Sitting of 9 March 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, and other Hon. MEMBERS, from Phillipstown, and various other places, for Municipal Corporations (Ireland); and for the Abolition of Tithes (Ireland); from Dundalk, for Poor-laws (Ireland); from Enigh, Treugh, and Dungannon, for the Amendment of the Law of Landlord and Tenant.—By Colonel WESTENRA, from Bangher and Lusmagh, for Municipal Corporations Bill, Abolition of Tithes (Ireland).—By Mr. THORNLEY, Mr. WILSON PATTEN, Mr. POULETT THOMSON, from Carlisle, Manchester, Godly, Chorly, and Burnley, for Repeal of Duty on Cotton Wool.—By Mr. S. CRAWFORD and Mr. GROTE, from Ballycommon and other places, for Vote by Ballot.—By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Mr. GROTE, and Mr. BRAM-STON, from Edinburgh, London, and Romford, for Reduction of Duty on Fire Insurances.—By Lord JAMES STUART, from Irvine, for the Repeal of Duty on Soap.—By Mr. Sergeant WILDE, from Ackworth, for Extension of the Elective Franchise.—By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, from Edinburgh, for a Law relating to the construction of Mer-
160
chant Vessels.—By Sir WILLIAM FOLKES, and other Hon. MEMBERS, from Totness, and various other places, for Amendment of Poor-law Act.—By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, from Auchtermuchty, for the Small Debts (Scotland) Bill, and from Inverary, for an Alteration of the Bill; from the Society of Solicitors in the Supreme Court of Scotland, for the Repeal of Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Captain WEMYSS, from Leslie, complaining of the Creation of Fictitious Votes, and from Ayr, for revision of the mode of licensing Innkeepers.

FALSE SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR RAILWAYS.
Mr. T. Duncombehad a Petition to present from Benjamin Weaver, to which he hoped he should be allowed to call the attention of the House. It related to the subscription list delivered into that House by the promoters of the Westminster-bridge and Greenwich railway, and the petitioner complained that a number of individuals had signed that list who had no interest in the undertaking. This was a species of fraud which was daily increasing, and which demanded the serious consideration of the House; for unless some strong remedy was applied to check its further progress, it could not fail to be productive of the most disastrous consequences to those who were induced from an apparently respectable and well-subscribed list to embark their capital in railroad speculations. The petitioner stated, that several names appeared in the subscription list of the Westminster-bridge and Greenwich railway, whose united subscriptions amounted to 30,500 l., and yet every one of those individuals was actually a pauper. A person of the name of Spencer stated, that he had signed the list for the sum of 10 s., and his name was put down for 1,700 l., while the fact was, that he neither was nor ever had been a shareholder, and had no interest, direct or indirect, in the undertaking. This was not only a gross fraud upon the House, but it was a gross fraud also on the public, who were liable to suffer severely from the continuance of the system.
Petition to be printed.

CREATING FICTITIOUS VOTES.
Sir R. Simeonpresented a petition from the Isle of Wight, relating to the manufacture of fictitious votes in that island. This evil was one of growing importance, and called for the immediate attention of the House, as, unless a stop was put to the practice of manufacturing votes for party purposes, the legitimate electors would be deprived of the rights which had lately been conferred upon them. If the system

161
of which the petitioners complained was not against the letter of the law, it was at least against its spirit, and contrary to the constitutional rights of the electors. The petitioners threw themselves for protection on that House, and he (Sir R. Simeon) hoped they would not deny them the protection which they claimed. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving that the petition be read.
Petition read as follows:—
"That your Petitioner, William Butt, objected to the names of several persons inserted in the Lists of Voters for the County of the Isle of Wight, at the late registration in 1836, and that both your petitioners attended the Revising Barristers' Court for the purpose of supporting such objections.
"That at the sitting of the Court, it was proved, principally by the evidence of John Fleming, Esquire, Member of your honourable House for the south division of the county of Hants, and of James Parsons, steward of the said John Fleming, that the said John Fleming had given to each of the above-named persons, who neither reside in the Isle of Wight, nor have any connexion with that county, a freehold interest for life, to the amount of ten pounds a-year, and upwards, in land and houses in the Isle of Wight, for the sole purpose of conferring votes, and without having received any valuable consideration for such gift, as was openly admitted by the said John Fleming.
"That it further appeared in evidence, that the said John Fleming had also made many other votes by gifts of forty shilling freeholds, and that, in making votes, he had given away property worth about 250 l. a-year.
"That it also appeared, by the evidence of the said James Parsons, that nearly all the deeds creating these different votes, were and had been from the execution thereof in the possession of him the said steward of the said John Fleming.
"That such a practice must necessarily lead to a general system of manufacturing votes, and open the door to wholesale bribery and corruption.
"Your petitioners, therefore, humbly suggest to your honourable House, that, in order in some measure to prevent the mischief threatened by this practice, residence should be made necessary to a county, as it already is to a borough qualification.
"Your petitioners humbly pray your honourable House to take such measures as to your wisdom shall seem meet, for preventing the growth of an evil which, if not checked, will speedily destroy the honesty and independence of the county constituency."
Mr. Flemingsaid, that he was perfectly ready to afford every explanation, and perfectly willing to submit to any investi-
162
gation, should a Committee be appointed to inquire into the grounds of complaint brought forward by the petitioners. He, however, would protest against the authority of that House, or against the authority of any other assembly, or of any individual, to question his right to dispose of his property as he pleased. He would refer the House to the revising barristers, whose court, he conceived, was the proper tribunal for investigating such complaints. If hon. Members would refer to the evidence taken before the revising barristers, they would find that it had been proved to the satisfaction of the court, and to the satisfaction also of the petitioners, that the transactions now complained of were bonâ fide conveyances of property. The property was totally alienated from him, and totally removed from his control, and he could not think that the petitioners had acted wisely or justly in adopting the course they had done. Having stated the facts of the case, and expressed his readiness to meet any investigation which the House might institute, he would not trespass longer on the time of the House.
Petition to be printed.

INCLOSURE BILLS—PUBLIC RECREATION.
Mr. Humebegged permission of the House to bring forward a motion, of which he had given notice, but which was last in the list. He did not think it would occasion any lengthened discussion. The motion was, a resolution which he hoped the House would adopt to the following effect. "That in all Inclosure Bills provision be made for leaving an open space sufficient for the purposes of exercise and recreation of the neighbouring population; provided, that in any case where the Committee on the Bill do not make such provision, they be required specially to report to the House their reasons for not complying with the orders of the House." No person can travel through the country without regretting that encroaching system of inclosures to which we are all witnesses. It is most desirable that some provision of the kind should be made for the recreation and amusement of the people in all cases, except where then shall appear to the Committee some extraordinary circumstances to warrant a contrary course.
Sir Robert Peelwas not certain whether the form which the hon. Member has chosen was the best for effecting his object.

163
In that object, however, he fully concurred. The subject was similar to that which had been more than once urged on the attention of the Legislature, and to which he regretted the Legislature had not paid the attention it deserved. It was most desirable that the neighbourhood of manufacturing towns, and indeed of all towns, should have some place where the population might find the means of innocent recreation. Such an arrangement would have a most beneficial effect, not alone on their health, but also on their morals, by gradually withdrawing them from scenes where their time was likely to be much less innocently employed. He was sure that, such an effort on the part of the local authorities would insure to them the lasting gratitude of the working population. It would be gratifying too to witness the people employed in innocent recreation. He would not, however have the means of such innocent amusement confined to the population of large towns and their vicinity. He would have similar means extended to the rural population, whom it was pleasing to see engaged in athletic and manly exercises. There was no question, that though the people might have no legal claim to portions of waste land or common being thus set apart for their recreation, they had a moral right, and in the consideration of every future enclosure bill he hoped their interests would not be lost sight of. He would not then stop to go into the wording of the resolution, as he most fully assented to the principle; and even where the occurrence of an enclosure did not present itself in the neighbourhood of large towns, the means to form places of recreation should be provided by a rate among the inhabitants, to which perhaps the Government would not be indisposed to lend its aid. It would be a most wise and prudent expenditure of the public money. For instance, no person objected to the improvements that had been made in our parks in and near the metropolis, and no one grudged the money expended in that way; but he feared that we were too much disposed to confine ourselves to the metropolis in these improvements, and too apt to forget the wants of the manufacturing and other towns, all of which required places of recreation as much as the metropolis. He would not object to grants of from 5,000 l. to 10,000 l. in cases where the local authorities of large towns might
164
raise the like sum, or even the half, for the purposes he had stated. He repeated that it would be a most wise, because a most useful, expenditure of the public money.
Mr. Brothertonexpressed his cordial concurrence in the motion, and rejoiced that the powerful aid and co-operation of the right hon. Baronet who had just addressed the House were likely to carry the plan into effect. The subject had been too long neglected by Parliament, but it was now likely at length to be carried out to its useful object.
Mr. Hardysaid, that all would agree in the principle of the proposition, that some places of recreation and amusement should be provided for the working population of large towns, and also for the inhabitants of rural districts; but he thought that a distinction should be made between inclosures of commons and what were called waste lands. Commons, not waste lands, were very often private property and if a part of them were reserved for public purposes some compensation should be made to those who had heretofore cultivated them.
Motion, with some verbal amendments, agreed to.

MERCANTILE MARINE.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, in rising to call the attention of the House to the subject of which I have given notice, and to submit to their judgment the motion which I shall take the liberty to place in your hands, "for leave to bring in a Bill for the establishment of a Marine Board, and for the better regulation of the Merchant Shipping of the Kingdom," I have to ask the indulgence of the House, while I place before them the facts and arguments on which I shall presume to ask their acquiescence in granting leave to introduce the Bill proposed. The subject of the shipping interest has been so often before the House in various shapes, that it is unnecessary to speak of its importance, even were the question one which affected the shipping interest alone. But, in addition to the mere interest of the ship-owner, there is that of the nation at large, which is deeply injured by the annual loss of life and property at sea, which it is my object and my hope to see diminished. We have, indeed, a valuable recognition, in his Majesty's Speech delivered from the Throne at the opening of the last Session,

165
of the claims of the maritime commerce of the country to protection, from the funds of the nation at large; and this royal declaration was made the chief ground for the Ministers asking the House to vote the additional sums required in the navy estimates for equipping several additional ships of war. In the inquiry into the administration of our Light-houses—in the revision of our Pilot Establishments—in the formation of the Board of Longitude, and in the organization of the Trinity-house—we recognise and act upon the sound principle of giving legislative protection to our merchant shipping: and not trusting merely to their self-interest to secure the means of protecting themselves. But, if it be our duty to protect the maritime commerce of this country from capture by enemies or pirates, through the presence in different quarters of the globe of our ships of war—if it be our duty to establish light-houses to warn them against the hidden dangers of the coasts—to form a Board of Longitude for the correction of the nautical ephemeries, the improvement of the chronometer, and the correction of charts, to save the shipmaster from the perils of an inaccurate reckoning—and to have a Trinity Board for the regulation of those admirable bodies of pilots who, in every port, are found ready to take charge of ships and guide them through the most intricate channels to harbours of safety—if all these be fairly and legitimately within the province and under the control of the Legislature, and are productive of good effects, then is it also the duty, as it can be shown to be the interest, of the nation, to save this mass of maritime property, as well as the lives that are sent to guard it on the seas, from a destruction more powerful and more extensive than that occasioned by the fleets of the enemy or the hidden rocks and shoals of their own shores:—a destruction occasioned by defective building in the first instance, defective equipment in the next, and, above all, by defective management, against each of which evils, it is within the power of the Legislature easily to provide; and, if I shall succeed in proving to the House that they have the power, I will not, for a moment, doubt their readiness to exercise it for that purpose. The House is aware, that in the last Session of Parliament, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the causes of the
166
increased number of shipwrecks, with a view to ascertain whether such improvements might not be made in the construction, equipment, and navigation of merchant vessels, as would greatly diminish the annual loss of life and property at sea. That Committee, composed almost entirely of nautical and professional men, with some of the representatives of the principal seaports of the kingdom, did me the honour to elect me their chairman, and having thus had the advantage of presiding over their proceedings, and hearing all the evidence produced, I was intrusted with the duty of drawing up the Report, founded on the evidence; which Report, as it is now placed on the table of the House, received the unanimous assent of the Members of the Committee. The foundation, therefore, was carefully and deliberately laid; and, as the facts which I shall adduce in support of the measure that I propose to introduce, will be drawn from the volume of evidence accompanying that Report, it will be in the power of hon. Members to verify those facts for themselves. It appears, from the best authorities, that the number of merchant vessels registered as belonging to Great Britain and her colonies, carry in the whole to about 2,500,000 tons. The property alone contained in these vessels, including ships and cargoes, cannot be less, at the very lowest estimate, than fifty millions sterling—reckoning the empty ships only at 10 l. a ton—and supposing half of them to be laden, estimating the value of those cargoes at the same rate per ton. But besides this vast extent of property risked upon the seas, there are from 150,000 to 180,000 seamen whose lives are perilled on the ocean:—and for the preservation of both of these, the Legislature is bound to adopt whatever, course may be shown to be just, practicable, and efficient. It might have been supposed, indeed, that in a country like England, whose maritime superiority has been the national ambition and the national boast, and where the false protection of the restrictive and prohibitory system was so long held out to the shipping interest as a privilege and reward, every possible precaution would have been taken to secure vessels from loss, by guarantees for then-solid construction, competent equipment, and efficient navigation. Yet, while we legislate for the size of coaches, waggons, and omnibuses, even to the breadth of

167
their wheels, and strictly prohibit their carrying any more goods or people than they are licensed to convey—on the humane principle of guarding the lives and property of his Majesty's subjects by land—we leave the more perilous element of the sea open to do its worst, and to engulph in its yawning wave as many ships and seamen as may tempt its dangers, without appearing to do more than lament the catastrophes when they are reported to us, and without taking the slightest pains to prevent their recurrence. Hence it happens, that notwithstanding the great improvement which has taken place within the last half-century, in the safety of every other occupation or pursuit, the provisions for the safety of ships at sea have been wholly neglected, and shipwrecks instead of diminishing, as our improved science and improved experience might have reasonably led us to expect, have been gradually and steadily on the increase. From the year 1793 to 1829, a period of thirty-six years, and when our fleets were covering every sea—the average loss of vessels throughout the whole of that period, was 557 in the year. In 1829, the losses are thus recorded in the books of Lloyd's Coffee-house, from whence the former average was ascertained:—"On foreign voyages, 157 wrecked; 284 driven on shore, of which 224 are known to have been got off, some with more and some with less damage; 21 foundered or sunk; 1 run down; 35 abandoned at sea, 8 of which were afterwards carried into port; 12 condemned as unseaworthy; 8 upset, one of them righted; 27 missing, one of them a packet, no doubt foundered." Here is a number of 545 casualties in the ships employed on foreign voyages alone, an amount nearly equal to the whole average annual loss from 1793 to 1829;—but when we come to add the loss in the home trade to this, its amount will be largely increased. It appears, by the same authority to be thus:—"Colliers and coasters, 109 wrecked, 297 driven on shore, of which 121 are known to have been got off, and probably more; 67 foundered or sunk, 4 of them raised; 6 run down; 13 abandoned, 5 of them afterwards brought into port; 3 upset, 2 of them righted; 16 missing, no doubt foundered. During the same year, 4 steam vessels were wrecked; 4 driven on shore but got off, and 4 sunk." Here is nearly an equal number of 523 casualties in the home
168
trade; making together upwards of a thousand vessels lost, or damaged, in the course of a single year; and as many of these were laden with valuable cargoes, and some perished altogether, so that none were even left to tell the causes of their loss—the immense amount of life and property thus sacrificed to the deep, may well excite our sympathy as well as our surprise. But, moreover, many vessels are lost every year in distant parts of the globe, or founder at sea, of which the public at large hear nothing, but which, if the particulars could be given, would greatly swell the whole amount. And yet this evil has gone on every year increasing instead of diminishing. In two months only of 1833, no less than 100,000 tons of British shipping were lost, which, calculating the value at only 10 l. a ton, would make a million sterling of property in the ships alone, without including their cargoes, and reckoning the seamen at only four for every hundred tons, here were the lives of 4,000 men put in peril, and one-fourth of them probably were drowned. The recent loss of several of the transport ships laden with emigrants must be fresh in the recollection of the House, and if each individual case excited, as it did at the time of its occurrence, universal sympathy and compassion, what must the aggregate amount of all these horrors be, when brought into one general point of view. Since 1833, the losses have increased greatly. It appears that of ships belonging to the river Tyne alone, there were lost at sea, between February 1832 and April 1834, according to the published lists, no less than 143 vessels, measuring 30,788 tons, or more than one-seventh of the whole of the ships and tonnage of the port; and that no less than 35 of the crews of these vessels perished,—exceeding at the lowest calculation 200 men. From April 1834, to the end of 1835, there had been 89 vessels lost and abandoned, making altogether a number of 232 ships from one single port in forty seven months, or less than four years; and during all this period not a single vessel had so run out her career as to be broken up from being unseaworthy, of which it is alleged that traces can only be found of about five vessels so disposed of at that port in the long space of seventy years. All that are built appear to be run on till they are wrecked or founder? On the 31st of December, 1835, there were belonging to

169
the port of Shields, about 1,800 men and boys who were members of the Loyal Standard Association there; and during the last three years no less than 264 of these, had to claim assistance from this Association for the loss of their effects, by the shipwreck of the vessels in which they sailed, while 69 Members had been drowned, and their wives and children became claimants on the funds. Another communication, of more recent date, from the same quarter, says, that within the last four years there had been lost by wreck, foundering, and otherwise, 250 sail out of 1,000 belonging to the port, or one-fourth of the whole number: and while the books of the Seaman's Society showed the deaths of their members to be, upon the average of the last ten years, only 166 from sickness, accidents, and old age, aggravated by exposure, fatigue, and the ravages of the cholera all put together; the number of those who were drowned by shipwrecks during the same period amounted to 110 annually: being nearly three-fourths of the number of all the deaths arising from every other cause. By a statement of the ships publicly reported on Lloyd's List as 'not since heard of,' or 'supposed to be lost,' from the 1st of January, 1833, to the 1st of May, 1834." it appears, that, independently of all the losses by ship-wreck that are well ascertained and reported with such painful frequency in the public prints, there are no less than 95 vessels of various sizes reported as "missing," and "supposed to be lost,' and "not since heard of," in the short period of 16 months from the Port of London alone, the greater number if not the whole of these vessels having probably foundered or sunk at sea, with the loss of every creature on board; and calculating the property of ship and cargo in each to be, on the average, worth 10,000 l., and the crews and passengers to average sixteen persons to each vessel, here would be, from this single cause alone, a loss of nearly a million sterling in property, and upwards of fifteen hundred lives. And the general result of the evidence taken before the Committee shews, that on the average there is lost every year to the British nation, the immense sum of three millions sterling in property, and at least a thousand lives in brave and valuable seamen. I think the House will agree with me that it is high time to look into the causes of this, so that,
170
by rightly understanding these, we may apply ourselves to the discovery and application of the proper remedies without delay. To these, therefore I will now venture to draw the attention of the House. The proximate causes resolve themselves into three principal ones—imperfect construction of the ships, insufficiency of their equipment, and incompetency in their management at sea. But the remote causes he deeper than the surface; and it is necessary to expose these by showing what it is that leads men to build bad ships instead of good ones; to send them, to sea unprovided with requisites; and to place in command of them incompetent officers. The remote cause of all, or, at least, that which has by far the greatest share in the production of all the others, is the influence of Marine Insurance; and to the abuses engendered by this system, are to be clearly traced nearly all the defects of our present maritime system. This practice is, no doubt, of very ancient date, as far as the principle of wagers or games of risk and chance are concerned; but Marine Insurance especially appears to have had its first statutory recognition in the reign of Elizabeth; and in the 43rd year of that reign, chap. 12, an Act was passed, of which the following preamble sufficiently shews the view then taken of Marine Insurance. The preamble says, "By means of policies of insurance it cometh to pass, upon the loss or perishing of any ship, there followeth not the undoing of any man, but the loss lighteth rather easily upon many than heavily upon few; and rather upon them that adventure not, than those that do adventure; where by all merchants, especially of the younger sort, are allured to venture more willingly and more freely." The very words of the preamble shew, that even then it was contemplated to put the loss on other shoulders than those of the shipowners and merchants, on whom it did not fall even lightly, since they escaped altogether, and the younger merchants were naturally allured to venture deeper than they otherwise could have done without such a system; but though they escaped the "undoing of any man," (of which the preamble speaks) the loss of life was sustained by those who perished, and the loss of property was sustained by the whole community. In consequence of this system of shifting the losses from those who did adventure to the shoulders of

171
them who did not, a new class of persons sprung up, who were neither merchants nor ship-owners, but insurers of property for both, called generally underwriters. It would not take long for these gentlemen to discover, that in proportion as ships were frequently lost, would there be a disposition in merchants and shipowners to pay high premiums for insuring their safety; and as high premiums would yield more profit than low ones, the more the proportion of shipwrecks increased, the more the premiums would be advanced, and the better it would be for their business; while, on the other hand, every thing that could tend to make ships more safe, and to reduce the number lost, would have the effect of lowering premiums and diminishing their profits; until, if these improvements were carried to such a state of perfection as to make shipwrecks rare instead of frequent, their pursuit would soon become unprofitable. The underwriters at Lloyd's having become, in the course of years, a numerous and powerful body, and being strong enough to disregard the opinions of the shipowners, availed themselves of the first fitting opportunity of so doing. Previous to the year 1798, the mode of classifying the merchant ships for the purposes of insurance, was to take into consideration all the circumstances connected with each separate vessel, her age, place of building, manner of construction, materials, and equipment; and to assign to each her proper rank as to comparative safety; and the Shipowner's Registry Book was kept on this principle. As this plain and rational way of proceeding did not satisfy the underwriters, they compiled another volume, called the Underwriter's Book, in which they regarded only one of all these elements, namely the age of the ship, as at all important. This is so clearly and so forcibly explained by the shipowners themselves. [The hon. Member quoted a passage from their Register Book, dated April, 1799.] The merchant, finding that he could get his goods insured at the lowest premium in the newest ships, always gave the preference to the vessel most recently from the stocks; and when his insurance was effected, as this is generally done, up to the full value, he became utterly indifferent as to whether the vessel arrived safely or not: since he would be reimbursed in the event of her loss. The shipbuilder, finding that new ships were
172
more in demand than good ones, and that weak ships were preferred to strong ones, because they were cheaper and would not last so long as even to become old, constructed his vessels in the slightest way in which they would hold together and look decently when afloat; because all he wanted was a ready sale, and the cheaper his ship, the faster she was sure to go off his hands, and give him the means of laying down the keel of a new one. The shipowner, too, finding that if his vessel continued beyond the term prescribed for the first class, or A 1, she immediately became ineligible for good freights, took care to buy the cheapest vessel he could find; and, insuring her to the full value, was just as indifferent as the merchant as to whether she lasted the full term or not, because he was safe by being insured, whatever became of the cargo or the crew. Such a combination of powerful motives and interests as these being in daily operation, led at length to the entire extinction of all competition as to who should build the strongest and best ships for the merchant service. It must be clear, then, that the system of Marine Insurance has been one powerful cause of the deterioration of our merchant shipping, and the consequently increased frequency of shipwrecks; and if anything more could be necessary to prove this fact, it would be found in the exemption from this deterioration, by which the ships of the navy, and of the East India Company are marked. Neither of these ever come within the influence of the system of insurance; and consequently their construction has been constantly improving in strength and safety, while that of all other vessels has been retrograding. Thus, while in 1833, more than 800 merchant ships were known to be lost, besides many others, no doubt, not reported,—while the Amphitrite was wrecked on the coast of France, and 100 human beings drowned; and no less than eighteen ships perished in the spring of 1834, with emigrants to Quebec, by which 700 persons lost their lives; while the coasters on our own shores and the steamers to and from our own ports were also consigning their crews and passengers to destruction in the deep, not a single ship of war was lost. Here, then, is at once a solution of the principal cause of the evil to which I am anxious to call the attention of the House; and since, whoever gains by such a system, the na-

173
tion must be a loser, I ask, whether it is not the duty of the Legislature to interfere. The underwriter may make a handsome fortune by the excess of his premiums over his risks. The shipowner may reimburse himself, by having a vessel that will run a few years, and then when she is lost, getting a new one for his insurance, to replace the one that has sunk. The merchant may benefit by insuring his goods at a high rate, and getting his profits even if they are lost, with new orders to supply the markets to which they never reached—and the manufacturer may benefit by the consumption of the goods sent to the bottom of the sea, and the necessity for new shipments to supply their place. But as all these compensations are obtained by increased charges on the general business transacted by them all, the public have to pay the cost, indirectly in various shapes by increased prices, on the commodities, as well as new taxes or duties on the articles required to supply the place of those lost, and thus the nation is injured by the sacrifice of three millions worth of property engulphed in the waves, and a thousand lives swallowed up annually in the ocean; while the widows and orphans of the victims who have perished, become chargeable on the public and private charities of the country, in a thousand different ways. I come now to a second cause, which is this: the frequent incompetency of the persons placed in charge of such vessels as officers and commanders. And here, too, the contrast between the navy and the merchant service is striking. In the navy, an examination takes place of every midshipman who is to pass as a lieutenant, and of every master, on whom the principal responsibility of the navigation rests, before he is appointed to a ship. In the East-India Company's service also, the sworn officers, to the number of four in each of their vessels, were strictly examined in navigation and seamanship, without a thorough knowledge of both of which, they were never intrusted with a charge. With the French, the Dutch, the Danes, the Swedes, and even with the Russians, a rigid examination takes place into the qualifications of persons about to be appointed to the command of merchant vessels, and the result is, that much fewer of all these are lost out of any given number, in consequence of the better construction and more competent management of the ships.
174
But in the general merchant service of England, no provision whatever is taken to secure competent officers or competent commanders; and thus, while we provide that no man shall practise medicine or surgery who does not prove himself qualified by a public examination, lest a few of his Majesty's subjects should suffer by his ignorance, we take no pains to secure the possession of proper qualifications in those to whose charge, millions of property and thousands of lives are consigned, and a large portion of each only to perish. Not to weary the House with too many instances, let me mention only one. In the last year only, there was a vessel of 279 tons lying in the Thames named the Hedleys, bound from Belfast to Quebec, commanded by a Captain Storey, who was actually not more than fourteen years of age; who was moreover, the very youngest person on board his own ship, and whose apprentices were even older than himself. The probability is, that he was a near relative of the owners, and it was thought the captain's pay and privileges might be as well retained in the family, while an experienced mate might be put into the ship as a sort of viceroy over him; but it must be evident that circumstances might arise to make it of the utmost importance that the commander should have the entire confidence of all the crew; and in a moment of peril, when, the greatest skill and experience might be necessary for their safety, how could such a youth as this inspire his men with respect for his judgment or his authority? The instances of disastrous consequences resulting from incompetency, sometimes from ignorance of seamanship, sometimes from ignorance of navigation, sometimes from extreme youth and inexperience, and very often from intoxication and the total absence of all discipline, would fill a long and melancholy catalogue, but on this I will not enlarge. A third cause deserves also to be mentioned, which is, the severe and rigid economy to which all shipowners and shipmasters are obliged to resort from the sharp competition of foreign vessels These vessels procuring cheaper materials for their construction, and having cheaper provisions and stores, can sail and make a profit at extremely low freights. The English shipowner, on the contrary, pays more dearly for nearly all the articles used in building and equipment—not because of their natural price, but because

175
of the heavy duties on them all: he has taxed timber—taxed cordage—taxed canvas—taxed bread—and taxed beef to provide, and therefore he has nothing to spare for any supplies beyond those of the merest necessity: while to talk to him of providing his vessel with all the various improvements for the safety of the ship and crew—as accurate charts, good chronometers, perfect sextants, excellent barometers, patent rudders, solid channels, life-buoys, apparatus for saving men from drowning, or, in short, anything else that costs money, is like asking him to load himself with heavy weights before he sets out on a race of competition with a rival who has nothing whatever to incumber him, and with whom he has great difficulty in keeping pace, even when he has nothing to carry. The English ship-owner will never do this, nor can we fairly expect him to do so, as long as his only object in sending ships to sea is to make them the instruments of increasing his fortune. A fourth cause of the present defective state of our merchant shipping is the inaccurate system or rule of tonnage measurement. The old mode was bad enough—complicated, difficult, and most inaccurate in its results. But the new mode, enforced by an Act passed only a Session or two since, is absolutely worse, because its results are farther off from the truth. In consequence of this utter inadequacy of the rule of measurement last adopted to reach the case, there is still the same temptation as ever to build vessels, not of the best shapes for sailing and stowage, but of the shapes that will best evade their liability to heavy tonnage duties. The law is, in short, a complete premium for the building of ships with large stowage only, without reference to the good qualities required in a safe sea-boat: and thus, while the American merchant ships, not subject to such a law, are built of the most graceful and beautiful forms, uniting fast sailing, good stowage, and perfect safety in all weathers—while our ships of war, not subject to any tonnage duties, are of the finest models for strength, speed, and capacity united; our merchant ships are often mere tubs, and if seen ashore look like warehouses intended to be floated, in which bulk of space was the chief consideration in their construction, and safety and speed of navigation the last.
A fifth cause may be enumerated, and
176
this is the last on which I shall venture to touch—which is, the entire absence of all responsibility or accountability to any public authorities when either lives or property are lost at sea in merchant ships. In the navy—if a vessel runs ashore, or founders, or runs foul of another, or receives any material injury in any way, a court of inquiry is instantly ordered on the captain and officers in charge, and they are either acquitted or sentenced to some appropriate punishment as the evidence may warrant. On shore—if a coachman, however unintentionally, upsets a coach, and any lives are lost, a coroner's inquest is held to inquire into the case, and the verdict condemns or acquits the individual accordingly; and in the event of an injury being sustained by a broken limb, and the action is shown to be occasioned by want of skill, an action lies against the unskilful driver or his employers, and compensation is recovered by the injured party—for the loss of his labour and medical expenses till he is restored. But in the English merchant service, ships may be wrecked on the coast, or sink to the bottom at sea, and no public inquiry is made into the causes of either the one or the other. The underwriter pays the merchant, out of the large premiums he has been receiving, and the merchant is satisfied; the ship-owner is reimbursed by having a new ship given him to the full value of the old, and he is satisfied; the manufacturer gets a new order to supply the place of the goods lost, for which he has been guaranteed payment before their shipment, and he is satisfied. The public pay the whole cost of this, as well as the tax on the articles lost, and they, too, from ignorance, it is believed, of their interest in the matter, appear to be satisfied. The poor sailors are gone to the bottom, with all that they possessed, and they will call for no inquiry; while their widows and orphans, to whom their wages would be so acceptable, lose them all, both the husband and parent who toiled for them, and the hard earnings which they would have received if he had arrived in safety, for "freight is the mother of wages" in the jargon of the law, and the poor dependants of the drowned men go without their just due, and they must be satisfied. The House will agree with me then, I think, in saying, that such a state of things demands a remedy; and the Bill which I propose to

177
introduce is intended to give to a great extent the remedy demanded. I should wish much to see a revision of the system of marine insurance; but as I think that should be the subject of a special Act, I will not embody it in the present Bill, and therefore will only advert to it briefly. I believe that the most effectual way of bringing about a change in this system, with the least violence, and the greatest benefit to all existing interests, would be for the Legislature to pass an Act granting all the facilities and advantages that a legislative provision would afford to a class of "Shipowners' Mutual Insurance Societies," of which there might be one at least for every large port in the kingdom, of which the smaller ports could readily avail themselves, and as many as might be thought desirable for London. On the same grounds as the incorporated friendly societies for the mutual benefit of its members, without profit to any individual, have been favoured by the Legislature with exemption from stamp duties in their various transactions, and with power to employ their capital in particularly advantageous modes, all "Mutual Insurance Societies of Shipowners," the characteristic of which would be a provision for mutual security and mutual benefit without profit to any individuals, might be also privileged by such exemptions and such advantages. The result of this would be, that the shipowners of London, and of every other large port, would become, as the nation is for the navy, and as the East India Company always were for their ships, their own insurers. Every one would then have an interest in the strength, safety, and preservation of ships, instead of in their weakness, danger, and loss. Ships would be gradually built of the strongest and best description, as Indiamen and ships of war, of which there are some now afloat of eighty and ninety years old, and be kept also in the same good state of repair; because the fewer the vessels lost, the lower would be the premiums, and every shipowner, being a member of such a mutual insurance society, would be himself the receiver of all the benefits that now go entirely to enrich a class of men who drain a large annual income from the premiums paid to cover losses. I would not, of course, recommend the prohibition of individual insurance; but the incorporation of such societies as these would, by the fair and
178
legitimate operation of their own superior advantages, progressively induce the shipowners of England to disentangle themselves from the net by which they are now surrounded, from the extent and influence of a society, whose ramifications extend over all the world, and which is only to be superseded by some great change like that which I suggest, by substituting mutual insurance for the present system, and encouraging the transition by legislative enactments and exempting privileges, as well as by prohibiting the insurance of any sea risk for more than three-fourths of its actual value. The remedy which the Bill that I seek to introduce will apply, will be the formation of a Marine Board in the port of London, to be charged with the especial duty of superintending the general state and condition of the whole of the mercantile marine of the kingdom and promoting by every means in its power whatever can tend to improve it. But, in addition to the surveys of ships and examination of officers for the purposes before described, it is indispensable that some code of maritime law, and some system of maritime discipline should be composed and legalised, to give it sanction or force. The House will be surprised, no doubt, to learn that England, undoubtedly the first maritime nation in the world, and whose boast has hitherto been "to rule the subject wave," is behind every other maritime country in the world in this respect. During the last year, the attention of the French Government having been called to the propriety of introducing some improvement in their laws and discipline, for the mercantile marine an officer was sent to London to ascertain what was the law and discipline of the merchant ships of England, which were naturally thought by the French Ministers, by whom this officer was sent, to be models of perfection worthy of being imitated. This gentleman, having seen my name associated in the public journals with the progress of the great questions of the abolition of impressment for the navy, and the registration of seamen in the merchant service, addressed himself to me for information on the subject of his enquiries. His astonishment was, however, extreme, when he learnt that though we had so many millions of property, and so many thousand lives afloat in our merchant ships, we had no code of laws and no

179
system of discipline embodied in any shape or form whatever. In France, on the contrary, while they have a perfect system of registration for their naval seamen, by which the necessity of impressment is entirely avoided, and the system of the drafts from which is so efficient, that according to the testimony of one of our gallant admirals, Sir George Cockburn, in his evidence before a Finance Committee of the House of Commons, they can always get their ships of war manned and at sea in a shorter space of time than we could ever effect by our odious and detested press-gangs;—they have had, for more than a century past, an excellent code of laws for the regulation and discipline of the merchant service. The French Ordonnance of 1681, was admitted by Lord Mansfield, Lord Tenterden, and the highest legal authorities, to be one of the best digested, most complete, and perfect body of maritime law that has ever been promulgated. The consequence is, that comparatively very few French vessels are lost, in proportion to the whole number employed. In England, however, all the property and life afloat upon the sea is wholly unprotected by any code of laws or code of discipline: and hence we have accordingly shipwrecks, founderings, mutinies, floggings, putting men in irons, drunkenness, insubordination, and piracies, to such a frightful extent, as to astonish all who look into the catalogue in detail. The Marine Board, to be established by this Bill, will be charged with the drawing up of such a code of laws and rules of discipline, for submission to the Legislature for its sanction; and there are two functions which it may advantageously exercise as a part of its ordinary duty. It would add greatly to the efficiency of the remedies here proposed, if the Government would at the same time give every facility to the formation of Marine Hospitals for the old and infirm, as well as Marine Asylums for the retention, in a state of comfort and sobriety, of the merchant seamen in every port. If a permanent retreat, however, be desirable for the seaman when his day of active service is at an end, and old age unfits him for any thing but repose, some temporary asylum to save him from the horrors of worse than shipwreck, by which he is surrounded the instant he puts his foot on shore, is equally important. Almost from the mo-
180
ment of a seaman landing, either in an English or a foreign port, to the moment of his sailing again, he is so surrounded by temptations of the most vicious kind, and so excited by intoxication, that every day he remains on shore, he is robbed of health, strength, comfort, clothes, and money; and kept in a state of frantic excess or senseless stupidity. The moment a ship arrives in port, a class of man-en-trappers of the most depraved description he in wait to catch the unwary seaman even before he lands; his chest and hammock are taken off to the crimp's lodging-house; women, and music, and drink, are all put in operation to influence his passions, destroy his reason, and make him an easy victim. He has an account run up of ten times the amount he ever consumed. He is pilfered of the money he received for the voyage he has just completed, and his person and clothes are held in pledge till he is sold by these crimps to some captain wanting hands; and then the score is paid off by his entrapper and keeper, taking a portion, or the whole, of the two months' wages that the seaman receives for the voyage on which he is about to enter, while the poor wretch himself is kept a close prisoner on board lest he should desert; and is hardly ever sober until he gets to sea. When it is considered that there are nearly 50,000 men and boys every day in this state of drunkenness and demoralisation—for this is the state of nearly all those engaged in the foreign trade of the country—the coasters being happily free from this detestable system of crimping, it must, I think, strike all hon. Gentlemen who hear me, that it is the duty of the Government to see whether by the establishment of a Marine Asylum in each of the principal sea-port towns, and the presenting strong inducements to resort to them after retiring from a foreign voyage, seamen might be rescued from the misery, and disease, and plunder, to which they are now subject, for the want of some such home as this. There is but one topic more to which I will advert, in the shape of a remedy, but as it is an important one, I trust the House will bear with me for a few moments longer, while I mention it. I believe that the shipping interest is really depressed, and from two main causes; the first—that owing to the system of building ships to last for short periods instead of long ones, there have been

181
more ships built than could find profitable employment; for the old system of classification gave such an unhealthy stimulus to over-production in the number of ships, as to lead to a competition that greatly reduced freights, and left little or no profits. This too led again to the most erroneous conclusions as to our maritime prosperity, which was inferred from the increasing number of our vessels, while this increased number was the great evil to be deplored. The second cause of depression is, that the taxes and expenses in the construction and navigation of our ships, make the burthen literally too heavy to be borne. I would humbly suggest, therefore, the propriety of beginning at once, and proceeding as fast as may be thought safe and practicable, to abate these burthens one by one, if they cannot be taken off altogether and entirely. The duties on timber, cordage, canvas, and all that enters into the building and equipment of ships, might be greatly lessened—the importation of foreign provisions in bread and flour, might be permitted—the tonnage dues for light-houses might be altogether abolished. It is as much a national object to have lighthouses, as it is to have observatories or telegraphs, and the national funds should be applied to the support of the whole. The tonnage dues abolished, the whole system of tonnage measurement should be revised, and if no temptation were presented to build ships of bad shapes to avoid this impost, we should soon see the merchant ships of England as graceful and beautiful in their forms as those of America—uniting speed, stowage, and safety in the highest attainable degree; and worthy, which certainly they now are not, of the maritime dignity and reputation of our country. By the system I have endeavoured to expose, we are silently looking on while the nation is literally despoiled of three millions sterling per annum, consigned to destruction in the deep; and while a thousand of our brave and enterprising countrymen are offered up a sacrifice to the shrine of Mammon. We do but mock and blaspheme the name of the God of Mercy, when we invoke him, in our public prayers, "for the safety of those who go down to the sea in ships, and are exposed to the perils of the deep," while we at the same time sanction a system so destructive of human life, and then impute to Providence what our own
182
avarice first engendered, and our own negligence still prolongs. I hope I have said enough to justify my asking the House to accede to the motion which I now beg leave to place in your hands,—"That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the establishment of a Marine Board, and for the better regulation of the Merchant Shipping of the Kingdom."
Mr. Hume, in rising to second the motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Sheffield, begged to say that he was by no means friendly to the interference of the Legislature in commercial matters. It appeared to him, however, that a case had been made out by his hon. Friend which called loudly for Legislation. Whether the evils existed to the extent pointed out by his hon. Friend he was unable to say; but of this fact he was sure, that, for the pains and trouble which his hon. Friend had taken on this subject, the least that was due to him was to give him leave to bring in his Bill. It was a very strange anomaly that for every person who met his death by accident on shore, the law provided that there should be an inquiry before the coroner; but if 500 men perished at sea, unless their bodies were driven on shore, no provision whatever was made for inquiry as to how these lives had been lost. He thought it only just that his hon. Friend should have an opportunity of bringing in his Bill, and they would have a sufficient opportunity in its future stages of considering its details.
Mr. Poulett Thomsondid not rise, on the part of the Government, to offer any opposition to the bringing in of this Bill. He felt that it was due to the hon. Member for Sheffield, and to the report of the Committee, to allow the Bill to be brought in. He confessed, however, that he should look for the Bill with some curiosity, because, not only from what had fallen from the hon. Member for Sheffield, but from the report of the Committee, he should be inclined to think, that this Bill would enter into a great variety of subjects, and would attempt to legislate upon details which he did not believe susceptible of legislation. The hon. Member for Sheffield had stated, that whilst this country enjoyed so large a portion of the commerce of the world, and so large a proportion of commercial marine, in comparison with other countries, they had not the same protection afforded by the Legislature. Now be would say, that this

183
very fact was rather an argument against too much meddling with the subject by the Legislature; that it was owing to the absence of interference on the part of the Legislature, that this country, which, according to the statement of the hon. Member for Sheffield, was far behind all other countries in legislation on this subject, was advanced far beyond them in the practical results, and in the station which she held comparatively with other countries, with reference to our commercial marine. He thought that the hon. Member for Sheffield had a little destroyed his own argument on this point, because he was only able to quote the instance of France, in which, according to the statement of the hon. Member, an admirable code of laws existed. Now, when he turned to the report of the Committee, he found that it was not the French commercial marine that was brought forward as an example to show their superiority, but the commercial marine of the United States, where, if he (Mr. Thomson) were not misinformed, no regulations of a kind similar to those the hon. Member sought to introduce were actually in force. [Mr. Buckingham: They are in force, but not to the same extent.] To what extent, then, were they in force? He would again venture to caution the hon. Member against admitting too many details into this Bill. There might be some points in which the Legislature might advantageously interfere, but he cautioned the hon. Member against going into too many details; and he did so the more, because, from the report of the Committee, as he stated before, he was inclined to believe that this would be the case. Fie should not follow the hon. Member through all his arguments in favour of the different propositions laid down by him, but when he saw the Bill, he would examine it closely. He must say, at once, that he protested against the doctrine laid down by the hon. Gentleman with reference to insurances. Did the hon. Member think that marine insurance was a feature in our commercial system, of which we ought to endeavour to get rid? Were any one to ask him such a question, he should say at once, that he thought it one of the greatest improvements in modern times, and of the very highest importance in commercial affairs. In his opinion, the practice of insuring vessels, so far from making shipowners careless with respect to them, had
184
a contrary effect, and for this reason—that if it could be proved that they were not seaworthy, or insufficiently found, the owners could not recover from the underwriters. The hon. Member for Sheffield stated, that insurances had been effected on vessels, of which mere boys had been intrusted with the command. Now if this fact came to the knowledge of the underwriters, no one would suppose that the owners of ships would find their advantage in employing boys for the sake of saving 10 l. or 12 l. a-year, when upon insurances effected under these circumstances, they must pay an infinitely higher sum, or run the risk of their ship going to sea without any insurance at all. When he said this, he did not at all mean to prejudge the question of a Board, as far as mere examination went. He was rather disposed to think that some such plan would be attended with advantage, and he would remark that there was one attribute of that board with which he felt disposed to agree, namely, that it would be advisable, if possible, by some means, to obtain an after inquiry into the causes of shipwrecks, in the same way that they instituted inquiries respecting deaths caused by any accident whatever. He believed that such inquiries, if properly managed, would be attended with considerable advantage. He thought that they ought to afford a security of this kind, in deference to the feelings of the public generally, which were naturally excited in cases of shipwreck. With regard to another point adverted to by the hon. Member for Sheffield, he must say, that as far as related to ships engaged in the conveyance of passengers, the Legislature had already adopted some provision on this subject. A few years ago he had himself introduced provisions, which were still in force, by which ships taking passengers were subjected to certain regulations. At the same time, he had no objection, at first sight, to express his wish, that there should be an inquiry into the causes of accident occuring in all ships whatever. To the proposition of the hon. Member, with regard to the construction of ships, and the submitting the construction of them to a Board, he must at once say, that he had the most serious objections, as he believed such a proposition would be the means of stopping all improvements in the construction of vessels. It would prevent that competition by which an improved con-

185
struction was discovered. He was desirous that the great mass of ships that went to sea, should be better built, and better constructed generally, but he believed that those improvements in construction, that now took place, would not occur, if the proposition of the hon. Member were adopted. If men were satisfied the moment they got their certificates, that their ships were sufficiently well constructed, one of the greatest inducements to improve the construction of ships, and by which a superior construction could be obtained, would probably be done away with. It would be the means of putting an end to invention and improvement. He believed that one great cause of the faulty construction of commercial ships, arose from the principle adopted of determining their measurement. He had certainly given a great deal of time and consideration to this subject; and the result was, that he had introduced a Bill to Parliament, two years ago, which was afterwards passed into a law, to effect a different mode of measurement. He hoped it had proved successful as far as it went. He did not imagine that it was perfect, and should be happy to support any measure which he considered an improvement, or by which any fault in the construction of vessels might be removed. He would not then enter into any further details. He would be happy to give all the attention in his power to the Bill, when it came before the House again, and he certainly would not present any obstacle to its being introduced.
Mr. George F. Youngbegged to offer a few words, as otherwise some misapprehension might arise in consequence of an expression used by the hon. Member for Sheffield. He understood that hon. Member to say, that the Committee upon whose report this Bill was introduced were unanimous in the resolutions they had come to. As a Member of that Committee he begged to say, that they were not unanimous in their opinion, as he himself did not vote for many of them. Other members of the Committee entertained similar scruples, but they did not think it necessary to divide the Committee. The hon. Member for Sheffield seemed, by his Bill to endeavour to carry out his own preconceived opinions. He seemed throughout his observations to deprecate the present practice of marine insurances. Now, he begged to assure the House, that they could not
186
usefully interfere with the practice of marine insurances. He would tell the House, that it was impracticable. They might drive marine insurances away from this country, and compel the owners of ships to insure in foreign countries, where they were not subject to these restrictions; and if they made laws so stringent as to compel British vessels to insure in this country, they would make it impossible for the shipowners to maintain competition in the carrying trade with other nations; and the consequence would be, that the mercantile marine of the country would be destroyed. The hon. Member for Sheffield had greatly overstated his case when he said, there were inducements to shipowners to send their ships to sea in an unfit state. Now, the condition of every policy of insurance was, that the ship should be seaworthy, and sufficiently equipped and manned, and if the case were different in any respect, the underwriters would be very ready to avail themselves of this plea, and would refuse payment to the amount of the policy. With respect to the construction of ships, if the Legislature attempted to interfere with the builders of vessels, they would prevent competition amongst individuals as to the construction of the ships they wished to employ, and the objects of which must be best known to themselves. By leaving this matter alone, he believed, that they would be sure to obtain in the aggregate that construction of ships which was best adapted for the purposes of the maritime commerce of this country. It would be injurious and absurd to introduce a construction of one description, or any other impediment upon free individual competition. He agreed with the hon. Member for Sheffield, that it was most inconsistent and improper, that men who were intrusted with such important interests as the command of merchant ships should not be required to give some proof of competency. To this extent he cordially and entirely agreed with the hon. Member, and he further agreed with him, that if, through any circumstances, a ship were lost, the commander of such ship at the time ought not to be allowed to resume his station until, by an inquiry before a competent tribunal, he should have been exonerated from all blame. He would make no objection to the introduction of the Bill.
Mr. Robinsoncould not consent to the

187
introduction of this Bill without making a few remarks. He gave the hon. Member for Sheffield every credit for his humane intentions and his benevolent motives in introducing this Bill. It was due to the hon. Member, and to the Committee to allow the Bill to be introduced, but he must say, he protested against the provisions of the Bill, except so far as the interests of humanity rendered it necessary. If the House went beyond that, they would incur the risk of doing a great deal of mischief. The hon. Member for Sheffield had made some observations from which it was to be inferred, that the underwriters had an interest in the loss of ships, inasmuch as the occurrence of such losses had a tendency to augment premiums. The hon. Member for Sheffield stated, that such was the ingenious process by which these transactions were carried into effect, that neither the owners of the ships, the owners of the cargo, or the underwriters were in a degree interested in the subsequent fates of the vessels. This was a most extraordinary proposition, and he never expected to hear such a statement from any one possessing the hundredth part of the good sense of the hon. Member for Sheffield. So far from the underwriters being indifferent as to the seaworthiness of vessels, and the competence of themselves, that they required something like a proof of all these things before they insured vessels at the current rate of premium. If an insurance were offered without proving the quality of the vessel and the competence of the master, the necessary consequence would be, that the party insuring must pay an extra premium. As to boys of fourteen years being allowed to command vessels, he could not speak to the fact; all he would say was, that if proved it would vitiate the policy of insurance. The hon. Member for Sheffield said, that in all other nations there were some legislative enactments with respect to ships and their owners; but the hon. Member had only adverted to France. He must say, that France was the last country he would look to for an example with respect to its commercial marine. If any thing were obvious, it was the manifest superiority of this country over France. But what was the case in the United States? It was perfectly well known, that if any country were entitled to claim superiority
188
in point of commercial marine, it was that country; and yet there was no such regulations existed as those proposed by the hon. Member for Sheffield. Having stated this, he would very briefly state how far he agreed with the hon. Member. He was perfectly willing to admit, that the concession to the proposed board of a power to inquire into all cases of shipwreck and loss of life might be productive of very satisfactory results. It was due to the public, that a strict investigation should take place into the causes of such disasters. To that extent he would go with the hon. Member for Sheffield. With reference to the remarks which had been made upon the subject of the incompetence of masters of vessels, he would just observe, that he had good grounds for believing, that in the character of persons appointed to the command of merchant vessels a great improvement had latterly taken place. He would certainly not at the present period offer any objection to the course proposed by the hon. Gentleman. He would look into the details of his Bill with a view to render it as effective as possible. If in this stage of the proceeding he were to offer any opinion it should be with reference to those parts of the hon. Member's plan which related to the construction of vessels—a matter in which the Legislature would, in his estimation, do more harm than good by interfering with it. He was perfectly willing to give his assent to the proposition, that no vessel should be suffered to go to sea without being subjected to some examination in the first instance, for the purpose of ascertaining her competence or incompetence to proceed on the proposed voyage; but as to legislative interference, with a view to prevent shipowners from insuring beyond the value of three-fourths of the ship—to that he never could consent.
Mr. Aaron Chapmanconcurred in many portions of the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Sheffield. He more particularly assented to that portion of it which related to the overlading of ships. By this system he believed, that vessels were not un frequently rendered so top-heavy as to be almost unavoidably lost—a subject than which none could be more proper for Parliamentary inquiry He (Mr. Chapman) was as strongly interested in the maritime commerce of

189
this country as any hon. Member could be; but he begged, at the same time, to impress upon the House the necessity of legislating with care and caution upon a subject of this description and of not permitting themselves to be carried into precipitate legislation by the personal attachment of hon. Members to Quixotic views.
Sir Edward Codringtonsaid, that with all proper deference for the opinions of those hon. Gentlemen who were connected with the mercantile marine of Great Britain, he did not think that sufficient attention was paid to the safety of the lives of the seamen and others who made the voyage on board merchant ships. He had seen vessels knowingly lost. He repeated, that he had seen merchant-vessels purposely lost. He had once been standing on the beach at Brighton, and had been asked by some people near him why he was looking so attentively seaward? "To see that vessel lost," was the answer which he made. He awaited the result accordingly; and the vessel was undoubtedly lost, as he had anticipated, for no other earthly reason, as he believed, but that she had been largely insured. He doubted very much whether the people at Lloyd's were aware of the extent of danger to which vessels were exposed in consequence, as it was termed, of their being "well insured."
Colonel Thompsonthought, that in the case of a vessel being known to be decidedly not seaworthy, a sufficient security might be found in the natural reluctance which seamen would feel to trust their lives to such a conveyance. He did not, however, object to the principle of the Bill, but would be glad to see it referred to a Committee, for the purpose of pruning down the redundancies by which it was encumbered.
Mr. Warburtonwas apprehensive that the constitution of a board for licensing masters of merchant vessels might be tantamount to the formation of a sort of corporation of masters, whose exertions, corresponding with their own interests, would be directed to the limitation of the list of masters to the smallest possible number. No man could dispute the fact, that great advantages had resulted from the system of insuring vessels; neither could it be doubted that it had been productive of very great evils. There was one security, however, against abuse to be found in the
190
fact that, whatever might be the amount of losses, the premiums would exactly increase in proportion. Nothing could be more certain than that ships had been often fitted up for the express purpose of being lost. He would not say that so disgraceful an occurrence had taken place very often; but he certainly would say not very seldom. It was well known that it sometimes was the interest of shipowners, in the event of a vessel running ashore, to sustain a total loss of the vessel rather than a partial loss, and thus to secure the payment of the whole amount insured. There were undoubtedly many portions of the subject introduced by the hon. Member for Sheffield which called for legislative interference. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would make his Bill comprehend only the broad and leading points of the question, and leave all minor points to the good sense of the individuals engaged in maritime commerce.
Captain Pechellsaid, it was perfectly notorious that when a ship was fit for nothing else it was sent to bring timber from Canada. He hoped the hon. Member for Sheffield would receive that credit he was justly entitled to for his very great perseverance in this matter.
Sir John R. Reedonly rose to express his astonishment at the observations of the hon. Member for Bridport, alleging that ships were lost purposely. He believed that such occurrences were at least extremely rare as he had never met with one.
Mr. Peasewas not opposed to the principle of insurances; but, at the same time he thought the subject required great and vigilant attention. At present it was too often the case that men were induced to join ships at two hours' notice, without any opportunity of examining into their seaworthiness, whose lives were thus recklessly exposed to danger. He thought that the dictates of humanity required that some attention should be devoted to this subject.
Lord Sandonwas heartily glad that the hon. Member had persevered so far as to introduce a Bill which was likely to remedy many of the evils which had been proved before the Committee to exist in this department of business. He felt himself bound to bear testimony to the zeal of the hon. Member whose Bill, if not shackled with too many regulations, he had no doubt would do much good.
Mr. Buckinghamwished to state in re-

191
ference to the objections that had been made, that it was not his intention to touch the question of marine insurances. He did not propose to interfere with the construction of ships, for, as a marine commander, his own experience taught him that every ship ought to have a form suited to the particular business in which she was engaged. The Bill contained only twenty clauses, and he would be glad to adopt any suggestion that might be offered for its improvement.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.

TEXAS.
Mr. Barlow Hoy, in rising to move for copies of certain correspondence connected with the province of Texas, said, that the recent conduct of the United States with reference to that province was a subject of too great importance to be over-looked by the British House of Commons. He believed the United States of America to be actuated by a desire of encroaching upon the dominions of adjoining powers in a southern direction. The interests of the British colonies situated in the Caribbean Sea, might become seriously affected in the event of these encroachments being made; and he for one, never could consent to the United States extending their boundary so as to occupy Texas, and ultimately, perhaps, to gain possession of Mexico. Under no circumstances could he give his sanction to this occupation. The Americans had said, that Cuba was so important an island that no European nation, except Spain, should be permitted to take possession of it. He (on the authority of Mr. Huskisson) would say, on the other hand, that the province of Texas was a province so important by its position to the commerce and the naval power of this country, as well as to the independence of Mexico, that upon no condition whatever should he allow it to come into the possession of any American power, with the exception of Mexico. When Mexico declared herself an independent state, Mr. Canning had entered into a treaty with that country, by which the Mexicans consented to abolish slavery in every portion of their dominions. This stipulation with regard to the abolition of slavery having been mutually agreed to between the contracting parties, Great Britain was bound to co-operate with Mexico, for the purpose of securing the desired abolition. It was, however, quite notorious that an importation of slaves to
192
an enormous extent had been recently carried on from the United States into Texas. If a procedure of this nature were suffered to continue, there was nothing binding in treaties, and the immediate abrogation of the treaty in question would be the most proper course to pursue. Could America, he would ask, be presumed to be unacquainted with the provisions of a treaty which was not made in secret, and of which she thus exhibited her utter disregard? It could not be for a moment doubted that Texas was included in the arrangement; and yet, the President of the United States did not think it necessary to prevent his subjects from carrying on the slave-trade within the limits of Texas, and even from assisting the revolted slaves in every mode which lay within their power. With regard to the question of boundaries, which had been very much agitated, why did not the parties abide by the arbitration of the King of Holland? The President's message to the Senate of the United States spoke of "peremptorily demanding an arrangement from the Mexican Government. What was the nature of that demand? They all perfectly well knew that it was to get Mexico to give up Texas, in order that the latter might become incorporated with the southern states and form a part of the union. Was it not notorious that the Mexican minister had considered himself compelled to withdraw from Washington, in consequence of an army being kept up by the United States in Mexico? He would beg of hon. Members to put this case to themselves—how would they brook the maintenance of a foreign army within the British dominions? There was no doubt, whatever, that this army was so kept up for the purpose of influencing the Mexican state. He must say that if England were to desert Mexico in the present crisis, she would well deserve that this latter state should fall a prey to the rapacity of the American Union; that a large portion of the commerce of England should, in the event of a naval war, fall a victim to America; and that the British colonies in the West Indies should either fall together, or be materially endangered. The standard which had been raised in the province of Texas was not the standard of rational freedom, but was unfurled for the support of slavery. Notwithstanding the high position which England had long maintained with reference to the slave trade, she must

193
now withdraw, and take up an humble posture, unless she were determined to uphold this treaty. The noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had said in that House some years ago, when the same subject was debated, that there existed a very just ground for remonstrance. Why, he would ask, should his Majesty's Ministers decline to remonstrate, at least in a friendly manner, with the government of the United States? It was of little consequence whether the acts complained of were the acts of the American people, whom the President was incapable of restraining, or had received the sanction of the President himself. In either case the interference of the English government was called for. There was another consequence which was likely to follow, and it was this—if the northern states were to be outnumbered by the southern states, the northern states would immediately ask for a counterbalance, and demand, that part of East Canada should be added to their territory. He hoped the noble Lord would also state his opinion upon that subject. He moved for those papers the more particularly, as he believed that appeals had been made by the Mexicans to this country, to use our influence with the United States for the maintenance of their integrity. The hon. Member concluded by moving an humble address "for copies of all correspondence between the government of Mexico and his Majesty's government on the subject of Texas, from the 1st of March, 1836, to the present date; also, of all correspondence between the Government of the United States of America and his Majesty's Government on the same subject for a like period."
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, he was not prepared to dispute the importance of the subject to which the hon. Gentleman had drawn the attention of the House, nor to deny that it was a matter which the public and the Government of this country should view with attention and interest. The hon. Member had not, however, laid such ground for the production of those papers as to induce him (Viscount Palmerston) to think it would be consistent with his duty to grant them. He thought the hon. Member had not correctly viewed the present state of the transactions to which his motion related; and he would beg of that hon. Member to ask himself what the present state of the matter really
194
was. The inhabitants of Texas had revolted against Mexico; the Mexican army had been defeated in the first campaign, and the President had been taken prisoner; but, at the same time, the government of Mexico had not abandoned their right of dominion—they still looked for the re-establishment of their authority in Texas, and were making preparations for re-commencing their operations in the ensuing spring. As far, then, as Texas and Mexico were concerned, there was on one side a case of revolt; and on the part of the other, a determination to suppress that revolt. He apprehended that the hon. Gentleman did not contend that with respect to that dispute the Government of England was at all called upon to interfere. The hon. Gentleman surely did not mean to say, that England ought to send a naval or military force to America for the purpose of establishing the authority of Mexico in the province of Texas—he did not mean that we should thus interfere in their unsettled dispute. The hon. Member conceived that the independence of Texas would follow as a consequence of its revolt,—that that independence would lead to the annexation of Texas to the North American Union, and it was to prevent that annexation that the hon. Member wished for the interference of the British Government. Now let them see what was the part which the United States of America, through their government, had taken in reference to the dispute between Texas and Mexico, The hon. Member conceived that the government of the United States entertained the intention of annexing Texas to the Union. But every government he (Viscount Palmerston) thought, had a right to be judged by its acts and declarations. What had been the declaration of the President of the United States? It was, no doubt, true, that some of the adjoining states had interfered in favour of the revolting faction in Texas; but the President and central government had ordered the laws of the Union to be enforced to prevent that interference, as inconsistent with the relations existing between the United States and the government of Mexico. What had been the declaration of the President with regard to Mexico? The hon. Member must have read the special message of the President of the United States, addressed to the Congress upon this particular subject,

195
subsequent to the general message at the opening of the Session of Congress. Of that message, he would say, that it was impossible for any government to express itself more honourably, or more consistently with good faith towards other powers than did the President of the United States in that document. The President stated, that he had been pressed by many to take steps towards acknowledging the independence of Texas; he reminded the Congress of the principles by which a government ought to be guided in acknowledging the independence of a revolted province; and he added, that before such a course should be adopted, the province should not only have established its independence, but have done so in such a manner that other powers might see, that the mother country, had no rational chance of re-establishing its authority. The President also stated, that it was inconsistent with the principles by which the policy of the United States was guided to acknowledge the independence of Texas, in the then present state of things, and until it had succeeded in proving to the world that it had the means of maintaining itself as an independent state. He went on further to say, that great precaution was peculiarly incumbent on the United States upon that question, because a suspicion had prevailed, that the United States had an interested motive for interfering in the dispute between Mexico and Texas, and because they had been suspected of encouraging the revolt, for the purpose of annexing that province to the Union; that consequently a just regard for the honour of the United States required not only that they should suspend their recognition of the independence of that province, until it should be demonstratively accomplished, but that they should wait until other powers against whom no such suspicions could be entertained had previously acknowledged it. He would therefore say, that there had been nothing in the conduct of the government of the United States respecting this matter, which was not consistent with the most scrupulous feelings of honour and delicacy towards other powers. That being the case, he must beg leave to say, that the hon. Member had not grounded his accusation against the Government, of the United States, upon the acts or declarations of that Government. With reference to the position of Texas, as
196
regarded the United States, he would admit, that if the former were to unite itself to the latter, such union might indirectly lead to the introduction of slaves into that province, not only from the slave states in North America, but by importation by sea, for which great temptation would then, no doubt, exist. The very facility which the incorporation of Texas would give to the great extension of slavery, formed one of the strongest objections against that incorporation, and at which he looked with quite as much jealousy as the hon. Member. But there was good reason to think, that such an addition to the southern states would not be looked upon by the northern states as a matter indifferent to them. The northern states would probably entertain objections to the incorporation of Texas with the union, quite as strong as those which were felt by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member had stated, that he did not think slaves had been imported into Texas direct from Africa, but fancied the importation had taken place from the island of Cuba. That, to a certain degree, was possible, at the same time there was such a demand for slaves in Cuba itself, that it was not likely their exportation from that island would be carried on to any considerable extent, unless the same quantity of slaves was replaced by importation into Cuba. He could, however, assure the hon. Member, that the treaty with Spain, which had only come into full operation within the last year, had produced a very considerable effect. A large number of ships had been condemned upon the ground of their being equipped as slave-traders, although not having any slaves on board: he was inclined to think that this would be a severe blow to the importation of slaves into the island of Cuba. That treaty had, however, been evaded to a great degree by Spanish ships, not only by the assumption of the Portuguese flag, but by fraudulent papers, which they obtained from Portuguese colonies. Upon that point it was satisfactory to know that the Government of Portugal was animated by a desire, in conjunction with the Government of England, to put an end to such a disgraceful traffic. The present Government of Portugal had done that which the British Government had been unable to persuade any former Portuguese Government to do, although bound by treaty to do it—namely, it had published a very

197
severe and comprehensive law prohibiting and rendering penal the importation of slaves into the Portuguese dominions; and although they had not yet signed that treaty, which he had hoped they would have signed many months ago, yet the law enacted contained almost all the stipulations which our treaty with Spain contained. Therefore, if the Portuguese authorities, both at home, and in the colonies, were honest and zealous in the execution of the law, the object would be already accomplished. But he was afraid, from experience of the conduct of the subordinate authorities of the Portuguese Government, that the object of the British Government would not be obtained until permission was given to British cruisers to carry that law into execution. He apprehended that the object which the hon. Member had in view would be met, not in the correspondence for which he had moved, but in the communications they were carrying on with the Spanish and Portuguese Governments regarding the slave trade itself. He conceived that the hon. Member had not laid any special ground for calling for those papers; at the same time, it was only natural that he, entertaining the sentiments he did, should have taken this opportunity of placing those sentiments upon record. So far from inconvenience arising from such a course, he thought that the open expression of opinion was always the safest and most convenient plan to adopt. He trusted the hon. Member would acquiesce in his objection to produce the papers moved for. He could assure the hon. Member that the Government was by no means inattentive to the subject, but in the present state of the question, between Texas and the United States, and between Mexico and Texas, he conceived there was no ground to justify the Government in laying the correspondence moved for before the House.
Mr. Wardwould not trespass on the attention of the House did he not feel that he had an imperative duty to perform towards a distinguished individual—Mr. Forsyth—a member of the government of the United States against whom he had last year brought a charge, which he had since ascertained to have been totally unfounded. The charge which he had made was this—that a certain influential member of the American government had an interest not
198
only in public but in private speculations in Texas lands. That charge had excited very considerable attention, and had naturally given great pain to the gentleman whose name was coupled with it. Mr. Forsyth had put himself in communication with him through the medium of a friend of Mr. Forsyth's now in this country; and he had now no hesitation in saying—on the contrary, he said with the greatest confidence—that there had never existed the slightest foundation for that charge against Mr. Forsyth. He never was connected with the purchasing of lands in Texas, and had always held it to be incompatible with his Ministerial duties to be so connected. He should also observe, that such a rumour had never been current in the United States until it had unfortunately become the subject of debate in that House. He had now only to express his deep regret at having put forward such a statement, and, in his own excuse, should say, that he had done so upon the authority of a friend of his, who he thought had the means of ascertaining the facts, and who had pledged himself for their accuracy. With regard to the question before the House, he would observe, that for upwards of ten years he believed a fixed design had existed in the United States to annex Texas to that country—a design which he deeply regretted, as its accomplishment would close up our sources of communication with that province, and disturb the good understanding with the government of the United States, which every one desired to see perpetuated.
Mr. O'Connellthought, that humanity was indebted to the hon. Member for bringing this question before the House, as it was only by the expression of public feeling they could hope to check the progress of one of the greatest evils the human mind could contemplate—namely, the addition of eight or nine slavery states. The revolt of Texas was founded upon nothing else than the abolition of slavery by the Mexican Government. The Mexican Government of 1824, pronounced that no one born in the territory of Mexico after that year should be born in slavery, and in 1829 they went further, and abolished slavery altogether, upon which immediately followed the revolt in the province of Texas. That revolt was actually the consequence of abolishing shivery in Mexico. The United States could not think of peopling that country

199
with white men. What, then, were they to think of those who settled there upon the speculation of increasing the number of slaves by that most horrible of all traffics? He would say, they ought to be degraded in the eyes of every man of feeling. It was revolting to think of breeding up human beings for the purpose of making them slaves and selling them—of stocking farms, as it were, and estimating the probable number of women necessary to be kept for a certain number of men—of breeding up children as a matter of speculation, just as they would sheep, and calculating how soon they would be ready and ripe for the market. It was a blot which no country but America would suffer to stain her history. No nation was ever degraded by such a crime except the high-spirited North American republic They talked of the progress of democratic principles. No man admired those salutary principles more than he did; but what became of their boasted efficacy if they could not induce those who enjoyed them to abstain from such a horrid speculation? He admitted that the North American government had behaved with common decency in reference to Texas, but at the same time the press was calling out for volunteers to go to Mexico, and many men of influence from Louisiana and all the western states were sending out regular purchasers under a Spanish name, and calculating to what extent they would be able to establish a market there. Could Texas hope to remain independent without the assistance of North America? He thought not. He believed that but for the interference of North America Santa Anna would have overcome that province, and by this time have established in it an organized and powerful authority? There was an end to Texas unless North America assisted her, and who would say that was not speculated upon? He wished the noble Lord had felt it consistent with his duty to grant those papers. He did not believe the noble Lord had stated that any inconvenience would result from giving them, but had put his refusal upon the plea, that they would not serve the purpose of the hon. Member who had moved for them. He (Mr. O'Connell) thought that the conceding of those papers would show a disposition upon the part of the Government to discountenance the revolt in Texas. He felt that it was not the duty of this country to go to war with
200
America, or to do any thing likely to create disunion between the two countries, but he thought it was the business of that country to follow the glorious example which England had set, of her determination not to have a slave within the reach of those who were under the protection of the British Crown, in having given 20,000,000 l., to purchase liberty for her own slaves, in order to raise them to that station for which nature and nature's God intended them, as human beings having the same faculties, and being heirs of the same redemption with ourselves. No one in this country had ever complained of our having shown that example; on the contrary, it was the pride and the boast of England that that sum of money had been conceded, and was looked upon as miserable dust in the balance compared to the liberty of so many thousand human beings. Oh what a contrast did that form between the Government of Great Britain and that of the American republic! Could say thing be more striking, could anything be more glorious to this country, or more degrading to North America? He wished, therefore, that the small concession of these papers had been made by the noble Lord as the first step towards discountenancing the revolt of Texas, and the conduct of America regarding that province, for certain it was, that they hoped to add it to their territory. He had two hopes on the subject,—first, that the United States would not succeed in any such project, and secondly, that if they did, the crime would bring its own punishment. They had in North America not only made laws to prevent the black man from learning to read, but had actually made it a capital offence to teach men of colour, nay, to teach even free men of colour to read. He could scarcely refrain from thinking that if this vile system of inhumanity were continued, there would arise such a mass of physical strength in the country as would eventually put an end to it in the blood of their oppressors. If the present motion were not conceded, and it ought to be conceded, he hoped the hon. Member who had done himself so much credit in bringing it forward would persevere and again bring it forward in another shape before the end of the session, and in a fuller House, that the voice of humanity might reach across the Atlantic and terrify those speculators from their abominable traffic in human beings.
Colonel Thompsonsaid, what the noble Lord called revolt, other persons termed rebellion. If the British subjects who had settled in Portugal chose to seize a province or some of the strong places, then would the noble Lord have called such a proceeding a revolt? Or would he have expected the Portuguese nation to give it such a designation? Why should the noble Lord apply such a term to the rebellious Texians? Was it not beyond question that all the inhabitants of Texas were Americans, wherever the Americans went they carried their bad habits.
"Ubi Camillus ibi Roma."
The Americans could not congregate any where, without carrying their habits with them. Wherever Americans conquered, there they carried slavery. They lived, moved, and had their being in that crime. Were the British nation to make themselves parties to such transactions? It had been said, that we ought not to go to war. But for what were we strong—why did we keep up a large army, and why such a noble navy, if not for the purpose of upholding our own rights, and causing the rights of others to be respected? But it was not war the nation wanted, it was three inches of state paper. Let it be drawn up with energy, so that other countries should not possess the power of charging us with having deserted our posts and neglected the interests of humanity.
Mr. Powell Buxtonsaid, the noble Lord had told the House that they should look rather to the effect of the treaty than to any interference on the part of the British Government; but of all the treaties he had ever met with, he had never seen one which had been so totally disregarded as the treaty alluded to by the noble Lord. If the noble Lord depended on it, he might be assured that the slave trade would ere long be introduced into the country of the Texians. He wished the American government to know that the people of England were deeply interested upon this subject. Perhaps there was no subject which so strongly animated the feelings of the people of England as that of a country in which slavery and the slave trade were being abolished. It was a matter of undoubted certainty that if measures were not taken to check the carrying on of this trade and the interference of America, the effect would be its establishment in the
202
neighbouring provinces, an evil which he would tell the noble Lord would be but trifling in comparison with the slave trade of Cuba. He thought they ought to let the world see what was the feeling of Government upon this subject. He could conceive no responsibility greater than that of a Minister of the Crown, who, without the least remonstrance quietly permitted those noble dominions to be taken possession of, and slavery and the slave trade established in them.
Mr. Barlow Hoyin reply said, that being convinced that the expression of opinion which had this evening been given upon the subject would not alone be productive of any effect in the quarter to which it was directed, he felt bound to press his motion.
The House divided: Ayes 28; Noes 41; Majority 13.

List of the AYES.

Blackburne, I.

O'Connell, J.

Bonham, R. F.

Palmer, C.

Bowles, G. R.

Polhill, F.

Brady, D. C.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Buckingham, J. S.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Butler, hon. P.

Stuart, Lord D.

Buxton, T. F.

Thompson, Colonel

Crawford, W. S.

Twiss, H.

Dick, Q.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Duncombe, T.

Wakley, T.

Eaton, R. J.

Walter, J.

Johnston, A.

Young, Sir W.

Knight, H. G.

Lawson, A.

TELLERS.

Lushington, Charles

Hoy, B.

O'Connell, D.

Lowther, —

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

O'Brien, W. S.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Palmerston, Viscount

Bewes, T.

Parrott, Jasper

Brotherton, J.

Pease, J.

Collier, J.

Potter, R.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Pryme, G.

Elphinstone, H.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Ewart, W.

Rickford, W.

Grote, G.

Rundle, J.

Hall, B.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Handley, H.

Strickland, Sir G.

Heathcoate, J.

Thornley, Thomas

Hindley, C.

Tooke, W.

Hume, J.

Turner, W.

Humphery, J.

Watson, R.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Whalley, Sir S.

Leader, J. T.

Wilde, Sergeant

Lefevre, C. S.

Wood, Alderman

Lemon, Sir C.

Worsley, Lord

Lister, E. C.

TELLERS.

Lushington, Dr.

Hawes, B.

Martin, J.

Parker,—

REFORM ACT—RATES AND TAXES.
Mr. Thomas Duncombethought that it would best conduce to the convenience of the House if he were merely to ask leave to bring in a Bill respecting which he had given notice, and to postpone the discussion of it until the second reading. The hon. Gentleman, accordingly, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal that portion of the Reform Act which requires the payment of rates and taxes in cities and boroughs as the condition of registration.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury was a very grave one; it was no less than to repeal a portion of the Reform Act. He thought that it would be much better, with reference to so serious a matter, that the argument should precede rather than follow the introduction of the Bill. In measures of a comparatively trifling nature leave was frequently granted to bring in a Bill, postponing the discussion of it to a future stage; but it was very unusual indeed to allow a Bill of so important a character as that moved for by the hon. Member for Finsbury to be brought in without any reasons having been assigned for its introduction. He had hoped that, instead of taking this course, the hon. Gentleman would have postponed moving for leave to bring in the Bill until his noble Friend was present. He opposed the motion on the ground that the hon. Gentleman had presented no arguments in favour of it. [Mr. Duncombe was prepared to support his motion with arguments.] He was quite open to conviction, but when it was proposed to bring in a Bill to repeal any Act, and especially such an Act as the Reform Act, he for one could not consent to its admission until he found good reasons for doing so.
Mr. Thomas Duncombesaid, he would state shortly the reasons upon which he founded the proposition that he had submitted to the House. When the Registration Act of last Session was in progress, he had moved that it be an instruction to the Committee to provide for the repeal of that portion of the Reform Act which required the payment of rates and taxes in cities and boroughs as the condition of registration, on the ground that it was unconstitutional in principle, and vexatious in practice. The Attorney-General, however, told him that the matter did not come within the scope of the Registration Bill; but that if he would make it the sub-
204
ject of a distinct Bill, the Attorney-General would give that Bill his serious consideration. He had now adopted that recommendation; he had asked for leave to bring in the Bill; and it was rather hard, after having thus adopted the recommendation of the Attorney-General, to be told by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was pursuing an unusual course. His great reason for the measure was his belief and conviction, a belief and conviction which universally prevailed, that the Clause in the Reform Act, to the repeal of which this Bill applied itself, operated materially to diminish the number of voters throughout the country. The noble Lord by whom the Reform Act was introduced, and to whom he should ever feel grateful for the benefit, had anticipated that its effects would be to add half a million of voters to those previously existing. The fact was, however, that it had not increased the previously existing number by more than three hundred thousand. The noble Lord had anticipated an increase of ninety-five thousand voters in the metropolis; the actual increase had not exceeded forty-eight thousand. At the present moment, of the hundred and sixty thousand ten pound householders in the new boroughs which had been created in the metropolis, only forty-eight thousand had been actually disfranchised. The great reason of this was their want of punctuality in the payment of their rates and taxes and the partiality evinced by the collectors in collecting those rates and taxes. The latter were frequently in the habit of calling on Tories, but leaving their political opponents until the period at which they ought to pay their rates and taxes had elapsed. When he had last broached this subject in the House he had been told that he was introducing Universal Suffrage, and a provision that no person should pay his rates and taxes. Whoever stated this was ignorant of the real object which he had in view. All that he wanted was, to place the borough electors of England on the same footing as the county electors. Why a borough elector, who lived in a house of the rent of 200 l. or 300 l a-year, should be compelled, before he could be registered, to pay not only the King's taxes, but the poor and other taxes, and why in a county a tenant-at-will of 50 l. a-year should not be subject to such a compulsion, he had yet to learn, He should, be happy to hear any

205
objections to which his measure might be deemed advisable; but to him it appeared anything but an unreasonable proposition.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould trespass on the House for only a few moments. He had due respect for the motives and opinions of the hon. Gentleman, but when that hon. Gentleman said, that the clause in the Reform Act which he desired to repeal, was unconstitutional in principle, and vexatious in practice, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must deny the fact. The principle on which the clause was founded was one of the earliest and best-established principles of the constitution, namely, that no man should enjoy his civil rights who did not discharge his civil obligations. With respect to the practice, if there were anything partial or vexatious in the manner in which the collectors performed their duty, that ought to be made the subject of inquiry. The collectors were not appointed by the Crown; and, therefore, the Ministers of the Crown were not responsible for the conduct of the collectors. They were appointed by authorities wholly independent of the Crown. When the hon. Gentleman admitted that a great number of the borough voters were disqualified in consequence of their own want of punctuality, how could he proceed to make the carelessness of such persons a ground for proposing an alteration in the Reform Act? The Reform Act stated, that no householder should be admitted to register who had not paid his rates and taxes. According to the hon. Gentleman, a great number of the householders neglected to pay their rates and taxes. Now, surely, the neglect of those to whom a law applied was a strange reason for proposing a change in an Act of Parliament, and that Act the Reform Act. He did not think that the arguments of the hon. Gentleman were sufficient to warrant the House in consenting to the motion. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified in introducing his Bill to the attention of the House, but it by no means followed that the House should agree to receive it.
Mr. Wakleyobserved, that this was a great and important question, which he and many others were exceeding anxious should be carried in the affirmative. The principle of the Reform Act was this, that persons occupying houses of ten pounds a-year should be entitled to vote at the election of Members of Parliament. Were
206
they actually so entitled? No. If the House, therefore, denied the hon. Member leave to bring in his Bill, they would trench upon the principle of the Reform, Act. For the Reform Act said, that householders of ten pounds in a borough; should be entitled to vote at elections of Members of Parliament. Now, they were not so entitled; and thus the Reform Act, instead of being an enfranchising, was converted into a disfranchising measure. It was disgraceful to legislate in this manner. The right hon. Gentleman had forgotten to answer the inquiry of the hon. Gentle, man why there should be a distinction between county and borough electors in this point; why the former should be allowed to register without having paid any rates and taxes at all, and the latter should be prevented from registering until they had paid the whole of their rates and taxes? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see the propriety of withdrawing his opposition to the introduction of the Bill.
Lord Worsleywould vote for the introduction of the Bill; but begged not to be understood as pledging himself to its support.
Lord Dudley Stewartcould not say, that he had made up his mind on the subject; but he should like to see the Bill brought in. He should certainly support the motion of the hon. Gentleman for the reason which he had given.
Mr. Peaseexpressed his conviction that this Bill, if introduced, would never be carried into a law. Until the vote by Ballot should be obtained, he, for one, would never consent to takeaway from the voters of this country the power to disfranchise themselves without giving offence. He repeated, he did not believe this measure would ever become the law of the land. As to the comparison which had been made in respect to county and borough voters, he could see no analogy between the two cases.
The House divided: Ayes 49; Noes 38—Majority 11.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Crawford, W. S.

Bewes, T.

Elphinstone, H.

Brady, D. C.

Ewart, W.

Brotherton, J.

Gaskell, D.

Buckingham, J. S.

Grote, G.

Bulwer, H. L.

Hall, B.

Butler, hon. P.

Hawes, B.

Buxton, T. F.

Heathcoate, J.

Codrington, Admiral

Hindley, C.

207

Hume, J.

Stuart, Lord D.

Humphery, J.

Thompson, Colonel

James, W.

Thorneley, T.

Johnston, A.

Tooke, W.

Leader, J. T.

Turner, W.

Lister, E. C.

Villiers, C. P.

Lushington, Dr.

Wallace, R.

Lushington, C.

Warburton, H.

O'Brien, W. S.

Ward, H. G.

O'Connell, D.

Wason, R.

O'Connell, J.

Whalley, Sir S.

Parrott, J.

Wilde, Sergeant

Phillips, M.

Wood, Alderman

Potter, R.

Worsley, Lord

Pryme, G.

TELLERS.

Rundle, J.

Duncombe, T.

Strickland, Sir G.

Wakley, T.

List of the NOES.

Bell, M.

Lemon, Sir C.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Lowther, J. H.

Blackburne, I.

Martin, J.

Bonham, R. F.

Palmer, G.

Bowles, G. R.

Palmerston, Viscount

Collier, J.

Parker, J.

Compton, H. C.

Pease, J.

Dick, Q.

Polhill, F.

Dillwyn, W. L.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Dugdale, W. S.

Rickford, W.

Dunbar, G.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Eaton, R. J.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Geary, Sir W.

Sibthorpe, Colonel

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Twiss, H.

Handley, H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hoy, J. B.

Vivian, J. E.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Young, Sir W.

Irton, S.

Knight, H. G.

TELLERS.

Lawson, A.

Baring, F.

Lefevre, C. S.

Steuart, R.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Small Debts (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Lords HATHERTON, BROUGHAM, DUNCANNON, Earl FITZWILLIAM, and Viscount MILBOURNE, from Paisley, Northampton, and various other places, for the Abolition of Church-rates.—By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, and several other Noble LORDS, from Netherwent, Elmly, and various other places, against the Abolition of Church-rates.—By Earl STANHOPE, from several Parishes in London, for Poor Laws Amendment Act—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Mold, for Vote by Ballot.

CHURCH-RATES.
The Archbishop of Canterburyhad to present to their Lordships a considerable number of petitions on the subject of Church-rates, the prayer of which, precisely the same as was contained in the petitions already presented by the right rev. Prelates who had preceded him in the course of the evening, was against the abolition of Church-rates. Although it was not his habit to address their Lordships on presenting petitions, still he trusted, considering the general feeling of anxiety which prevailed on this subject, that he would be permitted to claim their Lordships' attention for a short time. In consequence of the number of petitions against Church-rates which had been laid on the table, as well as from the meetings that had taken place in different parts of the kingdom, it was supposed by many that the country in general was hostile to the continuance of those rates. But if they looked to the mass of petitions which had been presented on the other side, strongly deprecating any improper interference with those rates they would be justified in coming to a very
148
different conclusion. Petitions from agricultural districts had been placed in his hands, in which the petitioners "denied that Church-rates were unpopular amongst them." They said they "could not bear the idea of the sacred buildings devoted to religious worship being left to ruin and dilapidation which they feared would be the case if Church-rates were abolished;" and such he believed to be the general feeling throughout the country. The objection to Church-rates had been almost entirely confined to Dissenters, and particularly to certain populous districts; and those who thus opposed them had almost declared in terms that they had ulterior objects in view. It was proper, then, that all those who had the welfare of the Church at heart should be upon their guard. They had been told that the measure about to be introduced in the House of Commons would be satisfactory to all parties. He wished it were so. He should be pleased with any measure that was likely to be satisfactory to all parties. In that case he would not have troubled their Lordships with the presentation of those petitions without first ascertaining from the parties by whom they were signed whether they still were anxious that they should be presented. But when he looked to the plan brought forward in the House of Commons, he could not bring himself to think that it would be satisfactory to those petitioners. He felt astonished how any person could consider that the plan would be satisfactory to the friends of the Church. The principle of the bill and its outline were so unkind to the Church, the measure seemed to be so pregnant with mischief in its consequences, that he certainly never would give his assent to its becoming law. It took property from the Church which had belonged to it from time immemorial, and appropriated it to purposes which hitherto had been otherwise provided for. Who complained of those rates? Certainly not those out of whose pockets they chiefly came. Did the possessors of property complain of the burden of Church-rates? No. They would be ashamed to complain of an impost which was laid upon them for the maintenance of the church of the country, for the maintenance of religion, and, he might say, for the preservation of the morals of the lower orders. The measure to which he had alluded was intended for the relief and satisfaction of the Dissenters, who objected

149
to pay these rates on principle, because it was a contribution to the maintenance of the Established Church. But their only principle was to get that property relieved from the payment of Church-rates which they had bought subject to those rates. Now, if the Church had funds at its disposal, why should they not be laid out in providing Church-room and pastoral instruction for that large body of members of the establishment who were at the present moment, deprived of the means of religious instruction? Statements had been made, founded on truth and not on speculation, that there were thousands of people, nay he might say hundreds of thousands, in that situation. There were nearly 2,000,000 persons in various parts of the country almost destitute of religious instruction in consequence of the want of accommodation in the churches. In the neighbourhood of the metropolis there was a district with a population of 160,000 souls, and only thirteen clergymen; and in Lancashire, Cheshire, and other places, the deficiency was still greater. And yet with these facts staring them in the face they were called on to remove a tax, the pressure of which was hardly felt by any party, and to shift it to property which was never intended to bear it. When the wants of the Church population of the country were so pressing, it would in his opinion be most unjust and impolitic to apply any surplus of Church property otherwise than to the spiritual wants of members of the established religion. The plan proposed however diverted Church properly from the uses of churchmen. A mode of raising money on Church property was to be resorted to, not to provide spiritual instruction for members of the Church, but to relieve those who dissented from the Church. If other plans were rejected as being objectionable on various grounds, what were they to say to the plan now proposed? It contemplated nothing more nor less than the sequestration of the estates belonging to the dignitaries of the Church—the archbishops, bishops, deans, and chapters. Those estates were to be placed under the management of a Board of Commissioners, invested with full powers for granting leases, for selling reversions, for mortgaging or alienating church property, as they might think advisable. Now, he would ask, was any noble Lord so blind as not to see that the effect of the plan would be to
150
make the dignitaries of the Church (using the mildest term) mere annuitants, to deprive them of all the influence and advantages which were annexed to the possession of land, and to render them dependent on a Board of Commissioners nominated by the Government? Why, considering the very violent changes that had taken place at different times, a conjuncture of affairs might arise, in which the whole of this Church property might be swept away, in the process of amendment. He believed that he had said enough to show the injustice of the scheme that was proposed, its degrading effects on the dignitaries of the church, and the danger with which it menaced the interests of the Church itself. Objections without end could be urged against the measure; but, as many of them were matters of detail, although involving principles of importance, he would not enter into them on this occasion. He was, however, obliged to come forward, not only in obedience to his own feelings on the subject, but because he had been authorised to express the sentiments of others. A meeting of bishops had been held that morning, at which they assembled to the number of fifteen (being nearly all the prelates who were in town), and he had been authorised by them to declare their unanimous concurrence in the sentiments which he had expressed, and their determination to resist the proposed measure by all proper and just means. There was another consideration which impelled him to address their Lordships—it was, that the names of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and of the Bishop of Llandaff, as dean of St. Paul's, were placed in the list of Commissioners for the management of those estates, and the disposal of Church property. An opinion had in consequence been formed that they were privy to the plan, and that it had met with their approbation and concurrence. Such, however, was not the case. He mentioned this to obviate the notion which had got abroad amongst the clergy, and which had excited a great deal of alarm, that they were privy to the plan, and approved of it, and he took that opportunity to relieve himself and his rev. Friends from the imputation. The most rev. Prelate concluded by presenting several petitions against the abolition of Church-rates.
Viscount Melbournehad listened to what had fallen from the most rev. Prelate with the greatest attention; he had listened to

151
him with that respect which he was always anxious to pay to him, and which he was the more inclined to observe on the present occasion, when the most rev. Prelate spoke not only his own sentiments, but the sentiments of many of his right rev. brethren. He heard, he repeated, the most rev. Prelate with the greatest respect and the most anxious attention; but, he must add, with the deepest sorrow and concern. He had listened with deep concern, because he felt that the most rev. Prelate's opinion might have some effect with reference to the measure about to be introduced to the other House of Parliament—a measure which, he was convinced, would be highly beneficial in its operation—advantageous to the Church—advantageous to the country, and which was, therefore, loudly called for, in the circumstances in which the country was at present placed. He had listened to the most rev. Prelate with deep concern, on account of the effect which his observations might have on the success of that measure; he had listened to the most rev. Prelate with deep concern with reference to the interests of the Church itself. The most rev. Prelate had expressed himself anxious for the preservation and the efficiency of the Church; but he would say, that the course which the most rev. Prelate had taken was one which could not be maintained or defended, and which was not calculated to conciliate for the Church that reverence and respect which he was desirous that it should command. He would put it to the most rev. Prelate himself whether there was not something of haste and precipitation in the course which he had adopted? Whether he had not stood forward unduly and unfitly to make those observations? Whether he was not put forward on this occasion by those who had more guile and entertained deeper designs than himself, in order that his expressed opinions might produce some effect on that and on the other House of Parliament, in order that they might produce some effect on the decision which was to be come to in another place? Considering this as a measure of peace and quiet—considering this as a measure for the relief of persons complaining of a serious grievance—[Laughter.'] Noble Lords might laugh; but this was a question of grave and serious importance. Considering the measure referred to as a measure of peace and concord—considering it as a measure for the relief of a portion
152
of his Majesty's subjects—considering it as a measure intended to put an end to a state of things admitted by the most rev. Prelate himself to be inconvenient, and which, therefore, ought to be put an end to—for the most rev. Prelate did not deny that he would give his consent to a satisfactory measure for effecting an alteration in the mode of collecting and assessing Church-rates,—considering all this, he did think that it would have been more fitting, more proper, more decent, and more wise, if the most rev. Prelate had waited for the regular time and period for the discussion of the question, and not have pronounced with such precipitate haste his intentions with respect to the measure. The most rev. Prelate had been, for a considerable time, in possession of the whole of the details of the plan; and if he had formed in his own mind an objection to its general principle, or to its details, sufficient opportunities would occur for him to state that objection at length: but certainly the present occasion was not the proper one for entering on the subject. Considering the importance of this measure—considering the object and intention of it—surely it would have been more fitting and becoming if the most rev. Prelate had adopted the customary course, and reserved his observations till the proper time came to discuss the question. The most rev. Prelate had stated that there was a deep anxiety to preserve the system of Church-rates, throughout a great part of this country—that the abolition of those rates was in a high degree unpopular—that the people of England were attached to their Churches, and were fearful of seeing them fall into ruin and decay. He believed that the people did participate in those feelings. But the question was whether the proposed measure was described fairly to the people? Whether there was not a misrepresentation of the measure? Whether they had not been deceived with respect to what was meant to be done on this subject? The people were told, no doubt, that the Church-rates were to be abolished, but they were not told that a fund was to be provided in lieu of them. If they had been told that such a fund would be provided, and that they would be relieved from the payment of rates, he would ask, whether it was to be supposed, in reason or common sense, that the people would entertain any objection to such a plan? He felt certain, if the measure had been

153
properly explained to them, that it would have been next to impossible for them to have expressed any objection to it. In his opinion the measure, if properly carried out, would be satisfactory to all the interests concerned; and it was equally important to all, that the question should be finally arranged and settled. It was not intended to produce any collateral effect—it was not introduced to satisfy the claims of any particular body of men, or to assist any party whatever, or to encourage any encroachments on the Church, but to put an end to a state of affairs which was much to be lamented. To put an end to those dissensions on this subject which were acknowledged by right rev. Prelates themselves to be injurious to the Church—a state of things which there was not one right rev. Prelate on the bench could deny to be at this moment both scandalous and inconvenient—a state of things which, if not now checked, would evidently be extended and carried much further than it was at present, and to which there could be no conclusion other than the adoption of some measure similar to that which would hereafter be laid before their Lordships. With respect to the plan proposed he had never heard but that Church lands by better management, and by doing away with the system of life tenures, could be rendered far more valuable than they were at present. He had never heard of anything else. He was not prepared at that moment to go through all the calculations on which the measure was founded; but if there was any one point connected with it on which he entertained no doubt whatever, it was on the financial part of it. He was quite convinced that these funds, placed under a better system of management, would be amply sufficient for all the purposes to which they were to be applied. The question, then, came to this—How could they best apply these funds? He admitted that that was the real question to be decided. There might be a doubt as to whether they ought to be applied to the purposes to which his Majesty's ministers intended to apply them, or whether they ought to be applied to supply what were called the spiritual wants of the Church. The objects which his Majesty's Government sought to accomplish by their application of them were freedom from dissension, freedom from disturbance—in a word, religious peace and harmony. To realise Christian har-
154
mony and Christian tranquillity were the first objects of a Christian Legislature, and therefore ought to be the first objects of a Christian hierarchy. For his own part he thought that in the application of these funds preference ought to be given—although he gave it with reluctance, being as anxious as any of the right rev. Prelates behind him for the augmentation of small livings—to the plan which had been detailed, not by him, but by the most rev. Prelate, to their Lordships. The most rev. Prelate had asked him, whether, if these funds could be got from the improved management of the Church property, they were to be given to any particular sect? To that question he answered distinctly "No." They were to be applied to the general interests of the community—to secure objects which it was most desirable to secure—namely, the peace, tranquillity, concord, and property of the country—which he confessed were great objects with him, whatever they might be with the right rev. Prelates behind him. The most rev. Prelate had made many observations in the course of his speech on the mode of carrying this plan into effect. Now, if this plan were carried into effect, either for the purposes of this measure, or for the augmentation of small livings, it must be carried into effect in the mode proposed by his Majesty's Government. Either the Legislature must leave these funds altogether untouched, or it must seek to improve them in this way, which the right rev. Prelate declares to be derogatory from the Church upon objections which vanished into thin air, if dispassionately and impartially considered. He confessed that he had listened to the right rev. Prelate with great sorrow and with great concern; but he had also listened to him with great respect and great attention. He had been afflicted, greatly afflicted, at finding that his Majesty's Government was to experience the opposition of the right rev. Prelate and of his rev. Brethren behind him. He could, however, assure them firmly, but respectfully, that their opposition would not alter his course. He considered the measure to be just—he considered it to be advantageous to the Church—he considered it to be in every respect beneficial to the community—and, being so, he should most undoubtedly persevere in proposing it to the consideration of Parliament.
The Bishop of Londonsaid because a body of men speaking the sentiments of the clergy, who are so deeply interested in this question, and the sentiments of the laity, who feel their interests on this subject to be identified with the clergy, come forward and protest mildly but respectfully against this spoliation of the Church, we are denounced with more than ordinary vehemence by the King's Prime Minister; and it is said that we are unmindful of the peace of the community, because we denounce this measure as a sacrilegious act of spoliation. And so when the Prime Minister tells us that a sacrifice is to be made to secure religious peace and harmony, we the Bishops of the Church of England, are not to complain of it, because the only sacrifice to be made is the sacrifice of that Protestant Church of which we are the superior ministers. But I check myself, my Lords, for fear lest I fall into that error of violence of which the noble Viscount has recently been guilty. A vehement and personal attack he did indeed make upon the Primate and the rest of the hierarchy, and if I prosecute further this part of the subject I might fall into his error. I shall therefore call the attention of your Lordships to two or three points, which are in themselves an abundant refutation of the subtlety and sophistry—for I must call the noble Viscount's speech most subtle and most sophistical—displayed by the noble Viscount in the course of his vituperation of my most rev. Friend. The noble Viscount says, that the present state of things is most scandalous—that the present dissentions of the community are scandalous. I admit that the state of things is scandalous—but to whom is it scandalous? Not to the Church, but to the small body of persons who now call upon you to relieve them from a burden which does not press heavily upon them, and under which they have inherited their property, well knowing all its liabilities. Peace! produce peace! Does not the noble Viscount know that this measure never can produce peace? Is he so blind to the experience of the past as not to see that peace will never follow concession made so absolutely at the expense of one party alone? Measure after measure have we passed to conciliate Ireland, and always under the promise that they would remove contention and promote
156
peace; and have they not all been made the substrata for further agitation? Have we not, I would ask your Lordships, the confession of those who are most prominent in promoting the abolition of Church-rates—is it not their boast and triumph that this measure is only valuable to them as a first instalment? Has not an influential member of their body, at a large public meeting of Protestant Dissenters held in this metropolis, said—"Only one step at a time—let us not meddle with other matters, for at present they are not relevant." "Not relevant," said a Dissenting minister from Scotland—"what do you mean? Does not this measure lead to the abolition of tithe as a necessary consequence?" The reply to this question was—"Be prudent: only one step at a time." Can we, then, either talk or think of peace as a result of this measure of sacrilegious spoliation? The noble Viscount says, that he will not believe that my most rev. Friend is acting—nay more, he says that he suspects that my most rev. Friend, in coming forward to protest against this measure, is not acting upon the result of his own unbiassed inquiry, but that he is urged on by the guile and design—I think such were the words—of others to take this step. I will not say that we have not been hastened onwards in our course by something which I will not venture to characterise as I ought, but which I will venture to call not fair to some of the rev. Members of this Bench. I ask the noble Viscount whether this subject has or has not occupied the attention of the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Inquiry? Does not the commission under which we act confide to us, as a fit subject for our inquiry, all the property of the Episcopal Bench, and for what end? To see whether we cannot make it more efficient in supplying the spiritual wants of the community. Do you suppose, my Lords, that having this subject of enquiry confided to us, we never took into our consideration the possible improvement of the Church property by the application of some such measure as this? We state distinctly in our last Report, that so far as related to the management of Episcopal property, this measure has been considered by us, and rejected as inexpedient. Some reasons are assigned by us for that conclusion, and some further reasons remain behind, especially of a financial

157
nature, calculated to show that this scheme, as a fiscal scheme, is without any solid foundation; that the calculations on which it rests are erroneous; and that it cannot stand the test of the slightest investigation. I cannot at present state, for reasons which your Lordships will appreciate, how it came to pass that we took no further steps in consideration of that measure; but this I can state, that it was unanimously resolved by the members of the Commission—and your Lordships will recollect who the Members of that Commission are—that this scheme of improvement was impracticable and inexpedient. I assert, my Lords, that it was unanimously resolved by the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Inquiry that it was impracticable and inexpedient. The proposition to alter the tenure of Church property—to submit to Parliament—
Viscount Melbourne: I beg leave distinctly to assert that there was no such unanimous resolution on the part of the Commissioners. For my own part I always asserted it to be my opinion that the scheme was both expedient and practicable.
The Bishop of London: I may have been mistaken as to the opinion of the noble Viscount: but this I know, that other Ministers of the Crown, who were more frequent in their attendance on the Commission, and who paid more attention to the subject-matter of inquiry by the Commissioners, were of a contrary opinion to that expressed by the noble Lords. I am sorry to have been forced to make this disclosure, but so the fact is. My most rev. Friend, the Primate, asked your Lordships, and he asked you with great force, "Is it just, is it expedient, is it politic, to the Church and to the people of England, that a measure deemed inexpedient by the Commissioners of Ecclesiastical Inquiry, when it was proposed with a view of making a better provision for the spiritual wants of the Church, should be deemed expedient when it was proposed with a view of relieving a body of men who have no equitable claim whatever to relief?" My Lords, I can assure you that I should not have troubled you with any remarks on this subject, had it not been for the appeal which the noble Viscount made to the hierarchy as ministers of peace—ministers of peace, said he, banded together to prevent the passing of a measure of peace. I deny most em-
158
phatically, on the part of myself and my rev. Brethren, that any part of our public conduct has rendered us justly liable to such a charge. In resisting this invasion on the rights of the Church, we are doing more to promote the interest, the peace, and the tranquillity of the country than we should be doing were we to give our assent to this act of spoliation. I am not now speaking on behalf of the clergy—they are the last objects at present of my consideration—but I am speaking on behalf of the poorer classes of the community. There are at present 2,000,000 of our poorer fellow countrymen totally destitute of the means of religious instruction. To what source but this can we apply for funds to supply their spiritual wants? "Oh! then," says the noble Lord, "you agree to the principle, though you deny the application, of this measure." I reply at once, that I should like the principle better if it left these funds open for some better provision for the more effectual pastoral superintendence over the spiritual wants of the millions. Under the measure proposed by his Majesty's Government all hope of making such provision for them will be destroyed, and we shall be thrown eventually on the voluntary principle, and of that voluntary principle I will only say, that if it have succeeded at all in this country it has mainly succeeded because there has been an Established Church maintained within it.
Earl Fitzwilliamobserved, that one of the objections which the right rev. Prelate who had just sat down had urged against this measure was, that as a financial measure it would eminently fail. If this were so he would ask leave to call to the recollection of the right rev. Prelate the close of his speech, in which he stated, that if this scheme were carried into effect, every hope would be cut off of providing for the spiritual wants of the millions out of the improved funds of the Church itself. He really could not help thinking, that the right rev. Prelate's objection to this scheme, if thoroughly sifted, would turn out to be an objection, not so much to the application of these funds to the objects to which it was now proposed to apply them, as to the State dealing at all with Ecclesiastical property. He would not enter into any discussion on this question at present, as he deemed it irregular—he would only say, that it

159
was his most anxious desire not to run the risk of leaving the people of England without the means of spiritual instruction, and without those means which had more immediate reference to the maintenance of the various churches in the country. If he were to express any doubt respecting the propriety of this measure, the doubt which he should express would be this—that the measure, so far from separating the Church from the State, was objectionable for disconnecting the Church from the parish. He confessed that he did not in any great degree object to the application of any surplus which might arise from the improvement of Church property to any other Ecclesiastical purposes than those to which that property was at present applied; but he doubted whether it were expedient to disconnect the maintenance of the Church from those local and parochial communities with which the Church was at present connected. If he should hereafter, upon further consideration of the details of this measure, with which their Lordships were not yet regularly acquainted, see reason to object to this plan, it would not be because it separated the Church from the State, but because it had a tendency to separate the parish from the Church. That appeared to him to be the point of the Bill on which the greatest doubt ought to be entertained: for, in all these local establishments, it was important that the local communities should feel the necessity of maintaining them for their own spiritual instruction.
Petitions laid on the table.