon. member for Cambridge had
310
stood by the rights of his fellow-countrymen. Again he repeated, that unless he obtained some assurance from the Government as to the objectionable clauses, he would certainly divide the House upon the second reading of the Bill.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that feeling satisfied the Bill, as now brought forward, was approved of by the general sense of the House, and that it would he carried by a great majority, he did not think that he was called upon to occupy the attention of the House more than a few seconds. The scheme on which the Bill was drawn was this:—So much of the Act of the last Session as was not repealed by the present Bill, was to continue in force for one year longer. But those parts which were repealed were the clauses which had formerly been most strongly denounced in Parliament, and which were looked upon by the country as the most arbitrary and most oppressive. All those portions of the Act which gave the Lord-lieutenant the power of forbidding any meeting which he might consider to be dangerous, ceased, and lie now was only vested with the power of suppressing a meeting which, after it had assembled, assumed an illegal character or resorted to acts which were adverse to the laws, and inimical to the peace of society. In districts which were proclaimed, meetings could not and ought not to be held, without the previous sanction and authority of the Lord-lieutenant. But there were many clauses repealed, as the Courts-martial and other clauses, which were of a harsh and forbidding character. These, which on a former occasion had met with a very serious resistance, were now entirely repealed; and all civil offences were to be adjudicated by the natural and constitutional tribunals of the country. With regard to the two clauses which had been so strongly objected to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his opinion, they ought not to be removed—if these did not remain, then would the act be of little or no effect for the objects contemplated by its framers. The hon. and learned Gentleman had himself suggested a clause, which required that in a proclaimed district every householder must give an account of his lodgers, and that in the dead of night they must answer, if called upon—a clause that certainly made the Bill much more efficient for the maintenance of the public tranquillity. But without these clauses the Bill would be of

311
no avail; the powers vested in the Lord-lieutenant would come to nought. With regard to the 28th section, he would take the liberty of saying, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had entirely misconstrued it. He had supposed, that if a soldier or a constable should commit any offence, he could not be tried except by a Court-martial, or by warrant of the Attorney General. But this was only when he was bonâ fide acting in pursuance of the powers conferred by the Bill. If any such person were to assault a man when not acting under the powers conferred by this Bill, an action of law would lie against him; he might be indicted, or made the subject of any process, civil or criminal. But it was not thought right that a soldier or constable should be liable for any inadvertence he might commit under the Act. To take away this protection from the soldiers, would only promote suits to the advantage of pettyfogging attornies. Under these circumstances, he trusted that even in the Committee the two clauses would be considered indispensable. It was only on the plea of necessity that the Bill had been brought forward.
Mr. Lefroysaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) had taken great pains to satisfy the hon. and learned member for Dublin, why certain parts of the Bill were maintained, and he (Mr. Lefroy) hoped some reason would be given why his Majesty's Ministers omitted other parts of the measure. He did not rise for the purpose of pressing upon the Government the more coercive parts of the Bill, which had been omitted, but he felt intitled to call upon them to state why they now omitted certain clauses which they had introduced into the Bill in another place? When he said he did not rise to press any unnecessary measure of coercion upon the Government, he hoped he had sufficiently guarded against the misconception and misconstruction into which the hon. and learned member for Dublin had fallen on the night when he (Mr. Lefroy) had last the honour of addressing the House upon the subject. On that occasion he had, as explicitly as he did now, disclaimed urging upon the Government, upon his own judgment, any additional measure of coercion: but he did then, as now, claim, on behalf of the peaceable portion of the inhabitants of Ireland, some satisfactory reason why those parts of the measure which were
312
proclaimed by his Majesty's Government to be necessary, and which were particularly recommended by the Lord Chancellor in another place as being absolutely essential for the preservation of the peace in Ireland, should now be abandoned? The hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, said, that he would be satisfied with so much of the measure as was called for by the Roman Catholic clergy and the Roman Catholic farmers. He would ask were there no other persons in Ireland worthy of protection. He should like to know why the feelings of the landed proprietors of Ireland—why the feelings of the Protestant clergy and the Protestant gentry of Ireland were not as worthy of being consulted as those of the Roman Catholic clergy and farmers. His Majesty's Government were bound to pass a measure that would ensure protection to all classes. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, he felt grateful to his Majesty's Ministers for the sacrifice they had made in omitting certain clauses of the Bill. That hon. and learned Gentleman might well feel grateful to his Majesty's Ministers for conceding to him what they refused to concede to the merits of the case. Government brought in a measure with certain clauses to which the hon. and learned Gentleman strongly objected —these clauses had been withdrawn without any valid reason having been assigned. To what other motive, he would ask, could such conduct be ascribed but a concession to the hon. and learned Gentleman? It was alleged, it was true, that there were other reasons for the change which had taken place in the minds of his Majesty's Ministers, and a great deal had been said of a public-private correspondence between the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Of that correspondence, which had never seen the light, he would only say—
De non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est ratio.
Another reason was given for the change, namely, the impossibility of carrying the measure through this House after the disclosures that had been made. But see what had passed in this House upon the subject. On the 7th of July, after the House was aware of all that had passed between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned member for Dublin, a vote was taken by which this House pledged itself to the measure then on the

313
Table of the other House of Parliament. On the occasion of the papers being laid upon the Table of the House, the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Dublin, moved that they be referred to a Select Committee, upon the very ground that the Bill as introduced into the other House contained all the clauses, except those for Courts-martial. Government resisted the Motion, and they then expressed their determination of abiding by the measure as introduced into the House of Lords. The House divided upon the subject, and it was perfectly understood that in voting upon the question, hon. Members were voting whether or no they would maintain the whole Bill. The numbers who divided with the Government were—175 to 72. Thus, on that occasion, the House pledged itself, and Ministers had a majority in favour of the Bill of more than two to one—therefore, their stating that they could not carry the measure was a mere pretence. What! this House which had come to the vote it did on the Russian loan question—a vote which was described by an hon. Member who joined in it as voting black was white —not to support Ministers in carrying the Coercion Bill. What! the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Hume) who was the person so to characterise that vote—he who had taken such pains to lure back into office the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and made the noble Lord change his unchangeable purpose. What! that hon. Member and his friends not support his Majesty's Government, if they had thought fit to hold consistently to their own first measure? Parliament and the country had a right then to know the truth, why the measure had been cut down in the way it now appeared before the House. He did not urge this as a cause for the reinsertion of the clauses, but he did think that Parliament and the country had as good a right to be satisfied with respect to the cause of the change that had taken place, as the hon. and learned member for Dublin. When he recollected the course too that had been taken, and its tendency to degrade another branch of the Legislature, he could not but deplore the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers. They, in the first place, pressed the measure in the full plenitude of its coercive power upon the other House; and when they had induced the Peers to carry it through most of its stages, then
314
they withdrew it. It was now to be sent back to them curtailed of what was then represented to be its most important clauses, and the other House was to be called upon to pass it, and in doing so they must either degrade themselves, or, by refusing to do so, be brought into collision with that House. When he (Mr. Lefroy) considered these circumstances, he must say, that his Majesty's Government, in the course they had taken, had not dealt with Ireland, with Parliament, and he would add, with their own characters, in the way they ought to have done, The hon. and learned member for Dublin had alluded to the Reform Bill, and stated, that the mode of registration had tended to produce the most mischievous effects; and he alluded to what had occurred in the Longford committee, and what was now taking place in the Monaghan committee in support of his allegation. He could take upon himself to say, that the evil did not originate in the mode of registration, but in that undue spiritual dominion over the lower orders in Ireland, which was powerful enough to induce persons to come forward to register votes who had no real qualification. He could state of his own knowledge in the Longford case, that so strongly impressed were the committee with the fact of this influence having been used, so as to infringe on the freedom of election, that it was matter of discussion in the Committee whether a Special Report should not be presented to the House on the subject. He regretted exceedingly the consequences that must result in Ireland from the conduct pursued, on the present occasion, by his Majesty's Ministers. That conduct was calculated to exhibit the hon. and learned member for Dublin, as having in effect the Government of Ireland in his hands. His Majesty's Ministers had placed themselves in such a position, that they could only be looked upon as pensioners upon his bounty for their daily bread. It was for him to say, whether he would abstain from agitation —and how long: but the moment he set about agitating again, Government would be obliged either to come to Parliament and ask for strong measures, and thereby forfeit his support, or by succumbing to him retain their places. As, however, it was open to the hon. and learned Gentleman to renew agitation at his own discretion, his Majesty's Ministers could only be looked upon as tenants

315
at will to the hon. Gentleman for the peace and security of Ireland. But he must again disclaim any wish to force on the Government what they now rejected. He used these arguments merely to show the extraordinary part which the Government was acting, and the deep responsibility they were taking upon themselves, in submitting to Parliament a measure short of that which was at first proposed, and which was represented by themselves as necessary to maintain the peace and tranquillity of Ireland. It was not his intention to oppose the second reacting of the Bill, or move the reinsertion of the clauses in committee, but should leave Ministers to bear the full responsibility of the course they were pursuing.
Mr. Ronaynedeclared, that there was no man on earth who could make this measure bearable; it was a complete mass of incongruities. It reminded him of an anecdote told of Pope the poet, who, in his fits of irritation, was apt to use the expression, "God mend me!" Being once much provoked at some clothes that were ill made for him, he vented his spleen against the delinquent artist by exclaiming, "God mend me! Can't you make a better coat than this?" "Mend you, indeed," replied the man, looking archly in his face, "it would be easier to make two new ones than to mend you!" On the same principle, he would say, that it would be easier to make ten fresh Bills than to mend this. He objected, among other things, to the evidence on which Ministers had framed this Bill, but yet, from that very evidence, lie would show, that their Bill was quite unnecessary. Major Miller, the Inspector of Police in the county of Waterford, had stated, that for the last month prior to his writing that Report, there had been a great decrease of crime within that county, notwithstanding the political excitement of an election at Dungarvan. But he was surprised that Government was more disposed to rely on the evidence of stipendiary Magistrates than on the opinions of the Judges of the land, unpaid Magistrates, and country gentlemen, when they premeditated this act of despotism. He would refer Ministers to the charge of Baron Smith last year, and to the opinion of Sir John Harvey, the Inspector-General of Leinster, respecting the state of the county of Wexford, that it was as free from crime and agitation as any part of the empire. The
316
evidence also of a highly respectable Magistrate in the county of Meath stated that, for the last twenty years, he had never found the laws better supported than at the present moment, and that the existing laws were quite sufficient for the protection of property. The charge of Mr. Baron Pennefather to the Grand Jury at Ennis established the same facts. For his part, he was rather suprised that the hon. and learned member for Dublin should have directed his hostility so peculiarly against the 11th and 28th clauses, for he thought there were many others fully as objectionable. Any one, he was sure, who had a regard for the constitution of his country, would not give his assent to this measure —an Act which allowed those who apprehended persons under its provisions, to confine them in any part of Ireland they pleased; so that the poor creature might be shut up in any dungeon, in any bastile, far away from his friends, and left without any opportunity of communicating with them. Would any Gentleman say, that the state of Ireland required so arbitrary a measure as this? Another clause forbade the lighting of a bush, or a bonfire, blowing a horn, firing a gun, or making a smoke. Now was not this most unjust and most absurd? He was unwilling any longer to occupy the attention of the House; but feeling, as he did, that the ordinary powers of the law were quite sufficient for the professed purposes of the Bill, he could not approve of any portion of it, and he should, therefore, move that the Bill be react a second time that day six months.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, he would cheerfully second it. This Bill was unjust and tyrannical—it was not necessary—no reason had been given for its enactment, and, therefore, he would oppose the Bill. The House had no sufficient information upon this subject, and without some acts of kindness, Ireland had no reason to be grateful to his Majesty's Government. Ireland should be treated as England, or else justice would not be done to each impartially. However, on the present occasion he would not further trouble the House.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodwished the House to throw the Bill out entirely. He was sure it would be most beneficial to Ireland that they should do so, for not one drop more of human blood would be shed by its suspension, and perhaps many drops

317
would be saved. Now, the Government was gaining great credit by adopting the advice of calm and rational men, ameliorating the harsher clauses of the Bill, and why should they not follow the advice of men of peace altogether, and give up the whole Bill. He had told them last year that, by their measures towards Ireland, they were cutting the lock of hair which constituted the strength and greatness of this vast empire. And now he would tell his Majesty's Ministers, that they were deluded by the Tories, who only wished to destroy them. They talked of agitation—why he knew some little of that trade—he knew what agitation was. Yes, he had been an agitator himself, and he had done much good by it. Yes; in 1832, when he agitated to the utmost of his power, there was not a single case of depredation in Birmingham—the very thieves and pickpockets, and vagabonds left off their occupations to follow him. The evidence they had before them proved, that the outrages, of which they heard so much, had no connexion with political agitation, but were the result of grinding and bitter misery. Let the House turn to page 54 of the documents laid upon the Table, which he had opened by accident, and they would find one of the first statements of the outrages to run thus:—'The habitations of John Horan, 'Keran Horan, and John Coghlan, all of Isker, in the parish of Clonfert, were attacked by three men (one of whom was armed with a short gun and another with a pistol), who forced open and entered the several habitations, obliging the inmates to go on their knees, and swearing them not to work for Mr. Finney for less than 8d. per day with their diet, or 1s. without it, which Mr. Finney complied with." Surely it could not be said that, compelling a man not to work for less than 8d. per day had anything to do with political agitation. The next case he should read was of a different nature, but was equally unconnected with politics:—'A large number of men collected 'on the lands of Claremadden, said to be about 200 or 300, and drove off stock seized for rent and arrears of rent; the police patroles from Killimore and Kiltoriner pursued the stock, a greater part of which they brought back and gave up in charge to the drivers, but were obliged to retreat from a large mob; and on next night they were again taken, some
318
of which were only recovered, and sent to Ballinasloe to be disposed of. The next two cases were also upon the face of them the offspring of extreme misery:— Mary Goode (of no certain place of residence) arrested by the police for aban- doning a female infant child, committed for trial. Several head of cattle, the property of the Marquess of Clanricarde, were driven from off the island of Innisgall, on the river Shannon, supposed to be by persons who formerly held those lands, and were ejected for non-payment of rent. Had a mothers abandonment of her child anything to do with political agitation? What was the next case?— "The habitation of Martin Coen, of Eyre- court, was entered on this night by two men, one of whom told him that, unless he sent a release for John Larkin and Patrick Lally, now in Galway gaol, he might prepare his coffin, for that he would be murdered; long since it would have happened to him were it not for his orphan brothers and sisters. This he was apprized of, and told, that if there were no persons to murder him but his neigh bours, they would do it. He might, he supposed, go on quoting case after case, but he would only read one more. The habitation of Richard Finney, on the land of Isker, in the parish of Clonfert, was entered by three men, one armed with a short gun, the other two with a pistol each, who demanded arms, and, on being told that he had none, one of them threatened his wife, and said he had, and would not leave the house. They then ordered him to put away a servant boy, which he promised to do, and to restore the grass he had taken from his labourers cows. They then desired a trunk and box to he opened, but made no search.' It was clear that all this was the result of poverty, and the right hon. Gentleman must know that it was. If, then, they desired to put down predial agitation, they must attack what they knew to be its cause.
Mr. Charles A. Walkerentreated Ministers to follow up the good work they had begun. He hoped they would accede to the request of the hon. and learned member for Dublin, and strike out those clauses objected to by him; in so doing he could see no difficulty whatsoever, they would merely be carrying into effect their own principles, and declared intentions; they had already an-

319
nounced, that they only intended to retain so much of the late Bill as related to the suppression of agrarian outrage, and that they would expunge those clauses which related to Courts-martial, and political meetings. Now, that portion of the Act which gave indemnity to the military and police for any act they might commit within a proclaimed district, and declared, that they should not be amenable for misconduct to the ordinary Courts of law, but should be tried by Courts-martial alone, ought to be considered as appertaining to the expunged Courts-martial clauses, and ought not to be retained. It was most monstrous, that any man, no matter whether military, or policeman, should have the privilege of committing a gross outrage, or injury on any of his Majesty's innocent subjects who might be unfortunate enough to dwell within a proclaimed district, and that the injured man should be thus deprived of all redress. The English Attorney General had just attempted to defend this protection which was given to the wrong doer, by saying, that otherwise any soldier, or policeman, for every trifling or supposed offence, would be pounced down on by some pettifogging attorney, and although only one farthing damages should be given, yet he would be ruined by the weight of the costs; but was that any reason that every gross outrage by such persons was to go unpunished, and that the innocent victim was to go wholly without redress? But the argument of the Attorney General with respect to heavy costs falling on the soldier, or policeman, in case of only a farthing damages being given, or that he should appear to the court justified in his conduct, could not hold a moment as regarded such trials in Ireland, because those costs would be paid by the public, as Government had repeatedly, in prosecutions against the police, even where to his own knowledge the police were greatly in fault, paid their costs and expenses out of the public purse. Then, again, the Attorney General stated in defence for retaining the prohibition to hold meetings for the purpose of petition, without leave within proclaimed districts, that no district would be proclaimed by the Lord-lieutenant unless it was in a state of disturbance. Did not the right hon. Gentleman know, that such was contrary to the fact? did he not know that districts might, and actually had been pro-
320
claimed under this Act, which were in themselves perfectly peaceable, and for no other cause but their contiguity to other districts which were disturbed? For instance, when the members for the King's county and Westmeath complained to this House, that peaceable baronies had been put under the operation of the Coercion Bill, the Secretary for Ireland explained, that the reason was, their contiguity to other and disturbed baronies, and that unless such adjoining peaceable barony had been proclaimed, its peaceable inhabitants would have been unprotected, and be exposed to the inroads of offenders who would take refuge in it from the disturbed districts. He did not complain of the Government for having so acted; on the contrary, he thought the explanation was satisfactory, and was to be considered in some measure protection to the peaceable and well-disposed in that peaceable barony; but was that a reason, that because it might become necessary to give protection to the peaceable and well-disposed, it must be accompanied by robbing the peaceable and well-disposed of one of their most valuable constitutional privileges—the free right to meet for the purpose of petitioning Parliament? And let the House recollect, that the meetings here prohibited were merely meetings for the purpose of petition. How could it be alleged by the Government, that any danger could arise from such meeting, when they considered it perfectly safe to hold any other political meeting whatsoever, even although the Lord-lieutenant might consider such a meeting dangerous to the public peace; and had very properly expunged the clauses which went to prohibit such meetings. He hoped the Government would reconsider this, and would see, that the restriction on meetings for the purpose of petition within proclaimed districts, as proposed by the learned member for Dublin, would be quite sufficient for every useful purpose—namely, that any such meeting might be held without interruption, after due notice to the legal authorities. This would enable Government to take every precaution against any breach of the peace, but would at the same time leave the subject the full exercise of his right to petition Parliament. It had been said, that any meeting might be held in a proclaimed district, provided it were convened by the Lord-lieutenant of the coun-

321
ty, or the sheriff. To say that this gave any advantage to the people was pure delusion, for this Government had, in many instances appointed, as Lord-lieutenants of counties, men who were Tories, and the bitter enemies not only of the present Government, but of the constitutional liberties of the people, and many of the sheriffs were of the same party. Those men being of anti-popular politics, and viewing in a different light what the people considered as grievances, it was absurd to suppose such functionaries would aid the people to hold meetings for petitioning for redress of them; but even if those functionaries should call a meeting in a proclaimed district, the act prohibited the attendance of any person except a 20 l. freeholder or upwards. Surely it could not be the intention of Government to continue a provision, which made it penal for any one under the rank of a 20 l. freeholder to attend at a legally convened meeting. He was sorry to say, that the state of society was such in some parts of Ireland, arising from centuries of misgovernment, and the continued delay to redress her grievances, that some temporary extra measure was necessary to put down agrarian disturbances, and to protect the poor man and the farmer from the whitefeet outrages; he agreed with the hon. and learned member for Dublin in his view, that such a measure was protective to the lower classes, and would prevent crime; but he could not agree in what the member for the College of Dublin had said, that this only went to protect the Catholics, while it left the Protestant gentry and clergy without any protection; on the contrary, it protected every class and religion alike; but it was more immediately beneficial, no doubt, to the lower classes, because on them had the cruelty of the Whitefeet been most frequently exercised. The member for the University of Dublin had likewise, as was his custom, found fault with the Government for only renewing that portion of the Bill which had been recommended and approved of by the Catholic bishops and clergy. The hon. and learned Member had also attributed the growth and continuance of outrage to the spiritual influence of the Catholic priesthood; but it would have been well for Ireland, and well for England and the Government, had the advice of that body been more frequently attended
322
to; and he was happy to see, that Ministers were at length beginning to find out, that the best preservers of the peace, of propriety and good order in Ireland, were the Catholic priesthood. He felt very thankful to the present Ministry for having expunged so much of the late Act, but while any portion of the objectionable principle remained, he should, although reluctantly, vote against them.
Mr. Henry Grattanagreed, that parts of this Bill were necessary, but other parts of it were mischievous. He did not deny, that it would stop the disease, but certainly it would not cure it. The evil was deep-seated; it was in the distress of the country, in the want of employment, and in the great population and distress of the people. Surely it was not surprising that there should be discontent and disturbance in a country where the great mass of the people were in a state of such extreme wretchedness. The hon. Member read letters from the county of Mayo, stating an instance of extreme persecution of tenants, and also a letter from the county of Monaghan, stating an instance where a number of people were most cruelly persecuted, because they would not send their children to a Bible school. Surely, under these circumstances, it was easy to see who were the real agitators. Were they not those who persecuted and oppressed the people? The hon. Member mentioned another instance, when 700 persons were by wholesale turned out upon the world. He did not think, that this Bill would effect the object which he had as much at heart as any one—the tranquillization of Ireland. A great number of the disturbances in Ireland arose out of tithe cases; and if the Government wanted peace in the land, they ought to protect as well as coerce the people. He could not support those clauses of the Bill which had been objected to. They ought to keep the absentees of Ireland at home; and instead of making that country a source of weakness, they ought to endeavour to make it a source of greatness to the empire.
Mr. Callaghanfelt grateful to his Majesty's Ministers for the removal of the clauses of the Bill of last year, which were most decidedly hostile to constitutional liberty; but there were still provisions in the measure before them which would be deservedly unpopular in Ireland. He had in vain looked through the evidence for any justification of them. The only

323
grounds on which they rested, were the Reports of stipendiary Magistrates and Constables, which were certainly not sufficient to rest a measure of this kind upon.
The House divided on the Question, that the Bill be now read a second time: Ayes 146; Noes 25—Majority 121.
Bill read a second time.

SUPPLY—BATTLE OF NAVARINO.
On the Motion of Lord Althorp, the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Labouchere Mr. Labouchere moved, that a sum not exceeding 60,000 l. be granted to his Majesty to enable him to bestow gratuities to the Officers, Seamen, and Royal Marines, present at the Battle of Navarino on the 20th of October, 1827.
Colonel Daviesasked, whether the distribution was to be upon the same scale as that made to the fleet engaged in the battle of Algiers?
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that the precedent of the distribution relative to the battle of Algiers would be followed as nearly as possible upon this occasion. The distribution would be made, not under any Prize Acts, but according to the provisions of an Order in Council. The Commander-in-Chief would receive 7,888 l.; the first class of officers, including captains, 1,068 l. each; the next class 94 l.; the next 61 l 1.; the next 15 l.; the next 6l. 3s.; the first class of seamen 4l. 10 s.; the next class 3l. 2s.; and the last class, consisting of boys, 1l. 10 s.
Mr. Pottersaid, that if he had known that so large a sum as 60,000 l. would have been granted for this purpose, he never would have supported the proposition. He had understood the gallant Admiral to disclaim any share of the reward for himself.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that if the distribution were to take place under the Prize Acts, the gallant Admiral's share would be larger than it was now proposed to be. It was intimated to the gallant Admiral, that the reduced allowance was considered sufficient, and he immediately admitted that it was.
Mr. Sheilthought, that the sum of 4l. 10 s. was a pitiful allowance to the seamen. He wished to know, why the rule laid down as to prize money by the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir James Graham), by which a more liberal allowance would have been given to the seamen, had not been followed?
Mr. Mildmaysaid, that however the gallant Admiral might wish to avoid receiving any share of the reward, he was bound, for the sake of those who might succeed him in the service, to accept it. The hon. member for Wigan, who said, he would not have supported the proposition for rewarding the persons engaged in the action if he had thought that 60,000 l. would have been appropriated to that purpose, seemed to measure his justice by the amount it would cost.
Mr. George F. Youngobjected to the proposed distribution by which the Admiral would obtain as much as seven years' pay, and a seaman only as much as two months' pay.
Mr. Goulburnprotested against the principle on which the grant was made. It was establishing a dangerous precedent to make an action, entered into without the distinct authority of the Government, and in consequence of accident, of the same credit as battles fought in the discharge of instructions given to Commanders by the Government.
Lord Althorphad opposed the grant originally, but yielded to the almost unanimous feeling of the House.
Mr. Goulburnwas sure, that the House would have yielded to the noble Lord if he had persisted in his opposition.
Sir Edward Codringtonsaid, that he should have had more pleasure in pressing this vote to the utmost if he had been allowed to relinquish his share of the grant; but he had been told, that such conduct on his part would be an unfair precedent for officers who might be subsequently placed in a similar position as he was, and who might not be able to afford such a sacrifice of their claims. He thought that the distribution in the case of the battle of Algiers was a fair one to be adopted in the present instance, for the two battles were fought under circumstances remarkably similar. Lord Exmouth, in the former case received orders to negociate with the enemy, and in default of success by those means, to fight. He (Sir Edward Codrington) had received similar instructions: he bad acted upon them, and it was not till the enemy had fired upon his ships that he acted hostilely towards them. He was prepared to show, that according to the instructions with which he was charged, it was impossible for him to act otherwise than he had done. He would trouble the House by reading the order which he

325
issued to all the Captains of the ships under his command, which, after informing them, that the Ottoman Government had rejected the proposed armistice, which had been accepted by the Greeks, instructed them to "intercept every supply of arms or men which might be sent against Greece, whether from Turkey or elsewhere; but to take most particular care that any measures they might adopt against the Ottoman navy might not be such as to lead to general hostilities." These orders were in strict accordance with the instructions he had himself received from home. He read those instructions to Ibrahim Pacha himself, and showed him, that he could not do otherwise than he did, and the latter acknowledged that such was the case. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by expressing his sincere thanks to the house for their kindness in coming forward, forgetful of all party feeling, on the present occasion.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that in accordance with the views and sentiments he had already expressed, he should move, as an Amendment to the present Motion, in place of the words "to be distributed in such proportions as his Majesty in Council shall direct," the words "to be distributed according to the recent regulations for the division of prize money."
Mr. Labouchereinterfered. The hon. and learned Member's Amendment would interfere with the undoubted prerogative of the Crown in the disposal of its bounties.
Colonel Daviessaid, that the proposed distribution was an extremely inequitable and unfair one.
Mr. Labouchereadmitted, that the new prize regulations were much more fair and satisfactory; but it should be recollected, that the battle of Navarino was fought seven years ago, and any bounties which might be given on account of it should be distributed in accordance with the practice and expectations of the parties at the time.
Mr. Sheilsaid, it was very true, that the battle was fought before the new prize regulations were established; but it was also true that the present grant was to be made after these regulations had been adopted, and he could therefore see no reason in equity why its distribution should not be in accordance with them. He would persevere in taking the sense of the House on his Amendment.
Colonel Daviessaid, that there was no analogy between this distribution and that of prize-money. It appeared from the reply of the hon. Member for Taunton that the distribution in the case of Algiers was made out of the droits of the Admiralty, which were, undoubtedly, at the disposal of the Crown. But the present was a grant from Parliament, who had, undoubtedly, a right to have a voice in its distribution.
The Committee divided on the original Motion: Ayes 129; Noes 35—Majority 94.
The Vote was agreed to.

List of the NOES.

Barham, J.

Kennedy, J.

Beauclerk, Major

Lister, B. L.

Bellew, R. M.

Lynch, A. H.

Bish, T.

Nagle, Sir R.

Blake, J. M.

O'Connell, J.

Chapman, M. L.

O'Connor, D.

Darlington, Earl of

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Duncombe, T.

Phillips, M.

Evans, G.

Potter, R.

Ewart, W.

Ruthven, E. S.

Ewing, J.

Ruthven, E.

French, F.

Scholefield, J.

Gillon, W.

Vigors, N. A.

Gully, J.

Walker, C. A.

Hughes, Hughes

Wallace, —

James, W.

Williams, Colonel

Jephson, C. O.

TELLER.

King, B.

Sheil, R. L.

A Vote of l00,000 l. for allowances to the warrant and petty officers of the naval and military services, according to the new scale of 4s. per month, was agreed to after a few observations.
On the Vote for 12,232 l. to defray the salaries of the officers and members of the household of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland,
Colonel Davies moved a reduction of 1,070 l. That sum was the amount of several small sums paid to the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, for which he saw no reason whatever.
Mr. O'Dwyersaid, the gallant Member would find room enough for his display of economy in the English Pension-list without going to Ireland to cut down such a paltry sum. The reductions in Irish expenditure were already carried too far, and caused much dissatisfaction in Ireland.
Mr. Secretary Ricesaid, the present Irish Estimates were fixed by some of the stoutest economists in the House, and

327
among them his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, there could not be worse authority on Irish financial affairs than that very Gentleman. He carried his notions of retrenchment in Irish matters far beyond the mark. He might be a respectable Member and a useful economist in England, but a very bad one for Ireland.
The Committee divided on the Vote: Ayes 99; Noes 6—Majority 93.

List of the NOES.

Blake, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Davies, Colonel

Warburton, H.

Gillon, W. D.

Williams, Colonel

Ruthven, E.

The House resumed.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, Lord KENYON, and the Bishop of EXETER, from a Number of Places,—against the Poor-Law Amendment Bill.—By the Marquess of BREADALBANE, from Perth, and other Places, for altering the Reform (Scotland) Act; from Perth and Clackmannan, for altering the Game-Laws. —By the Bishop of EXETER, from Haverfordwest, against the Admission of Dissenters to the Universities.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, Earls of WINCHILSEA and MANSFIELD, Lords KENYON and SKELMERSDALE, and the Bishop of GLOUCESTER, from a Number of Places,—for Protection to the Established Church, against the Claims of the Dissenters, and against the Separation of Church and State.—By the Bishop of DERRY, from the Clergy of the Diocese of Clogher, to be relieved from the repayment of Loans advanced for Building Glebe-Houses; from Kilmeaden, for Protection to the Church of Ireland.

THE CHURCH (IRELAND).
The Bishop of Derry,in presenting a Petition for protection to the Established Church, took occasion to express his sincere regret at the retirement of the noble Earl, lately at the head of the Government. One of the declared objects of that noble Earl had been to give security to the Established Church. What were the intentions of the present Government upon that subject he would not pretend to say; he was willing to presume, that they were the same as those which had been entertained by the noble Earl, and he believed they were; but if he should prove to be mistaken, it was almost unnecessary for him to say, that, should the Government attempt to carry any measures that would be injurious to the Church, he should feel it his duty to offer those measures his humble but zealous opposition; he should not hesitate one moment, as far as his individual efforts went, to prevent them from being adopted. He should have done so, had such measures been introduced by the noble Earl, and he was sure that, in so doing, he should have had the Noble Earl's approbation for exercising an honest and sincere discretion on the subject.
The Marquess of Londonderrytook that opportunity of putting a question to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdown) opposite. The Government of which the noble Earl lately had been at the head, and of which the noble Marquess was a member, had declared, that they would respect the rights of the Established Church of Ireland. This had been said when the noble Earl was at the head of the Government; but while the noble Earl was so, he must say, that measures had been introduced to pull down the great supports of that Church. As the noble Earl had now retired, it might not be necessary to speak of him, but he should think it quite proper to call on his Majesty's Ministers to state what were their intentions with respect to the Commission which had been issued for inquiring into the Church of Ireland, and whether the Government would really be guided by the principles on which they professed to act. He said this, because they did not seem to agree among themselves as to what they meant to do. He referred for proof of this to a statement made in another House of Parliament by a right hon. member of the Government. Under these circumstances, he thought, that he should stand excused, if he asked the noble Marquess whether the intentions of the Government were misunderstood by the right hon. Gentleman in another place, or not—or if not, how the noble Marquess could reconcile his own opinions with the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman? The contrast was so monstrous, that it was impossible they could be overlooked in the position in which they now stood. The whole thing was the most flagrant, unparalleled, disgusting departure from principle that he had witnessed for many years. It was as impossible to reconcile these two statements with each other, as it was to reconcile the statements of his Majesty's Ministers on the subject of the Coercion Bill, made ten days or a fortnight ago, with those made by them at the present time. This subject of the Commission had been before discussed in their Lordships' House. They were then told, that the contents of the Commission were not what was supposed —that there was gross error abroad on the subject; but it turned out that there was no error at all. But that was the way in which individuals on that side of the House were diverted from what was the
202
fact. That was said with regard to the statements of his noble friend near him on the subject of that Commission. He now came to the statement of the noble Marquess, and he did not think that the noble Marquess would deny what was put down for him. He was sure it was rightly stated, and he wished to know how the noble Marquess would reconcile the statement he was now going to read, with the statement made relative to the Established Church in another place, Upon the 27th of May last, on occasion of presenting a petition to that House, the noble Marquess said, that there was but one opinion in the Cabinet of what ought to be done with the Established Church, and that, if he had one opinion more fixed than another, it was on the necessity of preserving the safety and well-being of the Established Church.
Viscount Melbournerose to order. If he understood rightly the course which the noble Marquess was now pursuing, it was this: he proposed to read an extract from a newspaper, which purported to be the speech of a noble Lord delivered in that House, and he meant to contrast the statement in that speech with another statement of another member of the Government uttered in another House, in order to call on that noble Lord for an explanation. He (Lord Melbourne) appealed to their Lordships to say, whether this was fair or orderly—whether a mere newspaper was to be argued upon as incontestably accurate, and whether, upon the supposition that it was so, one member of the Government and a member of their Lordships' House was to be called on to explain a difference between his speech and the speech of another member of the Government delivered in another place.
The Earl of Wicklowdiffered from the noble Viscount upon this point. It might, strictly speaking, be irregular to state what had taken place there, but the practice of publishing what did take place was too general to allow them to be ignorant of it. The noble Marquess might put himself in order by saying, that he was reaching a report of what was said to have been uttered by the noble Marquess opposite in that House, or what was said to have been uttered by a right hon. Gentleman in another House of Parliament. He must say, that he did not admire the noble Viscount for thus rising to prevent an explanation on so important a subject,
Viscount Melbournerepeated, that the use of a report in this manner was clearly irregular. All he meant to put to their Lordships was, whether it was a wise thing for the rules of the House thus to be infringed?
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that if the noble Viscount would consult the noble Earl (Earl Grey) near him, he would find that this was no breach of order; for the noble Earl would, no doubt, declare that a noble Lord might take from his pocket a speech of a right hon. Baronet, and read it out to the House. If he (the Marquess of Londonderry) had done wrong, it was the noble Earl who had set him the example. He was sure, that he should stand excused with the people of Ireland for endeavouring to extract from the noble Marquess what was the intention of Government with respect to the Established Church, and what was now the opinion of the noble Marquess on the subject. The noble Marquess had said, that this was a measure for maintaining inviolate the rights and privileges of the Established Church. Now, let them look at the speech of the noble Marquess's right hon. Colleague. After the recent change in the Government, the right hon. the Secretary at War said, that 'if he had thought there had been the least difference on any one great principle, and especially upon the application of the surplus revenues of the Church of Ireland for purposes not dissonant from that stated in the Resolution of the hon. member for St. Alban's, he should have been the last man to have joined the Administration. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member as to the abuses, anomalies, and oppressions of the Irish Church.' He called then on the noble Marquess opposite, to say, whether his opinions were the same. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to say, that he was not afraid to announce this opinion, nor to declare that he was ready to give his assistance to remove the abuses of the Church, abuses which diminished its strength and impaired its usefulness. The right hon. Gentleman intimated, too, that he thought the people might be benefited by the appropriation of the surplus funds of the Church. He had discharged his duty in saying this, and he thought no one could entertain the least doubt as to the intentions of this Government. The Commission that had been
204
issued was appointed to report on the surplus funds of the Church, and after what he had read to their Lordships, he thought their Lordships would agree with him, that they ought to know what appropriation was meant to be made of the funds of the Church, and whether the present Ministers agreed with the sentiments expressed in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
The Marquess of Lansdownasked, whether the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Londonderry) was about to make any Motion?
The Marquess of Londonderry—"Yes, certainly." The noble Marquess made some further observations, but concluded without moving anything.
The Marquess of Lansdownsaid, that the only interruption he had given to the noble Marquess opposite, was to ask, whether he intended to make any Motion, and he understood the noble Marquess to answer, that he should do so, yet no Motion had been made, and he had even sat down without putting a formal question. He (the Marquess of Lansdown) thought he had a right to complain of a lengthened statement made upon the authority of a newspaper report, and treated as perfectly accurate, in order to form the ground of an attack upon him. [The Duke of Cumberland, we believe, made some remark across the Table.] He told the illustrious person opposite, that his objection to this course was in support of the order and of the privileges of that House, and he, therefore, called on the noble Marquess to make the Motion he said he was going to make.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that be had spoken upon a petition, which he had a right to do. The objection taken by the noble Marquess was, he thought, a miserable expedient, unworthy of his station or character. He might easily get over the difficulty by moving an adjournment.
The Marquess of Lansdownsaid, that he had asked the noble Marquess whether he was about to submit a Motion to their Lordships, and the answer he had received was distinctly in the affirmative.
The Marquess of Londonderrybegged leave to say, that the noble Marquess must have misunderstood him.
The Marquess of Lansdownrepeated, that he had asked the noble Marquess the question, and he did most distinctly

205
understand the noble Marquess to say, "Yes certainly," that he should make a Motion. This was distinctly the impression made by the noble Marquess's answer.
Lord Kenyonrose to order. He said he thought there was some misunderstanding between the noble Lords. The question certainly was put, and he believed that the words, "Yes, certainly," were uttered; but he did not think they had been uttered by the noble Marquess, but by some one near him.
The Marquess of Lansdownrepeated that he had asked the question, and he understood the answer to be what he had stated, as the other noble Lords around him understood. It was certainly competent for the noble Lord to make a speech upon a petition, or even by way of form to move an adjournment upon the Motion that the Petition do lie upon the Table; but if he chose to avail himself of the opportunity afforded by the presentation of a petition, to make observations founded upon a report, and an incorrect report—for he had heard enough of it to say that, for the purpose of the contrast intended by the noble Marquess, it was incorrect; and if he chose to do this in order to place it in contrast with what was said in another place, not by way of illustration in debate, but for the purpose of arbitrarily calling on a member of their Lordships' House, not only to say What he had himself once spoken, but what he now thought, and not only what he now thought, but what, at a future time, he intended to do, the noble Marquess exceeded the privileges which the customs of that House allowed him, A course more inconvenient than that which he had adopted could not be pursued; and though the noble Marquess indulged his taste in pursuing it, he was not bound to follow the example. If the noble Marquess thought fit to raise a debate upon a newspaper report, he might have introduced the discussion on a preceding day, when he (the Marquess of Lansdown) distinctly stated the grounds on which he supported the Commission. He had stated these grounds, and also the reason for which the Commission had issued; and at that time he had reserved to himself the liberty to consider afterwards what measures might be adopted in consequence of the report made upon that Commission; and having reserved to himself that liberty, he should not be induced upon this night, or upon any other, by
206
any statement now made by the noble Marquess, or any that he might afterwards make, to enter upon a discussion which he knew would be premature, inconvenient, and improper, and for the inconvenience of which, he thought he might say, he had the authority of the noble Marquess himself; for though the noble Marquess had a strong wish to enter upon the discussions and though he had had ample time and opportunity to originate the discussion, he had not done so; and if he entertained the strong opinions which he said to-night he did, he had not done his duty in not making the matter before now the subject of a regular discussion, and of a substantial and definitive Motion. If he thought it was his duty to do that, he might still do so, and he (the Marquess of Lansdown) should be ready to meet the discussion, and to re-state his opinions, or to modify them; but till the noble Marquess did discharge that duty which he shrunk from, he should not be induced to enter into a premature statement on the subject.
The Marquess of Londonderry began addressing the House, when
The Earl of Mulgraverose to "Order." A question had been twice put irregularly by the noble Marquess opposite; the noble Marquess to whom it was addressed declined to answer it; and now the noble Marquess asked the question a third time. He submitted that these irregular discussions could not be allowed to continue.
The Marquess of Londonderry said, he was about to reply.
The Earl of Mulgraveanswered, that there was no Motion before the House, and there was a subject of the utmost importance fixed for discussion. He wished to know whether their Lordships would allow their time to be taken up in so disorderly a manner?
The Marquess of Londonderryrose to explain the reason why he had not made this Motion. It was because be did hope—
The Earl of Eldonrose to "Order," and said, that he felt it his duty to state, that the noble Lord could not go on, for he was out of order.
The Marquess of Londonderry then sat down.
The Petition was laid on the Table.
The Lord Chancellordid not, in the least degree, dispute the right of the noble Marquess to originate a discussion at this

207
moment; but he appealed to the noble Marquess on behalf of himself (the Lord Chancellor), and of the important subject which he had undertaken to lay before their Lordships. He had undertaken to bring before them (a task from which the state of his health at this moment might almost sufficiently excuse him) a difficult, complicated, and extensive subject; and he put it to their Lordships, whether this was not the time when they ought to proceed with the greatest possible calmness and absence of party and personal animosity, and to avoid engaging in contests like these, which might possibly be fit for to-morrow or the next day, but not for this moment? If, however, these things did proceed—if in this way they went on whetting themselves—he should feel it to be his duty to put off for this night the discussion of the question of the Poor Laws.

MR. O'CONNELL—STATEMENTS IN THE COMMONS.
The Earl of Limerick,in rising to address a few words to their lordships, could assure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that it was not his intention to introduce any discussion that would long delay their Lordships from the consideration of the important Bill which now stood for a second reading; but he rose under the impression of, he acknowledged, exasperated feelings, at the gross misrepresentation which had been made elsewhere by a learned person, as to his character and his actions. This new system that had been lately introduced, of denouncing—for such was the only term he could properly employ—of denouncing certain individuals in terms he should not describe, was, he believed, of modern introduction, although in the reign of Charles 1st.——
Earl Greysaid, he understood the noble Lord to complain of something which had been stated in the House of Commons; now it was impossible for their Lordships to entertain such a matter. If the noble Lord had seen anything stated of him in any publication, his Lordship might, perhaps, be able to make a complaint as against that publication: but, however anxious the noble Lord might be to vindicate his character, if such vindication involved an allusion to what had taken place in the course of the debate in the other House of Parliament, it would be a violation of their Lordships' orders.
The Earl of Limericksaid, that he had purposely abstained from mentioning the House of Commons. He had alluded to what had taken place elsewhere, merely as a matter of history, in order that he might avoid the objections of the noble Earl. If the principle on which such attacks were made on individual Members of their Lordships' House was not counteracted, it might lead to the abolition of that House, and to the overturning of the Throne. If it were necessary, he would say, that he had read the statement in a newspaper. In that newspaper he was represented as having, in his character of landlord, impoverished and depopulated a considerable part of Ireland. It was alleged, that he had driven 200 families from their farms, and that those 200 families comprised 1,000 individuals. He would ask, whether any of their Lordships would choose to rest under imputations like this? What was the truth? If the statement were tried by that test, it would be found that these 200 families, comprehending 1,000 persons, who had suffered from ejectments, would be reduced to eleven individuals. The people of Ireland had been instructed that rents were no longer to be paid to absentee landlords, and some of them were very ready to accept of such instructions. The consequence was, that not one shilling of rent could he get from these gentlemen; he, therefore, had recourse to ejectment, and they were ejected. Some of their Lordships were, perhaps, not aware, that in many cases, land in Ireland was held by joint tenantcies; and it became necessary, in ejecting to recover possession, to eject the whole of those who had possession. This was his case, and this it was which had become the ground for the misrepresentation that had been directed against him. He was the last person in the world to bring, unnecessarily, any complaint before their Lordships, but if the imputations which had been thrown out against him were true, he was unworthy of a seat in their Lordships' House, or to hold a place in civilized society.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, he happened to be in the same boat with his noble friend. A similar charge to that made against his noble friend, and proceeding from the same quarter, had been made against him, the only difference being in the proportion, that his landed possessions were less than those of his

209
noble friend. It was, however, alleged against him, that though he wanted the power, he had all the disposition to use the power mischievously. He denied the charge. He would appeal to their Lordships, whether he was an individual who would disturb a whole country for the sake of replenishing his purse. Yet such were the allegations indulged in by that celebrated orator, who had for several years vomited forth cataracts of aspersions against those who were politically opposed to him. He had intended to bring the transaction out of which the charges rose, which had been made against him by the hon. and learned Gentleman, under the consideration of the House, and with this view he had requested the noble Viscount, who was then the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to produce certain papers relating to the county of Westmeath. On the late changes taking place in his Majesty's Government, he did not press that Motion. When he saw the attack which had been made on him in the other House, he regretted that the papers were not upon their Lordships' Table, because if they had been, they would have completely refuted the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman. As to what the hon. and learned Gentleman bad said of him, looking at it as a personal matter only, he should really be disposed to treat it with the utmost contempt. He should, indeed, consider it a disparagement to be complimented by the hon. and learned Gentleman; if he obtained the hon. and learned Gentleman's good opinion, he should instantly have doubts of the soundness of his own integrity. The circumstances in question, though stated to have been taken from a newspaper, were, in fact, sent to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland in a letter, surreptitiously, as had come to his knowledge by the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland. That right hon. Gentleman had submitted the papers to him, and thus he had the opportunity of knowing how he had been calumniated, and of refuting the calumnies. He did not consider this merely an attack on an individual; it was part of a system which was adopted against classes —against Magistrates, clergymen, and policemen. The latter were charged with shooting the people, and the clergy and landlords were charged with extortion. All this had its effects in this
210
country as well as in Ireland. He would show the sort of argument it led to. [The noble Marquess read a passage from a London evening paper, to the effect, that the Tories were furiously opposed to the omission of the clauses in the Coercion Bill, relating to meetings, and asking, whether the Tory party wanted the Coercion Bill for the protection of landlords in Ireland, such as were described the evening before by Mr. O'Connell.] He wished to know, whether he and others who resided in Ireland, were not exposed to the knife and dagger of the assassin by these proceedings? He should feel it Ins duty never to hear statements of the kind without contradicting them if it were possible. The circumstances respecting him were false from beginning to end. Some years ago he came into the possession of an estate in Westmeath. On one occasion, before the passing of the Protection Bill, a party, brought from fifteen miles distant, came to Westmeath to beat his keeper, whom these assassins punished so severely, that they left him for dead. He could not prove that the individuals in question did take a part in these transactions, but one or two persons against whom warrants were out, he did eject. During the twenty years that he had possessed the property, he had never received one farthing of their money, and at the time they were ejected, a present was made to them equal to two years' rent. There were some whom he supposed to have been misled, and to have been the dupes of the leaders, and he offered them four acres of land each, but they would not take it. The affair was then taken up by the political priests of Ireland —by one of that body of separatists who had no interest in society, and never could have—who were the agents of the system of agitation. By one of those personages a letter was addressed to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, in which he said, "It was no wonder that such landlords as those required the Coercion Bill,"—imputing to him (the Marquess of Westmeath), that he was one of the principal landlords in that part of the country, who was in favour of the application of the Coercion Bill. So far, however, from laving been a party to it, he was absent at the time, and it was done without his knowledge. The noble Marquess concluded with moving for certain papers relative to the state of Westmeath.
Viscount Melbournerequested the noble Marquess to postpone his Motion till to-morrow, that he might have an opportunity to examine the papers. Some of them, he had heard, contained details which it was not desirable, in the present state of Ireland, to lay on the Table of their Lordships' House. If allowed the opportunity of examining the papers, he would endeavour to select such portions of them as related to this transaction.
Motion postponed.

POOR LAWS' AMENDMENT.
The Lord Chancellor,rose and spoke as follows:* My Lords, I approach a subject of paramount importance and of vast magnitude —and one, of which the difficulty in principle, and the complexity in detail, are, at the least, on a level with its importance. And I have not now, as oftentimes has been my lot in this House, the satisfaction of knowing that the subject of this Bill has gained the same favour among the people of this country at large as in the case of other Reforms, whether political or legal, which I have propounded to your Lordships. They are, generally speaking, more indifferent to the subject than their own near interest in it, and intimate connexion with its evils might make it both probable and desirable that they should be. I am sensible, that they do not buoy up with their loud approbation those who patronize the great measure to which I am about to solicit your attention; and though they have manfully and rationally resisted all the attempts that have been made to pervert their judgments, and lead them to join in a clamour adverse to the plan, yet are they in a great degree, indifferent to its extent, and to its interests. I am quite aware, that they are not against it—nay, that the obloquy which is in store for those who support it, will proceed from but a very small portion of the community. But, my Lords, if this proportion were reversed—if there were as much clamour against this measure as some individuals would fain excite—individuals of great ability, of much knowledge, of considerable, and I will add, well-earned influence over public opinion on political matters, but more especially on ephemeral topics, or questions which arise from day to day,
* Reprined from the Corrected Edition, published by Ridgway and sons.
212
and as speedily sink into oblivion—individuals acting, from good motives I doubt not, from feelings wrongly excited, and taking a false direction, though in their origin not discreditable to those who cherish them—if those efforts had been as successful as they have manifestly, notoriously, and most honourably to the good sense of the people of England, failed utterly in raising almost any obloquy at all—I should have stood up in my place this day, propounded this measure, and urged in its behalf the self-same arguments which I now am about to address to the calm and deliberate judgment of this House, perverted by no false feeling, biased by no sinister views of self-interest, and interrupted by no kind of clamour from without; and I now address those arguments as I then should have done to the people out of this House, with this only difference, that the same arguments would have been urged, the same legislative provisions propounded, and the same topics addressed to a less calm, less rational, and less deliberative people, than I shall now have the satisfaction of appealing to. My Lords, I should have been unworthy of the task that has been committed to my hands, if by any deference to clamour I could have been made to swerve from the faithful discharge of this duty. The subject is infinitely too important, the interests which it involves are far too mighty, and the duty, correlative to the importance of those interests, which the Government I belong to has to discharge, is of too lofty, too sacred a nature, to make it possible for any one who aspires to the name of a statesman, or who has taken upon himself to counsel his Sovereign upon the arduous concerns of his realms, to let the dictates of clamour find any access to his breast, and make him sacrifice his principles to a covetousness of popular applause. I fully believe that they will best recommend themselves, as even from the first outset, to the rational part of their reflecting fellow countrymen, so in the end to the whole community, including such as at first may be less able to exercise their judgment calmly upon the merits of the question—they will best recommend themselves to the unanimous approval, and to the late, though sure gratitude of the country at large, who shall manfully carry through, with the aid of your Lordships, a system of provisions which, in my con-

213
science, I believe to be the roost efficacious, the least objectionable in point of principle, to sin the least against any known rule of polity or of the Constitution, and at the same time to afford the dearest and surest prospect of any that ever yet has been devised for terminating evils, the extent of which, at the present moment, no tongue can adequately describe, the possible extent of whose consequences not very remote, no fancy can adequately picture—evils which bad laws, worse executed—which the lawgiver, outstripped in his pernicious course by the administrators—have entailed upon this country—which, while they bid fair to leave nothing of the property of the country that can be held safe, so leave nothing in the industry of the country that can be deemed secure of its due reward—nothing in the character of the country that can claim for it a continuance of the respect which the character of the English peasant always in older times commanded, and which with the loss of that character, the multiplication of miseries, and the increase of every species of crime, has brought about a state of things in which we behold industry stripped of its rights, and the sons of idleness, vice, and profligacy usurping its lawful place—property no longer safer than industry—and —I will not say an agrarian law, for that implies only a division of property, but —the destruction of all property as the issue of the system that stares us, and at no great distance, in the face; a state of things, in fine, such, that peace itself has returned without its companion plenty, and in the midst of profound external tranquillity, and the most plenteous blessings of the seasons ever showered down by Providence, the labourer rebels, disturbances prevail in districts never before visited by discontent, and every thing betokens the approach of what has been termed an agrarian war. Such is the state to which matters are now come, and such are the results of that pernicious system which you are now called upon to remedy by the great measure, to a certain degree matured—at all events, much prepared—for your deliberations, by the other House of Parliament, and now tended for your approbation. My Lords, there is one thing of unspeakable importance, and which gives me the greatest consolation. I feel an intimate persuasion, that we are now no longer involved in a political,
214
factious, or even in the milder sense of the word, party discussion; but that we are met together as if we were members of one association, having no conflicting feelings to divide its measures, no interests, no knots of men banded one against the other, and where no private feeling will be suffered to interfere. This is an encouragement to me personally, and it argues most auspiciously for the cause. I may assume, that almost all of you have a sufficient knowledge of the existing Poor-laws; many from experience of their operation, others front the exposition of them in the Statute Book, and others from having refreshed their recollection by the very able Report of the Commissioners; I may, therefore, take for granted that it would be wholly superfluous to enter into any description of the mechanism of the present system. But I should wish, before I state the kind of mischief that the mal-administration of the Poor-law has produced, shortly to glance at what is material,—not as a matter of curiosity merely, but as enabling us more clearly to trace the origin of the mischief, I mean the origin of the Poor-law itself, and the steps by which its administration has become so pernicious. It is certainly not quite correct to say, as has frequently been asserted, that these laws grew out of the destruction of the monastic orders, and the seizure of their property by Henry 8th; but it is still more incorrect to deny that there was any connexion whatever between the two events; for, undoubtedly, though the passing of the 43rd of Elizabeth followed the seizure of monastery lands, by an interval of above sixty years, yet it is equally true, that it was not twenty years after the abolition of those monasteries that the first Poor-law, the earliest compulsory provision for the poor, was enacted; being the 5th of Elizabeth. When I make this observation I must add another connected with it, and remind your Lordships of an argument used against the Church Establishment, and the tithes system, as connected with the Poor-laws. It is said that, according to the original division of tithes, one-fourth belonged to the Bishop, one-fourth to the parson, one-fourth to the repair of the Church, and the remaining one-fourth to the poor. That is a mistake which Selden and others have fallen into, from not having examined with care the provisions of the Saxon law, according to which it

215
was a tripartite, and not a quadripartite division;—one-third going to the fabric of the Church, one-third to the parson, and one-third to the poor. I grant that this was the original distribution of the tithe, and I also admit that in much later times, as far down as the 15th of Richard 2nd, this right of the poor was recognized by Parliament; for in that year an Act passed which in terms admitted the right of the poor to sustentation out of this fund. I admit, too, that still later, in the reign of Elizabeth, the Judges of the land recognized the same right, and that other cases are to be found decidedly in favour of this principle, one of the Judges of that day quaintly observing, that it is the business of the parson, Pascere gregem, verbo, exemplo, cibo. Indeed, your Lordships will find both the Courts and Parliament, as late as the reign of George 3rd., recognising the claims of the poor against the parson, grounded upon the same principle. It is, however, past all doubt that a provision for the poor out of the tithe never was distinctly and practically established as their right, beyond their claims to receive charity at the hands of the parson, or other owner of the property; and it is equally past all doubt that they are most superficial reasoners on the subject, who maintain that the restoration to the poor of their share in the tithe, would, if it were possible, at once settle the question, and extinguish the miseries entailed by the Poor-laws. For most certain it is, that anything more mischievous, anything more fatal to the country, anything more calculated to multiply, indefinitely, the numbers of the poor, cannot be conceived, than the applying to them any regular and fixed provision, be it tithe or be it tax, which they can claim at the hands of the rich, except by the force of that duty of imperfect obligation—private charity which is imposed upon all men. Every permanent fund set apart for their support, from whomsoever proceeding, and by whomsoever administered, must needs multiply the evils it is destined to remedy. This right to share in a fixed fund is the grand mischief of the Poor-laws, with the seeds of which they were originally pregnant, though certainly many years elapsed after the principal Statute,—that of the 43rd of Elizabeth,—was made, before any great amount of positive evil can be said to have rendered itself per-
216
ceptible in the community at large. As long as it was supposed that the law attached only to the impotent, to those who came within the description of old age, worn-out faculties, in body and mind, or persons disabled by any accidental cause, and not to able-bodied persons,—so long, it must be admitted that if the law was not an advantage, at all events it proved to be no detriment whatever. But by the construction not unnaturally put upon those unfortunate words in the Act, requiring the overseer "to take order for setting the poor to work"—a construction which, at the same time, conveyed to the pauper the right of calling into action this power, in other words, of compelling the parish "to find work for the pauper, and if work could not be found, to feed him," all self-reliance, all provident habits, all independent feelings, were at an end; and consequences the most pernicious speedily followed to the community, as well as to the poor themselves—consequences more pernicious, I will venture to say, than ever flowed from the enactment or from the construction of any human law. I blame not those who imposed this construction. It is, for anything I know, a sound one; the clause must have some meaning, and this seems very likely to be the true one; for if the pauper is clothed with a right to have work found him, as the overseer cannot create work, it seems to follow that he must feed those whom he cannot employ. But, pernicious as these inevitable consequences were, worse were sure to follow in the shape of new laws, grounded on the same principle, and developing more noxiously its evil effects. Accordingly, in the year 1796, that Act was passed which gave the poor —those that were called the industrious poor—a right, by law to be supported out of the parish rates, at their own dwellings, and to receive that support, although the parish should have actually contracted and paid for their maintenance in a workhouse hired and established according to the provisions of the Act, for their reception in the day of their distress. My Lords, it has been usual to blame the Magistrates of the country for the maladministration of these laws. I am not one of those who ever have been able to perceive the justice of this charge. I have never felt that we had any right to hold them peculiarly responsible, or, indeed, in the midst of universal error, to

217
tell who were answerable for the mischief we all acknowledged to exist. The worst that can be said of those respectable persons to whom the country is so greatly indebted, and of whose services I should speak more at large if I had not the honour of addressing an assembly almost wholly composed of Magistrates; is, that in bringing forth by the Administration of the Poor-laws, the grievous mischiefs inherent originally in the system, they were not before the age they lived in; that they were not wiser than all who had gone before them, and all who lived around them, and, indeed, all who, for one or two generations, have come after them. This is the only charge that can be justly made against them. It would be condemning them for a want of more than human sagacity were we to charge them with the consequences of their conduct, pursuing, as they did, the opinions of the most learned Jurists and most experienced statesmen, while occupied with the details of the system which they were engaged in working. The truth is, that in all they did, Magistrates have had the countenance of the first authorities in the country; they have had the entire approval, and even concurrence of the Legislature to support them: they have had the decisions of the Judges to back, and even to guide them. As often as questions have been raised relative to the Administration of these laws, the Courts have never, in any one instance, applied themselves to lessen the mischief, by narrowing the liberal construction which the Magistrates had put upon the Statutes, but have uniformly decided, so as to give them yet larger scope. That they have erred then in such company as the legislative and judicial powers of the country, is to be regarded with neither wonder nor blame. But the Magistrates have had equal countenance from the names of eminent individuals, some of them the most distinguished that this land can boast of, and who, upon the question of relief to the poor, have entertained projects more liberal; nay, I will say more extravagant—more absolutely wild, than any that the most liberal Magistrates of this country ever contemplated. What think you, my Lords, I will not say of Mr. Gilbert's Act, but of the measure proposed in 1795 by Mr. Pitt—a man thoroughly versed in all the details of the subject, and well acquainted, as might have been supposed, with the best practical policy to be
218
pursued regarding it? What marvel is it to find country justices holding that the poor man has a right to be made comfortable in his own dwelling, when Mr. Pitt introduced a Bill, (happily it did not pass into a law), for legalizing the allowance system, that greatest bane of the administration of the Poor-laws, and for sanctioning the principle that every poor man has a right to be made comfortable in his own dwelling—himself and his family—and to be furnished "with a cow, or a pig, or some other animal yielding profit," (I cite the words of the Act) to be provided in proportion to the number of his children? Assuredly the author of this famous project was not much more in advance of his age than the Justices of the Peace. Such principles as Mr. Pitt thus plainly held on the subject, have been the cause of the ruin we now all deplore. Surely if ever there was a doctrine more frantic in principle than another, or less likely to prove safe in its appliances, it must be this, that in defiance of the ordinary law of nature, the human lawgiver should decree, that all poor men have a right to live comfortably, assuming to himself the power of making every one happy, at all times—in seasons of general weal or woe—and proclaiming with the solemnity of a Statute, "Henceforth let human misery cease, and every man, woman, and child, be at ease in the kingdom of England, and dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed." But it is fair to Mr. Pitt to recollect, that these absurd doctrines were not entertained by him alone—he shared them with many of his contemporaries. Secure, however, from these errors, let us now see what the true principle was all the while, and whether or not the Poor-laws, as at present administered, sin against that principle or obey it. First of all, I am aware that I may be charged with stating an identical proposition when I state to your Lordships the fundamental rule which ought to regulate both the Legislature and those whom it intrusts with the Administration of the Poor-laws—namely, that men should be paid according to the work they do—that men should be employed and paid according to the demand for their labour, and its value to the employer—that they who toil should not live worse than those who are idle—and that the mere idler should not run away with that portion which the industrious workman has earned. All this

219
appears about as self-evident as if a man were to say two and two make four, and not fourteen. Nevertheless, this is the very principle—identical as it is—truism, idle truism, as it may well be called—useless and superfluous as the uttering of it may seem to be—this obvious principle—this self-evident proposition—is that very principle against which the whole administration of the Poor-laws at present sins, —constantly, wilfully, deliberately sins. At every instant, by day and by night, during bad weather, and during good, in famine and in plenty, in peace, and in war, is this principle outraged, advisedly, systematically, unremittingly outraged, without change, or the shadow of turning. But it is said, that although no man has a right to food which he does not earn, and though the idler has no right to make his neighbour work for him, still there are times when the rule must bend to necessity, and that persons in sickness or in old age, or in impotence of body or mind, must be supported, lest they perish before our face. And this leads me to the subject of charity, intimately connected with the system of the Poor-laws; for that the support of the sick, the aged, and the impotent, should be left to private charity, is, in the view of many, the sounder opinion. I incline to think, that it is the safer course—that it is better for him who receives—blessing him more, and also him who gives. But into this question, I need not now enter, for it is not necessarily involved in the present argument; and I do not object to compulsory provision in such cases as I have mentioned, so it be subject to proper regulation, in order to prevent the abuses it is much exposed to. But I must observe, even upon the subject of individual charity—charity not administered by the State, or through the hands of parish-officers—that I hold this doctrine undeniably true. That species of charity is the least safe which affords a constant fund, known by the community to exist for charitable purposes. As long as the existence of such a fund is notorious, whether raised by the compulsory provisions of the law, or owing its origin and support to the warmth of men's charitable feelings, its existence leads, of necessity, to two consequences, pernicious to all parties, to the giver as well as the receiver, to the State as well as to individuals. First, it can hardly avoid being abused from the kindly feelings of those
220
who administer it (and this applies to a parish fund still more strictly, for it is more liable to abuse). The private manager cannot trust his own feelings—the overseer cannot trust his own feelings. Out of this infirmity of our nature, abuses are quite certain to arise. The second consequence is this, and I regard it as the worst evil—if the fund is known to exist, however it be constituted, whether by voluntary or by compulsory subscription, the poor immediately calculate upon it, and become less provident, forsaking every habit of frugality, taking no care to provide against the ordinary calamities of life, or the inevitable infirmities of old age. They no longer strive for the means of maintaining their children, but heedlessly, recklessly, count upon that fund, out of which, whether in sickness or in health, in youth or in age, in impotence or in vigour, they know that they may claim the means of support; and, setting the pains of labour against those of a scanty sustenance, they prefer idleness and a bare subsistence to plenty earned by toil. Hence men's minds become habituated to the fatal disconnexion of livelihood and labour, and ceasing to rely upon their own honest industry for support, their minds become debased as their habits are degraded. Were I not afraid of troubling your Lordships with a discourse wearing too much of a didactic air, I could easily prove that this is the practical result of the too extensive and unreflecting distribution of charity. I will, however, trouble your Lordships with one remark upon this matter. I am well aware that I am speaking on the unpopular side of the subject; but it is, nevertheless, necessary that the truth should be told. The safest, and perhaps the only perfect charity is an hospital for accidents or violent diseases, because no man is secure against such calamities—no man can calculate upon, or provide against them; and we may always be sure, that the existence of such an hospital will in no way tend to increase the number of patients. Next to this, perhaps, a dispensary is the safest; but I pause upon that if I regard the rigour of the principle, because a dispensary may be liable to abuse, and because, strictly speaking, sickness is a thing which a provident man should look forward to, and provide against, as part of the ordinary ills of life; still I do not go to the rigorous extent of objecting to dispensaries. But when I come to hospitals

221
for old age—as old age is before all men —as every man is every day approaching nearer to that goal—all prudent men of independent spirit will, in the vigour of their days, lay by sufficient to maintain them when age shall end their labour. Hospitals, therefore, for the support of old men and old women, may, strictly speaking, be regarded as injurious in their effects upon the community. Nevertheless, their evil tendency may be counterbalanced by the good they do. But the next species of charity to which I shall refer, is one which sins grievously against all sound principle—I mean hospitals for children, whether endowed by the public, or by the charity of individuals. These, with the exception of orphan hospitals, are mere evils; and the worst of all is a foundling hospital. To show how much we have improved in these matters—how much better informed we have become—how much more enlightened—how much less apt to be carried away by feelings, amiable in themselves, but in their effects mischievous, unless regulated by knowledge and wisdom, I need only mention that what once was reckoned the great ornament of this city—the Foundling Hospital in Guildford-street—is no longer a Foundling Hospital at all; having, by the rules in force for the last sixty or seventy years, never received one single foundling, properly so called, within its walls. The same improvement was effected by my right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Control (Mr. Charles Grant) with respect to the Foundling Hospital in Dublin, when he filled the office of Secretary for Ireland. Any hospital for the reception of foundlings is the worst of charities: it is no charity—it is a public nuisance, and ought to be stripped of the title of charity, and put down as an outrage on public morals. So all now allow; but fifty years ago, no man would have dared to say so. Can we doubt that in much less than half a century more, all those other principles now made the butt of low ignorant abuse will be the admitted guide and belief of every member of the community? If such as I have stated be the rules which public safety prescribes for regulating even voluntary charities, only see how the Poor-laws of this country violate rules a thousand times more applicable to the raising and dispensing of a compulsory provision! They have succeeded in wholly disconnecting the ideas
222
of labour and its reward in the minds of the people—they have encouraged the idle and the profligate, at the expense of the honest and industrious—they have destroyed the independence of the peasant, and made him the creature of a pernicious and forced charity,—they have given him the degradation of a beggar, without the consolation with which benevolence soothes the lot of mendicity. Parish allowance is far worse than any dole of private charity; because it is more likely to be abused; because it is more certain in its nature,—because it is better known—more established—because it approaches, in the mind of the poor, to the idea of a right. This terrible system has led, amongst other evil consequences, to the Act of 1796, which provided for the relief of the poor in their own houses; and was, in fact, the introduction of the allowance scheme—a scheme which provided for the partial payment of wages out of the poor-rates, and which, in its operation, has been productive of all the worst mischiefs that might have been expected from such a source. The allowance system had its rise in the scarcity of 1795, and was more widely spread by the subsequent scarcity of 1800 and 1801, since which, in many parts of the kingdom, it has been permanently adopted. For a compulsory provision to support the poor who are able-bodied, but cannot find, or are not very anxious to find employment, I have known only two excuses ever attempted, and to these it may be fit that I should now very shortly advert. The first is one which I remember hearing strenuously urged by one or two very worthy friends of mine, Members of the House of Commons. They maintained, that the system kept up the character of the labourers, prevented their becoming the mere beggars of alms, and enabled them to receive their allowance with the erect port and manly aspect of those who felt they were claiming their due under the law. Never, surely, was there a greater delusion. The system has ended in the destruction of all independent character in the English peasant. It is true, that he comes to demand his allowance with an erect port, but it is not the bearing of independence; his habits, his feelings, the whole bent of his mind, the whole current of his thoughts, are changed. It was deemed aforetime a shame such as no man could bear, to be dependent upon parochial aid—the name of "pauper"

223
coming next, in the estimation of the peasant, to that of "felon." It is so no longer— no longer is it thought a scandal upon the labourer to claim relief from the parish—no longer does it inflict a pang upon his mind to darken the overseer's door. No doubt he comes with a firm gait—with a manly air; but rather let us say, he conies with a sturdy gait and a masterful air. He presumes to domineer over the honest and hard-working ratepayer, and the servant of the rate-payer, the overseer—whom he insults and tramples upon. Secure in the protection of the law, he demands his allowance not as a man, but as a master; his tone is imperative, for he knows he must be obeyed. Such a system deadens all sense of shame —all sense of real dignity; erases from the mind every feeling of honourable independence, and fits its victims only for acts of outrage or of fraud. Let us pass, then, to the second topic of defence, and I speak of this argument with great respect, because it proceeds from persons who are the advocates of pure and strict principles in political science, and who are accustomed to carry them to an extravagant excess, sometimes straining them till they crack. These learned persons argue, (if I so may speak) that the Poor-laws afford the only means we have of effectually checking or preventing an increase of population. They say, that whilst there is no possibility of preventing by law improvident marriages amongst the poor (and I admit there is none), the Poor-laws furnish a preventive check. But are those respectable persons really so short-sighted as not to perceive that whatever little check the Poor-laws in one view may interpose, is immeasurably counterbalanced by their affording the greatest stimulus to population which the wit of man could devise—the most wilful and direct encouragement that possibly could have been discovered to improvident marriages? I verily think, that the history of human errors can produce no parallel to the mistake into which these learned and ingenious persons have fallen. If you had to seek out the most efficacious means of removing every prudential check to population—nay, if you wished to accelerate its march by a wilful, I might almost say, a wicked, encouragement to heedless and imprudent marriages, and by a premium for numbers of children—you could not devise any more perfect than are afforded
224
by the Poor-laws, as administered in this country. What is the language they speak to the peasant?—"Here is a fund at your command—you have only to marry—only to get children—and here is a fund for the support of yourselves and your children, to be doled out in proportion to their numbers." The answer of the peasant is in the same language—"I am a prior mortgagee on the land, and will marry to-morrow, instead of waiting till I have the means of supporting a family." These excuses for the system and the mal-administration of the existing Poor-laws, being disposed of, let us now proceed to see what have been the actual results. And upon this part of the subject I shall have to call your Lordships' attention to a most meritorious body of men —the Commissioners—and to the result of their invaluable labours—the collection of a mass of evidence, the largest, the most comprehensive, the most important, and the most interesting, that perhaps was ever collected upon any subject. But before I go to that part of the subject—before quitting the subject of population —may I step aside for one moment, and do justice to a most learned, a most able, a most virtuous individual, whose name has been mixed up with more unwitting deception, and also with more wilful misrepresentation, than that of any man of science in this Protestant country, and in these liberal and enlightened times. When I mention talent, learning, humanity—the strongest sense of public duty, the most amiable feelings in private life, the tenderest and most humane disposition which ever man was adorned with—when I speak of one the ornament of the society in which he moves, the delight of his own family, and not less the admiration of those men of letters and of science amongst whom he shines the first and brightest—when I speak of one of the most enlightened, learned, and pious ministers whom the Church of England ever numbered amongst her sons—I am sure every one will apprehend that I cannot but refer to Mr Malthus. The character of this estimable man has been foully slandered by some who had the excuse of ignorance, and by others, I fear, without any such palliative, and simply for having made one of the greatest additions to political philosophy which has been effected since that branch of learning has been worthy of the name of a science. But I was about to

225
call your Lordships' attention to the practical working of the system, for the purpose of ascertaining how it is hurtful, and what direction its mischief takes. There has been, in my opinion, no more important event in the recent history of this country than the issuing of the Poor-law Commission. I certainly was one of those who at first thought that the documents already possessed, and especially the evidence which had been collected by both Houses of Parliament, afforded a sufficient body of facts on which to proceed. Upon a closer examination, however, of the various Reports that had been made, and knowing, from experience, how much it is the practice of those who are examined before Committees to propound some favourite theory of their own, and give only such results of their observation and experience as supports their views—knowing, too, how impossible it must be for a Committee to compare the working of different plans by actual observation upon the spot —I acquiesced in the propriety of issuing a Commission, and the result amply justifies the measure; for I will venture to say, that there is no man who has read these Reports who can refuse to admit, that all he before knew of the subject in its details, was as nothing in the comparison. It does not become me to occupy your Lordships in bestowing praises upon the ability and zeal with which the Commissioners have performed their important office. Their report is before you. I believe that no better individuals could be selected for the discharge of those important duties than the persons first named in the Commission—the two right reverend Prelates whose absence on this occasion—occasioned by their necessary attendance to their episcopal duties—I have so much reason to lament. Another Commissioner was Mr. Sturges Bourne, than whom no person can be pointed out. more conversant with the subject. His knowledge, too, is practical—not theoretical; he has applied his well-informed mind to the consideration of the whole question—was the author of the only legislative measures which have ever professed to find a remedy for the evil—while, besides his talents and learning, for calmness of temper, and for sagacity, and soundness of judgment, he was, perhaps, better adapted than almost any other person to join this Commission. When I add to these the names of Mr. Senior—a man of profound learn-
226
ing and great capacity—and Mr. Coulson, Mr. Bishop, and Mr. Chadwick, the other able individuals who formed the Board, your Lordships will feel with me, that from the labours of a body of men so composed, the most satisfactory results might surely be expected. Most of them I before knew, but Mr. Chadwick I never had seen, nor have I now more than once or twice; but I confess I have risen from the perusal of his papers—admirable in all respects—for excellence of composition, strength of reasoning, soundness of judgment, and all that indicates the possession of every species of talent,—I say I have risen from the perusal with a degree of admiration that I find it difficult either to suppress or to describe. Such are the men who have well and truly performed the duties imposed upon them. Their Reports, large in bulk, but larger still in comprehensive reach of understanding and information —interesting in the narrative, but painful — almost excruciating in the tale they tell—no man can read, without entertaining the sanguine hope, that for ills so enormous the remedy may at length be within our power. I think, however, I shall render a more acceptable service to your Lordships, if, instead of entering into a minute statement of these sad details, I confine myself to a general outline of the facts; presenting to you if I can a graphic sketch of the malady that exists, and pointing to the quarter from which you may expect a cure. First, then, we have a constant, and I may say almost a regular proof, in every part of the country, in districts agricultural, manufacturing, and even commercial, and whether the people are superabundant or scarce, increasing, stationary, or diminishing in numbers, that able-bodied men prefer a small sum in idleness to a larger sum in wages, attended with the condition of earning those wages by labour. We have in one place a young man saying, "I have 3s. 6d. a-week from the parish—I do no work—I have no need to labour; I would rather have my 3s. 6d. without working, than toil to get 10 s. or 12 s. a week." This is not a singular instance. But are these persons only idle? Are they really doing nothing? Do they receive 3s. 6d. and remain inactive? Do they work no mischief? My Lords, it is idle in me to put such questions. These persons are making the parish pay 3s. 6d. a-week, out of the honest labourer's hard

227
earnings, to maintain the constant promoters of crime, the greatest workers of mischief in the country; men, who, when they happen not to be the ringleaders, are the ready accomplices and followers in every depredation, every outrage that is perpetrated in their neighbourhood. But those facts are not confined to agricultural districts, or to inland places, and to lazy rustics. Look to the hardy sailor, who never used to know what danger was—look to the very boatmen of the Kentish coast—they who formerly would rush to a wreck, without looking to the waves any more than to the reward—who would encounter the most appalling perils to save a life, with as much alacrity as they would dance round a Maypole, or run a cargo of smuggled goods, in the midst of tempest or in the teeth of the preventive service, those men, who, if you had ever said, in former times, "Surely you do not mean to launch your boat at this tempestuous time of year?" would answer by instinct, "Time of year!—we take no count of seasons—by our boats we live: from the sea, in winter as in summer, we must seek our sustenance; fair weather, or foul, our vessels must be afloat, else how could we keep our families from the parish?" No such answer will you get now. The same spirit of honest and daring independence inflames them no more. "We have 12s. a-week from the parish," say the Kentish sailors; "we will go out no longer in winter—we will wait for summer and fair weather—we will live at home the while, for the parish fund provides us." Comment, upon such facts, is superfluous. But the same classes now assume, that they who live upon the parish have a right not only to work as little as the independent labourer, but not to work so hard. They have in many places distinctly set up this claim; and in one or two instances appeals have actually been made by the paupers against the overseers, upon the ground, that the latter had attempted, as they say, "a thing till then unknown in these parishes, to make the paupers work the same number of hours in the day as the independent labourers, who receive no parochial assistance:" Thee are things which almost force incredulity; but when we see them proved by evidence which admits of no doubt, belief is extorted from us. The next general fact which presents itself to our view is, that as those persons claim a right to work less than they who
228
receive no parish relief, so they are generally better off, and in many instances, much better off, than the independent labourer. The disproportion, in some parts of the country, and especially in the county of Sussex and the Isle of Wight, has gone so far, that a pauper working only for a limited number of hours in the day, earns 16 s. a-week of the parish money, whilst the honest labourer, who has struggled to keep himself independent of the parish, has not been enabled, by his utmost exertion, to earn, by any possible means, more than 12 s. a-week. And in one parish it appears, that 240 paupers, who were paid exactly the same wages as independent labourers, were dissatisfied, because they were required to work the same number of hours, and grumbled because they were not paid more. Nay, they did not confine themselves to grumbling—they struck work, sought the overseer, and almost by force obtained an increase of wages; that is to say, they compelled the parish to give them more than the ordinary amount of wages paid to independent workmen. Then it is needless to say, that the parish pauper regards himself independent of fair weather or foul, of bad health or good, of the full harvest or scanty crop, of all the calamities to which the rest of mankind are subject. Again: all shame of begging is utterly banished—the pauper glories in his dependence—if, indeed, he does not consider the land as his own, and its nominal proprietor as his steward. Nay, instances are to be found of the shame being, by a marvellous perversion of feeling, turned the other way; and the solitary exception to the rule of parish relief under which a whole hamlet lived, "being shamed," as a female said, "out of her singularity, and forced by her neighbours to take the dole like themselves!" But, for all this, I do not blame the pauper; I blame the bad law and its worse administration, which have made him a worthless member of society. The law of nature says, that a man shall support his child—that the child shall support his aged and infirm parent—and that near relations shall succour one another in distress. But our law speaks another language, saying to the parent, "Take no trouble of providing for your child,"—to the child, "Undertake not the load of supporting your parent —throw away none of your money on your unfortunate brother or sister—all these

229
duties the public will take on itself." It is, in truth, one of the most painful and disgusting features of this law, that it has so far altered the nature of men. It is now a common thing to hear the father say, "If you allow me only so many shillings a-week for children, I will drive them from my doors, and deny them the shelter of my roof;" and it is not unusual to hear the child say, "If you do not allow my aged mother more, I shall take her out of my house, and lay her in the street, or at the overseer's door." I state this from the text of the evidence, and, horrible as it appears, I cannot refuse it my belief. My Lords, those who framed the Statute of Elizabeth were not adepts in political science—they were not acquainted with the true principle of population—they could not foresee that a Malthus would arise to enlighten mankind upon that important, but as yet ill-understood, branch of science—they knew not the true principle upon which to frame a preventive check, or favour the prudential check to the unlimited increase of the people. To all that, they were blind;— but this I give them credit for—this they had the sagacity to foresee—that they were laying the foundation of a system of wretchedness and vice for the poor—of a system which would entail upon them the habitual breach of the first and most sacred law of nature, while it hardened the heart against the tenderest sympathies, and eradicated every humane feeling from the human bosom;— and therefore the same Statute of Elizabeth which first said, that labour, and the reward of labour, should be separated—the same Statute which enacted a law contrary to the dispensation of Providence, and to the order of nature—foreseeing that the consequence would be to estrange the natural feelings of the parent for his child, and of the child for his parent, for the first time in the history of human legislation, deemed it necessary to declare, by a positive enactment, that a child should be compelled, by the Statute in such case made and provided, to obey the dictates of the most powerful feelings of nature—to follow the commands of the law implanted in every breast by the hand of God, and to support his aged and infirm parent! If we survey the consequences of all this, not only upon the poor, but upon the landed proprietors of the country, and upon the property of the country itself, we find that they are to
230
the full as melancholy as any other of the countless mischief's flowing from the maladministration of the Poor-laws. I will not say, that many farms have been actually abandoned—I will not say, that many parishes have been wholly given up to waste for want of occupants (I know that there are instances of farms here and there, and of one parish, I think in the county of Bucks, which has been reduced to this state), but I will not say, that as yet the system has so worked as to lay waste any considerable portion of territory. That it has a direct and a necessary tendency to do so—that unless its progress be arrested, it must go on till it gain that point—that ere long we must reach the brink of the precipice towards which we are hurrying with accelerated rapidity—that the circumstance of one parish being thrown out of cultivation, inevitably and immediately tends to lay three or four others waste, and that this devastation, gathering strength as it proceeds, must needs cover the land—of these facts, no man, who consults the body of evidence before your Lordships, can entertain the shadow of a doubt. Stand where we are, we cannot. I might say, with others whose minds are filled with despair, and the dread of coming events, that I could be content never to have things better, so I were assured, that they would never be worse; but this—even this wretched compromise is impossible, with the frightful scourge that is ravaging our country. The question is—shall we retrace our steps, or shall we be pushed forward, and down the steep we stand on, by the momentum of this weight which we have laid upon ourselves? That such is our position—that such is the course we are pursuing—that such is the gulf towards which we are hastening—no man living, gifted with an ordinary measure of sagacity, can deny. This, then, is the picture of our situation, harsh in its outline, dismal in its colouring, in every feature sad and awful to behold. This is the aspect of affairs, menacing the peace of society, undermining the safety of dominion, and assailing the security of property, which the system, as now administered, exhibits to the eye. In this it is, that the schemes of man, as short-sighted as presumptuous, have ended, when he sought to reverse the primal curse, under which he eats his bread in sorrow and the sweat of his brow. Our Poor-law said—"The sweat shall

231
trickle down that brow no more;" but the residue of the curse it has not reversed—for in sorrow he shall eat it still. The dispensation of wrath, which appointed toil for the penalty of transgression, was tempered with the mercy which shed countless blessings upon industry—industry, that sweetens the coarsest morsel, and softens the hardest pillow;—but not under the Poor-law! Look to that volume, and you will find the pauper tormented with the worst ills of wealth—listless and unsettled — wearing away the hours, restless and half-awake, and sleepless all the night that closes his slumbering day, — needy, yet pampered — ill-fed, yet irritable and nervous. Oh! monstrous progeny of this unnatural system, which has matured, in the squalid recesses of the workhouse, the worst ills that haunt the palace, and made the pauper the victim of those imaginary maladies which render wealthy idleness less happy than laborious poverty! Industry, the safeguard against impure desires—the true preventive of crimes;—but not under the Poor-law! Look at that volume, the record of idleness, and her sister guilt, which now stalk over the land. Look at the calendar, which they have filled to overflowing, notwithstanding the improvement of our jurisprudence, and the progress of education. Industry, the corner stone of property, which gives it all its value, and makes it the cement of society —but not under the Poor-law! for it is deprived of its rights and its reward, finds its place usurped by indolence, and sees wrong and violence wear the garb, and urging the claims of right; so that all property is shaken to pieces, and the times are fast approaching when it shall be no more! In this devastation, but one exception remains, in those seats of industry, where the miracles of labour and of skill have established the great triumph of the arts, and shed unnumbered blessings on all around; those arts, whose lineage is high—for they are the offspring of science, whose progress is flourishing —for they are the parents of wealth. They have, indeed, stayed for a season in the districts which they nourish and adorn, the progress of the overwhelming mischief: but long even they cannot arrest its devastation, and this last pillar cannot long remain, after all the rest of the edifice has been swept away! They cannot stay the wide wasting ruin; but
232
we can, and we must. It behoves us to make a stand before one common ruin involves all, and tread back our steps, that we may escape the destruction which is on the wing, and hovering around our door. Let me then ask your Lordships' attention for a moment while I trace more particularly the cause of the mischiefs of which we have now been contemplating the gloomy picture. I shall say nothing at present of repealing the Poor-law itself. I shall, for the present, assume that the Statute of Elizabeth cannot now be dealt with. I shall take it to be fixed irrevocably as the law of the land, and I will proceed upon the supposition that it is impossible now to reduce things again to the state in which they were previous,—I will not say to the 43rd, but to the 5th of Elizabeth. Desirable as it may be to place the system on a better footing, and difficult as it is, not to wish for some radical change which may prevent a recurrence of the calamities we are suffering under, I yet feel that this is most difficult to effect, because it is the evil of all bad laws worse administered, that we must continue to bear them, on account of the danger which may spring from their sudden repeal. Much, however, may be done with the administration of the system, and to this it is, that practical wisdom directs us to apply the remedy. The separate and opposite jurisdictions of different magistrates, overseers, and benches of justices, the want of system and unity in practice, lie at the root of the evil; and the report teems with instances of the mischiefs which have flowed from this source. When you look at a district in which a better system of administration has been adopted, and contrast it with one, —perhaps the very next parish,—where the bad course has been pursued, you would hardly think that you were looking at two parts of the same county, or even of the same island, so different are the effects. In the one a total change of system has been effected—the rates have speedily come down, at first to one-half, and afterwards to one-third—paupers disappear, and industry regains its just place; while, upon crossing a brook, you find in the other parish a swarm of sturdy beggars depriving the honest labourer of his hire, and the rental crumbling down daily and hourly into the poor's box—always filled, and always empty. Then, how comes it to pass that, with the ex-

233
ample before their eyes, the authorities in the latter parish persevere in their course? The good effects of a rigid abstinence in administering relief have been strongly exemplified in Scotland, and yet that experience has been quite thrown away upon England. In Scotland, down to a recent period, doubts were entertained by lawyers, as to whether or not there existed any right of compulsory assessment for the poor. It is now agreed that the right exists; and the English and Scotch laws are admitted to rest generally upon the same foundation. The administration of them, however, has been widely different in the two countries. The Scotch—a careful and provident people—always watchful and fearful of consequences, kept an exceedingly close hand upon the managers of the poor's fund, and did everything in their power to ward off the necessity of assessments — reserving so perilous a resort for times of emergency, such as in the extraordinary scarcity of the years 1795 and 1800. This was the most rational plan that could be pursued, for it prevented the introduction of regular and habitual relief, and the setting apart of a constant fund for maintaining the poor. In some instances it has been acted upon in England, but, in very few, comparatively; for there has been no unity of action—no general control; and the neighbourhood of Scotland, and the success of the right practice there, has produced no considerable amendment of our vicious system. Hence I infer the necessity of a central, rigorous, and uniform plan of administration. And here I would step aside for one instant to illustrate this observation by a fact. It is generally said, "How can you do better, or act more safely, than by leaving to the parties interested the administration of their own affairs?" Generally speaking, I am willing to adopt that principle, and to proceed upon it: I believe the principle to be most sound; and, moreover, I am disposed to think that its application tends exceedingly to promote good government, and to prevent the evils of a meddling, petty, overdoing legislation. Nevertheless, experience certainly does show that it is not universally applicable; or rather, that it is not applicable to cases where the concerns of a number of persons are managed by a majority of their body, and not each man's by himself; for when a certain leaven of men gets into an
234
assembly, all of whom have a voice in the management of the common concerns, it very often happens that a combination takes place, arising from sinister and interested views; and that this junto, by its activity and intrigues, baffles the general disposition to consult the common interest, and sets it at nought. I happen to know an instance of this, and I will mention it to your Lordships, by way of illustration; —it was given in evidence before the famous Education Committee of the other House, sixteen years ago. In two of the parishes of this city, there were several great charities supported without endowment, by voluntary subscription. Mr. Baron Bailey, —himself a large contributor to these, as he is to all benevolent institutions—proposed to establish a rule, that no tradesman on the Committee of Management, should be employed in supplying the institutions in question, because it was justly apprehended by the learned Judge, that where such persons were interested, there would be no very rigorous inquiry into the necessity of making the purchases, and no very strict audit of the accounts. Nevertheless, the proposition though tending to save the funds, and therefore required by the pecuniary interests of the body who raised those funds, was rejected by a great majority of the Committee, who were themselves contributors. They said, that they had always been in the habit of employing one another to supply the institution, and that they were determined to continue the practice. The custom of another charity in the same neighbourhood was apparently better— but really just the same. There, a byelaw was in force, that no man should be employed as a tradesman to the charity while he was upon the managing committee. But this check was defeated by having a double set of tradesmen, who belonged to the committee in alternate years, and were employed each in his turn as he went out of office. I believe a proposal was made to correct this gross abuse; but, like the suggestion of Mr. Baron Bailey, it was rejected by the subscribers, to save whose money it was brought forward. Here, then, we find men ill the disbursement of their own funds, and in pursuit of their own objects, determined to suffer, with their eyes open, abuses which daily defraud them, and persisting in a course which makes it un-

235
avoidable that their pockets should be picked before their eyes. But do not facts like these demonstrate how long a vicious system may continue in any vestry or managing committee against the interests of the general body, if it contributes to the advantage of a few? Does it not also show how much longer a bad system may prevail in any vestry or parish, where the individuals most interested have not the same control as in a voluntary association, and how easily the most flagrant abuses may continue to receive protection from those they injure, before men's eves are opened—ay, and after they have been opened? Because I am not now speaking of a few ignorant farmers, who, by-the-by, have not by any means so strong an interest in the matter as the landlords; but of more enlightened persons, and of bodies less open to abuse than the authorities of country parishes. Surely the inhabitants of a remote hamlet are much more likely to keep their eyes shut upon such subjects than the inhabit ants of St. George's, Bloomsbury, and St. George's, Hanover Square. Therefore, the evils of a scattered and varying and uncertain administration of these laws, it behoves Parliament above all things, and before all things, to correct, with a view to establishing authorities able well and wisely to overlook the relief of the poor and the expenditure it occasions. For this object, the present Bill proposes to provide —precisely upon the views to which I have shown that experience guides us. The main principle of the measure is this—to leave the law, generally speaking, as it stands at present, but to tread back our steps as far as we can towards a due administration of it; and having once brought things nearer to their position in some particular parishes where the experiment has been tried, and salutary improvements effected, and to their state generally in Scotland, then to take such steps in reference to the law itself as shall prevent a recurrence of the same abuses. I have now to entreat your Lordships' attention to the course taken in constructing the measure before you; but I wish, in the outset of my remarks, to take notice of an objection to our measure—an objection, however, which has been more heard out-of-doors than within the walls of Parliament. I allude to the outcry set up against the Report, as a thing framed by theorists and visionaries, and to sum up all
236
in one word of vituperation, by political economists. That is the grand term of reproach. As if only theorists and visionaries could be students and professors of the despised science of political economy! Why, my Lords, some of the most eminent practical men in this country—individuals the most celebrated, not as rash and dreaming speculators, but as sober statesmen—leaders of opposition—ministers and heads of Cabinets—men whose names, as they were, when living, the designations of the parties into which the whole country was marshalled, have passed after death into epithets synonymous with practical wisdom, among their followers—it is among these men that I should look, if I were called upon to point out the greatest cultivators of political economy that have flourished in my own day. Is it necessary for rue to remind you that Adam Smith—another name which excites a sneer, but only among the grovelling and the ignorant—that the name of that eminent economist was first made generally known through his intimacy with Mr. Pitt, and by Mr. Pitt referring in Parliament to the high authority of his immortal work? Mr. Pitt was distinguished by his study of political economy, though his policy did not always proceed upon its soundest principles, and when he would have applied them, his attempts were not always attended with success. Such at least is my opinion now, speaking after the event, and with the cheap and easy wisdom which experience affords, yet always speaking with respect for that eminent man's science and talents, which no one, how rude or ignorant soever, will be found bold enough to question. I think he committed mistakes—perhaps in his situation I might have fallen into the same errors; but was Mr. Pitt a dreamer —was Mr. Pitt a visionary? Was Mr. Canning, who also professed and practised the science of political economy, a philosophist, a mere speculator, or a fantastical builder of ideal systems? My Lords, I have heard many persons object to Mr. Canning's policy; I did so myself at one period, though I afterwards co-operated with him when his views were liberal and sound; but neither at the one period of his political life, nor at the other, do I recollect ever hearing anybody bold or foolish enough to designate that eminent roan as a visionary or a theorist. Then we had Mr. Huskisson—he, too, a political

237
economist, and indeed profoundly conversant with the science; but I suppose he was no practical man,—I suppose he knew nothing of the financial, nothing of the commercial relations of this country —nothing of the distribution of its wealth —nothing of the bearings of its mercantile laws and fiscal regulations upon her trade and manufactures. I verily think, that if I were to search all England over, and to ransack the whole volumes of our annals at any period for the name of a practical statesman,—one who habitually discarded theory for practice—one who looked to every theory with suspicion, and adopted only those doctrines which were grounded upon the most incontestible results of experience—a pilot, who, in guiding the vessel of the State, proceeded with the lead-line ever in his hand, and ever sounding as he sailed—who never suffered her to stir until he knew the depth, the bottom, a-head and all around, and left no current, tide, or breeze out of his account;—if I were to name one man whom I have known or heard of, or whom history has recorded, and to whom this description is most eminently applicable, Mr. Huskisson is the name I should at once pronounce. To swell the catalogue with other bright and noble instances, would be much more easy than useful. Thus I might add Mr. Henry Thornton, an author of high fame, whose works were among the first that enlightened us on the subject of currency, and fixed the principles that govern this branch of science. But Mr. Henry Thornton was a banker; and an intelligent, skilful, prosperous banker. And it is these great men—great as philosophers, but better known as men of business—the Pitts, the Cannings, the Huskissons, the Thorntons, who, with Dr. Smith and after his example, entered themselves in the school of the Economists,—they it is, whom I am fated to hear derided as visionaries and schemers. But I have unawares named the science which was cultivated by Quesnai, Turgot, and other illustrious French philosophers, and have thus exposed it to a different attack, from ignorance yet more gross than that which denied authority to the names of the English statesmen I have mentioned. I have referred to the French economists, and I know full well that they have been derided as republicans—very little to my astonishment, prepared as I am by experience to
238
see the effects of ignorance—for ignorance has no bounds. Unhappily science has its limits, and they are not hard to reach; but ignorance is endless, unconfined, inexhaustible, — ever new in invention, though all its productions are wretched and worthless,—always surprising you, though mingling pity and contempt with wonderment: and never is it more daring in its inroads upon our credulity—never is it more strange in the antic feats it performs—never more curious in the fantastic tricks it plays, than when its gambols are performed in the persons of men dressed in a little brief authority, or who would fain be so attired, and who really are decked habitually in presumption that almost passes belief. Why, my Lords, every body who knows any thing of the French Economists, knows full well that they flourished under an absolute despotism,—that they were the great friends and the firm supporters of absolute monarchy, —that they abhorred liberty, and abhorred republicanism,—and that one of their errors, in my opinion the most fatal they could commit, was holding the doctrine, that what they called despotisme legal, in other words, an absolute monarchy, was the best form of government: accompanying their doctrine, however, with this reservation, "If you have a good king at the head of it;" as if the sole use of all restraints upon power was not founded on the risk of having bad rulers; as if the absence of control did not, while man is man, ensure a succession of bad monarchs. But I only mention this to show, that whatever charges the French economists may be justly exposed to, assuredly love of a republic, or even of rational liberty, is not of the number. Such is the presumption of that abject ignorance which would give certain men, and the sciences they explore, a bad name, not even knowing the true sense of the words it takes upon itself to use. Far, then, from being with me an objection, that these invaluable dissertations and statements of fact have been prepared by political philosophers—that all this mass of useful evidence has been collected by them, and that many propositions have been made by them, some of which, and only some, are adopted as the ground-work of the present measure,—I derive confidence from the reflection that it is so—that we have been helped by political economists, men who have devoted themselves to the

239
study of that useful and practical science, and with them I cheerfully expose myself, and not only with them, but with all the illustrious names of men now no more, and all the other illustrious men that happily still remain, and whom, for that very reason, I have forborne to mention, to the charge of being a speculator, and a visionary, and a theorist. I will not deny, however, that if I had perceived in these highly-gifted persons, the tendency, sometimes abused in men of science, to ground their opinions on mere reasoning, uncorrected by experience, and to frame systems with a view to fair symmetry, rather than to the facts now before us, I should then have exercised my judgment and said, "Those proposals, how daintily and ingeniously soever they be prepared, I reject." My Lords, we have picked our way slowly and carefully through facts and documents; we have rejected somewhere about one-half of the suggestions that have been made, a portion of that half being precisely the part most important in the eyes of the men from whom they proceeded: we thought that, in a practical point of view, it was better to postpone them at all events for the present: but I beg leave distinctly to state, that hereafter, when time shall have been allowed for inquiry and consideration, and when this measure shall have paved the way for the reception of ulterior projects, they will, should experience warrant their adoption, receive my assent. Let us next consider for one moment what is likely to he the best way of reforming the administration of the Poor-laws, by retracing the steps that have led us to the present state of things. I think I may lay it down as clearly following from what I have stated, that there is one main point, the necessity of arriving at which cannot be denied—I mean securing such a degree of unity of action in the authorities invested with the parochial superintendence, as can be obtained only by the establishment of one central power. In the second place, I think it follows, that the persons in whom this control shall be vested, must be armed with very ample discretionary power. Next, it seems clear that these ought not to be political persons, if I may so speak,—that they should be members of neither House of Parliament,—men belonging to no party,—men unconnected (politically speaking) with the administration of public affairs, and unmixed with
240
the contests of the State. If I should be consulted in the choice of the individuals, I will only say,—"Show me a person (and I think I know that person) whose opinions on party matters differ most widely from my own, and if he be a man of firm mind, of extensive experience as to the working of the Poor-laws, of conciliatory manners, of sound discretion,—if he be a man whom I can trust for his temper (one of the prime requisites in such a work), and that man I prefer before any of those with whom I most agree in politics; nay more, if I saw two persons sufficiently gifted, but of opposite political opinions, I would name one of each party, in order the better to gain the confidence of the public,—to show the country that, in the appointments, there is no favour, —that, in the selection, the only consideration has been qualifications and deserts. I have said that extensive and effective reform in the administration of these laws can only be accomplished by intrusting large discretionary powers to the Commissioners. Of this no doubt can exist; and a very slight attention to the subject will convince you of it. The bad practices have taken such root, and spread so widely, that a strong hand alone can extirpate them. But it must be not only strong—it must be ever ready; in other words, all must be left to the discretion of the men intrusted; for if each time a step should be taken, either going too far, or going in the wrong direction, or stopping short of the proper point and not going far enough, you have to wait until Parliament is assembled, and a Bill brought in to change the plan, and a new Act passed, it is needless to remind you, that for months the whole of the machinery must stand still. As any individual, on such a subject, will be exposed to err, so may Parliament, in any measure of detail it can frame—ay, and fall into serious errors too. Good God! who shall say, that the wisdom of all the lawgivers in the world may not lead them into error, upon matters, which for nearly three centuries have baffled the wisest of men in every nation? You have delegated to the Judges powers of altering from day to day the rules of pleading and of practice, merely because you distrusted your own foresight, and did not arrogate to yourselves the power of being beforehand as wise as experience could make you. Again, one part of the country may require

241
one mode of freatment; another may require the application of different remedies; agricultural districts will stand in need of a very different treatment from that which must be employed with commercial and manufacturing places—nay, the circumstances of one agricultural parish may be so entirely different from those of another, even of one in its immediate vicinity, as to render the same course of management inapplicable to both. The point we are desirous of reaching, it is true, is one and the same for all; the state of things we would bring all back to is the same; but the road to be taken towards this point is necessarily different in different places; for each may have deviated from the right path by a different route, and by a different route must be brought back. One uniform, inflexible rule, prescribed by a statute, can therefore never be applied to these various cases; and hence the operation must be performed by a discretionary power lodged somewhere, that the hand which works may feel its way, and vary its course according to the facilities or obstruction it may encounter; nay, an arbitrary discretion—to use a word which has been employed, invidiously, towards the measure—and arbitrary, to a certain extent, it must be: because it must be both ample and unconfined, in order that the rules for its exercise may riot paralyze its movements. My Lords, I am perfectly aware that such powers as these may be designated as unconstitutional. I am aware that at any rate they are in one sense novel, to a certain extent; but their being wholly novel, and altogether without precedent, I utterly deny. They are novel, as vested in one Board, but they are far from being novel in themselves. I could take the first fifty local Poor-acts to be found in the index to the Statutes, and engage to show you, that every one of those Acts contains stronger, more drastic, more rigorous, more arbitrary, and therefore less constitutional powers, than any that will be given by this Bill to the Central Board. And by whom are the powers which these local Acts confer to be exercised, and in what circumstances, and under what superintendence and control? Those powers are given to the very men of all others the most likely to abuse them,—men self-elected, unknown, of no weight, and of narrow mind; those powers are to be exercised in a corner—in the dark—not in the face of the country—
242
with no one to watch, to revise, to control —they are to be wielded beyond the reach of the Legislature, by persons not removable by the Crown, accountable to no Secretary of State, overlooked and checked by no King in Council, as this Central Board will be—and exercised by men far too small to be perceptible by the public eye, therefore far removed from any influence of public opinion. My Lords, can you hesitate one moment, when you have conferred so much larger and more dangerous powers upon irresponsible bodies, to vest the powers of this Bill in such a Board, acting upon the responsibility of known and eminent men, and fenced round about with the triple guard of the Crown, the Parliament, and the country at large? My Lords I have now stated the principles upon which we are led to frame this great measure. I have shown from the direction the evil has taken, and the manner of its operation, how we are led to these four conclusions—the necessity of a Central Board—the necessity of its separation from the strife of political affairs— the necessity of vesting in it powers both large and discretionary—and the necessity of its exercising those powers under the inspection of the Legislature, and the control of the executive Government. These principles, deduced from the facts, and dictated by our sad experience of the necessity, form the ground-work of the system. That the control of the Crown may be more constant and effectual, the Commissioners are to be removable at pleasure; they are to report all orders to the Secretary of State; and those orders are to have no effect for forty days after this communication, during which period an Order in Council may annul them. I entreat such of your Lordships as question the safety of such ample power as the Board must have, to consider how strict a control is thus established over its proceedings; add to this the watchful superintendence of both Houses of Parliament, and then reflect upon the constant control of public opinion, and I confidently say that the requisite powers may be safely and prudently intrusted to the new Board. But still it is said, that they are unconstitutional—still it is said, that they are as novel as unwelcome to the country. My Lords, if this be a great step,—if this be an extraordinary enactment,—if this be an unheard-of measure which we are now discussing,—supposing I admit it all—I

243
ask, are not the times in which we live, in this respect, of an extraordinary aspect? Is the state of things in which we are called upon to legislate one that has often or that has ever existed before? Is not the evil we are pressed down by unheard-of? Is the existing condition of our peasantry and our landowners not a novelty and a portentous novelty,—the growth of very late times, yet daily increasing, and swelling out its hideous form? Many Bills, with more unconstitutional clauses, have I seen during the last thirty years, where Boards have been constituted of irresponsible men,—men endowed with great powers, to be exercised in the dark. But I have never yet seen times like these in which I now bring forward this Bill. We live in times, indeed, very different from those that are past, when a Report is presented to us, founded upon the concurrent testimony of Magistrates, country gentlemen, clergymen, farmers, labourers, and parish officers,—of manufacturers and tradesmen,—of men of science and men of no science at all,—of men of practical knowledge, and men of theoretical principles,—of the dwellers in towns, and the inhabitants of the country,—of those who have been constantly in vestries,—of those who have been all their lives occupied in the administration of the Poor-laws, as Magistrates, as barristers, or as Judges. Talk of unheard-of measures, and of unprecedented discretionary powers, in a case like this, when you have all this hitherto unheard-of — this altogether unprecedented, consentaneous, and uncontradicted testimony, borne by every different kind of witnesses in every class and walk of life, and sanctioned by every variety of talent and argument that can be found in all kinds of minds corroborated by all those whose weight of judgment makes them the best authorities upon the principles, and whose experience makes them the most competent witnesses of the facts! I say, my Lords, you not only may, but you must listen to these recommendations, when you have the best judges in the matters of opinion —and the best witnesses to the matter of fact—all in one voice representing to you a state of things, which has made industry and idleness, honesty and knavery, change places; and which exposes the property of the community, and with its property every law—every institution—
244
every valuable possession—every precious right—to the ravages of that remorseless pestilence, before whose strides you, the guardians of the social happiness of those who live under your protection, have beheld the peasantry of England abased to a pitch which I am at once afflicted and ashamed to contemplate—which I shudder to describe—and which I could not bear to think of, did I not know that the same hand which lays it bare to your eyes, and makes its naked deformity horrible in your sight, will be enabled, by your assistance, to apply to the foul disease a safe, an effectual remedy; restoring to industry its due reward, and visiting idleness with its appropriate punishment; reinstating property in security, and lifting up once more—God be praised!—the character of that noble English peasantry to the proud eminence, where, but for the Poor-laws, it would still have shone untarnished,—the admiration of mankind, and the glory of the country which boasts it as its brightest ornament! My Lords, there are other alterations of the system, —many and important alterations—introduced by this Bill; but exhausted as your patience must be, and fatigued as I am myself, I shall not think of entering into them, except generally and briefly. Out of the Poor-law of Queen Elizabeth,—which gave every man a title to claim relief from some parish or other,—arose the Law of Settlement. My earliest hope is, that by the alteration which this Bill will produce in the state of the country, we shall find that, in another half century,—or it may be at a much earlier period,—the country will be in such a state as to enable us to make still further improvements than those which are now contemplated in the case of settlement. This applies particularly to one branch of the subject, — namely, birth-settlement, — a point which the Bill avoids and makes no change in. My Lords, I own that I could have wished to make some alteration in this respect; but I have great hopes that the improved administration of those laws will enable us to introduce some Amendments with regard to it. I know that, if they were propounded at present, it would he said to be taking a step of too extensive a nature without due reflection and preparation. The proposition of making the place of birth the place of settlement, has been considered and rejected by the House of Com-

245
mons after full examination. I own that I am disposed to think that birth-settlement would be a great improvement, or rather a settlement by residence, which is in all respects better. Still I am aware that objections may be urged against both, and more especially a settlement by birth alone; but I shall be perfectly willing to discuss it in Committee, although for the reasons I have already stated, I do not think it would be desirable to make the alteration at the present time. One great defect of the existing law upon this subject—that of derivative settlement by parentage—is, that a man may become chargeable himself, and may make others chargeable, upon a parish which has no control whatever over his proceedings. Thus stands the case:—suppose I am a Westmoreland pauper—as I certainly very soon may be if the present system continues—then suppose I go and live in Northamptonshire, but that I do not gain a settlement there,—suppose I make an improvident marriage, and have as many children, as, in the course of nature, would fall to the lot of a man at any time of life; I have, it may be, ten or twelve children, that is supposing I were eighteen. Well, suppose—as is very often the case in such instances—that the wife had peculiar claims upon me before marriage, I might be compelled by the overseers to contract a marriage with her. This, be it recollected, is in Northamptonshire. Now those churchwardens in Northamptonshire who can procure and almost compel the marriage, and those landlords in Northamptonshire who refuse to let me a 10 l. tenement, and those farmers in Northamptonshire who refuse me a hiring by the year, but allow me to have a family in one of their smallest cottages, have the power to suffer or to forbid me gaining a settlement, but have no interest in my not gaining one among them; indeed, they have rather a direct interest the other way,—they have a direct inducement to increase the number of paupers, who are to burthen the rates of the Westmoreland parish, while the Westmoreland parish, which has the interest in preventing my having a family in a Northamptonshire cottage, has no power whatever to impede that event, If, on the contrary, the place of settlement were the place of birth, all this contradiction and anomaly would cease; for if my children gained a settlement in Northamptonshire as soon as they
246
were born, the overseers would not be so very anxious for my contracting a marriage, nor would the landlords have such an interest in letting me have a cottage. By the present law, however, these inducements to commit what is a great injustice certainly exist. But let us next consider the settlement by hiring and service, which is struck out by the Bill. I think this settlement is almost universally exploded, whether by theorists or by practical men, and it is denounced in this measure as utterly bad, and tending directly against every principle which it would be most desirable to establish for our guide. One of the first consequences of the law which gives every person a settlement in the parish in which he is hired and serves by the year, is a perpetual attempt to evade the law, which, from its tendency to weaken the general respect that ought to be felt for any legislative enactment, is in itself an evil of no small magnitude; for no lawgiver should wish to put his subjects in a constant attempt to evade any of his commands. The Statute of Elizabeth gives a settlement to every one who is hired and serves by the year; but it gives no settlement to one who is hired for 360 days instead of 365. This is a gross evasion of the Act, and yet it is one which takes place from one end of the year to the other, from one end of the island to the other. What is the consequence of the evasion? That great chicanery and much trickery exist. The next consequence is, that hostility and distrust arise between master and man, the man attempting to gain a settlement, the master endeavouring to fend him off; and thus it happens that they are no longer on the friendly footing, in the confidential and kindly habits on which master and man ought to be placed, and on which they stood previous to the years 1794 and 1795. This evasion of the Law of Settlement began to be generally practised, I think, at the commencement of the French war, and it gradually led to the discontinuance of that laudable custom of boarding farm servants in the House—a custom which was attended with the very best results, both to the moral character of the labourers, and to the comforts of the whole farm. They were on the kindest terms wit h the master; they formed part of the same family; the master was more like the head of a patriarchal family, and the labourers were like his children; they were

247
treated as such; they dined at the same table, and slept under the same roof; and they worked together in the same field. I have frequently seen them in these habits; I have partaken of their fare, and better no one could desire to have set before him, whose appetites were unpampered and unvitiated. The whole household lived more comfortably, because better cheer could be afforded where so many were entertained together. There was a certain degree of domestic control; there was the parental superintendence exercised by the master over the men, and there was the moral sanction of the matron of the family over her maids. The master was the friend and counsellor of the men; the dame of the women. If one of either sex was about to contract an improvident marriage, their advice would be interposed. Although they never heard of the prudential check, nor knew anything of political economists even by name, yet, as the doctrines of those philosophers are only the dictates of prudence and common honesty, the farmer and his good wife would set before the young folks, the imprudence and the dishonesty of a man contracting a marriage before he could maintain a wife and children; she would tell him that which Mr. Malthus is so much abused for saying at all, "Who would ever buy more horses than he can afford to pay for, or afford to keep? Then why should you marry when you have scarcely the means of supporting yourself, for the mere purpose of bringing into the world a number of miserable wretches for whom you have no bread?" I will ventute to say, that in those happier times, bastardy was not one-twentieth part so common as it is now. Of late years, all this has been sadly changed; farm servants are hired for eleven months and a-half; they are then turned out of the house lest they should obtain a settlement, and the consequence is, that they spend half the time before they are hired again at the ale-house, to which they never thought of going before, except on a merry-making day, once in several months. The consequence of this has been, that the habits of the servants have become more dissolute from constant change of place, and that an unfortunate stimulus has been given to the progress of population by the labourers living in cottages. The effect of this interval of a fortnight or three weeks, during which the servants
248
are necessarily out of all places, and running about to fairs and markets, has been fatal to their habits and their morals. I can state this, my Lords, from my own experience and observation; I have also heard from others numerous instances in which men have become idle and dissolute by being turned out in this way. But if the system is bad for the men, it is a great deal worse for the female servants; for what is to become of a poor girl with a father and mother fifty miles off, who has nothing to do, and no where to go to, but to run about from one market to another? My Lords, it is quite in vain to doubt, that, during that fortnight, she has every chance of losing that character, and of becoming a very different person from what she was before. For these reasons it is, that I exceedingly rejoice in the provision of the Bill which abolishes this settlement by hiring altogether. The abolition of the settlement by apprenticeship is also a salutary provision, but it is not so important as getting rid of the settlement by hiring. It is an improvement certainly, because the present law gives rise to much litigation; but I do not set any great store by it. All the other modes of acquiring a settlement remain as they are, with the exception of that arising from the hiring of a 10 l. tenement, upon which an additional check is imposed, by requiring the payment of taxes during a year. Such, my Lords, are the changes which have been made in the Law of Settlement, and which, for the reasons I have shortly stated, appear to be well recommended. The only remaining part of the subject, to which I have to call your Lordships' attention, is the change which has been made in the Bastardy-laws. I confess that I think this a hold measure; but, at the same time, I consider it a great and unquestionable improvement. The law, as it now stands, throws it upon the man to avoid the offence, and not upon the woman; it leaves the woman with little or no inducement (so far as law is concerned) to preserve her chastity, and it relies wholly on the effect of burthens cast on the men, as if it looked to them alone for avoiding the offence. I must, however, go a step further. I am afraid that the present law raises up a motive in the breast of the woman rather to yield than to resist. I much fear, it co-operates with the frailty of the sex; I fear that the seducer of the woman—the man who is laying

249
siege to her virtue—who has always one ally in the garrison ready to beat a parley —her own passions—finds another ally provided for him by the law, and ready to counsel a surrender—that ally is—not her passions, but her reason—her calculation of interest. From the provisions of the law comes the suggestion—"The law is in my favour; if the worst comes to the worst, I can make him marry me —I will hold that over his head—I am doing that which I know to be wrong in itself, but I am doing that which I do not think will be wrong if marriage follows." Thus thoughts are engendered in the breast, still more dangerous to female virtue than all that the passions can excite, and all that speculations of interest can add to the force of the passions. At the critical moment, when those passions are strong, and themselves ready to overpower the judgment, the law first brings over the reason itself to their side, making it her interest to yield, and then furnishes a soporific to lull the conscience, by engendering a mistaken feeling of perverted morality, and enabling her to look forward to the period when marriage shall cover her fault. She pursues her calculations—she gratifies her passions—she is induced by false notions of virtue and honour to hear the voice of her seducer. No wonder that the citadel is surrendered. This, my Lords, is the operation of the present Bastardy-laws. I will describe this conflict of passion and calculation, and interest and honour, against female virtue, no further. It is, indeed, unnecessary to dwell longer upon the subject, when I remind your Lordships, that the change now propounded is formed on precisely the same principles on which you legislate every day for the upper classes of society, in the cases of conjugal infidelity that come before you. How often have we heard it argued, that the husband and the wife should he put upon a par—that the wife should have the same right to divorce the husband, as the husband now has to divorce the wife—and that the Scottish and the Civil-law should be introduced into this country for the better protection of female happiness and female honour! "No," your Lordships have always answered; and I have always answered with you, "No; we will trust the keeping of a woman's virtue to herself; to her we will apply the threats which may deter from crime; to her apply the
250
dissuasives which may prevent her guilt. If she is afraid to yield, if you make it her interest not to yield, the seducer may beat at the door in vain: his object will be frustrated; yours, and what should be hers, will be gained." Let this principle be applied to the Law of Bastardy—let the woman be deprived of the advantage which she possesses at present—let the disadvantage be placed on her side—let the man have less chance of seducing her from the paths of virtue—let her be deprived of an interest in her own undoing, and a palliative to her feelings if undone —and you will effect a great, and a most desirable improvement in the morals and the happiness of the poor. But, my Lords, I have now gone through all the points of this great and important measure, which appeared to me to call for explanation. I have detained you, I am afraid, at much too great length, certainly at much greater length than I intended when I rose to speak. I can safely say, in conclusion, that if I have intruded unreasonably on your time, it has not been occasioned by the attractions which any part of this painful and thorny subject presents: it has not been from any delight I have felt in the contemplation of scenes creditable to no party, neither to our ancestors who made the laws, nor to their sons who executed them, nor to succeeding generations of lawgivers, who have, instead of attempting to improve them, done all they could to make bad worse. It has been owing to no gratification which I have experienced in dwelling upon events, and in looking on scenes revolting to me as an Englishman and a man. It has been from a conscientious sense of public duty that I have unfolded to you a picture as dark and repulsive, as it is but too faithfully pourtrayed. This sense of duty alone has subdued those feelings which originally alienated me from the task, and made me feel more relieved than I ever felt before in my life, when my noble friend, lately at the head of his Majesty's Government, declared his intention of bringing this important and difficult subject before you. My Lords, I have borne a part in this great question since I first entered the other House of Parliament —having, in the years 1817 and 1818 especially, originated what measures I could towards the reformation of the Poorlaws—having, in 1831, the instant I became a member of the present Adminis-

251
tration, turned my mind to this great question, from which I was diverted only by a measure of overwhelming interest, and absorbing all other considerations—I mean the Reform Bill. In 1832, the Commission issued under the Great Seal, which, of course, prevented my continuing my efforts until its Reports had been received, and which necessarily rendered it impossible to bring the question under the view of Parliament at any earlier period. My Lords, these are the circumstances which have connected me with this mighty question; and prescribed to me the duty of rendering my feeble assistance towards bringing it before your Lordships. My mind acquits me, I can assure you, of any sinister motive in taking the part I am now taking: it acquits me, above all, of any desire to court, either for me, or for mine, or for those with whom I am nearly and dearly connected in office, any portion of popular feeling. My Lords, it is consolatory to reflect that we have no obloquy to apprehend from any considerable portion of the community. We have only to incur the hazard of misconception in some quarters, of misrepresentation in others, of false direction of right feelings, and of exaggerated views of things little understood, or it may be of malignity worse than ignorance. My Lords, we have set before ourselves no possibility of any advantage as a Government, or as a party, except the inestimable satisfaction of coming before our country, and challenging from all parties in the State that respect which is due to Ministers who manfully take their own course, who look neither to the right hand, neither to the left; who discharge what they feel to be their duty, regardless alike of whom they may irritate or whom they may alarm; and who hold up in their hands the result of their best efforts to serve the community, that has hitherto cordially and affectionately, and I may almost say unanimously, placed implicit confidence in them: resolved at all hazards to show this great and honest people, that at all times, and on all subjects, they will consult only its best interests and its real welfare, hoping for no other reward than an approving conscience, and the judicious verdict of the enlightened, the rational, and the honest part of mankind. I move your Lordships, that this Bill be now read a second time.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that if the Bill were
252
calculated to produce to the country all the good which the noble and learned Lord who introduced it that night to the consideration of their Lordships had described as likely to result from it, that good would in no way be diminished by postponing the consideration of the Bill until the next Session. The House of Commons had taken two months to consider this Bill, and it was asking rather too much that at this late period of the Session it should be hurried through their Lordships' House without that due consideration which so important a measure demanded. If evils had arisen from the present state of the Poor-laws, or the mal-administration of them, as the noble and learned Lord had stated, those evils were not likely to be remedied by the hasty adoption of the present Bill. Indeed, he considered it impossible that this Bill could now be passed, and their Lordships pay to it that attention which its importance required. No possible disadvantage could arise from postponing it to the next Session, because it would even then take effect, if early passed into a law, as soon as it was intended it should, if passed this Session. There could, therefore, be no object in thus hurrying it through their Lordships' House. What would the country think and say of the attention and consideration that their Lordships gave to momentous subjects of legislation, when it was seen that the House of Commons took two months to consider this Bill, and the House of Lords disposed of it without the possibility of considering it at all with the necessary attention? Were their Lordships to take this Bill solely on the credit of the House of Commons? They must do so, if they adopted it in this hasty manner, for it was impossible they could have time to give it proper attention. The noble and learned Lord bad assumed, that all the evils he had described, which the agricultural and other interests of the country laboured under, proceeded from the Poor-laws, and the mode of administering them. "Bad laws worse administered" was, he believed, the expression of his noble friend; and thus was disposed of what for ages had been considered as the honour of the country. His noble friend's assertion, however, was founded on a very narrow view of the question. A large number of the witnesses who had been examined on the subject had assigned other causes for the evils that had been described. Many

253
said, that the Poor-laws bad very little to do with those evils. There were many circumstances besides the Poor-laws which led to that state of the country which the noble and learned Lord had so eloquently described. The alteration in the currency, the operation of the Corn-laws, and, what was still more, the threats that were so continually held out of alteration in those laws, which prevented farmers from embarking capital to an extent that they otherwise would, had contributed to impoverish the landowners, and deprive the labourers of employment. With respect to the effect of the Poor-laws on the comforts of the labourer, if the evidence taken before the Commissioners were properly attended to, it would be seen that the poor were better off now than they had been for some years; and as to there being large numbers out of employment, he would ask was there anything in this Bill that was in the least degree calculated to give them employment, or that had in view any such object? If there existed that state of vicious idleness throughout the labouring classes which the noble and learned Lord had described, this did not proceed from the operation of the Poor laws, but from the distress of the farmers, who were not able to pay and employ labourers as they did in former and better times. He had great respect for many of the persons of whom the noble and learned Lord had spoken as political economists, and he would not go the length of saying that this science, as it was called, of political economy had produced the evils complained of; but he was of opinion, that it had something to do with those evils. On reading the Report of the Poor-law Commission, there would be found sufficient to account satisfactorily for the ills by which the agricultural interests of the country were beset, without referring them to the operation of the Poor-laws. It was there clearly shown, that the land itself did not now produce by one-fourth as much as it did some years ago, and this fact must necessarily reduce in proportion the demand for labour. His wonder was, under all circumstances, that the poor were so well off as they appeared to be, and to make them so the Magistrates throughout the country must have performed their dudes well. In his mind, it was quite idle to say, that the Poor-laws had produced the state of things so much complained of, He be-
254
lieved the Poor-laws had little to do with the matter. The noble and learned Lord had charged the increase of the population and the consequent reduction of the price of labour on the Poor-laws; but how could he sustain this position? Look at Ireland. There were no Poor-laws in that country; and would any man say, that there was not a vast increase of the population there? The population of that country were in such a wretched and abject state of misery that it would be utterly hopeless to attempt to amend the state of the labouring population in this country until something was done to keep the Irish labourers at home, and prevent them coming over here to overstock the labour market, and while they were in their present condition, nothing but a wall of brass would keep them out. It was well known, that the Irish labourers had already driven our own labourers from the towns, for here almost all the work was done by Irish labourers. Was the present Bill, he would ask, calculated to remedy this evil? Was it calculated to give employment to the unemployed? And if it was not, it was only practising a delusion to send it forth as a measure calculated to afford relief to the labouring classes. Then, as to the "allowance" system, would that be checked by this measure? He was sure it would not, and be did not think that the framers of the Bill themselves believed that it would, or if they did, what did they mean by the 49th clause, which gave to the Commissioners a discretionary power of granting allowances in certain cases? He did not approve giving to the Central Board the powers that were now vested in the Magistrates, and which it was well known these Magistrates exercised with a most beneficial effect for the comforts of the poor. The fact was, that wages were too low in this country, and that evil the Bill would not remedy. Suppose wages were to continue at the present low rate,—namely, 8s. a-week, how could a man with a wife and a parcel of children support himself on such a sum, without some aid from the parish funds, which the Magistrates always judiciously afforded? Why, the rent of his cottage alone would require almost his weekly wages, and the law of nature would always supersede the law of the land. Some support must always be given to the distressed labourer front the parish funds, when his own labour would not enable him to sustain

255
himself. The noble and learned Lord had spoken of Mr. Pitt, and his views of the Poor-law system. The Bill which Mr. Pitt had introduced on the subject was a much better Bill than this. He knew that Bill, and he knew, though in some measure defective, that it was infinitely superior to the present Bill. Mr. Pitt's Bill went to provide, that certain allowances should be made to those of the labouring classes, even while in employment, whose wages were not sufficient for the support of their families, and these allowances were to be in proportion to the number of children that the person requiring relief might have. This was the proper principle on which to afford relief to have it directly sanctioned and apportioned by the law. The benefits arising from large families, Mr. Pitt looked upon as advantageous to the interests of the country; but it had happened since Mr. Pitt's time, that this benefit had been showered upon us, and the difficulty now was, how to dispose of them. It was clear, that if the farmers could not pay their labourers sufficient wages to support them, as a matter of necessity the labourers must derive support from the rates. The noble and learned Lord had admitted that the Magistrates throughout the country had done their duty generally. He (Lord Wynford) did not want the authority of the noble and learned Lord to satisfy him, that the Magistrates had done their duty. He had had good opportunity of knowing, that they had always done their duty. He would not say, that there might not be some particular instances of misconduct on the part of Magistrates when they had perhaps gone beyond the law; but he was sure those instances were very rare. The complaint made against Magistrates was, that they were too lavish in giving the money out of their own pockets to relieve the poor; that in fact, they were too liberal of what they themselves had to pay their share of. Now, if indeed they had been too niggardly towards the poor, there might be just grounds for complaint; but this was not the case. In the poorer districts of the country where employment could not be had, there must always be a large portion of the labourers out of employ, and the wages much reduced. In this case what was to become of those poor people if the Magistrates did not act upon that liberal feeling by which they were always influenced? Much
256
had been said in condemnation of the existing Poor-laws. Now, he had never heard any fault found with any part of those laws, except the Statute of Charles 2nd. This had been complained of by Adam Smith; but he had never heard any complaint made against the 43rd of Elizabeth, for this Statute went to establish the best principle upon which Poor-laws could be founded—namely, that they should go to relieve the aged and infirm, and those who, having contributed by their labour to the wealth of the country, were no longer able to earn a support for themselves. This was the genuine principle of charity and mercy, on which all such laws should rest. He hoped this country would never exist without a system of Poor-laws like this, but care should always be taken that those laws should not be abused. In this land of liberty, a man had a right to the means of support by his own labour, and it would no longer deserve the name of a land of freedom, if any part of its labouring population were denied the means of proper support. But, even supposing, that individual Magistrates had sometimes done wrong, did that fact render all this complicated machinery necessary? He thought not, and, what was more, he fully believed, that the Commissioners had been imposed upon in the information that was furnished them. He was persuaded that few, if any, cases of misconduct on the part of the Magistrates, could be adduced; but, even admitting that such cases could be found, might not such abuses be easily remedied without resorting to a measure of this description? Suppose, for instance, they were to say, that the poor man should only be entitled to parochial relief when he became impotent from age or other circumstances, and that the able-bodied man should labour, if work could be provided for him, would they not by such means remedy the defects in the present system? He was quite sure, that if no item were allowed in an overseer's account, without the sanction of the Petty Sessions, much that was objectionable in the present mode of disbursing the parish funds would be removed; and, if so, they would have acted more wisely in rendering the laws applicable to the purposes for which they were intended by such means than by adopting an experiment that was as novel as it was fraught with danger in the working. The next principle of the Bill to which he would al-

257
lude was, that which went to alter the law relating to settlement. He had always objected to the Act of Charles 2nd, and wished that the Law of Settlement could be got rid of, for it was his opinion, that the parish in which a man broke down was that which ought to bear the burthen of his support. This would set labour free, and enable the labourer to travel about in quest of employment, which would be a manifest advantage to all parties. The facilities of gaining a settlement were now, however, to be diminished; but, although that was the case, the evils of which the political economists complained were left wholly untouched by this Bill. In his opinion, taking away the right of settlement by apprenticeship would be not only unjust and impolitic, but cruel and unwise. This question was fully discussed about two years ago, when the Mariners' Apprentice Bill came under their lordships' consideration. He opposed that Bill by the same argument that be employed on the present occasion. After a boy had served his apprenticeship in a particular town, and lived there until old age had come upon him, would it not be a great hardship to leave him, and, perhaps, his wife and children, liable to be sent to a parish 100 or 200 miles distant, which had never derived the least benefit from his industry, and where, in all human probability, he would not only be unknown, but without a single friend to look after his interests? To him, therefore, it appeared, that this alteration in the law was most unjust as regarded parishes, and cruel in the extreme as respected individuals. But it was said, that it would prevent litigation. Now, instead of having any such effect, he believed, that the contrary would be the result, and that litigation, instead of being diminished, would be considerably increased by it. There was a point connected with this measure which the noble and learned Lord had passed over without observation, and that was, the provision that was made in it for lending small sums of money to the industrious poor. He must say, that he approved of this part of the Bill, as he knew from observation and experience, that such loans had been productive of very great advantage to the poor. He also approved of attaching the repayment of such loans on the goods of paupers, because it would prevent that improvidence which but too frequently marked their
258
conduct, at the same time that it would enable deserving families to get forward in the world by means of honest industry. For these reasons it was, that he approved of this portion of the measure. With respect to the bastardy clauses, he was glad, that the framers of the Bill had not attended to the recommendation of the Commissioners. One of the grounds of that recommendation was, that the throwing the burthen on the woman exclusively would diminish the number of bastard children; but supposing that it would diminish them nine-tenths, he would prefer the law to remain as it now stood rather than that a different system, such as that in the Bill, should tempt the guilty parent to raise her hand against her own offspring. He had seen statements of cases in the Reports of the Commissioners where women considered it a little fortune to have three or four illegitimate children, from the allowances for whose support they obtained a maintenance. He must believe that in such accounts the Commissioners were imposed upon; but supposing, that the accounts were as it was stated, the 43rd of Elizabeth was sufficient to correct the evil, if that Act were duly enforced; for by that Act the allowance was not directed to be given to the mother, but was to go to the parish, to be applied to the support of the child as might be thought proper; so that, in fact, no encouragement was held out by that Act to the mother to increase the number of her illegitimate children, if the law were duly administered. He was inclined to think, that the greatest inducement held out to the woman on such occasions was, not the hope of the allowance which she might receive, but the promise or prospect of marriage: but these were left untouched by the Bill, and would have their full force under its operation, as much as they had at the present moment. He would contend that the enactments against bastardy as they now stood would be found as fully sufficient as, and more sufficient than, those of the Bill before their Lordships. Wherever the Poor-laws had been strictly administered in accordance with the directions in the Statute, they had been found to work well, and therefore he had a right to contend that, instead of adopting an entirely new measure like that now proposed, the better course would have been to restore the old system to what it

259
originally was, by expunging from it the abuses which had crept into it from time to time. He had now touched upon the leading features of the Bill, and he would only trouble their Lordships with a very few observations on what was likely to be its practical effects. He must confess, that it filled him with a species of horror that the people of this country should ever think of reposing such novel, he might say such extraordinary, powers in the hands of three, or rather of twelve, Commissioners. But what was the excuse that was made for this departure from every thing like precedent or principle? It was said, indeed, that the Constitution of a Central Board would enable them to adopt one uniform system throughout the country. But he denied that any thing like an uniform system could either be established or would be durable even if it could. What knowledge could the Central Board possess respecting the circumstances of each parish or district in the kingdom, and the distinct mode of Government necessary to be adopted in each? And unless they possessed such information, how could they possibly frame any uniform system? But it was his opinion that not only could no uniform system be adopted, but that this Central Board would do no good, and for the reason that they would not be acquainted with that species of knowledge which was absolutely essential to the due and impartial administration of the Poor-laws. It should be recollected, that there were 12,000 parishes in England, and that an accurate acquaintance with the local and peculiar circumstances of each of them was necessary to their good government. It was, therefore, perfectly ridiculous to talk about their Central Board, for it must be impotent, if not actually mischievous. What control could it possess over parishes placed at a remote distance from it, or how could it remedy the abuses which might exist in such places? The thing was absurd. Even after they had called their Central Board into existence, how were the poor to be managed? Was it not plain, that they must be governed by the same persons by whom they were managed at present, and, if so, was it likely that either select vestries or guardians of the poor would suffer themselves to be controlled in the relief which they thought fit to give to the pauper by this Central Board? But he looked at this
260
power in another point of view. Every man's property would, in point of fact, become subject to it, and so wholly without control would it be, that not only could the Commissioners rate parishes just as they pleased, but unite them, or dissolve Unions which had been made, at their mere will and pleasure. Much injustice might be worked by means of those Unions. If a rural parish, were joined to a town parish the workhouse being in the latter, the pauper would necessarily have to go there. Thus injustice would be done to the pauper by sending him from the country into the town, and immorality would be disseminated to an incalculable extent. But if Unions had been attended with any commensurate advantage was it to be supposed that they would not have been effected under the existing law. The fact, however, was, that they had been tried and found inexpedient, and therefore they had been abandoned. But this was not all. The Commissioners were to employ such officers as they deemed proper, and of course to pay them. They were also to be at liberty to subpœna such witnesses as they pleased, and at their mere whim or fancy starve or feed the paupers; that was, they would have the power of taking as much money as they thought proper out of the pockets of the rate-payers, or letting it alone. Never was there an instance in either ancient or modern times when such a power as this was given to any set of men. Blackstone himself contemplated with horror the power that was given to the King under the Mutiny Act. He thought it was unconstitutional that his Majesty should have the power of making laws, deciding upon laws, and rescinding laws; and yet the power which Blackstone thought unfit to he placed in the hands even of the King was to be given to these Commissioners. They were even to have the power of delegating that power, and the only restraint to which they or those delegated by them, would be subject would be in making general regulations. Their general regulations would have to be submitted to the Secretary of State; but no control whatever was intended to be exercised over their other proceedings. He did not think that even the noble and learned Lord himself could defend delegating such enormous powers as these; but, even if he should, then he must say that he was certainly too jealous about

261
granting arbitrary power ever to permit it except in a case of absolute necessity; but no such necessity had as yet been made out. He had shown, that it would not only affect property generally, but that it would enable the Commissioners to determine whether the unfortunate pauper should eat his miserable pittance in a state of liberty or of thraldom. Whilst in the workhouse they could treat the pauper just as they pleased, and in these was to be vested the power to say: "You shall have relief or you shall not." He could not help saying, that it was utterly impossible for him to contemplate those powers without alarm. They had abolished negro slavery; but if this Bill passed, he very much feared that a short time only would elapse until they saw the condition of the poor of this country infinitely worse than that of the serfs of the continent, or the villains of former ages; worse even than that of the slaves in the West Indies to whom they had given their freedom. He had now to call the attention of their Lordships to the unconstitutional manner in which these Commissioners were to be paid. According to established precedent, the salaries of permanent Commissioners were fixed by law; but in the present instance that was not to be the case, the right of deciding upon the amount of those salaries being left dependent upon the pleasure of the King and the judgment of Parliament from year to year. But in other respects besides those he had adverted to was this Bill defective. Nothing could ever induce him to confer on any body of men a power at the same time so novel and unnecessary; and therefore, as no proof had been given that it was called for, he hoped that the noble Lords who supported it would consent to postpone it until the next Session, in order that they might obtain the advice of practical men respecting its provisions. The other important duties which the Commissioners had to discharge rendered it impossible that they could have weighed the evidence before them maturely at the time they furnished their recommendations, and therefore it was, that he wished to have the opinion of practical men before this Government scheme was carried into execution. It was highly calculated to create alarm in the breasts of t he poor when they found that the evils they had endured were attributable to the Government; and
262
on this account it would be dangerous, as, instead of attaching blame to the local authorities, they must know that the whole fault rested with the Ministers of the Crown. This would lead naturally to discontent and bad feeling towards the Government, and hence it was, that he entreated their Lordships to proceed with caution, in order that they might become thoroughly acquainted with all the bearings of the measure before they passed it into a law. With these observations he should conclude by moving, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that he should support the second reading of this Bill because lie thought that, after some Amendments had been made in it in Committee, it would effect an alteration in time Poor-laws which would be highly beneficial to the labouring classes. He viewed this measure as being second in importance to none that had ever been brought under their Lordships' consideration, and, thinking that it would be an advantage to the labouring population of the country, he willingly came forward to give it his support. The opponents of the measure, who were anxious to maintain those laws which were on all hands admitted to be defective, were bound to show how the abuses which had crept into them could be got rid of, before they called for the rejection of this Bill; and having failed to do this, he, in the absence of any such proposition, certainly found himself bound to enter upon the consideration of this measure. It was not to the law, as founded by the 43rd of Elizabeth, that he objected. That law proceeded upon the true principles of justice and charity, and it was not the provision for the relief of the aged, the infirm, the sick, the impotent, or the indigent, which was even made the subject of question. He must, however, admit, that the Magistracy of the country had been much to blame. Their conduct, to say the least of it, was most injudicious, for they had made no distinction between honest industry and indolent vice, and this it was, that had broken down the spirit of independence for which the peasantry had been distinguished. He would now refer to that part of the Bill which related to bastardy, and, so far from agreeing with the noble and learned Baron behind him (Lord Wynford) that the change would be productive of injury, he firmly believed that very great benefit

263
must result from it, and that it would go a great way to check vice and profligacy. He also thought, that destroying settlement arising from hiring, servitude, or apprenticeship would be a great improvement in the law, but he at the same time feared that it would fail unless it were followed in the next Session by the introduction of some modified system of Poor-laws into Ireland. The influx of Irish labourers into this country occasioned the distress which the English labourer endured, particularly in some of the agricultural districts; and, therefore, Unless that evil were remedied, no change that could be made would work satisfactorily. By the Bill, as it was introduced into the House, no labourer could take a settlement who did not occupy a house rated at 10 l. a-year, nor could a child gain a settlement until after it was sixteen years of age. This, however, had undergone some alteration; but, for his part, he would not object to see the amount of rating raised to 16 l., or even to 20 l. The inclosure of commons had been a very great injury to the poor, and had deprived them of the assistance they used to derive from their cow, their sheep, and their geese. Now he entirely approved of that part of the Bill which provided for making allowances to able-bodied men, and this he thought was a complete answer to those who stated that the poor could have no relief except in the workhouses. With respect to the power to be confided in the Commissioners, he must say, that he looked upon that with some degree of jealousy. He allowed that it was both new and unconstitutional, but he felt that the situation of the country was such as to demand that some extraordinary means should be taken to bring the Poor-laws back to that wholesome state in which they were when they were looked upon by the poor man as a blessing. He fully agreed with his noble and learned friend (Lord Wynford) that it would be wholly impossible to establish one uniform system for the whole country. The attempt had been made and failed, and, in proof of this, he had only to state, that in the three counties in which he had discharged the functions of a Magistrate the Poor-laws were administered so differently in each that they could scarcely be recognised as proceeding from the same source. It was quite clear, that the same description of relief would not be neces-
264
sary in all parishes, but although it might not be possible to establish uniformity, he thought it would be very easy to go the length of giving encouragement to industry in all quarters. All the changes which had hitherto been made had failed in producing any beneficial result, and, therefore, it was, that he was prepared to support the second reading of this Bill, in the honest and conscientious hope that it would prove an advantage to the labouring poor.
The Earl of Eldonwas understood to say, that nothing could induce him to vote for the second reading of a Bill of such vast importance as this was that night. After the Magistracy, the Clergy, and the Gentlemen of the country had done their best to carry this Statute into effect, was it possible that they, legislating at such a season of the year, were likely to deal with a subject so complicated and difficult with that deliberation which it required? They had no right to blame parties whose conduct rather deserved to be praised; but he begged their Lordships to understand that his objection was, not that the Bill should be read a second time, but that the second reading should take place then. His sincere opinion was, that nothing but mischief could result from undue haste, and that was the ground on which he besought them to take more time and act with greater deliberation.
Lord Alvanleysaid, that it was not his practice to obtrude himself on their Lordships' attention; but he was induced to depart from his usual habit by the important nature of the measure under discussion. He was perfectly convinced that the Poor-laws, as they stood at present, would, if properly administered, remove all the evils respecting which their Lordships had heard so much complaint, and which were, in fact, only the effect of the maladministration of those laws. He, therefore, thought that the Bill now on their Lordships' Table was unnecessary; but he particularly objected to it on the ground that it would prove destructive of that system of self-government under which this country had risen to its present state of prosperity. It was not his intention to go into the details of the measure, but should content himself with declaring, that he was decidedly opposed to its principles, and to the establishment of the Board of Commissioners. The powers which it was proposed to confer on them

265
were of the most despotic character, and far greater than any ever granted to a Board in latter times. He was confident that this Board of Commissioners would render itself odious throughout the country by its constant interference in local, nay domestic concerns, and by destroying that connexion which existed at present, to the great advantage of both, between the poor man and his rich neighbour. In support of the assertion he had made, that nothing more than an improved administration of the present Poor-law was wanted, he felt it necessary to trouble their Lordships with the statement of a few facts in reference to the condition of three parishes. The first parish to which he would direct their Lordships' attention was Bingham. This parish was in 1817 in a state of great demoralization. The poor-rates amounted to 1,206 l. on a rental of 7,498 l., and the number of paupers to 22 l. However, by the measures adopted by the reverend Mr. Lowe, the clergyman attached to the parish, a great improvement was effected in its condition. The first thing he did was to refuse relief to persons out of the workhouse, and the consequence of obliging all labourers who sought relief to go into the workhouse was to diminish the number of the applicants. The next step which be took was one which, on the first blush, had the appearance of harshness; he compelled the occupiers of small cottages to contribute to the poor-rates, however trifling their payment might be. The effect produced by this measure he would state to their Lordships in Mr. Lowe's own words;—" Where this has been done," said the reverend gentleman, "the tenants of cottages are more clamorous against those who receive relief than the rich." The result was, that in 1832 the poor-rates were reduced from 1,206 l., their amount in 1817, to 419 l. In two other parishes, where similar means had been adopted, the same effect had been produced. In one, the parish of Southwell, the poor-rates in 1813 amounted to 1,381 l., on a rental of 10,642 l., and in 1832 they were reduced to 417 l.; and in the other, Uley, the poor-rates in 1830 amounted to 3,185 l., and in 1833 to only 800 l. These facts afforded a sufficient proof that the present Bill was unnecessary; but he had another reason, which was paramount with him, for opposing its further progress. He could not help viewing with alarm the
266
introduction into this country of a system which, he firmly believed, would sap the foundation of the prosperity of the British empire. The system to which he alluded had no English name—it was the French system of centralization. He would ask their Lordships how it happened that this country, in spite of every disadvantage, carried on a commerce a thousandfold greater than any other nation in the world, and enjoyed unexampled wealth and prosperity? How was it that this country had been able to retain the possession of colonies larger in extent than the Roman empire, in defiance of the whole civilized world, which during the last war was opposed to her? The reason was, because the Government of this country had hitherto judiciously permitted every man in it to develope his talents in the manner he liked best. The country was intersected by canals and roads, covered with public works, and adorned by magnificent edifices. Could their Lordships believe, that this would have been the case if every man who wished to make a road, or construct a bridge, had been obliged to submit his plan to a Central Board des Pouts et Chaussées? The opinion which he entertained on this subject was confirmed by the observations of an enlightened foreigner. The Baron Dupin said, "What has the English Government done in so short a time to produce the public works which alone have occasioned the great results of which we have just given a picture? Nothing; it has allowed commerce and industry to act from themselves. It has thought that it did enough in assuring them protection in foreign countries, justice everywhere, and in the interior unbounded liberty." Thinking that these were the principles on which the Government of this country ought to be conducted, he felt bound to oppose the present Bill, because he regarded it as the first step to the introduction here of the French system of centralization.
The Earl of Radnorconcurred in the observations which had fallen from the noble Baron (Lord Alvanley) with regard to a general system of centralization; but though the noble Lord had urged the continuance of a system of self-government, he must remind him that in many parishes this power became misgovernment; and hence it was, that he supported the proposition for the establishment of a

267
Central Board for, at least, a short period. He was surprised that the noble Baron (Baron Alvanley) had not discovered that one part of his speech had answered the other. How came it that the measures which had been adopted under the system of self-government in particular places had not been adopted in the neighbouring parishes, and that they had not emulated the example (so much eulogized) which had been set them by the parish of Bingham, and other places which had been enumerated? In order to obtain an effectual union, it was absolutely necessary that there should be a head able and qualified to carry the advantages of any system generally into effect, possessing the power to do so, and uniting such industry, perseverance, and courage, as would secure the success of the scheme. He admitted, that if it could be shown that every parish in England contained a Mr. Lowe or a Mr. Litchfield, then the establishment of a Board of Commissioners was unnecessary and uncalled for, but in the absence of such proof he must contend, that the proposed plan was essential for the formation and preparation of rules and regulations that could not by any individual parish be deviated from. This proposition would not have the effect, as had been contended, of superseding the law, but would rather be calculated to give it full and complete effect; for though every noble Lord who had spoken had implied, that though the law was good, yet the Administration was bad, the noble and learned Earl opposite had complained, that the Commissioners would be mere theorists. All rule and government was based upon theory, and these Commissioners would be enabled to unite their theory with practice. He deprecated the anxiety expressed by some noble Lords, that this measure should be put off for another year, in order to afford them time to make inquiries in the country, because sufficient opportunities had already been granted, for it had been admitted, that the grievances arising out of the present system had continued increasing for the last twenty years, and yet in the face of that increase nothing had been done. He denied that the provisions of the present Bill would reduce the people of this country to a state of slavery. Much was said, it was true, of the powers given to the Commissioners; but it was forgotten that at present the most offensive powers were
268
vested, not in the hands of men of education, experience, and learning, qualified in every respect to make rules and regulations, and to lay down just and equitable principles for the government of all parishes, but in the hands of overseers and guardians of the poor whose mode of life (he spoke it not disrepectfully), whose occupations, made them incapable of framing such regulations—in the hands of men open to all sorts and descriptions of bias and partiality. All these evils the Central Board would be calculated to remove. The objection as to the powers of these Commissioners to compel the raising money, which had been raised by the noble and learned Baron opposite (Lord Wynford) in his opinion failed, for the Bill itself limited those powers to the raising only of 50 l., and that was still further limited to the purposes of repairing the workhouses. On the whole, he conceived it essential that the Bill should be passed without unnecessary delay, not, however, without due deliberation, for he had witnessed the growing evils arising from the administration of the Poor-laws. He was mainly anxious for the passing of this Bill, because he was convinced, that those from whom the rates were raised required this measure of relief, which he trusted their Lordships would not refuse to afford them.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he felt called upon shortly to state the reasons why he should give his vote in favour of the second reading of this Bill. In the first place, he must say, that if it was proper to pass the Bill, he was satisfied that there was ample time during the present Session to go through the Committee with it, and regularly through all its stages, and that it was the duty of their Lordships, without any further loss of time, to proceed with a measure which, if necessary at all, was necessary now. He should, on this ground alone, vote against the amendment for a postponement. He concurred with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, arid with the noble Lord opposite, as to the necessity of this measure. He agreed first of all in the existence of grievances consequent upon the administration of the existing Poor-laws, but he did not concur in the opinion expressed by the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) disapproving the provisions of the Statute of Elizabeth; but he did disapprove of a

269
system of administration which differed in each and every one of the 12,000 parishes in this country, and in each of which different and varied abuses had crept in. He maintained, that it was impossible for Parliament to frame any law that could by possibility remedy or apply to the abuses which prevailed at the present moment—abuses which were as varied in their character as they were numerous. Hence it became absolutely necessary that such an appointment as a Central Board of Commissioners should be made, with powers to control the whole of the parishes in the land, and to adopt such remedies as would secure a sane administration of the Poor-laws throughout the country. The subject had been submitted to the House by several noble Lords, and had also been under the consideration of every Administration that he had known; but no plan had ever been suggested, or scheme proposed, to remove and remedy the evils of the existing laws, which in his judgment at all equalled the present, and for it he must return the noble Lords opposite, with whom it had originated, his sincere thanks. The present remedy for the evils of the existing laws was most unquestionably the best which had ever been devised; at the same time he must observe, that as the Central Board of Commissioners must necessarily have very extraordinary and full powers, it would be proper that they should keep such a record of their proceedings as would render them liable to the actual control at all times of the Government and Parliament of the country. He doubted much whether the provisions of this Bill gave such a control to the Government as would afford a full knowledge to the Parliament at all times of the course pursued by the Commissioners; but in Committee on the Bill he should consider whether some alteration was not necessary, in order to make that control more active. There were several clauses in the Bill which required much alteration and modification. He entirely approved of the removal of the allowance system, which was one of the greatest evils arising from the existing Poor-laws; but he was of opinion, that it ought to have been gradually and slowly destroyed, and without a fixed day for its termination being specified in the Bill. He would recommend that this clause should be left out, and that power should be given to the Com-
270
missioners to carry gradually such alterations in this respect into effect as to them might seem meet. With respect to the clauses of the Bill relating to the laws of settlement and bastardy, he should reserve himself until the Bill went into Committee; and he should not have troubled their Lordships with these few words, but that he was anxious to declare his sentiments upon a Bill which should have his support.
Lord Segrave,in reference to what had fallen from the noble Lord on the cross-bench (Alvanley) with regard to the parish of Uley, said, that he was acquainted with the respectable Magistrate who had been referred to, and he could state, that whatever had been accomplished in that parish could not have been so from any personal or local influence of that individual, for he neither lived in the parish, nor did he act as a Magistrate in the district in which it was situated.
Lord Stourtoncame down to the House much disposed to resist the Bill before their Lordships. He considered it as breaking up some of the old relations of the community, and depriving the labouring man in his distress of his old and accustomed and hereditary guardians and protectors. But, after the observations and arguments of other noble Lords of greater experience, and particularly after the luminous and powerful statement of the learned Lord on the Woolsack, detailing all the evils and abuses of the present system, he felt impelled to seek for a remedy in a change. He was also led to this conclusion, and to embrace a new arrangement, by the speech of a noble Earl (Winchilsea) which had been justly cheered by many of their Lordships, exhibiting the necessity of including Ireland under some system of relief. For noble Lords might be convinced, that unless sonic more attention were paid to the destitute condition of the Irish labourer, that the Legislature would struggle in vain to uphold the independence, or even to maintain the present comforts, of the English labourer. The new, extraordinary, and incalculable power of steam was daily triumphing more and more over time and distance, and bringing England and Ireland into closer contact. Such was the language of a very able little work written expressly and avowedly to convey correct information to the labourers of this country. He meant "the Results of Machinery."

271
Such again was the language of Parliament itself. He would, with the permission of their Lordships, quote shortly from each—the "Results, of Machinery" said, that "the whole Territory of Great Britain and Ireland, is more compact, more closely united, more accessible, than was a single county two centuries ago;" and Mr. Williams' evidence was quoted in that work, asserting that ten tons of Poultry, and that fifty tons, or 880,000 Eggs in one day were shipped from Dublin to Liverpool; and could their Lordships believe, that the wages and condition of labourers would not tend to an equilibrium, under such circumstances as these. A Parliamentary Report was still more impressive, "Your Committee," it said, "cannot too strongly impress upon the House, that between two countries so intimately connected as Great Britain and Ireland, two different rates of wages, and two different conditions of the people cannot permanently co-exist." He, therefore, would conjure their Lordships and the Government to grapple with the forlorn state, and extreme exigencies of the surplus and ejected labour of Ireland; or no Board, no contrivance, no machinery they could invent, would ever enable them to rescue the English labourers from increasing degradation and distress, exposed, as they were, to the strong and deep and irresistible current of cheap labour from Ireland.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that after the full and able statement which had been made by his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, in support of the Bill now before their Lordships, it was scarcely necessary he should trouble their Lordships with any observation; but such was the paramount importance of this measure, that he felt he should not discharge his duty if he allowed the Bill to pass this stage without offering a very few words upon it. The Bill was one of the greatest importance to every part of the British Empire, to England especially; to Scotland, as it was calculated to make her persevere in that system which had been established by herself; and it was also of the deepest importance to Ireland, in order to teach those who advocated the introduction of Poor-laws into that country what form should there be applied. This last subject was well known to be now under serious consideration, and he trusted it would be deliberated upon with that care, calmness, and patience which its
272
importance deserved. He could not agree with those noble Lords who wished for a postponement of the present Bill. Such a course might be well for those who were opposed to, and wished to get rid of, the measure altogether, but those who felt that it would afford a remedy for existing evils, and considering that there was now ample time for a full consideration of the subject, would concur with him in thinking that it would be the grossest absurdity, nay, almost madness and insanity, to lose the present opportunity of settling this great question. He had heard with much pleasure the speech of his noble friend on the cross benches (Lord Alvanley), and he regretted that he could not entirely concur in the sentiments which had fallen from that noble Lord. He knew the acuteness and power of mind possessed by his noble friend, and was the more surprised to find how much he had misled and deceived himself on the present occasion. So long as he had thought on the subject of the Poor-laws, nothing had struck him so forcibly as the great absurdity which arose from them, of placing so heavy an amount of taxation under uncertain temporary and local control and government. The poor-rate was the heaviest direct tax levied in the country, and was equal in amount to the Assessed-taxes and the Land-tax put together—nay exceeding both those imposts by 1,500,000 l.; indeed, in some parishes the amount of poor-rates quadrupled that of the Assessed and Land taxes united. Was it then not necessary that, in a financial point of view, some regulation should be made? It was worse than the Income-tax, which had been objected to, because it was a growing tax, and thereby afforded a temptation to the Government, in time of need, to put on, year after year, a little more, until they could confiscate the whole property of the country; for the poor-rate was a growing tax—increasing every year, secretly and silently; while an Income-tax could only be increased by the consent of the Legislature openly and publicly obtained. Again, the question of the Poor-laws was still more important, because it involved the state of morals in the country. The subject was all-important, and he concurred with the noble Duke in the opinion, that the evils were only to be remedied by a Central Board, armed with powers ample and sufficient for the duties it was destined to perform. With respect

273
to the alterations which had been suggested in particular provisions of the Bill, it would be time enough for hint to enter upon them when the Bill was in Committee, for, as far as he could collect the sense of the House, it appeared to him, that their Lordships concurred in the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, and he could not but congratulate the country upon the determination to which the House was likely to come in reference to this measure.
The Marquess of Butewas understood to support the Bill, on the ground, that he believed it to be calculated to benefit the honest and industrious classes, and to bring the gentry in nearer connexion and acquaintance with the wants of their fellow countrymen.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, he would vote for the Amendment of his noble and learned friend (Lord Wynford.) The noble Marquess read an extract from a letter of Mr. Cartwright, one of the Magistrates of Durham, which said, that, if the Lords passed the Bill, they would ruin themselves in the estimation of the country.
The Duke of Clevelanddenied, that such were the opinions of the Magistracy generally in the county of Durham; at all events, he had received no intimation front them against this measure.
Earl Manverswould give his cordial and hearty support to the Bill.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, he would vote for this Bill because he was aware of the evils in his own county that had arisen from the mismanagement of the Poor-laws, and because he did not see proposed, and he could not himself propose, a better measure to meet such evils. He could not avoid, however, looking at the Bill with considerable alarm, and he thought, that some of the powers given by it were to be viewed with much jealousy and suspicion. He trusted, that regulations would be introduced to control the powers given to the Commissioners, or that, at all events, the Secretary of State for the Home Department would watch the exercise of those powers with a jealous eye. He should have the utmost confidence in his noble friend, now at the head of the Government, if he filled the office—that office, the duties of which he had so long discharged—as he knew his opinions on the subject; but without any disparagement of the noble Lord, now ap-
274
pointed to that office, he (the Duke of Richmond) felt considerable anxiety on this point. If an effort should be made to introduce the system all at once, and per force on the country, the worst effects might be produced. He trusted, that those in power, and whose duty it would be to watch over and superintend the conduct of the Commissioners, instead of consulting and acting upon the advice of any inexperienced young man, who, however well informed on other subjects, might be deficient in information as to the practical state, especially of the more remote parishes in country districts—he trusted, he said, instead of acting on such advice, the Government would take care that the system was introduced gradually, and according to the results of practical experience. He knew many parishes in the country where, if they attempted to carry the regulations of the Board into effect, a rebellion might be the consequence, or something a great deal worse than they bad in 1830. He admitted, therefore, that he looked to the Bill with considerable anxiety, and he again trusted, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department would watch with peculiar care over the conduct of the Commissioners. He voted for the measure because he found no better proposed. He should wish, however, to see a clause introduced into it, authorizing the Commissioners to give power to the rate-payers, where a majority of them decided on it, to establish a Labour-rate. In the Committee he should probably propose a clause to that effect.
The Marquess of Lansdownmerely rose to state, that nothing was further from the intention of Government, and nothing further from the object of the Bill, than to force this change upon any district of the country without full inquiry, and, in short, taking into consideration all the local circumstances connected with the place in question. With regard to the date referred to, when it was said, that this measure was to introduce a totally different system all at once, it was a great mistake to suppose, that the thing was to be done thus suddenly. What was intended by the fixing of that date was, that no change—not even in that worst abuse of the system, the allowance system —should take place until after that date. Until that allowance system was put an end to, it would be vain to attempt to raise the character of the people of Eng-

275
land, or to restore amongst them those habits of industry and virtue for which they had been formerly so remarkable. The object of the measure was, to liberate industry in every part of the country. His Majesty's Ministers would, in Committee, be ready to listen to any Amendments that were not opposed to the great principle of the measure.
The Lord Chancellorreplied.—In consequence of what had fallen from his noble friend (the Duke of Richmond) and some other noble Lords, he had been thinking, whether means might not be devised for increasing the responsibility of the Commissioners (a very desirable thing he was ready to admit), and he should probably suggest, in Committee, a clause founded on the principle of the clause inserted in the East-India Bill of last Session, requiring the Commissioners to keep a minute of all their proceedings, of all their discussions, of all their differences, &c., to be open at all times for the inspection of the Government, so that the Government would, in such case, have full means of seeing how matters were managed, and what were all the circumstances connected with it. With regard to this measure, he would say, that the experience of two centuries and a-half showed that they could not do without such a Bill. As to centralization, and the effect which was attributed to such a system, interfering with every man's business, the Poor-law system, especially as it had existed for the last thirty-five years, had, in a thousand times worse degree than any system of centralization, interfered with the business and pursuits of every man. The Poor-laws centralized the mischief and localized it also, so as to make it ten-thousand times worse than it ever would be under any system of centralization. He looked forward with the greatest confidence to the happiest results from this measure.
The House divided upon the original Motion: Contents 76; Not-Contents 13 —Majority 63.
Bill read a second time.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

Abingdon, Lord

Kenyon, Lord

Alvanley, Lord

Londonderry, Marg. of

Beaufort, Duke of

Newcastle, Duke of

Boston, Lord

Redesdale, Lord

Colchester, Lord

Rolle, Lord

Combermere, Lord

Wynford, Lord

Cumberland, Duke of