Sitting of 19 March 1835

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Sir GEORGE STRICELAND, Mr. CARRUTHERS, and Mr. MANGLES, from three Places,—against the Duty on Spirit Licences.—By Sir PHILIP DURHAM, from Speymouth, for Support to the Church of Scotland.—By Dr. BOWRING, from the Handloom Weavers of Scotland, and by Sir MICHAEL SHAW STEWART, from two Places,—for Relief.—By Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY, from Marylebone, for the Repeal of the Window Tax.—By Mr. ORMSBY GORE, from certain Landed Proprietors, against the Great Western Railway.

CHATHAM ELECTION.
Mr. Hodgesrose, pursuant to notice, to present a Petition from numerous Electors and other Inhabitants of the Borough of Chatham, complaining, that, in consequence of the votes which many of them gave at the last election, the Commanding Officer of the Marine Barracks had thought proper to interfere in a manner wholly unprecedented, and, as the petitioners alleged most unjustly, with the freedom of trade in that place. He was sure it was unnecessary to call the serious attention of the House to a subject of such grave importance, affecting so deeply its rights and privileges, and the due freedom of election, as that to which the petition referred. It was signed by 330 electors and inhabitants of Chatham, and it complained of the line of conduct adopted by the Commandant of the Marine Barracks there, in consequence of the proceedings that had taken place at the late election for that town. The petitioners stated, that for many years—indeed from time immemorial—the tradesmen and other inhabitants of Chatham had been in the habit of transacting business in the Marine Barracks, for which purpose they had been admitted without let or hindrance there, until the 19th of January last; that on the 7th and 8th of that month the election for Chatham had taken place, on which occasion a large proportion of the slopsellers and pawnbrokers resident in the borough had voted for Captain Byng, the candidate opposed to the Government, and successful candidate, Sir John Beresford; that on the 19th of January, to the surprise of the petitioners, an order was affixed to the door of the Marine Barracks, signed "H. James,"
1194
ordering that no pawnbrokers or slopsellers should in future be admitted to the barracks, without a special order from the Commandant. The petitioners proceeded to state, that though this order had been issued without any charge of misconduct having been preferred or established against the said class of tradesmen, they would not have complained of it, if it had been enforced fairly and impartially, but that two or three slopsellers and pawnbrokers, who had voted for Admiral Beresford, had been admitted to the barracks, while the others had been excluded; that, in fact, the whole of that set of trades people who had voted for Admiral Byng, had been refused orders of admission from the Commandant: that they (the petitioners) considered such an order, so enforced, arbitrary and unjust, originating in party and political feelings, and intended to prevent the free exercise of the elective franchise in that borough; that they were especially induced to form that opinion of it when they found the issuing of it so recently after the election, coupled with the fact of a conversation which it would be proved had occurred just previous to the election between an elector and Colonel Tremenhere, the Colonel-Commandant, in which the Colonel used the following words:—"If Chatham does not return Admiral Beresford, I hope that the Government will take such measures as will have the effect of shutting up half the shops in the town." The petitioners, in conclusion, expressed their confident hope, that the House would not allow persons holding such situations to interfere unduly with the free exercise of the elective franchise—they asked for inquiry, and for the adoption of such measures as the House in its wisdom might consider the case required. As the House would observe, nothing could be more constitutional or decorous than the tone and prayer of the petition. He was sure that the House would agree with him (Mr. Hodges) in the opinion, that this was a most important petition. Was it to be endured that officers maintained out of the public revenue of the country, should take upon themselves to interfere in the manner here alleged with the freedom of election.? It was quite true, that the order was issued after the election, but its effect would be prospective. What chance (should proceedings like this be suffered) would any tradesman, or inhabitant of

1195
Chatham have of fair play in future in the way of his business, if he should at any election hereafter vote against the Government candidate? He was well aware that the Commandant of any barracks might issue such orders as he judged fit relative to the admission of persons into the barracks, but here, if the allegations in the petition should be proved, there had been no charge made against the parties of interference with the discipline of the place; and if the conversation that was alleged to have occurred between an elector and Colonel Tremenhere previous to the election, should be proved, it was plain that the Government influence would be employed to prevent free and fair trading in the place. He was aware that great danger was incurred by persons making applications of this nature either to Members of the House, or to the House itself. Indeed, if such applicants should be few in number, they generally devoted themselves by so doing to certain destruction. But on the present occasion, upwards of 300 persons had signed the petition, and by so doing they mutually protected one another, for it would be impossible to deal destruction on so large a body. He believed it would be found, whenever the matter should be investigated before a tribunal of that House, to which he hoped it would be referred, that the petitioners would be able to support by evidence the allegations contained in their petition. It was his intention, after he had presented the petition, if the House would permit him, to move that it be referred to the Intimidation Committee, appointed on the Motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Devonport. They had now a complaint brought in a distinct shape before them, and by a petition numerously and respectably signed, and he thought they would fail in their duty if they did not throw some protection over those to whom the elective franchise had been intrusted. The hon. Member brought up the petition, and after it was read, he moved that it be referred to the Intimidation Committee.
Sir John Beresfordwas obliged to the hon. Member for the note that he had last night received from him, intimating that he would present this petition this evening. The only thing that he could assure the hon. Member and the House was, that the charge against the gallant Commandant of the Marine Barracks was
1196
a charge, in his opinion, not at all borne out, and he did not think that in the opinion of anybody such a course as that alleged to have been taken by the Commandant would at all promote his (Sir John Beresford's) interests. The fact was, that if he could take any course to make enemies for him in the borough of Chatham, it would be by prohibiting anybody to go into the barrack-yard. He certainly would not be disposed to excite or foment any angry feelings connected with the election; on the contrary, it would give him the greatest pleasure to allay them. The present charge of intimidation after an election was over, was one that belonged to his country, for it was something like a bull, and was indeed a curious charge to prefer. He had never known of the petition until he saw it last night; but if the prayer of it should be entertained, he supposed that the next thing would be, that the House would interfere with commanding officers. He said so, not from any idea of sheltering Colonel Tremenhere whatever; but if they should come thus to interfere with an officer in the execution of his duty, the next step would be to interfere with his Majesty's ships. As to this matter of Colonel Tremenhere's order, relative to the barracks, he knew not whether Colonel Tremenhere had a vote or not. He had himself never questioned electors on account of their votes. He had been applied to by several parties who had given pledges to Captain Byng, but he would not accept their votes. He would rather cut off his right hand than do so. He believed that a better officer, or a more honourable man, there did not exist than Colonel Tremenhere. He (Sir John Beresford) had not served with him, but Admiral Murray, and others who had served with him, spoke of him in the highest terms. Good God! could not an officer give orders to his regiment, or his corps, without being interfered with? As to the conversation that was said to have occurred, the only marked thing in the matter, he had never heard of it until he read the petition last night. He did not think that Colonel Tremenhere would lend himself to any one or any body of men. He was sure that he was incapable of doing anything improper. If any blame attached to the transaction, he (Sir John Beresford) was clear of it, and he would go further, and say, that he was ready to

1197
stand in the place of Colonel Tremenhere, as he was sure that he was altogether free from blame also. He did not think that it was necessary for him to say anything more in answer to what had fallen from the hon. Member.
Sir George Greysaid, that no one imputed to the gallant officer such acts as the petitioners had complained of. Every one knew that a more honourable man did not exist, and he was quite willing to give him credit for acting up to the sentiments he had just expressed. The present question was one of great public importance. Being himself the Representative of a borough (Devonport) somewhat similarly situated to that of Chatham, he could from his own knowledge testify that the zeal of certain officers often outran their discretion, and that in serving the existing Government, they did not stop to consider the freedom of those placed under them as sailors or soldiers as to the giving of their votes. This petition, signed by 300 and upwards of the inhabitants of Chatham, contained charges which, if established, constituted a gross breach of the privileges of that House; and the complaints thus made by those petitioners, were not to be disposed of by the mere assertion, that the commanding officer of a barrack or a ship, might issue any orders that he pleased for the regulation of those under his command, and that he ought not to be interfered with. The House had a right to look at the animus with which such orders were issued, whether on the eve of an election, or immediately after it; and he had no hesitation in saying, that if the circumstances stated in the petition were true, they amounted to little short of positive proof that the commandant of the Marine Barracks at Chatham, did interfere so as to influence the freedom of election at a future period, by the exercise of a power which he had no right to use in such a way. It was clear, even had not the conversation alluded to taken place previous to the election, that the electors could not but bear in mind that in a few days after the election was over, a certain course of conduct had been pursued towards those persons who had voted against the Government candidate, that there was no doubt that it was intended to influence their votes at a future election, and to make them know that if they should then give their votes according to their consciences, they would be injured
1198
in their interests by so doing. He was of opinion, that if the House were honest and sincere in its desire to maintain the purity and freedom of election, they would entertain this petition, and give it their most serious attention. He knew that the greatest dissatisfaction existed amongst a large class of the voters in the borough which he represented, owing to the manner in which Government influence had been exercised there. He hoped that the Committee to which reference had been made, might be able to devise some remedy to prevent such doings in future. But the object of that Committee would be, not to deal with any particular case, or to sift the charges contained in any petition addressed to that House, with a view to any particular case, either for the redress of particular electors, or the punishment of any individual, that should have acted contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. The object of that Committee was, to take a general view of all those cases, in order to apply a general remedy. It was important that they should have such a petition as this referred to them, but he thought that a Select Committee should be specially appointed to take it into consideration. This case, sustained by the petition of 300 electors, might be taken as a sample of the kind, and he would suggest to his hon. Friend, the Member for Kent, whether, as this case had assumed a serious aspect, he had not better give notice for a future day of a Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into it. He thought that would be the fairest and the best way of taking up the matter and investigating it, both as regarded Colonel Tremenhere and the petitioners.
Mr. Pottersaid, that he knew many shopkeepers who had been interfered with in a similar way on account of votes they had given. If the House did not interfere, the freedom of election would be at an end. He believed that there was no cure for such practices but the Ballot.
Sir Edward Codringtonsaid, that as practices similar to those alleged in this petition, had taken place at Devonport, he thought it important that this petition should be referred to a Select Committee, specially appointed to take it into consideration. He would be able before such a Committee, to prove that similar intimidation was going on at the present moment in Devonport. Hon. Members

1199
had, no doubt, seen a correspondence in the newspapers on the subject. The conduct of the marines at Devonport, in reference to the late election there, should be inquired into, particularly that of the adjutant, who was married to the daughter of the commanding-officer. He would clearly show, before a Committee, that intimidation had been resorted to by him, and that serious injury had been caused to the freedom of election in Devonport. He thought that might be properly attributed to Mr. Dawson having hoisted the Admiralty flag, and to the general commanding the marine corps having taken a leading part in the election at a neighbouring borough.
Sir Robert Inglishad thought that the matter to which the gallant Admiral had referred, had been set at rest. If he was not mistaken in the correspondence alluded to, it was stated in a letter from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Ebrington) to whom the case was referred, that the officer in question was not at all to blame.
Sir Edward Codringtonsaid, that the hon. Baronet confounded two cases.
Sir Phillip Durhamhoped the House would be slow to open either barracks or ships to such a class as those persons who endeavoured to get in to them, whether Jews or Gentiles. He had been a great deal at sea-ports, and he would say, that if they were to open a barrack or a ship to those whisky-dealers, they would not have a sober man in either in a short time. If the House was to take the power out of the hands of a commandant of marines, or the captain of a ship, to keep such characters out, they would repent it. They all knew that the men employed in this species of trade, were of the worst description. When a man was fit for nothing else in London, he became a coal-merchant; and so in the sea-ports, when a man was fit for nothing better, he became a seller of gin or whisky. There would not be a sober man in a ship in three days, if such characters were to be admitted into it.
Mr. Bernaldid not differ from the gallant Admiral as to the impropriety of the House interfering with orders, whether issued by civil, military, or naval authorities, when they contained regulations authorized by the laws of the services. He was as little disposed as the gallant Admiral to ask the House to interfere with the orders of a commander of a ship, or
1200
the general placed at the head of a barrack. But the gallant Admiral was mistaken in supposing that it was an order of that description that was complained of in this instance. The petitioners stated that which was a fact, that from time immemorial, certain tradesmen and inhabitants resident in Chatham, had been allowed the liberty, or the license if they would, of trading in the Marine Barrack-yard, with the persons residing there. That was their statement, and he (Mr. Bernal), as Member for the neighbouring town of Rochester, could state that he believed that representation to be true. Of course the commanding officer of the barracks had a right to issue what orders he pleased respecting their admission, but it was not of that the petitioners complained. They complained that by order of the 19th of January, all those who had been in the habit of resorting to the barracks for the purposes of trade had been excluded, with the exception of two or three pawnbrokers and slopsellers who had voted for the gallant Admiral, the present Member for Chatham. If any disreputable conduct had been discovered amongst this class of persons, or if they had been guilty of any irregularity, they could not complain of the order. All that the petitioners asked for was, that there should be a fair and impartial exercise of the power vested in the hands of the commanding officer. They sought for no more. He must contend that this question involved a most important constitutional point—namely, how far the military authorities of the country were at liberty to do acts in the exercise of their authority, that would have the effect of abridging the franchise of Englishmen. Thus stated, it would be seen at once that this question involved a constitutional point of the utmost importance. He was glad to find this matter brought before the House. If voters were not allowed to exercise their franchise freely and conscientiously—if, in short, such practices as the one complained of in this petition should be permitted, all freedom of election was at an end. It would, under such circumstances, be a perfect farce. He believed that Colonel Tremenhere was a respectable and distinguished office, but that had nothing to do with the point in question. The House was to look to the principle involved in such a proceeding as this; and neither of the gallant Admirals had

1201
touched upon the real point at issue. In the present case, the charge was, that a military officer had exercised his military jurisdiction with a view to endeavour to prevent a large portion of the inhabitants of the borough from voting as their consciences might induce them. He trusted that his hon. Friend would not allow the matter to drop; and that the House would take it fully into consideration. In justice to the officers, as well as the inhabitants, the whole matter should be investigated, and the circumstances explained, and contradicted, if they could be contradicted. He was sure that the House would be eventually obliged to deal effectually with this real grievance, and to come to some strong Resolution, the carrying of which would have the effect throughout all England of setting this question finally at rest. It was equally important to Gentlemen on both sides of the House that the question should be settled. Whatever set of men might be in the Government, he trusted that Parliament would be always ready to put down illegal and unconstitutional interference with the freedom of election.
Lord Ebringtonrose merely in consequence of the reference made to him by his hon. Friend opposite (Sir R. Inglis), regarding the opinion he had given with respect to the conduct of an officer at the Devonport election. He begged to state that the case in question was totally distinct from that to which his gallant Friend, the Member for Devonport, had just now alluded. The case to which his gallant Friend alluded, was that of an officer of marines, not a magistrate. The case whereon he (Lord Ebrington) had been called on to give an opinion, was in consequence of a representation that had been made to him by Captain Foot, of the navy, that his brother magistrates had declined to act with him on the Bench, on account of his soliciting the votes of certain licensed victuallers for Sir E. Codrington, and Sir G. Grey. Captain Foot sent him (Lord Ebrington) the whole correspondence on the subject, as well as the statement of the licensed victuallers, and after a careful examination of them, it was his (Lord Ebrington's) opinion, that there was nothing in the documents containing the slightest imputation on the character of Captain Foot as an officer or a man. With regard to the petition now before the House, he was not one of those who
1202
desired to carry the interference of that House in matters of military government beyond its just limits; but he must at the same time protest against the doctrine laid down by the gallant officer opposite, that the orders given by an officer under particular circumstances, might not become matter for inquiry on the part of that House. He considered that where any regulations so issued had reference to the exercise of the elective franchise by any individual, or came to interfere directly or indirectly, with the free exercise of that franchise by any individual, it was the bounden duty of that House to protect its own privileges, and the privileges of the electors. He was sure that it was only by maintaining that doctrine to the fullest extent, and acting upon it fully and fairly in every case, that they would do their duty to their constituents, or maintain in the face of the country and of the people of England, that national respect and good opinion which it should be the common object of all men, of all parties, to secure for that House.
Sir Samuel Whalleysaid, that they never could maintain the freedom of election unless they dealt out a measure of censure, or of punishment if necessary, in cases of this kind. They might express as often as they pleased in general terms their condemnation of intimidation, but to point out a particular case to public opprobrium was the surest way to prevent a repetition of the offence.
Sir Edward Knatchbulldid not rise to oppose the motion, for if it should appear that there had been any illegal interference on the part of the military, or any other authorities, with the exercise of the elective franchise, it was the undoubted right of that House to interfere to protect the freedom of election. In discussing the question raised by this petition, he would not go into the case of the Devonport election, referred to by the gallant Admiral. That case had been fairly set at rest, and that the imputations in that instance cast upon the officers, could not be supported. With regard to the present case, he regretted he was not in his place when the petition was presented, but having since read it, he would suggest to the hon. Member the propriety of postponing it for two or three days, in order that he (Sir E. Knatchbull) might have a personal communication with the gallant Officer against whom the allegations were

1203
made, and which allegations it was impossible for him to contradict or answer on the present occasion. It was rather hard that such grave imputations should be cast upon a gallant Officer without notice having been given to him. It was not just or correct to assume that charges of the kind were well founded. That was unfair. It was not only in the town of Chatham, but in other parts of the county of Kent, as the hon. Member (Mr. Hodges) was aware, that charges of this kind had been made, and could not afterwards be established. The hon. Member knew that he himself had been misled in a similar case. Having made charges against an hon. Friend of his, which the hon. Member, upon following up the inquiry, found were erroneous. He had a right, therefore, to assume that the same might be the case in this instance. It was going rather far to assert, that an order issued eleven days after an election, had been issued in consequence of that election. He trusted that the House would consent to the postponement of the case for a few days.
Sir Thomas Troubridgesaid, that this was not the only case of intimidation that could be brought forward in boroughs situated like Chatham. This was a very important case, which ought to be taken up by the House; and he hoped that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Devonport would be followed, and that a Select Committee would be appointed to take it into consideration. He did not consider it the part of an officer either in command of a ship or marines, to give an order that would have the effect of intimidating individuals from giving their votes freely. As it appeared to him, the gallant Admirals opposite had altogether fought shy of the question. He himself could lay before the House a similar case of intimidation, the circumstances of which he should be almost ashamed to detail. He had no doubt that Colonel Tremenhere was a gallant officer, but applying himself to the general principle of interference with the votes of electors, he would say, that it should not be put by or put down by any side wind in reference to the character of an individual. It was the imperative duty of the House to maintain the free exercise of the elective franchise, and whenever a Motion was made to appoint the Committee suggested, he should give it all the support in his power.
Sir John Campbellwas of opinion that the House was bound to interfere in this case. He thought there should be a Select Committee appointed to investigate the whole matter, and to examine witnesses on both sides, in justice as well to Colonel Tremenhere as to the petitioners. The allegations contained in the petition went to prove a direct interference with the elective franchise. It appeared on the statement of the petitioners that eleven days after the election an order was issued, which was in substance that all tradesmen who had voted for Captain Byng should be excluded from the Marine Barracks, and this fact, coupled with the declaration alleged to have been made by Colonel Tremenhere to an elector previous to the election—namely, that "if Chatham should not return Admiral Beresford he hoped the Government would adopt such measures as would shut up half the shops in the town," amounted in his opinion to a direct interference with the freedom of election. [Sir Edward Knatchbull. The allegation is not true.] He did not say it was true, but it was alleged in the petition, and he was only suggesting that they should give an opportunity of investigating the matter, and affording Colonel Tremenhere the means of disproving those allegations. Until he did so they must suppose that they were capable of proof. He (Sir John Campbell) sincerely hoped that the charge might be refuted; but this he would say, that it was a charge which the House, in justice to itself and to the country, was imperatively bound to investigate. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member for West Kent would give notice for an early day for a Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the subject.
Sir Richard Musgravethought the matter highly deserving the attention of Parliament. He could state that in his own county (Waterford) many cases of intimidation had occurred, and that the inhabitants, at a public meeting, had come to a determination that nothing but the ballot would protect the electors.
Mr. Hardywas of opinion, that if the facts should be substantiated, that it would be the duty of the House to address his Majesty to remove this officer. He must say, however, that it was a great hardship on the gallant officer that an opportunity had not been given him to meet it in the

1205
first instance, as in that case, probably, this discussion would have been unnecessary. If the question had been postponed such an opportunity might have been afforded to the gallant officer. If there was to be an inquiry, it ought to be entered upon speedily.
Mr. Hodgescould assure the hon. and gallant Officer opposite (Sir John Beresford) that nothing was further from his intention than to cast any imputation upon him. He had not alluded to him further than he was necessarily alluded to in the petition. With regard to postponing the discussion on the petition, it was a matter of indifference to him. He had mentioned to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Knatchbull) yesterday, that he had such a petition, and that he intended to present it to-day, and the right hon. Baronet never hinted to him the propriety of deferring the presentation of it. If the right hon. Baronet had done so, or if the right hon. the Member for the county of Edinburgh (Sir George Clerk) had done so, he would have postponed it to another day. The right hon. Baronet had alluded to some allegations which had been made by him (Mr. Hodges), from the hustings at the last election. He, on that occasion, did complain of intimidation and improper influence having been resorted to, but he expressly acquitted his hon. colleague of having any knowledge of such things. In fact, he did not allude to his hon. colleague at all then. He had since made a diligent inquiry into a number of those cases, and he was bound to state that it would be impossible for the Committee of his hon. colleague to give a guarantee to those persons if he brought them forward; he was quite sure it would be their absolute ruin if he were to do so. He had already expressed his satisfaction that a petition had been forwarded like the present, bringing the case of intimidation before the House in such a way that the individuals coming forward to complain would not be ruined, which would be the case with the individuals in the instances alluded to by him at the hustings at Kent, if they should appear to substantiate the charges which he, on their authority, had made. The gallant Admiral opposite had not been sparing in his abuse of those persons trading in Chatham. He spoke of Jews and Gentiles, and whisky-sellers, and gin-sellers, and would seem to insinuate that they were persons of the lowest
1206
description. Now, many of them were possessed of large capital, and were highly respectable tradesmen. He trusted, therefore, that their character would not suffer from the statement of the gallant Admiral. He (Mr. Hodges) had no personal motive in bringing this matter forward, he brought it forward on public principle. He knew nothing of the gallant Officer implicated in the petition. In fact, he did not know of his existence until he saw his name in the petition. As far as he could collect, it appeared to him that it was the general desire on all sides of the House that justice should be done as well to the gallant Officer as to the petitioners, and that with that view the matter should be referred to a Select Committee for investigation. Under those circumstances he would withdraw his Motion for referring the petition to the intimidation Committee, and give notice that on Tuesday, he would move, that it be referred to a Select Committee.
Petition to be printed.

POOR LAWS FOR IRELAND.
Mr. Smith O'Brien,in bringing forward a Resolution which would pledge that House to relieve the aged, helpless, and infirm poor of Ireland, felt the disadvantage under which he laboured, by the Commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into this subject not having yet reported. This objection he knew would have a great weight with some, but it would have none with those who, like him, thought that every hour which they delayed in passing a law to give relief was an unnecessary postponement of a measure necessary to the peace and tranquillity of Ireland. The objection would have no weight with those who knew, as he did, that there were thousands, tens of thousands, he might say hundreds of thousands of human beings living for the last seven years in a state of the most absolute destitution, and this, too, was happening while that House was deliberating, was appointing Committees, and was nominating Commissioners to ascertain questions which it required no inquiry to solve. At various periods the question of Poor-laws for Ireland was before that House, but it was always baffled or postponed. In 1829, Mr. Villiers Stuart brought forward a Resolution sanctioning the principle of Poor-laws for Ireland; it was met by the previous question. In 1830, a

1207
Committee was appointed, and that was given as a reason for not acceding to Mr. Sadler's Motion. That Committee afterwards reported upon every conceivable subject except the subject for which it had been specially appointed. In 1831, he had the honour of introducing a Bill upon this subject; it was met by repeated delays on the part of the Government, and it was at last postponed until the dissolution took place. The Bill then fell to the ground by his ceasing to be a Member. In 1832, the same thing occurred; there was another postponement; and in 1833, Mr. Richards's Motion was met by the appointment of the Commission, as a new argument, why the House could not come to a conclusion. The Commissioners in Ireland were anxious to ascertain the state of the poor; while it was notorious that the wretched state in which they were was disgraceful to the Government. That great ornament of the Catholic Church, Doctor Doyle, had long since contended for the necessity of a provision for the Irish poor, and an extract from the work of an intelligent English traveller, Mr. Inglis, who had visited Ireland last summer, accurately described their condition.
I spent a day, said Mr. Inglis, in visiting those parts of the city where the greatest destitution and misery were said to exist. I entered upwards of forty of the abodes of poverty; and to the latest hour of my existence, I never can forget the scenes of utter and hopeless wretchedness that presented themselves that day. I shall endeavour to convey to the reader some general idea of what I saw. Some of the abodes I visited were garrets—some were cellars: some were hovels on the ground-floor, situated in narrow yards or alleys. Let the worst be imagined, and it will not be beyond the truth. In at least three-fourths of the hovels which I entered, there was no furniture of any description, save an iron pot; no table, no chair, no bench, no bedstead—two, three, or four little bundles of straw, with, perhaps, one or two scanty and ragged mats, were rolled up in corners, unless where these beds were found occupied. The inmates were some of them old; some crooked and diseased some younger, but emaciated, and surrounded by starving children; some were sitting on the damp ground, some standing, and many were unable to rise from their little straw heaps. In scarcely one hovel could I find even a potato. In one which I entered, I noticed a small opening leading into an inner room; I lighted a bit of paper at the embers of a turf, which lay in the chimney, and looked in; it was a cellar wholly dark, and
1208
about twelve feet square; two bundles of straw lay in two corners; on one sat a bedridden woman, on another lay two children, literally naked, with a torn rag of some kind thrown over them both. But I saw worse even than this; in a cellar which I entered, and which was almost quite dark, and slippery with damp, I found a man sitting on a little saw-dust; he was naked; he had not even a shirt; a filthy and ragged mat was round him. This man was a living skeleton, the bones all but protruded through the skin; he was literally starving. In the place of forty hovels I might have visited hundreds;—in place of seeing, as I did, hundreds of men, women, and children in the last state of destitution, I might have seen thousands. I entered the alleys, and visited the hovels, and climbed the stairs at a venture. I did not select, and I have no reason to believe, that the forty hovels which I visited, were the abodes of greater wretchedness than the hundreds which I passed by.
He could himself bear testimony to the accuracy of Mr. Inglis's description. He accompanied the Poor-law Commissioners last year through Limerick, and he could truly say, that no language could describe nor the imagination conceive, anything equal to the frightful reality of the scenes he beheld. He was afraid to state the actual amount of the poor of the city of Limerick, lest he should be supposed to exaggerate; but there were at least several thousands in that city, while the charitable institutions could not afford relief to more than 400 persons. In Dublin, there were 30,000 persons living in the greatest destitution. Every village in Ireland was encumbered by its numerous poor; and this was occurring in a country from which the exports to Liverpool alone amounted annually to four millions and a half; and the entire of the agricultural produce exported to this country was probably little short in value of 10,000,000 l. When they saw the population living in this state of wretchedness in a country so productive, could they be surprised that it was disturbed? Should not their surprise be rather, that it was not infinitely more disturbed? But let them see how the poor lived in Ireland, or how they were supported. In Ireland, it was extremely well known that the poor were supported by the poor. The farmer, who was himself struggling, never refused food to the mendicant. The landed proprietors, with a few honourable exceptions, contributed, what was, in amount, a most insignificant sum. The classes in Ireland requiring re-

1209
lief were the helpless, the orphan, the widow, and the unemployed labourer. He would make a distinction between them. He would insist upon relief for the helpless, the orphan, and the widow; while, as regarded the able-bodied poor, though it seldom happened there was sufficient occupation for them in their respective parishes, yet they might be engaged in different districts upon works for the public advantage and utility. An objection might be made by persons in high favour in that House, that there was a rapid improvement in the condition of Ireland, and might call on them to let Ireland alone, and it would arrive at the climax of prosperity without the assistance of Poor-laws. He did not deny, that in particular places there was an improvement, that production had increased, and that the number of persons in comfortable circumstances had increased; but there could not be a doubt that the aggregate mass of misery in Ireland was greater now than ever it was, and that this had been caused, in many instances, through the cruel practice of turning poor persons out of their little holdings, for the purpose of consolidating larger farms; by the abolition of the forty-shilling freeholders, and by the working of the Subletting Act. He would ask those who talked so much of prosperity, if half the labouring people of Ireland were employed, or were in the possession of the means of subsistence. Multitudes were, in fact, living in the most helpless state of destitution, and yet it was said their condition was prosperous, and the nation was prosperous. Another argument against the Poor-law would be, that it would destroy the sympathies of all human beings for one another, and the feelings of charity of the poor towards each other. But if a man were rich, he should not be allowed to throw his poor relations on the sympathy of the poor. He would be most ready to grant a remedy against that person; but for the poor to support the poor, who had no claim upon them, was so far from being an objection, that it was a strong argument in favour of a Poor-law. One fact could not be denied, that such a law would at once put an end to what could not but be considered an evil:—indiscriminate relief to the poor. There was another class of persons who, although they admitted the practice and the principle of Poor-laws, declared it would be impossible to avoid the abuses of the English
1210
Poor-law. He was not prepared to say, that a plan could be submitted which was free from objection; but he would prefer the chance of a contingent danger, to the endurance of the present evils. He had no hesitation in saying that the badness of the Administration of an English Poor-law was the cause of their not having a better state of things in Ireland. But then it was said they had not in Ireland a sufficient machinery for working the Poor-law—it could not, he thought, be denied that they had as good materials for them as England possessed in the reign of Elizabeth. The management of the Irish gaols and hospitals would certainly bear comparison with the management of any in England, and if they had the power of uniting parishes, he had no doubt but that a Poor-law could be brought into beneficial operation. He would state the outlines of his Bill, although it was his intention to leave the matter in the hands of the hon. Member for Waterford (Sir Richard Musgrave), who would draw up a Bill, and whose intention it was to move that it be referred to a Committee to prepare the details. What he wished to propose was, that every parish in Ireland should be called upon to assess itself for the relief of the helpless poor. The poor entitled to relief should be strictly defined, and they should be only the impotent and the helpless. A Committee should be appointed annually to administer the Poor-law; and as it was said, that the poor-rate would absorb the rental, he did not mean to impose more than a shilling in the pound. A certain portion was to be paid by landlord and tenant—those proportions to be determined by the Committee; but let it be said, the landlord should pay twothirds, and the tenant one-third. He proposed also to tax the absentee landlord—which could not be objected to by any one; for it would not impose upon him more than any other holder of property; but it would compel him to give something to relieve that distress, which he now disregarded and increased by his absence from the country. It was also desirable that the Legislature should make some provision to suppress vagrancy, instead of the cruel statutes now in force. In looking over the papers laid before Parliament, he was surprised to find, that in 1830, not less than fifty-seven persons had been transported for seven years for

1211
vagrancy. He would tell the House that until they diminished the sufferings of the poor of Ireland, they could not expect security in that country. Those who felt that the laws were of no benefit to them who offered the labour of their hands to sustain life, and could not find employment, would care little for transgressing the laws and disturbing the public peace. If they treated Ireland, not as a dependency, but as a part of the empire, they could govern it, not by military force, not by the baneful policy of encouraging factions, who promoted discord, but by the blessings of good laws, and good institutions. The hon. Member concluded by moving, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that a provision should, without delay, be made by assessment upon property in Ireland, for the relief of the aged, infirm, and helpless poor in that kingdom."
Sir Richard Musgraveseconded the Resolution. The hon. Baronet, after referring to the Report of the Committee of 1831, appointed to inquire into the question of giving Poor-laws to Ireland, and stating that that Report was of itself a sufficient ground for legislation, said, that, without going into Ireland, no one could imagine the state of want and destitution which prevailed in that country among the poor. The wretched inhabitants, who had wandered about all day in ragged garments, were frequently obliged to pass the night without any other covering. Charitable individuals endeavoured, in some measure, to remedy this evil by supplying them with clothes, but this was ineffectual for the purpose, as they were after a short time compelled to sell them to save themselves from absolute starvation. Cases were frequently brought before the Magistrates of breaches of the law, committed in consequence of the pressure of extreme want, and the privation of the actual necessaries of life. The Magistrates were unwilling to punish such offences, but as the law compelled them to punish, they visited the first offence, with a slight fine; necessity, however, soon drove the offender to repeat the offence, and then he was sent to gaol, where he was provided with food and lodging, and was better off than when at liberty. The poor man might be fined 5l., but he might as well be called upon to pay the national debt. It was most painful to him as a Magistrate to commit persons to
1212
prison for breaches of the law under such circumstances. The present Resolution went no further than to relieve the helpless and impotent poor. He doubted whether a measure for the relief of the able-bodied poor could at present be carried into effect. The design of the original institution of property was to incite men to industry. He recommended that more employment should be given to the poor on public works. The public were hardly aware of the great advantages attending employment on the public works, but there ought to be an improvement in the management of them. They ought to be managed by permanent boards. It was, he believed, the intention of the noble Duke (now Secretary for Foreign Affairs), when he was at the head of the Government, to have introduced a great extension of the public works. He hoped his Majesty's present Government would follow up that plan. He feared that at present any other general plan of employment would be ineffectual. He had, on the first day of the Session, given notice of his intention to bring in a Bill for the relief of the helpless poor, drawn with the greatest care and attention by a Gentleman of great experience, and if the House would allow him to bring it in, he trusted that he should be able to prove that its provisions would be effectual.
Mr. O'Connellfelt it is painful duty to offer his opposition to the Question brought forward by the two hon. Members who had spoken before him. No man in that House could appreciate more fully the motives and the feelings of humanity which had induced these hon. Gentlemen to propose the remedy of legislative relief for the evils which oppressed Ireland, but he apprehended that their very desire to relieve the distress might mislead them as to the means of doing so, and he hoped, that in endeavouring to get rid of a temporary depression, they would not introduce a permanent evil into the country. He trusted that the House would, therefore, pause before they pledged themselves to a resolution like that which was brought before them upon this occasion. He would beg of hon. Members to observe, that this was not a motion for the introduction of a Bill. If it were, the House would have several opportunities of considering the question. The principles of the measure might be considered on the Motion to bring in the Bill on the first

1213
reading, and on the second reading, before they went into Committee, to consider its details; and even if the Bill were to pass the first reading, the House would not be pledged to agree to its principles. But the present resolution took the question per saltum: it pledged the House that it was expedient to make a provision for the aged, helpless, and infirm poor of Ireland. He objected to their making such a pledge, in the present state of their information upon the subject. What was the meaning of the Motion? What was meant by the word "helpless?" It did not mean the infirm only; for among the helpless must be included all who could not earn as much wages as would support them. And he would say, that there were none more helpless than that man who, with a large family and a good appetite, could not obtain as much wages for his labour as would feed the one or stay the other. He feared that the effect of the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland would be to make youth careless, and manhood reckless, if there were a certainty that old age would be provided for. It would, he was apprehensive, be the cause of depriving poverty of its remunerating quality, of loosening the close ties of social life, and inducing callous hard-heartedness to the necessities of relations. At present, the poor of Ireland were remarkable for their attention to their aged and infirm parents, and a man would rather incur any reproach than have it said of him, "You have neglected your old father or mother." The present Resolution would go far to do away with this moral feeling, and it would be as in England, where a son or a daughter would be found battling with their father or mother for sixpence or a shilling. It was proposed, first, to bind the House by a resolution to legislate on the subject, and then to bring in a Bill, then to refer it to a select Committee, who would collect evidence, and report to the House their opinion on the measure; and as it was impossible but that a great deal of time must be taken up in the inquiry, the Session would be thus wasted away. But while the House was thus consuming its time, there was a commission actually at work on the subject; the Report had not been prepared, but a great deal of evidence had been collected; he had seen some of that evidence, and it disclosed the most extraordinary fact, that the poor of Ire-
1214
land were supported by the poor themselves. The gate of the rich man was barred, but the door of the unfortunate cottager and small farmer was never bolted against the poor. He should wish that the evidence taken before the Commission were laid upon the Table of the House before they undertook the consideration of the subject, in order that they might have an opportunity of seeing their way, and of considering if it were possible to do anything to afford relief to the Irish poor, without, at the same time, introducing the immorality which attended the administration of the Poor-laws in England. He would not trespass any further on the patience of the House at that time, but he hoped that his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division. He considered that a measure of this important nature ought not to be introduced upon individual responsibility, nor should its adoption depend upon the persuasive talents of any individual. He submitted to the House whether so important a question as the subject of the Poor-laws in Ireland ought to be left to the management of individuals, or to the persuasive manner of an hon. Member, or whether it ought not rather to be brought before the House under the sanction, and upon the responsibility, of the Government? The Poor-law system had, after all, not succeeded so well in England itself. They had no reason to be proud of the effects of its operation. A great experiment had been made last year, with a view to improve it; but it was impossible, at present, to say whether that experiment would succeed or fail. Ireland had better wait till it was seen whether the system worked well here. If England, with all her wealth and intellect, was still labouring under the effects of that system, great caution should be manifested in applying it to Ireland. At any rate, it would be most unwise to place the House, in the first instance, in a decided position till they had seen the practical effect of the alteration of last year. He did not wish to meet the question with a negative, as that proceeding would be not consistent with the respect he felt for the hon. Member who supported the resolution, but he should move the previous Question.
Mr. Feargus O'Connorsaid, that while he was perfectly aware that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, in common with many other persons, was not friendly

1215
to the introduction of Poor-laws in Ireland, he still believed that the poor of Ireland were desirous of some provision being made for them; and he should have liked the hon. and learned Gentleman to have suggested some means by which this object might be accomplished. He held that all crimes in Ireland arose from, and were attributable to, the fact of no provision. The hon. and learned Gentleman affected to be at a loss as to the construction of the word "helpless." The man who could not procure labour would be looked upon as helpless, he said, and hoped that the provisions of the Bill would be more explicit. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the evidence, in respect to the poor, was most frightful; and when he said, that it was the poor who were called upon to support the poor, would the House believe that the whole amount paid by them was at the rate of sixteen per cent.? He was not disposed to leave this measure to the hands of the Government under any circumstances, and still less so from his recollection of the speech of the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) upon the occasion of the introduction of the measure of the hon. Member for Knaresborough. That right hon. Baronet then proposed that a Commissioner should go into every foreign country as well as to Ireland, to prosecute an inquiry respecting the poor. From that moment he saw that the right hon. Baronet was averse to it. Many Magistrates had told him that, in all their experience, they had never known a man earning his eightpence a day brought before them on any charge. The hon. and learned Member had done justice to the peasantry of Ireland when he spoke of the spirit which animated them in supporting their relations and poor neighbours. But he would put it to the House, whether these persons ought to draw on their own resources, when that House should legislate for them? And when the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the system of Poor-laws in England, and the impropriety of introducing them into Ireland, he would observe, that it might be recommended to amend the present law in England; but was it because the existing law was inoperative in England that some system should not be made applicable to Ireland? The hon. Member had also complained, that the Motion was not brought forward
1216
in a more specific manner; but he (Mr. O'Connor) thought it was as specific as it could be. They were told, too, the Session must pass away before evidence could be collected to enable them to legislate upon the subject, but he disputed the probability of this event. The introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland was as much an English as an Irish question. The English labourer complained, that he could not get employment in consequence of Irish paupers coming over here. But let them look at the Irish labourer rising from his bed of straw, willing, but not able to get work, and then let them say, whether he was not only an object of compassion, but a subject for relief. Then, unable as he was to get work in his own country, the moment the Irish labourer left his home to seek for employment during the harvest in England, his wife and children were thrown entirely on the charity of their poor neighbours. Would it not be too bad to take them out of the market for labour, and refuse them relief of any kind? As long as Ireland was in a state of desolation, so long would it be at the mercy of every agitator. His object was to make the Irish amenable to the law, which they never would be while they were so extremely poor. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin, though powerful on other occasions—and he (Mr. O'Connor) was glad for the interest of Ireland, and the cause of liberty and justice, that he was so powerful—yet, with all his power he was quite powerless on this question. That hon. Member would find himself borne down by the force of public opinion. He trusted, for the interests of his country, that the hon. Member would go on with his Motion, and press the consideration of this important question again and again on the attention of the House. The present Bill only proposed to grant relief to the aged, to the infirm, and the helpless young; but that relief was not enough to settle the present disorganized state of Ireland. He (Mr. O'Connor) would go much farther. He would not limit himself to this species of partial relief, to be extended to particular portions of the people. He would have a classification of society in Ireland, and without this there could be no good effected for that country. Yet he would take all that he could obtain, though that might not amount to the full demand of justice

1217
he was entitled to make. He knew, that many Irish landlords, who had been before hostile to the introduction of poor-laws into Ireland, had changed their opinions lately, in consequence of the growing necessity for that measure. Many of those landlords had declared, that they would sooner surrender their property than retain it under the circumstances of the present misery, and consequent demoralization and turbulence, in which the wretched poor were forced to exist. If it were true, as had been repeatedly stated, that the relief must eventually come from the pockets of the Irish landlords, would it not, he would ask, be an advantage to the landlord to be relieved from a tax of at least sixteen per cent, which the present poverty of the country imposed upon him for the relief of the surrounding paupers? At present, every farmer's house was a poor house. Let not that House talk of agitation or social disorganization. The poverty of the Irish—the absence of poor-laws—was the fruitful source of both. Neither let them speak of giving wholesome laws, and granting wholesome measures of legislative liberality, while the people wanted wholesome food. While the people were famishing they would be discontented, and there would not be found persons wanting to foment this discontent, engendered by poverty. He had intended to bring in a Bill on this subject, but the hon. Member had taken it out of his hands; and he was glad of it, from the superior mode in which the hon. Member could deal with it. The present misery of Ireland was to be traced to the system of dividing land into small farms, and subletting with all the concomitant evils. It was asked on the other side, why should we at once rush to a conclusion? He did not want that, he did not require they should jump to a conclusion. He only required, that they should proceed gradually, but steadily and safely. He hoped Ministers would give some pledge, that they would take up this question. Last year the Irish Secretary gave as his reason for not adopting any measure of relief, that the Commissioners had not reported. That support was not yet made, and he supposed never would be. He only asked for relief piecemeal; with that he would be satisfied. But some relief he should have. Whenever that Report were submitted to the House, he was sure he should be able to make
1218
out a case, that would force the House to grant some remedy. He trusted some Member would bring forward the question again if the present Motion were lost. In consequence of the opposition of the hon. Member for Dublin, he had now stated his approbation of the Motion. He had deeply considered the question, and from his boyhood he was anxious to support a measure for the relief of the poor.
Mr. Poulett scropesaid, that he had ever taken a very great interest in this question, but had failed in his object; and happy he was, that he had so failed, because it had been brought forward by hon. Members, who, from their large stake in the country, would have some chance of prevailing with those who were similarly circumstanced to look at this question without prejudice. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin, in opposing the Resolution, told them to wait for the Report of the Commission. If he had told them that there was a chance of this being received in the present Session, and that there would then be time to legislate, he would have joined in deprecating this early proceeding; but, as he had every reason to understand, that there was no chance of such Report being laid on the Table of the House in time for the discussion of the question, he would say, that they had no other plan to pursue than to bring it forward, and to take the opinion of the House on a question of an abstract nature—so simple as to require no evidence. What were they sitting in that House for, but to provide for the safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the three kingdoms? What were they to do for Ireland? He did not ask whether the people were comfortable, happy, or prosperous, at the present period; but he would ask, whether they were able to have any security for their existence? This question might be viewed in several lights—as a question of humanity, of Christian charity, of police, or of abstract justice. On all these points it was impossible to come to any other conclusion. As a matter of humanity, or of Christian charity, it was clear, that no inhabitant of a country should be permitted to starve. Doctor Doyle's evidence proved, that a large number of persons were in a state of daily starvation in Ireland, and it was asserted, that such was their reduced condition, that their blood

1219
was coloured yellow from the weeds on which they fed. It was as notorious as that the sun shone in the heavens, that distress and starvation overwhelmed the country. In times of famine, instances of actual starvation were not unusual. The reason why they were not more common was, that the poorest individual would and did share the very last thing he had with a fellow sufferer, rather than allow such a person to die from sheer want. Establishing a system of Poor-laws in Ireland, so far from injuring the landowners, would materially benefit them. If poor-laws were not to be introduced, what was to be done with Ireland? Was it the intention of the right hon. Baronet to move this Session again, that the Coercion Bill should be passed for another year? If such a proceeding was contemplated, without bringing forward some measure of relief, the right hon. Baronet might rest assured, that with the present House of Commons such an attempt would fail. So long as so many persons were starving in Ireland, so long as hundreds were travelling up and down the country in search of employment, and unable to meet with work, so long would it be absurd to talk of remedying minor grievances. He was persuaded, that crime was increased in Ireland to a very great extent, owing to this state of starvation; indeed, when fathers were unable to feed their children, and mothers had infants dying at their breasts from nothing but want, anything else was hardly to be expected. This question deeply affected, not only all who were interested in any way in Irish property, or the state of Ireland, but also the whole of England and Scotland. English landlords were not only obliged to support the poor of their own country, but a great portion of the Irish, in consequence of that portion of the Irish population not being able to reside in their own country. The consequence of so many Irish labourers being here also, made worse for the working classes of the English, because it occasioned the price to be given for labour to be considerably less than it otherwise would be. The Irish landlord was likewise able to send over his produce here, as well as his live stock, to be sold at a lower rate than the English landlord could afford to sell his produce, in consequence of the remuneration for labour in Ireland being so very much lower than it was here.
1220
Two centuries had been allowed to pass away, without anything whatever having been done for Ireland. If the Report of the Commissioners was about to be brought forward, he might not object to support the Amendment that had been moved, for then he might have some hope that something would be done for Ireland during the present Session; but otherwise he should feel bound to support the original resolution.
Mr. Secretary Goulburntook a different view of this subject, from that which some of the hon. Members on the other side of the House seemed to take, although he was not less anxious than any of them to afford relief in an effective manner from the evils complained of. Although he felt it to be his incumbent duty, on the present occasion, to vote for the previous question, rather than in support of the original Motion, this was not because he had formed any opinion either adverse to the relief of the poor, or in favour of any particular mode of relief, but because, at the present moment, he found himself labouring under that incompetency, which he was sure must affect the greater number of the Members of that House, to come to any definite decision as to the course the House should take on so great and important a question. He was, for one, unable irrevocably to pledge himself, that he would immediately assess all property in Ireland, for the relief of the poor of that country. He should, under any circumstances, object to deciding such a question by a mere Resolution of the House. He thought, that a point so important to the empire at large, and involving the interests of every class of the community, ought not to be prejudiced by any single opinion of one branch of the Legislature. Those who were favourable to the Resolution, ought rather to be desirous that the subject should remain over until some enactment could be proposed and brought forward, upon which a full discussion could take place, and upon which the opinion of all the branches of the Legislature could be obtained, than to have the question prejudiced by such an attempt as this. There were many objections to coming to a decision in favour of this Resolution. It could not be done consistently with any former proceeding of the House, in regard to the question of Poor-laws in Ireland. An hon. Gentleman opposite had said, that such Motions

1221
as this had failed on former occasions, on the ground of its having been necessary to obtain information through inquiries that were then instituted; but if that were so, when Committees merely were sitting to investigate into the state of the poor, how much more forcibly did that argument apply at present, when, having found the insufficiency of inquiries by Committees, —having found that Parliament could not proceed upon the evidence to be obtained from Gentlemen before those Committees, the Crown had been advised to appoint a Commission to examine into the whole of the details of this important subject, and which it was doing with a minuteness and accuracy that no Committee could ever hope to attain. That Commission had now been in active operation for some time past in Ireland, and he had been assuredly informed that the Commissioners had applied themselves to the collection of every information that could bear upon the subject, with a diligence and assiduity that no one would attempt to question; indeed, if he understood the hon. Mover of this Resolution, he himself seemed to think that that Commission had conducted the inquiry in a way that was likely to convey a most accurate knowledge of what the real facts were. If that were so, what argument could be adduced by any Gentleman against deferring a decision on this important question, until after all the information was before the House, that that Commission could afford? Although many Gentlemen, from their local knowledge, might be able to give very valuable information, yet it would be surely much better to have all the facts from those who were engaged in collecting them in the most impartial and accurate manner. He was aware that a considerable time had elapsed since this Commission had been appointed, but the House could not expect that upon a great question like this, involving so many branches and so many separate inquiries, it was in the power of any set of men, however diligent and effective their labours, to make a report within a very limited time. He had, however, been informed by the Commissioners, who had been intrusted with this Commission, that with respect to one branch of the inquiry, the evidence was complete, and in the course of printing; and that, upon another branch of the inquiry, the inquiry had made great progress. He must object to any evi-
1222
dence that was at all likely to be partial, but he thought that could not be imputed to anything that would be laid on the Table of that House, from the Commission to which he had alluded. The hon. Gentleman who had spoken last, had said, this was a Resolution with a view to assist the helpless, the impotent, and the infirm. That did not remove the objection to this proceeding at present. The right hon. Gentleman could not consider this as disconnected from the great question, whether there should or should not be a Poor-law established all over Ireland. The decision upon the question of relief to all who were helpless and infirm involved necessarily the whole question of Poor-laws. He was not prepared, without the completion of the inquiry by the Commission, to declare that there should be a compulsory assessment on all the property in Ireland, even for the benefit of the helpless, undefined as that term had been. He hoped the House would remain quiet on this subject, until the whole of the evidence that could be collected was before it, because then, and then only, would it be likely to arrive at a decision calculated to do away with real grievance, instead of perpetuating by a rash proceeding, existing evils, or, perhaps, causing other and worse evils, which might endure for generations to come.
Mr. William Roche: Sir, the excellent spirit in which this subject has been discussed, together with the very pleasing and promising exposition and announcement of the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies, who has just sat down, justify me in narrowing the observations which my estimate of the importance of that subject might, otherwise, induce me to make, and therefore to limit, which I am always disposed to do, my trespass upon the time and attention of the House. My hon. Friend, who so calmly and efficiently brought forward this Motion, has very pointedly and very properly adverted to and depicted the condition of the lower classes of the people in the city of Limerick, which place I have the honour to represent. Sir, I regret to say that the more deplorable that description, and deplorable his description was, the more accurate and characterestic of truth, the deeper—nay, the darker the shades of the picture, the nearer to reality; for, as I remarked a few nights ago, in consequence of some observations which fell from the hon. Member for Coventry, on a similar subject, thousands in the old

1223
parts of the town of Limerick are living in a condition scarcely to be envied by the beasts of the field. Groups of poor people congregating together in houses so neglected and unsafe as to be scarcely fit to exist in, consistently with public safety, but nevertheless thus inhabited because of the unfortunate inmates either paying no rent, or a rent next to nothing—a few pence per week for each family; and you can easily judge how much in unison with these habitations every other accompaniment of misery is. So helpless and hopeless is the condition of the poor there that however miserable the food must be, procurable at three-half pence per day, yet hundreds supplicate for admission into the Mendicity, or rather anti-Mendicity Institution in that city, to avail themselves of even this miserable support, and yet hundreds are of necessity rejected, because it is found impossible to maintain by voluntary contribution a fund adequate to their support. Sir, we have also, there, a House of Industry most benevolently superintended, where 500, otherwise forlorn individuals are congregated together, and where from the want of commensurate accommodation, three are obliged to sleep in one bed—and yet I have known persons who had seen better days, crave admission there in order to rescue themselves from utter starvation or destitution—solicitations which the benevolent and gratuitous superintendant of it has been oftentimes obliged to refuse, because the consequence would be the ejectment of inmates just as unfortunately circumstanced. Sir, when acting as a magistrate, I could not sometimes discover an assignable motive for the commission of an offence beyond the preference given to, and the consequent courting of even a jail allowance of food; and crimes punishable by transportation are, I believe, not unfrequently perpetrated by persons anxious to relieve themselves from the pressure of existing misery. This is evidently a state of things and a mass of misfortunes not confined to Limerick, but widely spread over at least the whole south and west of Ireland, and a state of things utterly inconsistent with the healthy or safe position of the body politic, as it is either with humanity or christianity. The celebrated Swift once remarked that he did not know what the paupers of England did with their cast off clothes till he went to Ireland; and really, were he still in existence, the same remark might apply—for
1224
the greater part of the poor in the cities of Ireland are clad by the refuse clothing of this country. These observations, Sir, sufficiently indicate my feelings on the subject; but I nevertheless think it would be wiser of my hon. Friend to postpone the matter, and not press it, now, to a division, but wait, at least a little longer, when the labours of the Commissioners appointed so long back to collect information on this subject, may be expected to be laid on our Table, and therefore enable us to approch it with all the advantages which information must afford—and further, because I feel, however indispensable protection be to those whom the almighty has, by age or disease, rendered incapable of providing for themselves, that we will not reach the root of the evil without some system for the employment of the people, which, too, will, I trust, form a branch of our future inquiry, were it only on the principle that prevention is better than cure. Sir, as the whole subject is thus likely to be brought before the consideration of the Legislature more comprehensively and efficient, with, too, I trust, the co-operation of Government, I think my hon. Friend will act more prudently by not pressing it at least for the present, feeling gratified, as he must be, by the sympathy his Motion has elicited, and the determination evinced of, ere long, taking it up with I hope, conclusive effect; for, Sir, the promotion of employment is the best source of public prosperity, and the diminution of poverty constitutes the best security of property.
Mr. Richardshoped the hon. Member would not press the subject at present further; but, if he did, he certainly should divide with him. He deprecated the course pursued by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who had argued, from the abuses which had grown up in the system of the Poor-laws, against the principle of those laws. As well might he argue from the acknowledged abuses in Government, in religion, in the army, in the navy, and in science itself, against those necessary institutions. The lion. and learned Member who was so sharp upon our abuses, should really condescend to look narrowly, and without prejudice, on the contrast which this country, with its Poor-laws, presented to his own country, without those laws. We had been accustomed to the principle of our Poor-laws, and that system had now, for above

1225
200 years, worked well for the peace of society. The hon. and learned Member would do well to look at their effect here, in the order, peace, and security which prevailed throughout England, and compare these indications with the turbulence, disorder, and cruelty which disgraced the sister kingdom. The truth was, as had been recorded by the ablest historians of the time, that previous to the passing of the 43rd of Elizabeth, which was our Poor-law, the condition of England was very much like the state of Ireland now. The poor went about in bodies, levying contributions on the industrious farmer, often by intimidation of numbers, and sometimes not without offering violence, in order to extort relief or money. The cause, perhaps, of most of the outrages in Ireland might be traced to the state of destitution of the poor, hopeless as they were of any relief from a certain source. Several petitions were last Session presented to Parliament, numerously signed by landowners, merchants, and others in Ireland, in favour of the assimilation of the law in Ireland to the Poor-law of England, so that he believed that a system of Poor-laws would be considered, even by persons of property in Ireland, a boon to that country. He recommended the postponement of the Resolution, in order to enable Ministers to meet this important and all-absorbing subject with the attention it deserved.
Mr. Sheilargued that, to obviate objections which had been made by some hon. Member to-night, it would be best to frame the Resolution so as to embrace only those whom age or imbecility rendered objects deserving of charitable relief. There was a striking difference in the legislative history of the two countries. It was this:— After the abolition or confiscation of the monastic property, by Henry VIII., it was discovered that the fund for the maintenance of the poor was absorbed, and to remedy the evil, the 43rd of Elizabeth was passed in the next reign but one. In Ireland the same confiscation of monastic property took place, but most unjustly for the interests of the poor no provision was made even out of the tithes transferred to another hierarchy. He hoped shortly some measure of justice would be dealt out to the people of Ireland in this respect.
Mr. Humediffered materially in opinion from the hon. Member for Knaresborough, believing, as he did, that the state of the administration of the Poor-
1226
laws was the cause of almost all the evils of which the people of this country complained. He compared the effects of assessment to the practice of contribution adopted by the heritors and proprietors of land in Scotland. This was the general practice in the eastern part of Scotland, but in the southern counties the practice was more nearly assimilated to the compulsory assessment of this country. The vice of the Poor-laws was that it was made a fund for the relief, indifferently, of the indigent through accident or affliction, and the reckless, the extravagant, and the idle, who, becoming poor, applied, as of right, for relief from a fund which ought to be sacred to misfortune. These laws, unfortunately, banished too often provident care and prudent habits from amongst the lower orders. It was but just that casual misfortunes should be relieved, but all habitual dependence on the part of the poor upon this fund should be discountenanced; and he firmly believed that extending our Poor-law system to Ireland would be productive of much misery, instead of giving substantial and general relief. He thought this Resolution and the discussion upon it were premature. He did not see that Government was prepared to throw, or had thrown obstacles in the way of the anticipated Report being laid before the House. It was his firm conviction that to establish Poor-laws in Ireland would only add to the woes of that distracted country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that, in consistency with the views entertained by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he ought to have abstained from entering into the details which he had suggested to the consideration of the House, because in the greater part of his speech he had spoken against the principle altogether of a system of Poor-laws. The hon. Gentleman said, that it would be better to leave the industrious poor to rely solely on their own exertions, inasmuch as that course afforded much greater security for their industry and good conduct, than would exist if Poor-laws were provided: but the hon. Gentleman himself declared that some qualification was necessary of that broad principle. The hon. Gentleman admitted that, under certain circumstances, the principle he had laid down ought to be departed from, and that it would be wise to provide, at the public charge, temporary relief. Now, if it were

1227
necessary, in laying down a general principle, to make so wide a qualification as that, he begged to put it to the House whether it was expedient, under the present circumstances, to affirm a resolution of the nature of the one that had been moved? The question never would be brought before the House in the shape which the hon. Gentleman to whom he had referred imagined, viz.—whether the Poor-laws of England, with the whole mass of abuse that had accumulated round them, should be applied to Ireland. Every one would be prepared at once to negative such a preposition. But the real question was, could they apply the original principle of the Act of Elizabeth to Ireland, and could they accompany that principle with a practical provision to secure against its abuse? That was a question to be hereafter discussed; and he must express his hope, that the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Brien) did not mean to force them to the negation of that proposition. Had not the hon. Gentleman better withdraw his resolution, than oblige the House to take a course which might imply a negative of his proposition. He thought it impossible for the House to consent to affirm that proposition. The hon. Gentleman asked the House, in the present state of the question, to affirm that it was expedient, without delay, to make, by an assessment on property in Ireland, a provision for the relief of the aged, the helpless, and infirm poor of Ireland. If he did not believe that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his motion, he should think himself called on to move as an Amendment a Resolution, that leave be given to the Member for Limerick to bring in a Bill on the subject. Such a motion was not usual; but he certainly should have moved an Amendment to that effect, and asked the hon. Gentleman to bring in a Bill embodying his own conception of what the details ought to be. Because, if it were right that without delay they should make a provision for the poor, the hon. Gentleman ought to be prepared to follow up his Resolution with a practical measure, and let the House see the provisions by which he proposed to execute his Resolution. The hon. Gentleman said, that it should be by an assessment on property in Ireland. Did he mean real property, and personal property also? Did he mean a parochial assessment, and that the relief should be distributed by Commissioners,
1228
or by parochial authority, or by some authority in districts which he would point out? These were matters of importance, with respect to which the House ought to have some intimation of the views of the Mover, before the hon. Gentleman asked them to affirm his Resolution. He should be sorry to take a course that might appear to be either adverse to the principle or to giving a fair consideration to the subject. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Feargus O'Connor) who he certainly thought had been watching with a sort of parental anxiety over the fate of this Motion—an anxiety of which further evidence was afforded by the warmth of the speech he made—had represented that when the proposal was made by Lord Althorp to appoint the Commission, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) recommended that the Commission should be extended to every country in Europe. Such was not the fact. It was, however, at his instance that the Commission was appointed for Ireland. He had observed, that there were debates on the subject day after day, and yet nothing conclusive was done; therefore, he suggested that it would be better to appoint a Commission which should go to Ireland, and procure that local and practical information which he thought they stood in need of, and which he must say, he expected the House would have possessed before this time. He certainly should have thought that there was some main and leading principles established which might have been reported before now. But instead of attempting to force the Government by such a Resolution as was proposed, if the House were dissatisfied with the delay in furnishing the Report of the Commissioners, he would suggest to them that the more logical course would be to move that the Commissioners should report forthwith. He did not think that the best way of forcing the Report was to force the House to affirm a proposition which that Report might considerably qualify. Perhaps, the House would not object to leave it to the Government to call on the Commissioners to make a report of their progress; and, if it should turn out that the delay was occasioned by an inquiry into minute matters which did not bear particularly on any great principle, though they might be important in themselves—for example, he did not see that any great principle was involved in

1229
inquiries respecting infirmaries or other public charities—if this were the case, he did not think it necessary for the house to wait till the inquiry was complete. Should the inquiries of the Commissioners as to the great branches of the subject be completed, there was no reason why they should not have a Report on the leading principles laid on the Table of the House, which would allow of those principles being taken into consideration, and the consideration of the details might be postponed. The hon. and learned Member for Tipperary said, that if they inserted the words "helpless poor," he was not certain whether they would not affirm this proposition, that every child capable of earning its subsistence by labour should have a claim to support. Now surely it was important to ascertain that. It was important to ascertain what construction was to be put on the words "helpless and infirm poor." There was nothing so dangerous as to affirm a general proposition of that nature, without seeing the regulations by which it was to be carried into effect. The hon. Gentleman said, he would not afford relief generally; he would give it only to those who were infirm; but how were they to draw the line between the infirmity of actual discase and the indisposition caused by scanty living in consequence of not having any employment. The hon. Gentleman's Resolution appeared to imply a claim on the part of the whole poor—it would grow to that; it would lead to all the difficulties that had resulted from a departure from the original principle of the English Poor-laws. At present, he could not judge of the practicability of the Motion before the House. Until some specific mode should be placed before the House, which should honestly administer the proper kind of relief, he never would affirm the proposition now before them. If he did affirm such a proposition, he might be establishing some measure which would absorb the whole of the landed property of the country; he might be constituting an agrarian law of the worst possible description; he might be sacrificing the industrious and moral habits of the people, unless a due regard was had to the wholesomeness of the measure proposed. The hon. Member for Cork had mentioned a moral ground far supporting some such measure, namely, the necessity of teaching the Irish people
1230
to eat; but he would venture to say, that to allow them to provide food for themselves by their own industry, would be much better. He would then leave them to unassisted nature, as a better instructress. He hoped the hon. Member (Mr. W. S. O'Brien) would not press his Motion. A Commission having been appointed for Ireland, he had every reason to believe that a Report would shortly be made. Let them have facts sufficient before the House, before they affirmed the proposition. The present course was only calculated to prejudice the question, and for that reason the Motion ought not to be pressed.
Mr. Finn:To the statement which had been made, that the poor were supported by the class immediately above them, he would give his contradiction, as also to the statement, that relief was forced by intimidation. He was glad the discussion had been supported with good temper, and considerable advantage would be reaped from it. The proceedings of the Commissioners had been dilatory—from whatever cause he knew not. The House was quite in the dark as to all their proceedings; indeed, it almost seemed as if the Commission had been appointed to prevent any result. He thought, however, it was necessary to wait for the Report before they proceeded further.
Mr. Wyseassented to the propriety of waiting for the Report. He had to congratulate the House on the statement made by the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), that he had no objection to the introduction of Bills which would enable them to come to some conclusion before the end of the Session, and from which hon. Gentlemen would judge of the details. The question of the Poor-laws was divided into two parts—one as regarded the sick and infirm, and the other as regarded the able bodied. There were other reasons why he should at present be unwilling to decide upon the nature of the relief. Until some organization was introduced into Ireland—until a general system of education had been established—until the Board of Public Works had been regulated—until the Question of the Irish Church had been fully and finally settled, he, as one of the people, could not consent to any further assessment on the property of the country.
Mr. Smith O'Brienwas satisfied with the discussion of the question, which no one

1231
but the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had contested. He was delighted with the declaration of the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), and he would be extremely glad if the Government would take up the question. Believing he should prejudice the question by now pressing it, and believing that the object he had in view would be aided by the delay, he had great pleasure in adopting the suggestion of hon. Members, and withdrawing the Motion; more especially as he was given to understand, that the evidence would be before the House at an early period. He hoped that the Bill would then be allowed to be brought in and fully discussed at the second reading.
Motion withdrawn.

ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES (IRELAND).
Mr. Lynchmoved for leave to Repeal so much of the Act of the 19th of George 2nd, cap. 13 (Irish), as annuls and makes void, all Marriages celebrated by any Popish Priest between Protestant and Catholic.
Colonel Percevalwas resolved to offer to the proposed measure his decided opposition, and he felt bound at the outset to express his strong dissent. On more occasions than one, he had intimated his objection to any such measure as the hon. and learned Member for Galway contemplated. To such a change in the Marriage law of Ireland, he felt persuaded he never could become a party. He never could vote for giving to the priest of the Roman Catholic persuasion a power not enjoyed by the clergyman of the Established Church, and he hoped that Parliament could not be induced to sanction a Bill, the immediate operation of which would be to entitle a Roman Catholic priest to celebrate a marriage without the knowledge of the family of either party, and without being under obligation to obtain a previous knowledge of whether there was, or whether there was not, any legal or moral impediment to such marriage being contracted. It was most important that the Marriage-law of Ireland should speedily be placed upon a proper footing, one that would give to no sect any advantage over another. With that brief remark, he should for the present content himself, reserving his opposition for the second reading.
Sir John Campbellsaid, he should be delighted to see one general and uniform
1232
Marriage-law for England, for Ireland, and for Scotland—one uniform and general law for the members of the Established Church, and for those who dissented from that Church, of whatever denomination, and in whatever part of the United kingdom they might reside. Until some such law were adopted, great benefit would, in his opinion, result to the community at large from the contemplated measure of his hon. and learned Friend. At one time, the same Marriage-law, the Canon-law prevailed all over Europe, and he earnestly wished that a similar uniformity at least might be established in Ireland; for amongst the many improvements which its institutions demanded, it was very evident that a change in the Marriage-law could not but be fairly reckoned in the number. It surely could not be considered evenhanded justice, that in Ireland a marriage between a Protestant and a Catholic, was considered, however celebrated, a mere nullity. Ought such a condition of things to be for a single day allowed to prevail? It was not so in Scotland; and nothing could be more desirable—nothing more important—than to produce uniformity, and, without loss of time, to get rid of one of the remaining relics of a bad and barbarous code, which treated the Catholic Irish as a servile race. ["No! no!"] The laws as they stood not many years ago, did treat the Catholics of Ireland as a servile race. He thanked God, that almost the whole of those laws had been some years ago repealed, but as long as a single exception remained, he should be the earnest advocate of its immediate removal. The more speedily all such laws were got rid of the better.
Mr. Secretary Goulburnsaid, that he had not the remotest idea of what might be the provisions of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman by whom the Motion was made, had forborne to open the details, it could not therefore be in their power to enter into any discussion of its merits. Nothing was more evident, than that they were incompetent to enter into the discussion, for want of sufficient information.
Mr. Lynchfelt assured, that under the circumstances, there would not have been a word said, but for the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Sligo. He hoped that permission would be given to introduce the Bill, and that hon. Members would reserve themselves for the second

1233
reading. He fully admitted, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite was not pledged one way or the other.
Leave was given.

MISSION TO PERSIA.
Mr. Humemoved for a Return of the Estimates of the expense to be incurred by the East India Company and the British Government for the Diplomatic Mission to Persia, &c.
Mr. Cutler Fergussonsaid, that the existence not alone of the British rule in India, but also of the peace of Europe, depended upon the obstacle which it opposed to the policy of Russia in the Court of Persia. The only question which could arise on the subject of the mission in his opinion was whether it was sufficiently provided for by the 20,000 l. which he understood was apportioned for it. He thought that sum insufficient, and he therefore implored his Majesty's Government to increase it, if it were deemed in the slightest degree necessary. He had much pleasure in stating that through the admirable conduct of the individual at the head of the mission the English interest, heretofore little consulted at the Persian Court, was now paramount even to that of Russia; that by his mediation the present Khan was firmly established on the throne of his father, and that through the means of his mission the power of Russia was likely to be greatly checked, if not paralyzed, in that important quarter. As he asserted before, it would be the effect of preserving not alone India to England, but of preserving the peace of Europe.
Mr. Humesaid, that one of the objects which he had in view in moving for these papers was to question the policy and principle of supplanting the former residents at that Court. British officers long resident in the East, by individuals who had never been in that quarter during their lives.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that Mr. Ellice, the head of the mission, had been a long while in India, and the East generally, and had filled various important stations there. He approved of the election because he thought that the questions to be dealt with were rather of a civil than a military nature.
Motion agreed to.

MALT.
Mr. Humemoved, for a Return of the number of quarters of Malt used in distillation in each kingdom, &c.
Colonel Sibthorpedid not rise to oppose the Motion, but to remind the hon. Member for Middlesex that he had opposed a Motion of his for a return of equal importance, and to express a hope that he would not oppose it any longer. The hon. Member for Middlesex was the almanack as well as the omnibus of the House—for he had no less than eighteen motions for returns on the list of the night, many of which were of a very expensive character. He hoped the hon. Member's constituents would find no fault with his mode of economizing the public time and public money. As the question alluded to malt he (Colonel Sibthorpe) should read two letters to the House which he had received that morning from two practical agriculturists—one paying 3,000 l. a-year rent. That was no mean authority. It began thus:—"Dear Colonel—I was glad to see your name in the majority on the Malt-tax. Government must be supported; and I am persuaded the repeal of this tax would have done little or no good to the agricultural interest. From Sir Robert Peel's speech he appears to have formed a correct opinion in regard to the Malt-tax being an inefficient measure of assistance. If it were repealed, the brewers would derive the most advantage, as the shoemakers had on the leather tax." The other letter was to the following effect:—"The annual meeting of the association for the protection of agriculture was yesterday held at Lincoln. I was glad to find that the unanimous feelings of the farmers are, that the tax is best kept on, as it would prove of no service to our distress. The Marquess of Chandos spoke great nonsense and fudge. Sir Robert Peel, as the papers say, was unanswerable." The hon. and Gallant Member concluded by congratulating the House on the division it had come to on the subject of the Malt-tax, and expressing a hope that the hon. Member for Middlesex would not oppose the return he meant to move for, especially as he had eighteen Motions of his own on the paper.
Mr. Humesaid, that the hon. and gallant Member was in one respect like Jack Falstaff—for he had metamorphosed his seven Motions into eighteen. He had only seven altogether. Two of these seven Motions were designed to prove that the Malt-tax might be repealed without adding a single shilling to the burthens of the country. The gallant

1235
Colonel had, he believed, pledged himself to his constituents on the Malt-tax; therefore he thought as he lived in a glass house he should not throw stones.
Motion agreed to.

PASSENGER'S ACT.
Mr. William Gladstonemoved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of 9 Geo. IV., chap. 21, for regulating the carriage of passengers in merchant vessels to the Continent and islands of North America, and to make further provision for regulating the same. The Bill he proposed to introduce asserted no new principle, and merely modified the provisions of the one to be repealed by it. He, therefore, hoped that there would be no opposition to it, especially as humanity and good feeling required some legislative enactment on the subject of emigration. The question involved was one of no small importance to the community. In 1831, the number of emigrants from this country to the Canadas and the Islands was 51,000. He needed not, therefore, impress upon the House that anything which affected the comforts of such a yearly average number was worthy of its attention, especially when it was borne in mind that they were of the poorest condition in the community. In 1828, when the Emigration Bill was before the House, it was notorious that the hon. Member for Middlesex, along with other hon. Members, had opposed it; he trusted, however, that the beneficial results which had arisen from the measure would have the effect of disarming all opposition to the Amendment proposed which was the purpose of his (Mr. Gladstone's) Bill. The provisions of his Bill were comparatively few, and he would give a brief outline of them to the House. In the first instance, it was found that, under the present system the emigrants, during the voyage, and on their arrival, were subjected to a variety of restrictions and expenses, which, as they generally possessed but small means, were, in most cases, destructive to their future prospects. This was one of the abuses which his Bill proposed to remedy. The next provision of the Bill would make it compulsory in owners and masters of vessels to retain emigrants at their option forty-eight hours on board after their arrival. The reason of this provision was to be found in the expense and inconvenience which these poor people experienced on being thrust
1236
out like the beasts of the field into a strange place without lodging or shelter. It was therefore most desirable that they should have the privilege of remaining on board the vessel for a period after their arrival, and this period he thought should in no case be less than forty-eight hours. The third provision of the Bill proposed to alter the rates of passengers, permitted in proportion to the tonnage of a vessel. By the existent Act for every five tons register a vessel was permitted to carry four passengers; and for every four tons three. The Bill he proposed to introduce would give only three passengers for every five tons, a number the result of a medium struck between the extreme terms of opposite statements. A ship registered 300 tons was, by the law as it now stood, empowered to carry 225 passengers; the Bill proposed to limit the number to 208, that being the mean between the numbers suggested by Mr. Bonham, our Consul in America, and the London Shipowners' Society. The Bill next proposed to increase the quantity of provisions. Vessels were compelled to carry from fifty pounds of bread per man to seventy pounds. It also proposed to prohibit the use of all wines and spirits, except for medicinal purposes, to the sailors on board these vessels. He then proposed that every ship carrying over one hundred passengers should be provided with a surgeon, and that every craft carrying under that number should be provided with a medicine chest. Next, that the master should be responsible for the contracts entered into with emigrants by the accredited agents of owners, for the reason that much misery had recently resulted from a non-fulfilment of these contracts by agents in some of the outports. It was but justice to these poor people that the owners should be responsible for the acts of their agents; and the master would be the individual most accessible in a foreign country, or even at home. It finally proposed to make the penalties inflicted by the Bill recoverable by summary process before two Magistrates in the country, or in any of his Majesty's colonies. These were the main features of the Bill, and he hoped the House would permit him to bring it in. There were a great number of details connected with the subject, into which he should not enter; but there were two questions in connexion with them which were of some im-

1237
portance. The first was, whether the provisions of the Bill should not be extended to vessels trading between these countries and the United States of America, as he had been informed that some of the grossest cases had occurred in them; and, secondly, whether some mode of surveying vessels as to their sea-worthiness could not be adopted by the revenue officers? He should not refer to any documents, of which he possessed an abundance, to prove the necessity of the measure, as he should assume it would meet with no opposition; but he should merely allude to the returns of the total amount of emigration in each year since the passing of the Act (1828) to be repealed, for the purpose of disproving the arguments then generally adduced against all legislative interference with the subject:—

1828

..

..

12,000

1829

..

..

16,000

1830

..

..

28,000

1831

..

..

50,000

1832

..

..

51,000

In 1833 and 1834, there was rather a diminution, but that was entirely attributable to the improved state of the country. These numbers proved that the passing of the Act had not decreased, as it was asserted it would, emigration from this country; but, on the contrary, materially increased it. He should also beg to refer the House, in support of the necessity of the measure he proposed to introduce to its notice, the Report of the Emigrants' Friend Society for the present year. The hon. Member concluded by making his Motion.
Mr. Humesaid, that it was true he had opposed the Bill of 1828, because he believed that all minute legislative interference on such subjects was vicious as well as unnecessary. He thought that there were three duties which it was imperative upon the Government to perform. The first was to see that the vessels carrying emigrants were trustworthy, and not what was commonly called coffin ships; the second was to see that the emigrants were protected from imposition by fair contracts with those who conveyed them; and the third was to take care that the vessels had on board provisions adequate to the length of the voyage and to the number of passengers.
Mr. Baringthought, that interference in such matters was not desirable except
1238
where, from peculiar circumstances, it became indispensable. The enforcement of contracts between the emigrants and those who conveyed them from England was not so feasible as the hon. Member for Middlesex supposed, and in point of fact in very few cases did any contract at all exist. The principle of the grievances to be remedied by legislation was the disproportion between the number of passengers and the space of accommodation. Last year seventeen vessels had been wrecked, and seven hundred lives of emigrants chiefly Irish, had been sacrificed, and the accidents had almost all arisen from improvidence and mismanagement. He thought it the duty of the House to interfere in behalf of those who were so helpless. He knew that it was the habit of the captains of these ships to keep a gin shop on board, so that if the ship was not lost by accident arising from intoxication the little property of the emigrants was sure to be exhausted before they arrived at the place of destination. The right hon. Member concluded by saying that the better way would be to bring in the Bill, and to let the House consider its provisions.
Mr. Ruthvenprotested against the description which the right hon. President of the Board of Trade had given of the condition of the Irish emigrants.
Lord Sandonknew that the description given by the right hon. Gentleman was a very correct description of the wretched condition of Irish emigrants. He held in his hand a hundred cases of poor Irish emigrants, all of which fully corroborated the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He believed that emigrants suffered very much from the too crowded state of the vessels, and from a deficiency of provisions; and he thought that by legislation these evils might be mitigated or altogether removed. It was time that the Government should interfere, and it was only following a just principle of legislation when Parliament interposed for the protection of the weak and ignorant.
Sir Robert Batesonon the part of the poor of Ireland returned his thanks to the hon. Member for introducing the Bill.
Mr. Patrick Stewartthought that the Bill would be useful in all its branches. He thought that the sea-worthiness of the ships ought to be ascertained by Government officers on their responsibility. He trusted that all the hon. Member's mea-

1239
sures would be as useful as this promised to be.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.

POST-OFFICF.
Mr. Wallacemoved for a certain return relative to the hire of Post-office packets.
Mr. Humecomplained that, notwithstanding a Bill that had been introduced in the last Parliament to facilitate the transmission of newspapers to and from our colonial settlements free of postage, there were charges still made at the Post-office for newspapers arriving by vessels from the Cape of Good Hope and other colonies, although from Canada and other settlements they were delivered free. Now he thought that all our colonies should be on the same footing in this respect. He also complained that Members of that House were charged postage for all the letters delivered to them on Monday over the number of fifteen, although amongst those were the letters that arrived on Sunday, there being no delivery on the Sabbath. Now, he considered it very hard that, in consequence of a Post-office regulation, not to have any delivery of letters on a Sunday, Members should be put to the expense of postage for all letters arriving to them in London on that day but not delivered until Monday. There was a strange anomaly too as regarded this matter, because, although a Member could not receive his Sunday letters in London until Monday, and without paying for them, if he chanced to be at Bath, or any other country town, he might not only receive his letters there on the Sunday, but receive them free of postage. The Act of Parliament distinctly stated, that Members shall receive their letters daily, and he could not, therefore, see why they should be charged for the letters of Sunday any more than those of any other day, although they might be delivered on the Monday.
Sir Thomas Freemantlesaid, that he should be happy to give his best assistance to remedy the cause of complaint set forth by the hon. Member, as respected the transmission of newspapers to and from the Colonies. The hon. Member would admit that the Post-office was not to blame for the Act of Parliament was imperative, and must be strictly adhered to; and, whatever might have been intended by the Legislature, the Act still sanctioned the charge made. If a Bill should be intro-
1240
duced to remedy the evil, he should give it his best attention. With regard to the non-delivery of letters on Sunday, he did not see that the hon. Member had much reason to complain of the anomaly to which he had alluded, because, although he might receive his letters on Sunday, and free of postage, at a country town, he would be charged there for his Tuesday's letters if they exceeded fifteen, for the reason, that no letters were dispatched on Sunday. So that it came to the same thing, there being no country delivery on the Monday. All these matters, however, would, no doubt, come under the consideration of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Post-office Department, and the honourable Member had better state his complaint to those Commissioners.
Mr. Wallacesaid, that the Post-office regulations were on a most niggardly system. It never was any wish of his that letters should be delivered on the Sunday; but he had personal reason to charge Sir F. Freeling with the most gross partiality in the charge of postage for letters, and he could call on the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw) to confirm what he said. He happened to see that hon. and learned Gentleman one Monday in the library of the House, having before him a huge heap of letters, thirty-two in number, and on his (Mr. Wallace) observing, that he must have had a pretty sum of money to pay that day for extra letters, the hon. and learned Gentleman told him, that he had all the postage remitted to him by Sir F. Freeling, while on that very day he (Mr. W.) was obliged to pay for every letter he received over fifteen. The hon. and learned Member also observed at the same time, that the law entitled Members to receive all their regular number of Sunday as well as Monday letters free. Now, this he (Mr. Wallace) looked upon as a gross partiality. It was also a matter of complaint and great inconvenience that on Sunday there was only one place, namely, the General Post-office, open to receive letters; so that servants and others were obliged to be sent with letters to the Post-office instead of going to church. It had been said by the Duke of Richmond, when at the head of the Post-office, the clerks of the department were too religiously disposed to do any business on Sunday; but it appeared by the report that there

1241
were a number of persons employed all Sunday at the Post-office in sorting letters and other business. It was also a most absurd regulation that no letter could be put into the Post-office after seven o'clock in the evening.
Mr. Shawsaid that he did not deny the accuracy of what had been stated by the hon. Member, as to what passed in the library respecting the receipt of all his letters postage free on the Monday, but he did mean to deny that there was any favouritism whatever towards him on the part of Sir F. Freeling. He had certainly said then, and he said the same now, that the Sunday letters ought not to be charged,
1242
and the communication he had with Sir F. Freeling on the subject was strictly formal. Personally he did not know Sir F. Freeling, never, he believed, having seen him in his life. His communication was to the effect that, as the Sunday letters were put into the Post-office on the Friday, as appeared by the post-mark, they ought not to be charged to Members any more than the letters of any other day, and, upon this representation the postage was remitted. He must, however, entirely acquit Sir F. Freeling of the slightest favouritism in doing so.
The return was ordered.

Preamble
MINUTES.) Bills. Read a third time:—Transfer of Aids Exchequer Bills; Newspaper Printers' Relief.

LOWER CANADA.
Lord Brougham,in pursuance of the notice he had given, begged leave to present to their Lordships a Petition from Members of the Assembly and others in Canada. As the petition was one not only of great importance in itself, but as it referred to a great number of peculiar circumstances, and as the petitioners were all men of great respectability, he hoped he should be excused if he went into a short statement of what its contents were, and who were the parties who had signed it. The petitioners were a considerable majority of the Representatives of Lower Canada in the House of Assembly of that province; and also a number, a minority, but still a number of the Members of the Legislative Council or Upper House of Canada. A large majority of one House and a minority of the other agreed in the complaints in the statements and in the prayer of this petition. The state of the province of Lower Canada was so well known that it would be superfluous for him to remind their Lordships that it had long been anything but satisfactory. For years past it had presented a lamentable picture of discontent, he would not say of mal-administration, but of such an administration as did not meet with the approbation of the people. He need not say, that there could not be a greater evil than that the people should disapprove of the Ministers who governed them, or of the measures
1182
that they introduced. Yet that was the state of this colony. Of course, he hoped that it would not be the case with the mother country. Lower Canada was a residue of those great American possessions that once belonged to us, and it was remarkable for having among its inhabitants great numbers of what were called Loyalists, that is to say men who entertained a devoted affection to the mother country, and that affection was in itself a great title to our consideration. This province now possessed a House of Assembly, which, after a recent appeal to the people, had returned a majority of seventy-eight to ten, the House of Assembly containing eighty-eight Members opposed to the Government. To these must be added eight or nine Members of the Legislative Council, or Upper House of Legislature. The first ground of the complaint of the petitioners was against the construction of the Upper House of Legislature. The Representatives in the Lower House of Assembly were chosen by the people. The Upper House of Assembly was nominally chosen by the people; but it was so managed, that it had principally got into the hands of a certain number of persons, so that they reelected themselves; and the consequence was, that there was great danger of what was well known on this side of the water by the name of a collision, between the two Houses. This was attended with a most unfortunate circumstance. He did not blame any one,—he merely stated the fact, which was, that numberless Bills were sent up from the Lower House, and were rejected by the Upper House. Now, these Bills were such as deeply affected the feelings and interests of the people of the province, who were represented in the Lower House, and not represented in the Upper House. On one occasion, no less than twenty-eight Bills had been thus rejected; fourteen rejected altogether; and the rest so altered—mutilated, the petitioners called it—that the Lower House could not consent to adopt the alterations, and they therefore were rejected altogether. That occurred in 1827; but, more or less, this had been the case for every year for some years past. In one year, indeed, in consequence of these disputes, there was no Session at all. In the space of the last ten years, 167 Bills had been thus positively rejected by the Upper House, or so altered as to cause

1183
their rejection by the Lower House when sent back to it. Some of these Bills had for their object (he could not say anything of the details) matters of the most wholesome and necessary kind. He should state some of them. One was a Bill to obtain better security from the receivers'-general. One of these receivers had been a defaulter for 600,000 dollars; but instead of suffering for his default as he ought, he was made a Member of the Legislative Council, or Upper House; so that he operated doubly, first, as a defaulter himself, and next, as a Member of the Council, in rejecting a Bill that was to provide against the recurrence of such defaults in others. This receiver-general had also possessed a large property which was nominally taken from him for the benefit of the state; but it was understood that he was in flourishing circumstances, and really had the enjoyment of the property at a very low rent. Another of the Bills was to secure the vacating of the seats of Members of the House of Assembly on their accepting office. Another, to prevent the improper interference of troops at elections. Then there were Bills for promoting the education of the people in the colonies; and a Bill—(in which, to be sure, the Legislative Council had the example of their Lordships to justify them in its rejection; though he was not prepared to say that the rejection was the more proper on that account)—a Bill for establishing Local Courts. Another of these Bills was a Bill for better securing the independence of the Judges. The independence of the Judges in the colonies must, he was aware, rest on a footing different from that in the mother country. He should belie the opinions he had always declared, if he did not say that that independence might require, in some degree, to be modified, though he must insist, that whatever it was, it ought to be clearly secured. He hoped that this would be one of the objects to which the attention of the Commissioner now about to visit Canada would be directed. The independence of the Judges in the province was anything but secured. One of the Judges held two or three offices, and he could not say that he approved of a Chief Justice, who was a criminal as well as a civil Judge, being Speaker at the same time of one of the Houses of Legislature. To be sure, that was the case with the
1184
Speaker of their Lordships' House, but then that noble and learned Lord was only a civil and not a criminal Judge. This, as he had said before, was a petition from a majority, and a great majority of one House, and a minority of the other; and it was, therefore, on account of the persons from whom it came a most important petition; for this majority in the Lower House of the Constitution, the same as in England, would have the right to impeach the Judges. The Judges had rendered themselves odious by the part they had taken in political controversies, and by the strong terms in which they stigmatized the laws which it was their duty to administer. The petitioners complained of the violation of the Acts of 1788 and 1832, Acts which were framed for the purpose of giving the House of Assembly a control over the funds of the province. He could not say anything about the matter beyond observing that the petitioners spoke of things of which, from their very situation, they ought to have peculiar knowledge. The charges he had already stated, were now, for the first time, formally made, but the control over the funds of the province had been long a subject of dispute. The feelings of the House of Assembly might well be known. They chose a Speaker in a most horrible manner—in a manner utterly unprecedented—they did not patronise the person named by the Government—no such thing—they sent up a Speaker of their own. Whether they agreed to amendments to addresses to the Governor he could hardly say; he believed that they hardly agreed to any address, or if they did, it was one in opposition to the Government. Such was the state of things in Canada. It was to be profoundly hoped that the example would not cross the water. There certainly were no addresses common civility agreed to. There was one great intestine war that prevented the progress of public business, and interfered with the advantage of the common weal. The petitioners next complaint was, that the Governor had seized upon the revenues of the province, a practice that certainly was not in use on this side of the water. Notwithstanding that the Governor had seized upon the revenues, he had refused to lend them his aid at a most painful period. When the cholera raged in the province, so that 11,300 persons died in Montreal, and

1185
1,000 in another place, application was made to the Governor for assistance, but he refused to advance any money whatever. Perhaps, the Governor was afraid that if he advanced the money he should not get repaid; but the petitioners declared that they should have been but too happy to have repaid him. Another complaint of the petitioners related to the killing of some persons by the troops in 1832, at the election. They complained that with great haste the Governor had tendered a vote of thanks to the troops for their conduct. The Governor, for aught he knew, might be right in what he had done; the troops might have been obliged to fire on the people in their own defence; he could not say anything about it, as he did not know all the facts; but it appeared from this petition that the House of Assembly differed from the Governor on this point, and they complained of the vote of thanks that had been given to the troops. Another complaint against the Governor, was, that he had refused to issue a writ upon a vacancy in the Lower House of Assembly, whose number was thus left imperfect. They complained, also, that the Governor had refused to offer a reward for the discovery of a person who had committed a murder. These were the charges that the petitioners made against the Governor. He gave them, as he received them, and was in no wise responsible for their correctness. Some of them might not be capable of being well made out, and might be capable of being answered by statements of a different sort. There was no doubt that there were important differences between the House of Assembly and the Governor, and the former desired their Lordships to apply such a remedy as in their wisdom they should deem sufficient. That which they wanted was an alteration of the constitution; so as to give them a better security for possessing a control over the administration of the finances, for the preservation of their privileges, and for the promotion of the general interests of the province, by the reform of the Upper House of Legislature. This petition, signed as it was by a majority of the House of Assembly, must be supposed to speak the sentiments of the majority of the people, for if it did not, he should say that they wanted something like Parliamentary Reform; if there were any close boroughs in the province the sooner
1186
their Lordships exported thither the benefit of schedule A the better. As things now stood it was impossible to go on. The greatest possible discontent existed, and if the mischief was not stopped by some appropriate remedy, evils of a very serious nature would occur, and at no great distance of time. His opinion with respect to these establishments differed, perhaps, from that of many noble Lords in that House, and most of all, perhaps, from the noble Earl opposite. His opinion was, that we ought not to keep these colonial establishments, expending large sums of money upon them, and embarrassing ourselves with their affairs, unless we could contrive that the Government of them should go on smoothly and to the satisfaction of the colonists; and, above all, unless we could so manage them that they could pay not only the expenses required for their own establishments, but also a large proportion of the military and naval expenses entailed upon us in defending them.
The Earl of Riponbegged pardon of the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen, who had also risen) for interposing at this moment, but he was obliged to do so in his own defence. He had not the smallest idea that this petition was about to be presented, so that he not only had had no opportunity of recalling to his recollection the circumstances connected with the statements contained in it, but he was not in the House when the noble and learned Lord began to make the statement of its contents. He was unaware of the complaints being about to be made; but he must say, that he was surprised with the sweeping censure which the noble and learned Lord had cast upon the Colonial Department while it was under his directions.—[Lord Brougham had cast no censure upon the noble Earl.]—it was true his name was not mentioned, but if the noble and learned Lord knew as much as he did, he would not have passed so severe a censure on the conduct of the Colonial Office while he (the Earl of Ripon) was a colleague of the noble and learned Lord. This petition, he presumed, embodied the set of resolutions, ninety-two in number, which in the course of the last year had been agreed to by the Assembly of Lower Canada. Anything more violent, more unjust, more contrary to truth, never had been affirmed by any legislative body whatever. What took place in the House of Commons when the

1187
question of these ninety-two grievances was discussed? The matter was referred to a Select Committee, which his right hon. Friend, then at the head of the Colonial Department, had proposed. That Committee had entered fully into the consideration of everything like a grievance complained of by those who presented this petition. Every fact was considered. No part of the conduct of the Government of the various Secretaries of State for the Colonies was omitted, nor was any in formation that they could give attempted to be withheld. That Committee did not think itself justified (there were, no doubt, good reasons for that opinion) in publishing the evidence on the subject; and, therefore, it was a little unreasonable to expect that those charges which were then so fully investigated, should be now answered off-hand, when, from not knowing facts, it was impossible to know how many of them had been rebutted before the Committee, and so required no further repetition. He did not, therefore, think that he was called on to go through the items of this account of grievances, and to vindicate himself against the charges contained in this petition. He would venture, however, to say, that there was not a single matter complained of in this petition, which he did not endeavour to send out instructions to remedy. It was not the fault of the Government, nor was it the fault of the Governor, nor even of the Legislative Council, if what he desired had not been successfully carried into effect. If their Lordships were to go into the question, he should be able to show them that every difficulty in the way of settling these differences, had arisen from the unjust conduct of that body whose petition the noble and learned Lord now presented, and to which he seemed, from his manner of discussing it, to give his concurrence. A great complaint, in which he fully agreed, had been made on the subject of the independence of the Judges, as if that matter had not been touched by the Government— as if he (the Earl of Ripon) had not sent instructions to the Governor to send a message down to the House of Assembly on the subject. There were two sorts of independence of the Judges—an independence of the Crown, and an independence of a popular assembly. His object had been to render the Judges in Canada independent of both. It was true that the
1188
House of Assembly had passed a Bill to secure the independence of the Judges, but the House added to it a tack which it was well known would not be agreed to by the Legislative Council, and could not be assented to by the Governor. The tack declared, that the payment of the salaries of the Judges, was not to be made, except from funds belonging to the Crown, over which they had no legitimate control. He did not recollect whether this Bill had had the provisional sanction of the Governor; but this he did distinctly state, that if the Governor refused his assent, he (the Earl of Ripon) conveyed to the Governor his Majesty's approbation for that refusal; or if the Governor gave his provisional assent, then he (the Earl of Ripon) advised his Majesty to refuse the Royal assent.—[Lord Brougham: The Petition stated that the Bill was thrown out by the Legislative Council.]—The Legislative Council might have been the instrument for throwing out the Bill, but it was refused for the reason he had stated. There was no part of the duty of a Secretary of State for the Colonies to which more attention was requisite to be given—and the demand for attention in this respect was increasing from day to day—than to the state of the Canadas. He should not now go into the items of this petition; but should assert, without fear of contradiction, that there was nothing more unjust than the charges, of the introduction of which at the present moment, he had taken the liberty to complain.
Lord Broughamhad read the petition, and he could not discover the slightest allusion to his noble Friend in it. The charges were directed against the system of Government in the colonies, not against the Government at home. It was his duty to present the petition; but when he did so, he told their Lordships that he knew nothing of the statements but what he saw there, and that, for ought he knew, they might be all untrue, or all exaggerated. These were the statements of the petitioners; he had not pledged his personal credit to the truth of the statements.
The Earl of Riponknew that his name was not mentioned; but the petition alluded to a series of transactions in which he was, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, officially concerned. As to the matter of the elections, if there was any blame on that point he bore his fair share of

1189
the responsibility, for he held the Seals of the Colonial Office at the time. When he considered all the facts that were laid before the inquests, he felt that there was no blame to be imputed to the soldiers, and therefore, he did convey his Majesty's approbation of the way in which the troops had acted, and nothing had since occurred to make him see any reason to blame the conduct of those who took part in those transactions.
Lord Broughamhad said, on that particular transaction, that for ought he knew the soldiers might have had a painful duty to perform, might have been compelled to fire in their own defence, and that the Governor might have done right in approving of their conduct.
The Earl of Aberdeencould not suffer this petition to be laid on the Table without addressing a very few words to their Lordships, and but a few words they should be; for it would be most unwise and unjust in him, considering the circumstances that had occurred last night, to go into the subject matter of this petition, and to follow the noble and learned Lord into the different parts of this question which he had brought under discussion. He was ready to admit that this province was not without some just grounds of complaint, but he must say, that for several years past there had been the most earnest desire on the part of the Government of the mother country to meet and remedy all these grievances. During, the Session of Parliament last year ninety-two resolutions on the subject had been forwarded from Canada, and were presented to the notice of the other House of Parliament. The present petion was now brought forward, and if instead of ninety there were 900 grounds of complaint stated, he should be willing to meet them all with the same spirit of a desire to listen to, and remedy them, and not only with that spirit but with wishes of justice, conciliation, and kindness toward the colonist; and if they had omitted any one complaint which struck his mind, he should be happy to suggest it to their notice, and to adopt some remedy for it. It was impossible that this subject could be entered upon with feelings more cordially disposed to meet every just matter of complaint. The noble and learned Lord opposite had taken a most extraordinary course. The petition he had presented was not a petition that had
1190
the least reference to the greater portion of the subjects to which he had called the attention of their Lordships, nor were the grounds of complaint in the petition directed against the noble Earl who had just spoken; they were directed against the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues, and against them alone. The petition arose in consequence of what had been done since July last. It was framed in December last, when the petitioners imagined that the noble and learned Lord still sat upon that Woolsack. He did not know whether the petitioners meant to make the noble and learned Lord as Lord Chancellor, the vehicle of communicating this petition to their Lordships, but he must say that he believed, that had the petition still found the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, though it would have been his duty to present the petition, their Lordships would not have heard of it accompanied with these complaints. The whole of the grievances contained in the ninety-two resolutions did not form the subject of the present petition, the complaint in which was, that no practical measure of relief had been founded on those resolutions. That was a matter of complaint against the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues, and it was precisely of that, that the petitioners did now complain. With the exception of praying for an alteration in the constitution of the Legislative Council, there was scarely one other subject of complaint in the petition that could apply to any but the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues. The petitioners then complained of the continuance of Lord Aylmer in the office of Governor. The Governor was continued by the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues—he did not say improperly continued, but the continuance itself was the subject of complaint with the petitioners. They complained of the existence of the British North American Land Company—a Company that was established under the Government of the noble and learned Baron and his colleagues, if not with their approbation. Then it was said that the petitioners complained of the Government seizing on the revenues of the colony: now, how had that happened? The conduct of the Assembly itself had deprived the Government of the means of carrying on the necessary acts of Government. It was impossible to carry on the Government. No person employed in it

1191
had received one single shilling on account of his appointment for a considerable time. It therefore, became necessary for the Government to provide for the means of paying the current expenses of the Government. The Governor was directed by the noble and learned Baron and his colleagues to seize upon the revenues and apply them to the actual necessities of the State. He did not blame their decision. It was certainly a very strong step, and a great interference no doubt with the constitution in that country, as it would be in this. Another noble and learned Lord had insinuated that one day or other the time might arrive when a similar course of proceeding would be adopted here. He repeated it was a very strong step; whether it was or was not justified he would not undertake to say, but in either case it certainly was taken by the Government of this country. Well, then, were these complaints—were these grievances which the noble and learned Lord had a right to put forward as a matter of charge? Why, if they were grievances at all, they were grievances of which he himself had been the cause; and he (the Earl of Aberdeen) must say, that if the noble and learned Lord had bestowed that degree of attention on the petition which he should have thought it had deserved, it would have been quite impossible for him to have enumerated among the grievances complained of, those acts of which he himself had been guilty. He only made this observation with the view of calling their Lordships' attention to the course which the noble and learned Lord had thought proper to pursue. It had nothing to do with the great body of grievances of which the petitioners complained, to which he had already referred, and into the nature of which he would not enter at any greater length, as it might be most injurious to the satisfactory termination of the questions at issue. There was no doubt, that if the noble and learned Lord did choose to make himself in that House the organ of the petitioners, he might either promote or retard, very essentially, the settlement of those questions. Whatever might be that noble and learned Lord's course, he felt it must be his duty in that place, not to say anything which could possibly prejudice the success of that most important, most difficult, and most delicate undertaking to succeed in which—from the confession of the noble and learned Lord himself, and
1192
the description he had given of the state of the colony—the Government had no slight obstacles to surmount.
Lord Broughamdid not take the slightest degree of blame to himself for not examining the petition, for one plain reason—because he had examined it, and examined the whole of it. He had found certain charges brought against the Governor of the Colony, and no charges whatever against the Government at home, with the exception of the single one of not having sufficiently examined into their case. He knew very well the whole of that charge three weeks ago, and he stated yesterday the answer to it. The answer to the charge against the late Government, on his part, was, that they had done all that men could do, up to the very instant of the Government being dismissed. The answer of the noble Lord opposite, on his part, was, that on his taking the Seals of the Colonial Department, he applied his mind to the redress of the grievances complained of. With respect to the charge of interference of troops at the election of May, 1332, he begged to say, that he had stated the only charge made in the petition against Lord Aylmer, the Governor, and he begged to add his own statement, that he took the charge on the credit of the petitioners and stated their case. The noble Earl had told them that it turned out that the charges were made, not against the present Government, but the last, and that he (Lord Brougham) had brought those charges forward. This was not the case: there was no charge whatever against the late Government. The petition did not point at them, it pointed at the Governor, in one passage especially, in which very strong language was used, and which he (Lord Brougham) had purposely suppressed. He had guarded himself twice over, both in prefacing the charge against the Governor, and finishing it, against it being supposed that he guaranteed the authenticity of the statements in the petition. In both instances, he specifically said, that he took those statements on the credit of the petitioners, as well in other respects as with reference to the revenue charge, of which he knew nothing. He stated particularly and emphatically that he took those charges from them—that they might be right, or that the Governor might be perfectly justified—that he hoped he was —but that, however the fact might be, he

1193
repeated merely the statement of the petitioners, and the statement of the petitioners alone.
The petition to lie upon the Table.