Sitting of 6 July 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Secular Jurisdiction (York and Ely); East India Postage; Exchequer Bills sand Assessed Taxes exemption.—Read a first time: —Loan Fund Act Amendment (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. T. DEYNCOURT, from Lambeth, complaining of the conduct of the House of Lords. —By Mr. W. GLADSTONE, from Ross, complaining of the conduct of certain parties at the late Election, and praying that the proper officer may be instructed to prosecute.—By Lord W. BENTINCK, from Glasgow, for a Ten Hours Factory Bill.

TREATIES FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
The Order of the Day having

1823
been moved for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Slave Treaties Bill,
Sir R. Inglissaid, he felt he should not perform his duty were he not to take that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the state of the slave trade in some countries with which we had entered into treaties. He alluded in the first place, and more particularly, to Brazil, and in regard to the state of the slave trade in that country, he had received information on authority so unexceptionable, that he thought he should not abuse the time of the House by laying a statement of the facts before it. On the 5th of July last year, the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, Stated in his place in that House, that he thought England would have just ground of complaint against Portugal for non-fulfilment of treaties, if there were no rational prospect of obtaining from that country ampler means for putting an end to the slave trade carried on under her flag, "because Great Britain had paid to Portugal a very large sum, on a distinct understanding, that the slave trade should be terminated in all parts of her dominions." It might be objected, that this had no reference to Brazil; but he held, that Portugal was bound, not only to abolish the slave trade in her own dominions, but to lend her aid to England in putting an end to the traffic in slaves everywhere. By the convention of 1815 it was declared unlawful for Portugal to continue the trade in slaves, except so far as regarded the supply of slaves to some portions of her transatlantic possessions, and by that convention a period was thereafter to be fixed at which the trade in slaves should altogether cease. But notwithstanding the agreements into which Portugal then entered, the slave trade was still carried on to a considerable extent under the Portuguese flag; and that, too, under such circumstances, that it was not attempted to be said, that the traffic was continued for the purpose of supplying the transatlantic possessions of Portugal with slaves. In the first instance, as a justification of himself for occupying, even for a short space of time, the attention of the House at this period of the Session, he (Sir R. Inglis) would read the particulars of sundry vessels which under the Portuguese flag arrived in ballast at Rio Janeiro in
1824
the month of December, 1836, after having landed cargoes of slaves on other parts of the coast of the Brazils. He had a list of the names of those vessels, and his wish was to call upon the noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) to state, as far as the noble Lord could, consistently with the public service, what course it was his intention to recommend to her Majesty to pursue in the matter. In the list before him of vessels which had entered Rio Janeiro, in December 1836, he found that one vessel had embarked 400 slaves, seventy-five of whom died on the passage, and the remaining 325 were landed at St. Sebastian; another vessel had landed 284 slaves within a few leagues from Rio Janeiro; and another, the Minerva, landed 370 slaves. There were several others with which he would not trouble the House. One only he would mention, viz.—a brig from Mozambique, it appeared, had embarked 800 slaves, and of these 300 died on the passage. Now, he would ask the House whether, if this statement were borne out by facts, it did not justify this country in taking such measures as would compel the powers which were parties to the slave treaties to fulfil the engagements contracted by them. It was right, perhaps, that he should state, that although this trade was carried on under the Portuguese flag, the real owners of the vessels engaged in it were Brazilian subjects, or residents there subject to the Brazilian laws, and who were therefore amenable to the provisions of the existing conventions as to the slave trade in the Brazils. Whether, therefore, the House looked to the capital employed, or to the flag which covered it, it would be seen that Portugal and Brazil alike violated their obligations to England. The next return to which he should allude was a return of the same character as that from which he had already read extracts, and it was the particulars of the vessels engaged in the slave trade under the Portuguese flag which arrived at Rio Janeiro in the month of January, 1837. Of this he should only read one part, which stated, that a brig embarked 855 slaves, that of those 283 died or were thrown overboard alive during the voyage. [Captain Pechell: The name of the vessel?] The name was the Leao, from Quilinane. She had embarked 855 slaves.

1825
The small-pox having appeared, thirty were thrown overboard alive, and the measles having carried off 253 more, she landed the remaining 572 slaves upon the Brazilian coast. He conceived that these two facts alone were sufficient to show the extent of cruelty inflicted, and sufferings endured, under the flag of a nation which had solemnly declared, that the slave trade should no longer be carried on in that quarter, and by the means of the subjects of a power which had as solemnly entered into a similar compact with this country that the slave trade should not be carried on any where by her people. The hon. and gallant Officer opposite, who had inquired the name of the vessel to which he had last adverted, must know, if not from his own professional friends, at all events from documents which were already before Parliament, that the great difficulty in the way of preventing the traffic arose from the clause in the convention of 1815, by which the flag of Portugal was permitted to cover the slave trade, in so far as the supply of the transatlantic possessions of Portugal were concerned. As long as that exception continued, it would be impossible for the noble Lord opposite, even by the exercise of all the powers with which he was invested, to prevent that trade being carried on in other quarters also. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord would be enabled to state, that her Majesty's Government had been, and still were engaged, in endeavouring to induce the Crown of Portugal, and the Crown of the Brazils to concur with him in the total abolition of the trade, even for the supply of their own transatlantic possessions. He (Sir R. Inglis) had also a document, in the accuracy of which he placed the most implicit reliance, before him, which stated, that no less than 103 vessels had cleared out from the port of Rio de Janeiro alone from the coast of Africa in the year 1836. Now those 103 vessels were capable of bringing back at least 50,000 slaves. If the noble Lord opposite, or any hon. Member, doubted the accuracy of these details, he held in his hand a document which proved almost to a legal certainty the nature of the traffic in which these vessels were engaged. That document was a return of the nature and character of the goods exported from Rio Janeiro to the coast of Africa in the course of the last year, and from that one
1826
port alone it appeared there had been exported 5,819 packages of gunpowder, 530 cases of guns, 2,176 pipes of rum, 130 pipes of wine, seventy-five boxes of wine, 3,192 barrels of gin, with several thousand empty casks. Now could any man doubt that the first of these articles were designed as articles of barter by which the slaves were to be purchased, and that the last (the empty casks) were intended to convey sufficient water for the outward voyage. Unfortunately the state of public opinion on this subject in the Brazils differed from the state of public opinion in this country, and in fact he learned, with deep regret, that petitions had been addressed to the Brazilian Chambers by the people, praying for the repeal of the Act of 1821—an Act passed for the prevention of the slave trade, except for the supply of the colonies, and even in the present year the budget had been brought forward without any vote for the support of the usual force formerly maintained by the Brazils for the prevention of slave traffic. This showed, that the Brazilian authorities at least colluded with those engaged in the trade. He must also state, that goods to the amount in value of 500,000 l. were annually exported from Rio alone, destined for the coast of Africa, and that the amount of the lawful returns on those exports was little more than one-tenth of that amount, leaving the balance to be used as the means of bartering for human beings. This trade was carried on, too, upon British capital, because the goods exported to Africa from Rio were bought at a credit of six months from British merchants resident in the Brazils. By the effects of this traffic alone the depreciation in the exchanges between Rio and London had been nearly twenty per cent, in the last year. He had also received information, that in Pernambuco a joint-stock company had been formed for the purpose of carrying on this trade, and he had also been furnished with the names of officers in the Brazilian navy who were actually now engaged in the slave trade. All these documents and returns had been communicated to him from the Brazils, and he had tested them by viva voce information. He had reason to think that similar communications had been made to the noble Lord; and his own motive in bringing the subject before the House was chiefly to elicit from the noble Lord a declaration of the

1827
course, which, the facts being admitted, he intended to pursue upon it. For himself, he must say, that, apart from all considerations of the crime itself, of its demoralizing effects upon America, of its prejudicial effects upon commerce — apart on the one hand, from all sordid considerations of pounds, shillings, and pence; apart, on the other hand, from the higher considerations of religion and humanity, upon which he should himself desire to rest the case, he thought that the honour of the nation, and the faith of treaties, combined to furnish a sufficient justification to him for the course which he was taking, even at this late period of the Session, in bringing the question before the House. He would say nothing which should give a political character to the discussion; but he hoped that he might without offence observe, that the interest which her Majesty's Government took in the affairs of the Peninsula, entitled them to interfere with great influence in this matter. He, therefore, indulged the hope that the noble Lord opposite would feel himself called upon now to state to the House and to the country, that the treaty between this country and Portugal with reference to the slave trade, which, from the clause of exception, was at present almost worse than useless, should be made really sufficient for its professed purpose, by declaring that such trade was piracy; and that the convention with Brazil, which purported to abolish the traffic, but which, under all the circumstances stated by him, was at present a dead letter, should be carried into full and complete force and effect.
Viscount Palmerstonassured the hon. Baronet that he only did justice to him and to every Member of her Majesty's Government in believing that they fully shared those sentiments of indignation which he had expressed at the extent to which the traffic in slaves still continued under the flag of Portugal; and he could further assure the hon. Baronet that he only did them justice in believing that no effort had been spared on the part of the British Government to induce the government of Portugal to accede to stipulations which should put it not in their power, but in the power of Great Britain, to prevent the continuance of this disgraceful trade. The hon. Baronet must be aware that the British Government had been in negotiation with the government of Por-
1828
tugal for two or three years for the purpose of inducing the latter to agree to a new treaty, which should arm the British Government with the same powers of search, seizure, and condemnation, with which it had been armed by the government of Spain under the late treaty which had been concluded with that country. Such a treaty was very nearly concluded with the Portuguese government in the month of September last, but the circumstances which then took place in Portugal, and the unsettled state of the government of that country from that period to the present had interrupted the negotiation, and prevented its being brought to a conclusion. It was, however, only due to the Portuguese government to state, that they had, in the course of the present year, done that which no preceding government of Portugal could be brought to do; although they had not concluded a treaty with Great Britain upon the subject, they had, nevertheless, passed a law of their own, abolishing the slave trade, and making it highly penal in their dominions. But the hon. Baronet had stated only what was perfectly true when he said, that even supposing the governments of Portugal and Brazil to be as sincere as Great Britain was in a desire to suppress the trade, so far from being supported by public opinion in either of those two countries or by the obedience of the local authorities, on whom the execution of the law must chiefly depend, they were, on every occasion, thwarted and opposed by great private interests, and also by the indisposition of their own authorities to carry into execution the laws and stipulations which they might make. He was not, however, without hopes that her Majesty's Government would obtain from the Portuguese government such stipulations as would enable Great Britain to put down the slave trade under the Portuguese flag in the same way as it was prevented under the Spanish flag. He used the word "Portuguese flag," because, as the hon. Baronet opposite had correctly stated, the great amount of crime perpetrated under the Portuguese flag was not committed for the benefit of Portugal herself or of Portuguese individuals, but for the benefit of Spanish and Brazilian slave traders, and of the slave traders of other countries, who were permitted by the local authorities in the Portuguese colonies to prostitute the Portuguese flag and use it as a cover for their infamous trade. He admitted that nothing could exceed the

1829
horrors of that traffic. He would state one fact which had come to his knowledge. A ship had been taken coming out of Sierra Leone under the Portuguese flag, and they found on board from 300 to 400 negroes stowed between two decks, the interval between which was not more than two feet and a half. The House would judge what must have been the sufferings of those persons, confined in so small a space in so hot a climate. With regard to the stipulations with Portugal, he had claimed the power to seize and condemn all their ships south of the line trading in slaves: he had claimed the consent of the Portuguese government to the seizure by English men-of-war of all ships found fitted up for the slave trade; which were to be liable to condemnation, though no slaves should be found on board (a stipulation which had been agreed to by Spain): he also wanted its consent to a stipulation that ships seized and condemned should not be sold as now, and then again brought into the slave trade, but should be broken up and sold as old timber. With regard to the Brazils, these two last stipulations were wanting in the treaty which at present existed; but the Brazilian government, two years ago, by articles agreed to them. However, as the power to ratify these articles was not vested in the government but in the Chambers, the latter were not favourable to the proposition, and in consequence the government had not been able to obtain a ratification of those articles. He was happy to say that her Majesty's Government continued to receive the acquiescence of several foreign powers in their endeavours to put an end to the slave trade in all parts of the world. They had obtained the accession of the government of the Hanse Towns and the government of Tuscany, they were at present in negotiation for the same purpose with Naples, and he was in great hopes of shortly obtaining a treaty, with the same views, with Mexico. He could assure the hon. Baronet he felt thankful to him for affording him (Lord Palmerston) an opportunity of stating thus much upon this important and interesting subject, and of showing him that the Government were anxious to carry out those views which did him honour, and in which every person in this country concurred. He was in sanguine expectation of being in. possession before the meeting of the new Parliament of several other treaties of accession.
Mr. Goringwished to know whether
1830
any steam-vessels had been sent by the Government to the coast of Africa, for the suppression of the slave trade? He was satisfied that all efforts on the part of the Government would be vain, unless aided by other powers, and he hoped that any ship taken in the trade would not only be broken up, but that the persons employed in them would be hanged at the yard-arm.
Colonel Thompsonsaid, he happened to be a living governor of Sierra Leone, rather a rare species he believed on earth, and therefore could not well avoid confirming the opinion of the hon. Member who last sat down, that steam-boats at the mouths of the rivers would be the effectual instrument for putting down the slave trade on the coast of Africa. He had likewise no objection to the other instrument which had been recommended by the same hon. Member, the yard-arm, whenever arrangements could be made for administering it by due course of law; for he was convinced that on treating the slave-trade as piracy by European nations, depended the chance of ultimate suppression. It was seventeen years since he had had the honour of negotiating, under the orders of Sir William Keir Grant in the Persian Gulf, the first treaty or public act in which the slave-trade was written down by its proper name of piracy. This act took place in January, 1820, and had been public law in the countries concerned ever since. An act to the same effect was issued by America in the same year; but he had had the honour of comparing dates with Mr. Rush, the American minister, and Mr. Rush told him the American act took place in May; so that the British was actually the prior, though, from the difference in the modes of communication, the American act was known in England first. It might be acceptable to many that heard him to be made acquainted with these facts. But the use he wanted to make of them now was, to give additional stimulus to the Government to go on, and above all things not to expose themselves to the charge of stopping the small flies in their net, and letting the great ones through.
Mr. Humewished to press upon Government the necessity of adopting the employment of steam-vessels on the coast of Africa, for the purpose of preventing the carrying on the slave trade. He thought if an inquiry was instituted on the subject of the slave trade now carried on in different parts, there would be found to be a

1831
more revolting mass of evidence brought forward than that produced in the time of Mr. Wilberforce. The fact was, that the course pursued by this country had driven the slave-trade into those parts where the greatest inhumanity was exercised.
Mr. Charles Woodwould state that a steamer had been employed on the coast of Africa, but had not answered the expectations that had been formed; the fact was, that the difficulty arose, not from the want of cruisers on the coast of Africa, but from the want of power to seize vessels unless slaves were on board. Whatever had not been done with respect to the prevention of the carrying on of the slave trade, arose not from a want of prudence on the part of the Government, but from the want of treaties with other powers, which should give to the British cruisers a more extensive power of search and seizure.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that not one word had passed in the progress of the debate which any friend of the abolition of the slave trade could listen to without interest and gratification. It was indeed a subject of congratulation that one great question of humanity at least had reached that safe position in which all parties from all sides of the House were lending a willing aid for its future progress. It was a proud thing to England to witness this unanimity. He wished it to spread to another great nation. The conduct of the United States in this matter was distressing to her best friends. Would it be believed that under her republican auspices the slave trade was introduced into the province of Texas, from which it had been excluded by the Mexican authorities she had transplanted. Not only did she make no difficulty in admitting to her union new states in which slavery had long existed, but by her instrumentality slavery was forced into countries where it had been wholly extirpated. He hoped that the feelings of England would be communicated officially as far as it could be done with propriety, to the American government: at all events those feelings would not fail to reach the American people.
The Bill went through Committee.

NAVAL OFFICERS.
Captain Dundasmoved that an Address be presented to her Majesty, that previous to the estimates of 1838-9 means should be taken to ascertain the number of effective and non-effective officers of her Majesty's navy, with a view of forming a retired list to benefit old and
1832
meritorious officers who served during the war. The hon. and gallant Member was understood to express a hope that the Government would without delay see the necessity of infusing new energy into our naval service, which would be effected by removing those from the naval list who were not effective, and by the promotion of young officers.
Sir E. Codringtonseconded the motion, he would take that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the condition of the officers of the navy, as compared with that of the members of other departments of the public service. If a full admiral retired after forty or fifty years' service, he could not obtain more than 700 l. a-year for half-pay and allowance. Now, for not nearly the same length of service, a general officer would get more than double this income. The condition of the naval officers was different from that of almost any class of men in her Majesty's service. Look at the situation of a flag officer. When he went out to command on a foreign station he was in reality in the situation of an ambassador, yet he was not allowed table money, and on his retirement from office he was in a much worse condition. The widow of a full admiral was entitled to a pension of not more than 120 l. a-year; but seldom or never obtained it. The fund, however, from which the widows of other naval officers received their allowances was formed from a deduction made from the pay of each officer; but over the distribution of this the officers had no control, for it was totally under the management of the Admiralty. He would refer the House to the case of Sir Manley Dixon, as an illustration of the unjust mode exercised by the Admiralty in the distribution of widows' pensions. That gallant officer left a widow, and two daughters by a former marriage. The two latter ladies, in consequence of their not being able to obtain any allowance from the Admiralty, were obliged to apply to the navy charitable fund, which allowed them 25 l. a-year to save them from starving. He knew another officer who had died and left a widow with eight children to support on 60 l. a-year, and on her making application for employment for two of her sons, the Admiralty appointed them to situations, but subtracted in lieu of it 36 l. from her pension. After these cases he would put it to the House whether they would not allow a small increase of the widows' fund

1833
so that an additional allowance might he made to the widows and children of officers who had long served their country? Again, the widow of a commissary-general was allowed 120 l. a-year, which was the same amount as was given to the widow of the most distinguished admiral, and the latter would not obtain her pension unless she took an oath that she had not an income of 200 l. a-year. To show how the navy was managed, he would direct the attention of the House to the condition of Greenwich Hospital, and ask why should three civilians have the management in that establishment? He could mention another instance of injustice in the ordnance, in which a deserving naval officer was forced out of his situation to make way for a civilian. Again, he would ask, was it proper that the Duke of Wellington should be placed at the head of the department at Dover for the examination of persons wishing to become channel pilots, and having to determine on the merits of pilots and pilotage? This undoubtedly was an office which required, to fill it properly, the judgment of a person acquainted with maritime affairs. Strange also to say, the noble Duke had Lord Carrington for his deputy in this office. He was prepared to admit that the noble Duke was the most distinguished general in Europe, but it did not therefore follow that he was the best judge of maritime affairs. When the pension-list came to be revised, he hoped the House would direct its attention to such a meritorious class of men as the half-pay officers of the navy, and more especially the lieutenants. He did not believe that any class of men were so ill-used by the country as the naval officers. By the arrangement of the pension-list at the Admiralty, a young man with interest would be entitled to a pension after ten years' service, while one without it would be under the necessity of serving double that time. He did not ask the House to believe a single word that he stated—all that he required was, that the House would look at the documents and see whether his statements were not borne out by them. He would quote the case of Captain—, who had to serve upwards of thirty-four years before he was promoted, while a person who had interest got promoted before he had served half that time. Assistant-surgeons in the army had more pay after ten years' service than assistant-surgeons in the navy had after twenty years' service, He thought the board of
1834
Admiralty ought to come forward and state boldly what was due to the navy. He, for his own part, would not be satisfied without the strictest investigation upon the subject. If he had the honour of a seat in that House in the next session, he should certainly bring the subject again under the attention of the House, as hitherto he had been always jockeyed out of doing so. The navy had been always put in the back ground, and his doctrine to them would be, "agitate, agitate, agitate." With reference to the motion of his hon. and gallant Friend he gave it his most cordial support.
Mr. Charles Woodsaid, with respect to the motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Devizes, he certainly did expect when that motion was made, the hon. and gallant Member would have stated some plan to the House. He thought, however, that the officers of the navy would rather forfeit their chance of promotion than undergo that examination which had been proposed. Such a plan would be any thing but agreeable and popular among the higher officers. He was ready to admit there were a great many officers on the list who were not equal to the active discharge of their duties, and if any scheme could be laid before the Admiralty, they would give it their favourable consideration. The country was suffering, and the navy was suffering, in consequence of having had a very large force during a long-continued war. The only means of supplying employment to such a large body of men as the naval officers on the half-pay list would be by a war, but as there was now peace, they must submit with patience like persons in other professions which were overstocked. On these grounds he thought it was perfectly unnecessary to bring forward such a motion. With respect to the statements of the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport, they were merely a repetition of the arguments brought forward by him previously. To these statements he had on former occasions given an answer, which it was unnecessary for him now to repeat. With respect to the allowances made to the widows of officers, he would only observe that it was always a matter of regret to the department to which he belonged to refuse claims of this kind; but it should be recollected that the Admiralty had only a limited fund to deal with, and was necessarily obliged to select those whose cases appeared the most pressing. It was a mistake to suppose that no

1835
admiral's widow with more than 200 l. a-year was entitled to a pension. The Admiralty, in all cases of the kind, exercised a discretion. The fund for the children of naval officers was only 14,000 l. a-year, whereas it would be easy to distribute 60,000 l. amongst most deserving objects. With respect to the three civil officers connected with the management of Greenwich Hospital, they were persons who had the management and control of the estates belonging to the hospital. He denied that there was any ground of complaint as to the 300 lieutenants that had been promoted to the rank of commander without additional pay. The proceeding was in direct conformity with the order in council.
The House divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 19: Majority 2.

List of the AYES.

Bannerman, A.

Pechell, Captain

Barnard, E. G.

Richards, R.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Robinson, G. R.

Elley, Sir J.

Sheppard, T,

Estcourt, T.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Fector, J. M.

Vigors, N. A.

Goring, H. D.

Vivian, J. E.

Gresley, Sir R.

Wallace, R.

Hume, J.

Young, G. F,

Lennox, Lord G.

TELLERS.

Mangles, J.

Dundas, Captain

Maxwell, J.

Codrington, Sir E.

List of the NOES.

Baring, F. T.

Jervis, J.

Bridgeman, H.

Melgund, Viscount

Brotherton, J.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Buller, E.

Paget, F.

Dillwynn, L. W.

Palmerston, Viscount

Ebrington, Viscount

Pusey, P.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Russell, Lord J.

Fergusson, rt. hon. R.

Wall, C. B.

Hector, C. J.

TELLERS.

Hindley C.

Adam, Sir C.

Howard, P. H.

Wood, C.

Mr. Hume rosefor the purpose of bringing forward his motion respecting Upper Canada, when the House was counted out.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Dublin Police; Common Law Courts; Coroners Inquests Expenses; Metropolis Police Officers; Military Commissions; Reference to Acts Mistakes.—Read a second time:—Post-Office Management; Malt Duties regulation; Creditors (Scotland); Administration of Justice (New South Wales); Ecclesiastical Appointments Suspension; Courts in China; Court of Exchequer (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Earl STANHOPE, from various places, to rescind and amend the Poor-law Amendment Act.

BRIDLINGTON HARBOUR BILL.
On the Order of the Day being moved for the third reading of the Bridlington Harbour Bill,
The Marquess of Londonderryregretted to be obliged, at so late a period of the Session, and when there was so much public business before the House, to detain their Lordships by offering a few observations against the passing of this Bill. The noble Marquess read extracts from the evidence that had been taken before the Committee, which, he said, distinctly showed that Bridlington Harbour could not be made a harbour of refuge, for it could only be entered at certain periods. That being the case, he hoped their Lordships would reject the Bill. He considered it very unfair, that the owners of coal vessels should be called upon to pay a passing toll, while vessels laden with stone and other materials were to be admitted free.
The Earl of Harewoodobserved, that Bridlington Harbour had been used as a harbour of refuge since the time of James 2nd. It was certainly not a complete harbour of refuge at all times, but it was nevertheless very well adapted for a numerous class of vessels that traversed that coast, and made use of it as a place of refuge in stormy weather.
Lord Wharncliffeobjected to the principle of the Bill, convinced as he was that the harbour could never be made a harbour of refuge, and would therefore oppose it.
The Earl of Mintothought it would be well to allow the Bill to stand over until next Session, when it might be freed from the objections to which it was justly liable in its present form.
Earl Manverswould have preferred the Bill had it come from the other House containing a provision for imposing a passing toll on all vessels entering the harbour, instead of coal vessels exclusively. Although he was ready to admit that the harbour was not a good one, he thought it better to have it than none at all.
The Earl of Durhamopposed the Bill, which was an old acquaintance of his, as by his humble efforts it had failed on its first introduction to the House of Commons. He held in his hand a petition signed by eighty owners and masters of vessels trading between London and the ports of Newcastle, Sunderland, Stockton, and Hartlepool, who repudiated the notion of being able to enter that harbour in safety. Masters of colliers who had the slightest regard for their vessels would not think of attempting it. In fact, a camel passing through the eye of a needle, was but a farce to it. At the entrance, it was but 120 feet wide, which the Bill proposed to increase to 150 feet; it was frequently dry, and at the most advantageous periods contained but fourteen feet of water, while colliers, generally speaking, drew fifteen feet. Conceiving the principles of the measure to be utterly at variance with those which ought to govern the laws of navigation in England, he felt it his duty to oppose it.
Lord Colchesterbeing of opinion, that it was a beneficial measure, would give his consent to the third reading. The harbour was, no doubt, incomplete, but it formed an excellent place of security for light colliers under circumstances of peril,
Lord Colvillethought it to be the duty of such of their Lordships as had served in her Majesty's navy to attend Committees on subjects of this kind. He had done so, and had come from the Committee which had been appointed on this question more impressed with the value of the proposed measure than he had been on entering it. The harbour was but of an indifferent kind, but it was better to have it than be without any at all.
Their Lordships divided:— Contents 45; Not-contents 35: Majority 10.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Earl of Shaftesburylaid on the table of the House the Resolutions adopted by a Committee appointed to consider the mode of conducting the business of their Lordships' House in proceedings having reference to private Bills.
Lord Broughamobserved, he had already stated his views upon this subject to the House, when he said, that it appeared to him, that the most effectual remedy for the evils complained of would be to transfer elsewhere the powers exercised by Committees of that House in reference to private Bills; on that, however, he must observe, that it could not be expected that their Lordships would part with that power till they had tried every other possible mode of dealing with the question. The next best remedy would be to adopt the plan of joint-Committees of the two Houses, but, whatever might be the final arrangement of proceedings concerning local and private rights of so much importance, the House most probably would, and he should say ought to, do all in its power, by reforming its own orders, to remove all just cause of complaint without having recourse to an Act of Parliament. He concurred in the Resolutions, so far as they went, and hoped that they would lead to great and important changes.
Resolutions agreed to.

RECOVERY OF PRESENTATIONS.
The Marquess of Westmeathmoved, that the House go into Committee on the Right of Presentation Recovery (Ireland) Bill.
The Lord Chancellorobjected to the Bill, that it went to withdraw jurisdiction relative to presentation from courts peculiarly adapted for that purpose, and to bestow it upon the Court of Chancery, which was not suited to the due discharge of such a function.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that it was a great grievance to persons having presentations to livings in Ireland, and becoming parties to writs of quare impedit, to have the law as it now was. The best mode of remedy was to have all such matters sent to the Court of Chancery, instead of being left to the Courts of Common Law.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor, that was the great objection to the Bill. In order to relieve some cases in which he would admit that grievances might exist, it would take the whole jurisdiction in such matters from the Common Law Courts and transfer it to the Court of Chancery, without any one reason being assigned for the change.
Bill to be committed in three months.

THE NEW POOR-LAW.
Earl Stanhopepresented a petition from a place in Yorkshire (the name of which did not reach us), praying for a revision of the new law, with the view to correct some of its enactments. He had similar petitions from Bradford and from Throckmorton. In looking over these petitions, he owned he was surprised that the parties who entertained such opinions as they expressed with respect to the Act should not arrive at the conclusion, that it ought to be repealed altogether. In his opinion, nothing could or ought to be satisfactory to the country, but the entire repeal of the Act. There was one point on which he wished to put a question to the noble and learned Lord (Brougham), as to an opinion which he was supposed to have given in the discussion the other evening, respecting the powers exercised by the Commissioners, for he could assure the noble and learned Lord, he should regret that any erroneous notion of what he said should go forth to the country on this subject, carrying with it, as it must do, the great weight of his authority. He would beg to recall the attention of the noble and learned Lord to what was stated on the discussion to which he referred. It was stated, that Dr. Kaye had said, that it was intended to make the workhouses as much disliked as possible. To that, the noble and learned Lord was represented to have said, that he did not believe the words were used by any Commissioner; but that, if he had used them, he was wrong. Now, he (Earl Stanhope) was able to show, if it were thought necessary, that the words had
1810
been used by the party to whom they had been attributed. He could not believe (unless the noble and learned Lord himself affirmed it) that he had expressed his approval of all the regulations made by the Commissioners for the government of those workhouses. He could not believe, that the noble and learned Lord would have described what he (Earl Stanhope) should call an imprisonment as a "trifling restraint," or "inconvenience."
Lord Broughamsaid, as far as he recollected the occasion and what was said, it was this—that being asked whether the Commissioners had power to imprison men in the workhouse, he answered, that the Commissioners had no right to imprison in the workhouse or elsewhere,—that no man, whether Commissioner or any other person, had a right to imprison any man any where except by due course of law; and he added, that he did not believe that any thing which the Commissioners had done could be construed into imprisonment. But it was clear that the commissioners had the power of making certain regulations for the government of the workhouses, and to those regulations the inmates of the workhouses must conform as long as they chose to remain there. There was a great difference between the inmates of a workhouse and of a prison—the difference between voluntary and constrained residence. In the one case the man went voluntarily to reside, and could go away when he pleased; in the other he was taken against his will, and obliged to stay against his will. In the workhouse, when an inmate wished to leave, he was to give a notice of three hours. This could not be considered unreasonable, for he had to change his workhouse clothes for those which he had brought in with him, and to get what little property he might have, little undoubtedly it could be, but such as it was it was important to him, and the getting those things in a large establishment would take some time. If there were no such regulation, a pauper might come in at the dinner hour, and, having dined, might go away, and thus the workhouse, which was intended for a very different object, might be turned into a dining-house. The pauper having quitted the house might come in again; for it was a great misunderstanding of the Bill to say, that when once a pauper went forth by his own desire he was not to be permitted to come back. He might come back on the

1811
same three conditions on which he had first gone in. These were, by an order from the Commissioners, or from the guardians, or, in the case of urgent necessity, by the permission of the keeper of the house. A submission to such regulations as these he had termed "trifling restraints," but had never meant to apply those terms to imprisonment.
The Bishop of Exeterfelt obliged to break through that rule which for the convenience of their Lordships he had made, of not again occupying their attention on this subject in the present Session. He was in a condition to prove, beyond all contradiction, that there were many instances in which paupers had been prevented from leaving the workhouse on the Sundays in order to attend divine service in their own places of worship. When the rules and regulations of the Commissioners should come before their Lordships, it would be seen whether such as these were amongst them. Those rules, however, though the order was made for their production early in June, had not yet been produced, and their Lordships had agreed with him in the motion that the said Returns be made forthwith. He begged to express his entire concurrence in what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord (Brougham) who had stated, that neither Commissioner or any other person had a right to imprison in any workhouse or elsewhere, and that such imprisonment could take place only by due course of law. This was an important authority, coming from one who was the friend of liberty; but he could not concur with the noble and learned Lord in his view of the rules and regulations which had been laid down for the government of the workhouses. The noble and learned Lord had said, that a pauper might go from the workhouse on giving three hours' notice; but suppose he desired to go to Church on a Sunday, he must then give his three hours' notice of leaving; but when he returned what was his chance of being re-admitted? Why, it must be subjected to the three conditions—the consent of the Commissioners, or guardians, or "a case of urgent necessity." But who was to be the judge of that necessity? The keeper of the workhouse; and if he did not think the necessity existed, the man might starve, and his family starve too; for, according to the wording of the rule, if he were an able-bodied pauper he must, on giving the three hours' notice of going,
1812
take his family with him. It was said that the pauper could come and go when he liked—that there was no such thing as imprisonment. Now, let their Lordships look at the rule laid down for the conduct of door-keepers in those workhouses. They were directed not to allow any person to pass into or out of the workhouse, except the officers of the house, without the leave of the master or mistress of the house. What was this but in effect saying to the unfortunate individuals whom misery had driven to seek an asylum in any of those houses, that they may be kept immured in them during the pleasure of the master or mistress of the house or the other authorities of the establishment. This was a tyranny which ought not to be submitted to. Was it not a tyranny to the poor to enforce a regulation by which the old and infirm pauper should be prevented from enjoying those common blessings which the God of us all had intended should be enjoyed by all? He begged not to be understood here as speaking of the able-bodied labourers who sought a temporary asylum in the workhouse. He spoke of those who could not work, whom age or infirmity had rendered unable to contribute to their own support. These had claims on the community which the law of God himself had declared sacred and indefeasible. Were parties thus circumstanced — were those who were as dear in the eyes of the God of us all as the most elevated in society—were these to be imprisoned?—were they to be shut up from all intercourse with external society merely because of the already heavy infliction of poverty brought on by age or infirmity? Such a state ought not to be endured, and he had no doubt that when the country came to understand it in its true light, it would not endure it. He did hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord, when he reconsidered those regulations which were to be the guidance of the discipline of the workhouses, would not give them his sanction.
Lord Broughamobserved, that if the right rev. Prelate thought that he would sanction that a pauper able to work should be allowed to go out of the workhouse as liked, after being fed and clothed, and enter into competition as a labourer outside with the labourer who worked hard for his family, and who neither obtained nor sought relief,—if he thought that he (Lord Brougham) would assent to a regu-

1813
lation by which such a pauper should come and go as he pleased, the right rev. Prelate had greatly mistaken him.
The Earl of Chichesterfelt it necessary to say a few words in reply to some remarks which had been made by the right rev. Prelate. From his own experience of the working of the new Poor-law—and it had not been very slight—he could state that where it was most known, and where there had been the greatest experience of its effects, it had been hailed with the greatest satisfaction. It had been complained of as a hardship on the able-bodied man, that he was prevented from going out to seek employment. Now, the fact was not so. At least it was not so in those districts with which he was best acquainted. The able-bodied man was allowed to go out and look for work; and it was a fact, that after being in the workhouse for a time, he found less difficulty in getting work than before, for his misfortune in being driven to the workhouse raised him up friends amongst those to whom he was known, and means of employment were soon found for him out of the workhouse. The same thing could be said of the single women, for whom opportunities of employment in husbandry were procured. As to the refusal of parties to go out on Sundays for divine worship in their parish churches, he could only say that in the unions with which he was acquainted there was a room set apart for divine service, and a chaplain attended on Sundays. On that day all the inmates who were not prevented by conscientious scruples from joining in the worship of the Church of England were obliged to attend; but in cases where the parish church afforded sufficient accommodation, the inmates of the workhouse who were members of the Church of England were allowed to attend under the superintendence of the master of the workhouse, but in many of the parishes, as their lordships well knew, there was not accommodation for such numbers as the workhouse of a union would contain, and therefore a local place of worship would be necessary. Indeed, in all cases where it could be procured, he would prefer a local chapel for the inmates of the workhouse. As to allowing the pauper to go on each Sunday to his own parish church, at whatever distance it might be, he would say that the practice, whenever it took place, had been productive of great irregularity, great mischief, and great im-
1814
morality. This he thought was fully shown in the mass of evidence which had been laid before their lordships on the subject. With respect to the allowing the old and infirm to have constant egress and ingress, the regulation would in most instances be useless. Many of these were bedridden, and many so old and infirm as not to be able to avail themselves of the indulgence, and some of that class were of such previously known habits and character, that the guardians could not think of extending the indulgence to them. With respect to the able-bodied paupers, they were, it was well known, for the most part, the least useful, and the least respectable of their class. With respect to the industrious and diligent labourers, he could state from his own observation, that their condition had been greatly improved by the operation of this act. This was proved by the fact, that from Sussex, where the act had been in operation, there had been no petitions against it, except from the city of Chichester, where a local poor act was found to be much more stringent than the enactments of the general law. The fact of the general satisfaction given by the act where its operation was best known was further proved by what took place last winter, which was one of unusual severity in the agricultural districts, not alone from the state of the weather, but from the high price of flour and other necessaries. Notwithstanding those difficulties, there was more contentment amongst the poor who had been greatly aided by charitable offices among their neighbours, than had been known for many years. He had felt it necessary to trespass on the indulgence of their Lordships with these remarks, which he thought were called for by the observations of the noble Earl, and he should be always ready, as far as his humble powers would enable him, whenever such petitions as those now before the House, and accompanied with remarks such as those of the noble Earl, to point out, from what had fallen within his own observation, the great advantage which had resulted from the new Act, and the improvement in the condition of the poor in every district in which he had seen it applied.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, the Poor-law Commissioners had been blamed for not having made before the present time a return to their Lordships' order; but the noble Earl and the right rev. Prelate

1815
seemed altogether to overlook the vast mass of other business which the Commissioners had to dispose of. They had not less than 2,000 letters a week. That of itself would, one might think, be enough to occupy the attention of a much more numerously-constituted board. It had come within his own knowledge that three clerks had been employed for some weeks in making out the called-for returns; and that as far as they had yet gone, those returns occupied not less than from 500 to 600 pages. If the noble Earl persisted in making a further addition to their labours in this respect, he (the Earl of Radnor) would certainly oppose the motion. In one union workhouse with which he was more particularly acquainted, the master was a gentleman who, in address and appearance, was as respectable as any of their Lordships. He had been educated for the bar, and was in all respects a most fit person for the office he had undertaken of master, and also schoolmaster of the workhouse. As to the treatment of the paupers, he was willing to let the comparison between the new and the old system rest on the testimony of those inmates of the workhouse who had experience of both, and they would all say that they had never before been treated so well. In a word, the new system was found fault with only by those to whom its operation was not known, and who had had no opportunity of witnessing its effects.
Earl Stanhopehad conversed with a person who had had the honour to serve under the noble and gallant Duke (Wellington) in the Peninsula, and he had informed him that the treatment in a French prison was considerably better than that was which was experienced in the new workhouses, which were the refuge for the destitute, both those who were able and those who were unable to work. And here he begged to say that he dissented from the right Rev. Prelate who had that night spoken, when he said that he felt little compassion for the able-bodied in the workhouse, because they might seek for employment. Now, he did not know whether there had been any design to render these workhouses places of punishment, but the practical effect of the law was to make them so. The noble and learned Lord opposite seemed to consider the imprisonment in these new workhouses as a voluntary penance, but the able-bodied labourer had no choice. If, when he found
1816
his situation within the workhouse intolerable, he went out, and could obtain no work in his own district, having no longer a habitation or a place of refuge, he must resort to the workhouse for shelter. With respect to the observations made by the noble Earl opposite (Radnor), that no complaints had been made of the treatment experienced in the workhouses where the new system had come into operation, he could state, that many petitions to that effect had been sent to him last Session from Sussex, which his secession from the House had prevented him from presenting. The noble Earl was perhaps not acquainted with the degrading and disgraceful thraldom in which the agricultural labourers were kept. So long as the labourer resided in the workhouse he was not allowed to leave it; the door was kept locked, and he was therefore as long as he was kept there imprisoned. The noble Earl was very much mistaken in supposing that this new Poor-law had produced great satisfaction in every place where it had been tried. It could not be supposed, that if so much benefit had been derived from it as was imagined, that there would not have been, not exactly petitions to that House, but earnest exhortations on the part of those parishes where the law had not been put into operation, addressed to the three Commissioners, praying that they might be placed under their paternal government. He allowed that petitions expressing satisfaction with the working of the measure had been presented, but they came principally from boards of guardians. There might be some from Rate-payers, but generally the petitions expressing approbation of the measure came from the board of guardians, although he should find no difficulty whatever in establishing the proposition which he had laid down the other evening, that this new Poor-law was principally recommended to its authors by the effect it was expected to have in reducing the rates, and preventing the gradual absorption of the property of the country by the increase of those charges, and although he could support that proposition not only by what was said by the promoters of the measure in their Lordships' House, but also by quotations from speeches of the noble Lord who was at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was rejoiced at being relieved from that necessity, by its being admitted that a saving in the expense of the rates was of

1817
the least importance, and that the merits or demerits of the measure were to be judged of by the effect it was likely to have on the labouring population. He was willing to try it by that test; but he must observe that when any of those persons who expressed an opinion that the Act, to use the ordinary phrase, worked well, was asked how it worked well, his answer had always been, "There is a great reduction of rates." No doubt there had been some reduction in the Poor-rates, but it was also true, that if this law had never been enacted a considerable reduction would still have taken place. This had been shown by the reductions which had been actually made under that head in those places where the new Poor-law had never come into operation. It was said the other evening by a noble Marquess (the Marquess of Tavistock) that there had been an enormous saving of rates in Bedfordshire, and that there was no want of employment there. Now, it must have occurred to the noble Marquess if he had taken the pains to reflect, that the reason of this enormous saving was the increase of employment, and if great works had not been undertaken, and other means of employment provided, they would have found it impracticable to carry the law into operation in any part of the country. It appeared to him that the expenses of the establishment in these unions were enormous. He would take the case of the Royston Union, in the county of Cambridge. There the expense of the establishment was returned to be 2,262 l., and the whole amount of persons relieved was only sixty-two. He knew a person who resided within that union, who stated that the amount of Poor-rates in the parish in which he lived had been increased 100 l. by the operation of this law, and what did the same Gentleman say as to the poor there? He declared that the labourers were selling piecemeal their little property to save themselves from going into the workhouse. He would now take from the return eleven unions: Hungerford and Wantage, in Berkshire; Royston, in Cambridgeshire; Bridge, Milton, and River, in Kent, Hendon, in Middlesex; Banbury, in Oxfordshire; Hoxne, in Suffolk; Midhurst and Rye, in Sussex. The total expense of these unions was returned to be 37,321 l., and the number of persons relieved 1,615, so that the average expense
1818
of in-door relief for those individuals was 23 l. 2s. 9d. a-year per head, making a charge of nearly 9s. a-week for each person. Thus, then, they actually imposed a greater expense on these parishes than they had to sustain before. Their Lordships need not be told that in Devon, and parts of Cambridge, the wages of the labourer were only 7s. a-week, and he might be employed out of the workhouse at that rate instead of costing the parish 9s. a-week within it. Even if he were unable to work, he would be happy to keep out of the workhouse for a third of the sum which it cost to keep him in. The total number of persons who had received in-door relief, according to the return, was 18,852, and the average expense for each was 15 l. 6s. 10 d. per annum, or 5s. 10 d. per week, so that the expense of keeping these individuals in the workhouse was considerably greater. than they would cost at home. On the other hand, the average expense incurred for out-door relief was 4l. 7s, per annum for each individual, amounting to the very magnificent allowance of about 1s. 4d. per week. It was observable that in the first three quarters of the last year the heads of families only were put down as receiving relief, but taking the average of the last quarter of 1836 the average expense would be for each individual about 1s. 3d. so that in fact great sums of money were wasted, not for the comfort of the poorer population, but for their punishments. Their Lordships would find that the column in the return made by the Poor-law Commissioners containing the amount of Poor-rates showed a decreased percentage of forty-eight per cent. Now, the expenses under the head of "establishment" clearly did not include the expenses which had been incurred for sending agricultural labourers to Canada or to manufacturing districts. He had much satisfaction in reading an extract from a report on the Blything Union, in Suffolk, made on the 14th January, 1837, because the noble Earl on the cross bench (Stradbroke) would be able to correct him if any misstatements were made. The Report said, "In the spring of the year (1836) 173 men, 106 women, and 245 children, making a total of 524 individuals, were embarked for the British colonies at the charge of their respective parishes, from whom the most gratifying accounts have since been received, and 130 mi-

1819
grated to the manufacturing districts, where they are reaping the fruits of their industry and skill." Now here were 524 individuals exported from the country, which lost, therefore, so many consumers of produce, and so many payers of taxes, and exported at an expense to the country which could not on an average be less than 6l. per head. Now, let it be observed that in this Blything Union the reduction in the Poor-rates was stated not to be less than fifty per cent. He felt persuaded that if the expenses of migration and exportation had been added to the Poor-rates, a very different result would have been obtained, and there would have been an increased percentage under that head. He would now read an extract from a letter written by a Gentleman in Suffolk, in whose judgment and veracity he had the fullest reliance, bearing upon the same part of the subject:— "Six of the best labourers in England with their six wives and their forty-five children, are gone to America, from within five miles round me this month, and all declare that they are at heart utterly against going, but that they have been driven to volunteer from the hatred they have to separation and half-starvation within these prison-houses, and the dread and horror they have of almost certain starvation under the practice of the new Poor-law out of these prisons. It may be said, why do farmers and tenantry send away so many of the best labourers, the very heart's blood of the country? I answer, with the following case as an example:—A small agricultural parish met lately, and there was amongst the farmers an opposition to sending a score of persons to America. Five landlords, however, had thirty-three votes, and there were not twenty other votes in the parish, so it was of no use opposing them." [The Duke of Richmond inquired the name of the parish?] It was not stated. With respect, however, to the Blything union, their Lordships would observe, that in the spring of last year, no less than 654 persons migrated or emigrated from that union; the total population of the union being 25,000, and there being consolidated in it forty-nine parishes. It was stated in the Report, that the 130 persons who had migrated to the manufacturing districts, were reaping the fruits of their industry and skill. But what was the case with those people at present? The
1820
fact was, that from the present deficiency of employment and stagnation of trade, they had been hawked about from place to place, in the hopes of employment being found for them, but they had not returned to their own homes, because that would show the fallacy of the whole scheme, and expose the delusion by which they had been led away. The real truth was, that the agricultural labourer did not go to the manufacturing districts voluntarily, but under the hard pressure of necessity, and utterly ignorant of the nature of the work that would be exacted from him. Even if he were successful in his object, the employment of his children was not a permanent relief to him, because the moment they ceased to be children, their labour ceased to be valuable, and they were returned to their own homes, not, however, as they left them, but crippled and broken down. The noble Earl concluded, by moving for various returns.
The Duke of Richmondobserved, that his noble Friend had admitted his ignorance of the meaning of the expenses charged under the head "establishment." In every union, each parish was separately charged for the relief of its out-door poor, and the establishment expenses comprehended the payments made to the master of the workhouse, the chaplain, the medical man, the clerk, the relieving officers, and the cost of the building, of the furniture, and the repayment of money borrowed for the building. All these expenses came under the head of "establishment charges," and were defrayed by a quota from each parish. With regard to what the noble Earl had stated, as to a reduction in the poor-rates, he thought that no saving of expense could justify anything like oppression to the poor of this country. He contended, however, that the measure had been of very great benefit to the poor. The noble Earl, on the other hand, maintained that it was a great hardship to force a man who was earning 7s. or 8s. a-week—not to go and live in Germany—but to allow him to go into a manufacturing district, where he could earn 26 s. or 27 s. a-week. The noble Earl spoke about forcing the labourers of Sussex to do this. The noble Earl, however, showed that he knew very little of the labourers of Sussex, if he supposed that they could be forced to do anything. They would not do anything they did not

1821
like. They were too independent for that, and he was glad to say, that by the operation of the new Poor-law, they were becoming more and more independent. He had never heard the same complaints made in a higher station. If he had paid the expenses of a gentleman's passage to India, he should have been rather surprised if he had heard the gentleman pitied for being subjected to such a hardship. As to the migration of the labourers not being voluntary, he would cite an instance within his own knowledge, which would show what were the feelings of the labourers of Sussex upon that subject. When the new Poor-law Act first came into operation, an agricultural labourer, of good character, requested the board to allow him to migrate, to see if he could not better his condition. "Why," said the board of guardians, "we do not understand much of this migration system, but you shall go to Manchester for a fortnight at our expense, inquire how things are going on, make your own bargain, and tell us what you think of it." The man went, stayed the fortnight out, and on his return went to the board of guardians and said, "Gentlemen, I have one favour to ask of you, and that is, to allow me to go to Manchester immediately. But I have another favour to ask of you; I have a brother in the parish, and I hope you will allow him to go with me, together with his family." As to the increase of emigration, the noble Earl was mistaken. Emigration went on before the new Poor-law came into operation; but so far from being on the increase, it was rather on the decline. Again, the habits of the labourer were becoming more careful and saving. He now carried part of his earnings to a saving-bank. Formerly, they were afraid to do this, lest the overseer should find it out, and they should lose their share of the head-money which was then paid to every man who had three children.
The Earl of Stradbrokesaid, that those persons who had been sent from Suffolk to Canada had every one of them expressed in the strongest terms their obligations to the Board of Guardians for so kindly contributing to their comfort and happiness; and, short as had been their stay there when the accounts were despatched, they had made considerable profits. With regard to those labourers who had migrated under the rules and regulations of the Commissioners to the
1822
manufacturing districts, the engagements which they made were for three years, and their master was obliged to find them employment, and to pay them their wages during that time. They were, therefore, still employed by their master, according to the terms of their engagement with him. The noble Earl had stated, that the poor were made uncomfortable in the new workhouses. He had himself made personal inquiries of them, whether they were as comfortable as they had been under the old system, or not, in the Blything union, and he had been assured by the paupers that they were infinitely more comfortable and happy in every respect than they had been under Gilbert's Act. He had felt a great interest in the measure, and had taken some pains to make himself master of its principles and details, and he felt bound to state, with respect to Suffolk, that in every district of that part of England the success of the measure had not only been most complete, but had given the greatest satisfaction to the upper and middle classes. He could also state, that without exception, wherever the new law had had a fair trial the labouring classes were fully impressed with the excellence of the measure.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the returns which were desired could not be made, unless the Commissioners were sent again into the different unions. When sent, they would have to look into the quarterly accounts of the unions, which were 600 in number. They would, therefore, have to examine 2,400 accounts. They could only do so by great labour, and he doubted whether the result would be at all commensurate in value.
Earl Stanhopecould see no difficulty in making the returns; he would, however, with their Lordship's permission, withdraw his motion.