Sitting of 7 August 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Dublin Corporation; Officers' Compensation; Corporate Property; Alienation (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Sir R. INGLIS, from certain Wesleyan Methodists in London, Ipswich, and other places, by Mr. FINCH, from a place in Staffordshire, by Mr. THORNELY, from Wolverhampton, by Mr. S. LASCELLES, two, from Wakefield, by Lord ASHLEY, from two places in the county of York, by Mr. M. ATTWOOD, from the Wesleyans of Whitehaven, and by Mr. W. ATTWOOD, from the Wesleyan of Woolwich, against the Encouragement of Idolatrous practices in India.—By Sir R. INGLIS, from a parish in Derbyshire, for additional Endowment to the Church of England in Canada; and from a parish in the county of Durham, against the Parochial Assessments Bill.—By Mr. BROTHERTON, from Stockport, for the better Education and Employment of the Labouring Classss.—By Mr. P. SCROPE, from the Weavers and Manufacturers of Stroud, against the Corn-laws.—By Mr. D. W. HARVEY, from the parish of St. Saviour, Southwark, against the Grammar School Bill; from Sheffield, and other places, complaining of the operation of the New Poor-laws; also from the Operatives of Bath, Rochdale, Halifax, and other places, praying that Mr. R. Owen might be heard at the Bar of the House in support of his plan for ameliorating the condition of the Labouring Classes

NEW POOR-LAW.
On the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the operation of the Poor-Law having been brought up,
Mr. Fieldensaid, he could not let this report be brought up without saying a few words of the manner in which the committee had conducted the investigation, and upon that document which was the result of it. His proposition was, that the committee should examine those who nobody could doubt were the best witnesses—the labouring people and the rate payers. He proposed at the first meeting of the committee that they should procure certain returns from those unions in which the rates had been reduced 50 per cent. This was objected to, upon the ground that the returns would be too elaborate to be allowed, and too difficult to procure. He then proposed they should take those unions in which the reduction had been 60 per cent.; and the first three on the list of this description being Ampthill, Bedford and Woburn, the committee ordered the returns from those unions. He (Mr. Fielden) sent two men down into Bedfordshire to make inquiries as to the condition of the people, whom the returns showed to be deprived of parochial relief, under the new law; and he was in hopes that the committee would have gone into a full examination of the rate-payers and labourers of those unions, as well as into the examina-
1046
tion of commissioners, guardians, and officers of the new law. But he had been grievously disappointed. The House would find, by looking at the evidence, that the committee had been engaged no less than thirty-six days and a half in examining commissioners and guardians; indeed the commissioners alone had taken twenty days out of the fifty-two days the whole examination had taken up. Four days had been allotted to the medical enquiry; leaving ten days and a half for the examination of witnesses against the law, and this notwithstanding half a million of persons had petitioned against it, stating their reasons. The commissioners and the guardians, too, were persons actually upon their trial; they were persons who had been complained of, and the committee was originally appointed for the purpose of ascertaining whether those complaints were just. Would the House be satisfied, would the country be satisfied that this committee had conducted an impartial examination, when it was found that thirty-six days and a half out of fifty-two days had been allotted to the e amining of persons who were on their trial? His main objection to the law was founded on his firm conviction that it would reduce the wages of the labouring people; and if he had nothing more than even the assistant-commissioners to satisfy him upon that point, their evidence had shown him that that had already been the result. The House should have foreseen this before it had passed the law. When it affected to throw men upon their resources it should have been certain that they had those resources; but the cruelty of this law was now becoming obvious in all times of depression of trade, and in the intervals between the different harvests in the agricultural parts of the country. The report stated, in contradiction to what was the fact, that the "real interests of all classes of the community have been consulted in the operation of the law." He was so thoroughly satisfied that this was unfounded, he had seen such strong proof that it had brought misery upon the labouring classes, that he had thought it his duty to move an amendment to this part of the report. Hon. Members would perceive, that it was stated on the authority of Mr. Overman, vice-chairman of the Ampthill board, that the wages of the labourers in his neighbourhood had

1047
been raised since the law came into operation. Indeed, in illustration of the fact, he stated what he himself paid upon his own farm in 1834, and what he paid in 1837; that is to say, he gave them a table containing the weekly payments for every week, in those years, to his labourers, and the totals showed an increase in the gross amount in the year 1837. So far Mr. Overman made out the case very well; but in his previous examination he had stated not only that wages had been raised, but that many more men had been employed on the land; and here Mr. Overman had failed to establish his case, but had completely succeeded in establishing the point which he (Mr. Fielden) aimed to prove, namely a reduction in wages. Mr. Overman in 1834 and 1835 employed twenty men and thirteen boys, and the gross amount which he states he paid to them in the year is 775 l. 6s. 1d. He states, that in 1837 and 1838 his gross payment in wages was 870 l. 8s., which was doubtless a considerable increase in the money spent in wages; but he employed in the latter year eleven boys and twenty-six men, which, as any one would find on calculating it, proved a reduction of 11d. per week in money wages. As Mr. Overman and his table were cited in the report as the proof of an advance in wages, he had proposed an amendment to that part of the report, which he would read to the House. It was as follows:—
"That so far from the real interests of all classes having been consulted by the administration of the Poor-law Amendment Act, as expressed in page twenty-fire of their report, the interests of the poor have suffered by the withdrawal of relief and reductions of wages, as appears by the evidence (15,305, 15,318, 15,361 Ceeley, and 16,472 and 16,474 Rauron, and 14,345 and 14,349, 14,353, 14,354, 14,370, 14,479, and 14,480 Overman). The statement of weekly wages paid for farm labourers during four years, by Mr. T. W. Overman, accompanied by the list of labourers in his employment from July 1834, to July 1835, and from July 1837 to July 1838, in the former of which years he had twenty men and thirteen boys, and in the latter twenty-six men and eleven boys, shows the following result: In this calculation five shillings per week only are allowed for the boys, in both years, although Mr. Overman in his evidence, 14,378, says boys' wages had been advanced.

1384 AND 1835.

£.

s.

d.

Thirteen boys, each 52 weeks, or 676 weeks for one boy at 5s.

169

0

0

1048

Brought forward

169

0

0

Twenty men, each 52 weeks, or 1,040 weeks for one man at 11 s. 8d.

606

13

4

775

13

4

Amount paid as per Mr. Overman's statement

775

6

4

1837 and 1838.

Eleven boys, each 52 weeks, or 572 weeks for one boy at 5s.

143

0

0

Twenty six men, each 52 weeks, or 1,352 weeks for one man, at 10 s. 9d.

726

14

0

869

14

0

Amount paid as per Mr. Overman's statement,

870

8

0

A reduction of labourers' wages in money of from 11 s. 8d. per week in 1834–5, to l0 s. 9d. per week in 1837–8, or 8 per cent., is thus shown by Mr. Overman's statement; and 11 s. 8d. would buy the labourer 129½ pints of wheat at the average price of wheat per quarter (40 s. 2d.) during the year 1834; whereas 10 s. 9d. would purchase him only 99 pints of wheat at the average price (55 s. 9d.) during the year 1837, being a decline in his command over wheat of 25 per cent., and taking wheat at the average price of the week ending 5th July last, his command over wheat then, as compared with 1834, is reduced 37½ per cent.; and this has been going on under the operation of the new Poor-law, notwithstanding Mr. Overman stated in his evidence that there is an increased demand for labour (14,336 and 14,337), no scarcity of work (14,132 and 14,467), that wages have been advanced, and the men do more work (14,183, 14,185, and 14,209), and that farming has not been so prosperous for many years as in 1837 (14,507)."
He had moved this resolution when complaining in the committee of the whole report, and he asked whether he had not a right to complain of such a delusive statement being sent forth to the country as that which he had just pointed out? Before he had become a Member of this committee, he had imagined that the handloom weavers, and some others in the North, were the most miserable of the English labouring people; but he had heard enough confessed in the committee to show him, that if the people of the South were not now as badly off as the hand-loom weavers, it would take but a short time to bring them to the condition of those miserable people. He would pause, in order to ask the House whether it was not both cruel and impolitic to continue this wicked and obnoxious laws, if

1049
there was any chance that its results would be such as he had spoken of? He could point out good, honest, and industrious labourers, men whose characters were not disputed, who with their families, were living now upon three pence per head per day. Mr. Ceely, a surgeon from Aylesbury (whose evidence by-the-bye, was well worthy of being read) stated, that he was in considerable practice, that he was well acquainted with Aylesbury and the labouring people in its vicinity, and he gave it as his opinion that, sickly and distressed as they were before, their lot had become considerably worse since the new law came into operation. That he had inquired at what he deemed the best sources of information, the tradespeople, those who sold to the labourers the food on which they lived, and all had told him that they sold now less provisions to this class of persons than they did before the new law. If this was fact, he would ask, could anything be more convincing? If the baker, the grocer, and the cheesemonger were now selling less food to the labouring man than they did before the new law, was not the conclusion forced upon them that the new law had deprived the labouring man of the means he had before it passed? In the reports of the committee it would be found that Weale, the assistant-commissioner, had made a statement of the wages of agricultural labourers in Somersetshire, Gloucestershire, and Worcestershire, and the average rate of wages afforded 1s. 5d. per head per week for the labourer and his family. Mr. Rawson, a manufacturer at Leicester, stated on his own experience, that wages had been reduced one-third since the new law came into operation, and he apprehended a continued reduction. He had sent two men down into the neighbourhood of Ampthill to make inquiries in that neighbourhood, and they took a survey of the parish of Westoning in particular; they obtained the name, number in family, and earnings of every labouring man within the parish for the years 1834 and 1837, and the result, which he would state as short as possible, was a reduction of sixteen per cent. in their means of living. The tables establishing these matters had been put in by Mr. Turner, one of the persons whom he had sent to make the inquiries. They had been attacked in the committee, and Mr. Pearce, chairman of the Woburn board, had been brought up
1050
to the committee to refute them; and, according to Mr. Pearce, these labourers were in the receipt of much more money than Mr. Turner had made out in his tables; but how was it? Why, Mr. Pearce finds that the earnings of the families of the labourers, that is, the earnings of the wives and children of the labourers in Westoning, at straw-platting, makes an important difference in the total earning of the family during the year. Mr. Pearce found little to dispute as to the wages of the labouring men. All the difference that there was between his tables and Mr. Turner's, consisted in this, that Turner had stated the earnings of the families at too little, according to Mr. Pearce's account. He (Mr. Fielden) was prepared to dispute the truth of Mr. Pearce's statement. He had the names of the witnesses ready, and amongst them the names of persons who could have spoken from experience and with authority upon the subject; but these witnesses he could not get before the committee. In the absence of them, however, the House might find, by turning to Mr. Pearce's evidence, that when it was the object of the different boards of guardians in Bedfordshire to send families into the north of England to the factories, then the earnings of the wives and children were set down in Mr. Muggridge's returns, as amounting to little or nothing. The earnings of a mother and all her children, were stated in one instance at 3s. 6d. only per week; whereas Mr. Pearce stated, that a young woman in Bedfordshire of from thirteen to nineteen years of age could earn from 5s. to 7s. per week at straw platting. As to the men taking their earnings as stated by Mr. Pearce himself, the House would find that they were getting no more than would afford 1s. 10 d. per week per head for themselves and families. He (Mr. Fielden) thought he had stated enough already, citing even the authority of commissioners and guardians, to prove to the House, that it was necessary to keep a watchful eye on the condition of the agricultural labourers. He had received letters from all parts of the country, from so far west as Barnstaple, and so far east as Norwich, from Carlisle, and from many places in the interior of the country, addressed to him by magistrates, clergymen, guardians of boards, and by tradesmen, all complaining of the operation of this law, and all stating it to have

1051
the effect which he had anticipated with dread, and which he had often stated to the House. It was only yesterday that he had received a communication out of Devonshire, in which, amongst other things, great complaint was made of the enormous size of the unions, causing what was equal to a denial of relief to all but those who were able-bodied enough to walk fifteen or twenty miles to wait upon the board of guardians; and this brought him to page sixteen of the report before the House. A compliment was there paid to the commissioners for the "skilful and judicious arrangements which they have made, and for the great discrimination which they had shown in adapting their operations to local peculiarities." But this compliment was not in unison with an opinion given in p. 14, where the report said, "Your committee are of opinion, that it does appear that the size of the medical districts, in many instances, is inconveniently large," while in the 24th page of the report, the House would find a specific recommendation appended to it, to give the Commissioners powers to reconstruct their own unions. This he apprehended would require a statute; so that these able and judicious men had formed a set of unions so inconvenient even to themselves, that they were already applying to Parliament, through this committee, for powers to undo their own work. Why, it appeared to him, that these persons had shown a want of ability in the only part of their duties that required wisdom. To alter the old-established divisions of the country, and form a set of new ones that should be more convenient to the people, was, doubtless, a matter that required judgment and discrimination; but, these persons had shown that it was not possessed by them in this particular at any rate, and therefore, he protested strongly against this part of the report, which paid them a compliment in one page, on the very subject on which, in another page, it condemned them. At the same time, that the report recommended that the commissioners should have the means given to them of reconstructing the unions that they had already formed, it also recommended, that they should have power given to them to dissolve all the Gilbert unions, and to nullify all provisions of local acts all over the country relating to the relief of the poor. He hoped that the Gilbert unions, and those places where
1052
the relief of the poor was now administered under local acts, would watch this subject well. He hoped, that the representatives would be reminded of their duties, and that the country would not be thrown into additional confusion by additional powers being given to those persons who were obliged by their application for a fresh act to confess their incompetency. He (Mr. Fielden) not only hoped that the commissioners would have no further powers given to them, but he hoped that the representatives of the people would come up to Parliament in the next Session, prepared to negative any proposition that might be made to Parliament for continuing the powers they at present had.
Lord Granville Somersetdid not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in stating his own views upon the subject; but when he entered into circumstances of which the committee alone was cognizant, and of which the House as yet knew nothing, lie put it to the Speaker, and to the House, whether the hon. Gentleman was treating either the committee or the subject quite fairly.
The Speakerhad not had the good fortune to collect much of what had fallen from the hon. Member, but the greater part of that which he had heard certainly appeared to him to relate to matters of which the committee was exclusively in possession. The report of the committee was now placed upon the Table. If the hon. Member dissented from any part of it, it would be competent to him to state his objections at length on some future day, after the report had been printed and placed in the hands of the House; but he put it to the hon. Member whether, at the present moment, it was either fair or reasonable to enter into a long discussion on a report of the contents of which the House was not yet in possession.
Mr. P. Scrope, from the more immediate vicinity of his seat to that of the hon. Member had enjoyed the singular advantage of hearing much that had fallen from him, and he begged to assure the House that the hon. Member had gone through the greater part of the report, and had raised an objection to every page of it. Amongst other things the hon. Member had complained of the want of due attention, on the part of the committee, to the evidence adduced before them. Now, of all the members of the committee, the

1053
hon. Member for Oldham was certainly the very last who had a right to complain upon that head, because, throughout the whole of the inquiry, the committee had paid the most watchful and the most anxious attention to every particle of evidence which the hon. Member had it in his power to bring forward. He would not attempt to follow the hon. Member through the voluminous statement into which he had entered. He would leave the report to answer for itself, perfectly satisfied that as a majority of the committee had concurred in it, so also would the majority of the public feel that they were perfectly justified in adopting it.
Report laid on the Table.

TIN DUTIES.
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House went into Committee on the Tin Duties bill.
Lord Granville Somerset, pursuant to notice, moved, that the import duty on foreign tin be reduced to 12 s. per cwt. He conceived that the existing duty of 50 s. per cwt. acted as a complete prohibition upon the importation of foreign tin and it was to remove that prohibition that he was induced to come forward with the present motion. He did not wish the counties of Cornwall and Devon to possess hereafter a complete monopoly of tin; but at the same time he was anxious not to break down their present monopoly so rudely as to introduce at once a flood of foreign tin. It appeared to him, however, that the public had a clear claim to the advantage of reduction in the existing price of tin. He was willing to give the Cornish miner a fair field for exertion: he would release him from the local burdens which pressed upon him; but at the same time he thought that something was owing to the public, and he therefore moved for the reduction of the import duty on foreign tin to 12 s. per cwt.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerconcurred with the noble Lord in thinking that if the duty on foreign tin were such as to give to the Cornish miners a monopoly, they would in fact be putting into the pockets of the miners the amount of the reduction of the duty. Now Ministers proposed to reduce the duty to 15 s., which they thought would accomplish their object in preventing this; and the chairman of the manufacturers' association (Mr. Smith) had concurred in fixing this amount; but the noble Lord was anxious to obtain more
1054
than even what the tin-plate workers wished and the only difference between him and the noble Lord was whether a greater reduction of three shillings should take place; and he thought that his proposal was just as an experiment; but at the same time, if in practice it should be found to throw a monopoly into the hands of the English miners, he would, as he had told the manufacturers, feel himself bound to come again before Parliament to reconsider the subject, and to fix a lower rate of duty, giving, however, all due protection to British interests.
Mr. Hawesthought, that although the miners and the manufacturers might agree in fixing the amount, yet the interests of the public, the consumers ought to be taken care of also; and from the representations made to him, he thought that the duty of 15 s. would, in fact, amount to a prohibition of the foreign tin, and that it would be continuing the protection to the Cornish miner, whilst the ground on which that protection existed, was swept away. If, therefore, the noble Lord went to a division he would certainly vote with him.
Sir C. Lemonsaid, that he had figures before him to prove, that a duty of 15 s. per cwt. would leave a fair chance of having an importation of foreign tin. The duty on these plates in France was cent. per cent., and in Russia it was 200 per cent.; it would be well for the noble Lord to turn his attention to those duties, before he further pressed for the present reduction.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, he had been most anxious for a long time to procure a reduction of duty on tin; but he had been hitherto successfully opposed, because of the local burdens, and the fear of the operation which such a reduction might have upon the mines. But when the time arrived for a reduction of the duty, coupled with a reduction of the dues, he had stated to the miners that if these dues were taken and charged on the consolidated fund there must be such a reduction of duty as would be likely to make up the deficiency to the revenue. His opinion, however, was, that they would be ultimately compelled to make a further reduction of duty; but this was no more an argument for a duty of 12 s. than for a duty of 15 s.; for in the absence of information, which could be ascertained only by the test of actual experience, he could not say what amount of duty it was proper to impose; and when

1055
those who had some information said, that 15 s. would effect the object that he desired, he had no right to make any objection. But he repeated what had been stated by his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), that if the experiment did not answer as fully as Government expected, he would move to reduce the duty still further, with the view of obtaining an importation of tin for the benefit of the trade. He deplored that the duties in foreign countries were so high, but he was not a Minister there, and he was of opinion, that if we made our own produce as cheap as possible, we need not fear of obtaining a fair share of trade. The hon. Member behind him had said, that the interest of the consumers had been overlooked, but he could see no difference in this instance between the interests of the tin-plate worker and the consumer; he knew this was not the case with the manufacturers in general, but he could see no sinister interest on the part of the manufacturers, and he was, therefore, willing to take their opinion as to the proper amount of the first reduction.
Lord Eliotsaid, that this was a question of itself, and ought not to be disposed of on the principles of a free trade, but on a due consideration of the peculiar nature of the mines, and the necessity of constantly working them. He did not know whether it would be better to fix the duty at 12 s. or 15 s., but, as an experiment, he would at first support the smaller sum, and if that amount were found insufficient, the President of the Board of Trade might move to increase it.
Mr. Aglionbywas surprised at the attempt to legislate without that information which might have been obtained, and, for himself, he could not see why the amount of duty should not be reduced to 12 s., or even 6s., and he would, therefore, support the smaller duty, on the same principle, that he advocated a repeal of the corn laws.
Sir Hussey Viviancontended, that it was the duty of Parliament to look to the interests of the workmen of this country; and that by adopting a low rate of duty, many persons in Cornwall would necessarily be thrown out of employment. He, therefore, called upon the House to adopt the proposition of the Government, and to negative the amendment of the noble Lord opposite.
Lord G. Somersetfelt he should best
1056
consult the interests of those whom he represented and of the public by withdrawing his present proposition, and he considered, that he should by that means secure the object that he had in view—that of bringing into the market the competition of foreign tin, and of preventing the continuance of that monopoly which had existed for so many years on the part of the home producer. He begged to give notice, however, that should not this be the result he would bring the matter under the consideration of the House in the course of the next Session.
Amendment negatived. Bill went through the Committee, and the House resumed.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, from Weymouth, Lewes, and other places, by the Duke of RICHMOND, from the Wesleyan Methodists of Edinburgh, Dalkeith, and Duke-street Chapel, Leeds, and by the Earl of CARLISLE, from Whitby, Newark-on-Trent, and other places, against the Encouragement of Idolatrous Ceremonies in India.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from the Guardians of a Union in the county of Buckingham, in favour of the Poor-law Amendment Act.

THE EARL OF DURHAM'S ORDINANCES.
Lord Broughamsaid, that having looked over the papers relative to Canadian Affairs, which had been laid on the Table, he must reiterate what he had before asserted, that the ordinances issued by the Earl of Durham were wholly illegal. He had on a former occasion declared, that to be his opinion, and he was now perfectly convinced, that his opinion was a correct one. It was quite clear, that though the power given to Lord Durham was very great, yet, that no power had been bestowed on him by act of Parlia-
1020
ment to inflict pains and penalties on individuals who had not previously been brought to trial. The noble Earl was empowered to issue ordinances for the good government of the province—to make general laws for the good government and welfare of the colony; but, from the beginning to the end of the bill by which he was intrusted with this power, there was a grand exception—which exception tied up the Governor of Canada from altering any act of the British Parliament. Now, in the very outset he found, that one of the recently-issued ordinances contravened the provisions of the 7th of William 3rd, "for the trial of all treasonable offences." if Lord Durham had a right to dispense with that act—if he had a right under the powers which had been granted to him, to condemn in every case as traitors, men against whom no witness had been examined, into whose alleged offence no inquiry had been made—if he could do this, setting at nought all those prudent and salutary safeguards which the law had provided for accused parties, then there was nothing to prevent him from interfering with any other law or enactment of the Parliament of England. It might be alleged, that the parties thus proclaimed had absconded. But what was the course adopted by Parliament in the rebellion of 1715? What was the course pursued by Parliament with respect to the parties connected with the projected assassination of King William? The accused persons were absent, and Parliament passed a bill of attainder against them. But witnesses were examined to convict them, a solemn inquiry took place, and all the difference between that and a regular trial was, that they were convicted before Parliament, and not before the ordinary court. If the Governor of Canada in Council was intrusted with the power to make laws, they ought to be drawn up in a manner as precise, clear, definite, and intelligible, as if they were the work of the Legislature itself. But let their Lordships mark the whole course of this marvellous proceeding. Lord Durham's ordinance did not begin, as in the case of a bill of attainder, by declaring, "that A, B, and C, had been guilty of high treason;" but without any such allegation, it directed, that such and such persons should be carried to Bermuda, and if they left their place of banishment, then they should be consi-

1021
dered guilty of high treason. This was prospective high treason—high treason, not for any act committed in Canada, but simply for leaving Bermuda. Such a proceeding was opposed to the statute of the 25th of Edward 3rd, which defined what should be considered as high treason, and limited the offence to very few cases indeed. Again, there was another part of the ordinance which called for especial notice. Twelve or fourteen persons were named as the murderers of lieutenant Weir, and it was expressly stated in this official document that nothing contained in any proclamation of her Majesty should be held to extend to the cases of those persons. So, that if her Majesty issued a proclamation of pardon (which she had a right to do, unless the Governor of Canada was viceroy over her Majesty and could control her)—if she issued such a proclamation (which might be, for aught he knew, the most wise and salutary course), yet was it declared by the ordinance, that nothing contained in any proclamation issued by her Majesty should extend to this particular offence. All this was done, he supposed, under colour of the coercion act. But what right did the coercion act give to adopt such proceedings as these. The coercion act did not extend to Bermuda. But the Governor of Canada assumed the power of transporting to Bermuda, and of visiting with the penalty of treason those who escaped from their place of banishment. Lord Durham he knew was not a lawyer, neither was Sir C. Paget, who was, no doubt, a very meritorious officer, and, therefore, they ought to have been cautious in the framing and promulgating of ordinances. But Lord Durham said, "Under all the circumstances, I determined on sending those persons to Bermuda" ("which," his Lordship might have added "I had no power to do"), "where they could be placed under a strict and severe surveillance." Now, he would advise the Governor of Bermuda not to attempt to place any of these people under a strict and severe surveillance; for if he did, he would render himself liable to an action for false imprisonment. The Governor-general might just as well have passed a law for the exercise of this system of surveillance towards those parties in the county of Middlesex, or the city of Westminster. The penalty, be it observed, was not confined to the appearance of these people in
1022
Canada, if they escaped from Bermuda; it was to attach to them if they were found at large anywhere. Even if they came to London they were held to be liable to punishment. He contended, that no state necessity could be shown for such an ordinance. It was a mere wanton display of power. It was melancholy to think, that the monstrous powers granted to the Governor of Canada should be used in such a manner. But what he had stated, sufficiently proved the recklessness of the way in which the noble Lord and his Council had exercised them. It was not possible, when such extensive powers were granted, to use them with too much care, and caution, and circumspection. But these ordinances manifested in the noble Earl no feeling of that description. It was no fault of his, that he felt it necessary to call their Lordships' attention to these matters. They were told, when it was proposed to grant extraordidinary powers to the Governor-general of Canada, and when the danger of granting such extraordinary powers was pointed out and insisted on, that no mischief could result from such a measure, because all the proceedings of the Governor-general would be subjected to the observation and superintendence of Parliament. That such observation, scrutiny, and superintendence were most necessary, and were most clearly called for was now perfectly apparent. He should say nothing of twenty-four sentences having been passed on individuals contrary to a regulation of council in one day, but he must advert to the appalling fact of fourteen persons, and M. Papineau, making fifteen, being adjudged to suffer death, if they appeared in Canada, not one of those individuals having been previously tried. Such a proceeding was contrary to every principle of justice, and was opposed to the genius and spirit of English law, which humanely supposed every accused party to be innocent until he was proved to be guilty.
Lord Glenelgsaid, that with respect to the first ordinance to which the noble and learned Lord had alluded, and which had reference to transportation to Bermuda, if, as the noble and learned Lord asserted, it was illegal, it could not be of any avail. In looking at the whole of this question, the object for the House to consider was, the purpose for which this enlarged power was granted to the Earl of Durham, and

1023
the effect which had been produced by the mode in which it had been exercised. That purpose unquestionably was to secure the peace and tranquillity of Canada, and to effect that object, regulations had been passed to prevent the return of certain persons to Canada, unless they gave security for their future good conduct. There was nothing in this incompatible with the object to effect which Lord Durham went out to Canada. His Lordship went out for the pacification of that colony, and for the purpose of closing as soon as possible those scenes of distress, of strife, and of contention, which had been so long exhibited there. It was for that purpose that Lord Durham proceeded to Canada; and if he had issued ordinances which tended to effect that purpose, he deserved praise, and not censure. He repeated, that the great point to be considered was, the object to effect which Lord Durham was armed with those powers; and he would confidently assert, that in Canada, public opinion was decidedly in favour of the course which Lord Durham had adopted. That noble Lord had to consider the situation of the prisoners in Lower Canada, men who were guilty, or were supposed to be guilty, of very high crimes. It was a very delicate and difficult task for his Lordship. He had to decide whether the parties should be visited with the extremity of a severe law, or be treated with clemency and forbearance. He chose the latter course, and gave to those who pleaded guilty a sentence as lenient as the circumstances warranted. This, he had reason to know, from persons who came from that country, had afforded the utmost satisfaction to all parties. The difficulty of the situation in which Lord Durham was placed must be obvious to every person who considered the state of Canada. On one side parties were calling for severe measures—were demanding extreme punishment against the offenders, while, on the other, many individuals were anxious for an entire amnesty. Lord Durham adopted a middle course, and when his decision was announced, it gave general satisfaction throughout the colony. With respect to those persons who had absconded from the province, whatever might be alleged on that point, there was no doubt on his mind that acting on the principle of prudence, the course which had been taken was the wisest and the best. He thought that the course adopted by Lord Durham
1024
was calculated to restore and to secure the peace and tranquillity of Canada. As to the second ordinance to which the noble and learned Lord had adverted, as contrary to the law of England, he supposed that every minute municipal regulation was not expected to be strictly and to the letter in accordance with that law, especially when such a state of things prevailed as that which Lord Durham had to encounter. He believed, that the proceedings taken by Lord Durham were approved of by every reasonable, unbiassed, and dispassionate man in the colony; and he could not agree with the noble and learned Lord, great as his authority might be, when he declared that those proceedings were illegal.
Lord Broughamsaid, that all which the Earl of Durham wished to do he might have effected without breaking the law. If Lord Durham had said to parties accused or suspected, "I won't bring you to trial if you conduct yourselves properly," then he would have done legally for the peace and tranquillity of the colony, all which he was said to have done, but which he had done illegally. Lord Durham did not declare these to be traitors, but he said, "I shall send you to Bermuda, and if you leave that island, you shall be adjudged guilty of high treason? But how could his lordship declare them guilty of high treason? What legal or justifiable right could he plead for doing so, when they never had been arraigned, when they never had been tried, when they never had been found guilty of that offence? Such a proceeding was never known even in the worst times of this country. Even then individuals were served with notice; they were informed of what they were accused; but the people designated in Lord Durham's ordinance were to be declared guilty of high treason, not for what they did in Canada—no, no, but for coming from Bermuda, where the Governor-general had no right to send them, and appearing in Canada. The noble Lord (Glenelg) asked, "Was it to be supposed, that Lord Durham and his council were not to have all the powers of the Legislature of Canada?" He denied, that Lord Durham had any such power. At all events he was clearly forbidden to alter any statute of the Parliament of England. If it were said, that the words of the Act enabled the noble Earl so to proceed, he must regard such an assertion as a mere

1025
quibble. Was he to be told, because the words of the Act were so wide and comprehensive with respect to the power of issuing ordinances "for the peace, welfare, and good government of the province," that therefore Lord Durham was authorised to proceed as he had done? Would any man say, that this provision gave Lord Durham the right to hang individuals, or to visit them with pains and penalties, they not having been brought to trial? He should like to have the opinion of the learned judges as to the construction that was to be placed on this Act. If one of them, even one of them, was of opinion that Lord Durham's construction was a correct one, he should be exceedingly surprised. He was quite confident, that their Lordships never intended to grant any such power. They had, however, to deal not with what their Lordships intended to do, but with what they actually did, by this act. And, if any one of the judges who were in the habit of construing acts of Parliament, declared that the Act in question authorised the steps taken by the Governor-general of Canada, then he would at once acknowledge that he was wrong, and would, of course, give up his argument. He had consulted some of the best lawyers in Westminster-hall on this point, and they did not express the shadow of a doubt on the subject. If the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack declared, after the exception which he had pointed out, that these proceedings were legal, he would be ready to reconsider his opinion. But he must say, that he would not be ready on the authority of a Minister of the Crown, speaking under the pressure of debate, or on the authority of an equity lawyer, whose attention had not been turned to the consideration of questions of this nature, to forego or give up his deliberately-formed opinion. What did the Act say, with respect to the laws which Lord Durham and his council were empowered to make? It expressly set forth, "Nor shall it be lawful by any such law or ordinance to repeal, suspend, or alter, any provision of any act of the Parliament of England." Now, though the Earl of Durham and his council could not repeal the Act of Edward the 3rd, or the Act of William the 1st, yet they seemed to think, that they might arrive at the same end by a different road—namely, by making in each particular man's case a law contrary to those statutes.
1026
Was that consistent with the principles of English law? If her Majesty's Ministers supposed so, he wished them joy of their legal knowledge. Lord Durham was not, he knew, a professional man; but he had a council, and he did complain that that council should have sanctioned those ordinances. Lord Durham had appointed a Special Council: the Secretary to the Government was a lawyer; he was the legal adviser of the Special Council; and he blamed that Council, who might have availed themselves of legal assistance, more than he did the Earl of Durham, for the promulgation of those ordinances. He knew perfectly well, that Lord Durham was in a very peculiar situation; and he felt for the difficulties in which the noble Earl was placed, as much as the noble Lord. But other and greater considerations impelled him to bring this subject under the consideration of their Lordships. He was anxious for the best interests of that colony; he was anxious for the credit of the government of that colony; he was anxious for the peace and tranquillity of that colony; and he would say, that if any man were to rack his brain for the purpose of discontenting, and not contenting, a colony, for the purpose of undoing all which Lord Durham had been commissioned to do, he could not have hit upon a more effectual scheme, or a more certain plan for accomplishing that purpose, and for prostrating all those hopes and expectations which had been held out of tranquillizing Canada, than by making and publishing those most obnoxious ordinances which bore the impress of ignorance, of haste, of a total neglect of what was lawful, and of an anxious disposition to do that, for the doing of which not one particle of law, or of justice, or of equity, could be pleaded.
Viscount Melbourneadmitted, that the power to be exercised by the Earl of Durham, in conjunction with his council, that council to be appointed by him, was of an extraordinary and most extensive nature. But their Lordships would consider, in examining this subject, that the circumstances which called for that power, and under which it was granted, were also of a very extraordinary character. He asked them, to consider the situation and circumstances of the colony; he called upon them to reflect on the difficulties with which Lord Durham had to contend, and to recollect what he had stated on a for-

1027
mer occasion, that, being on the spot, his noble Friend must be much better acquainted with the whole of the circumstances, and more aware of the measures which it might be necessary or expedient to adopt, than any of their Lordships could be expected to be. He must say, it was not convenient; it was not expedient; it was not fair; it was not just—he did not mean to Lord Durham—it was not just to themselves; it was not fair to the steps they had already taken—it was not just to the interests of this great empire, to consider these measures in such a manner as to suffer themselves to be too much struck by any anomaly which might appear on the face of them, or by any disparity which might exist between the practice in Canada and in this country in a settled state of society, in times of perfect tranquillity, without peril and without danger. If they considered, that those powers had been imprudently, unjustly, and improperly exercised—if they thought they had been exercised in such a manner as to hazard the interests of this country in that part of the world, it would, unquestionably, be wiser for their Lordships to interfere decisively, in order to prevent such a course being persevered in. He did not understand the noble and learned Lord to propose that mode of proceeding; but if their Lordships did not see ground for interfering in that manner, then, he said, there was but one other course—to exercise some confidence, to place some reliance, instead of constantly interrupting proceedings by perpetual comments on them, weakening their own authority and the authority of Government, by condemnations which they did not mean to follow up. All Governments, it was most true, had their faults and their errors, their ingenita vitia; and in consequence of party strife, in consequence of political attacks one upon another, in consequence of personal dislikes and animosities, the enemies of the country, whether foreign or domestic, always found their greatest assistance and encouragement in the bosom of the legislative assemblies of the country. That had always been the case; and certainly it was a very great misfortune. The noble and learned Lord who sat on his right hand, was always twitting and reproaching him for his ignorance of the law; he would not, therefore, venture to say anything on the law of the case upon the present occasion. Indeed, it
1028
was perfectly useless that he should do so; because, undoubtedly, his opinion could carry with their Lordships no authority or weight whatsoever. But he begged leave to assure their Lordships, that with the exception of that part of the ordinances which related to the island of Bermuda, where there was an evident mistake in the Governor-general and council, erroneously supposing that their power extended beyond the given bounds of their own jurisdiction, he believed the whole of the remainder of the ordinances were perfectly legal, and warranted by the powers which Parliament had committed to Lord Durham.
Lord Ellenboroughwas glad it had been admitted by the noble Viscount, that part of the ordinances relating to the transportation of the eight persons to the island of Bermuda was altogether unlawful; it appeared however to him that the latter part of those ordinances, with respect to those persons who were to be punished on their return to Canada, was also contrary to act of Parliament, contrary to the law of England, contrary to the 7th of William III., to the 14th of George III., and to the provisions of the act passed at the commencement of the present session. It was quite true that very great powers were delegated by that act to the Governor General in conjunction with his council, and it was likewise quite true that they could not in all cases judge of the expediency of the measures which the Governor-general in council might adopt; but the objection taken by his noble and learned Friend, in which he altogether concurred was not merely that those acts were inexpedient, unjust, and calculated to do a great deal of harm instead of good, but that they were unlawful. This objection was by far the most important; because, whatever popularity a measure might enjoy at any particular moment in that or in any country, if in itself unlawful, it must ultimately produce resistance on the part of the people. He felt perfectly confident, if it were the desire, as it must be, of Lord Durham and his council to govern Canada with advantage, they would act within the Parliamentary provisions under which they derived their powers in the most constitutional manner. The further they departed from the true principles of the constitution the more the danger was increased. He was confident that in this instance, as in any other, it would be ap-

1029
parent that the smallest deviation from constitutional principles on the part of a constitutional Government was fraught with danger. Governments having another origin might venture on courses consistent with despotism, but a constitutional government never could do so without injury to its subjects and great danger to itself. With this conviction he had joined his noble and learned Friend in pressing on their Lordships' attention what had recently been done in Canada; he should continue to do so, because he was convinced it was their duty to supply by their Parliamentary vigilance, as far as they could, the want of that constitutional government which they had been induced to take away. The more their observations and arguments led the Government of Canada to take that course which was most consistent with the constitutional principles of this country, from which it derived its origin, the more would they in fact, be contributing to the benefit of England and the tranquillity of Canada. And he really hoped he did not understand the noble Baron at the head of the Colonial Department in one argument he put forth, as if he were disposed to justify measures admitted to be in some material points contrary to law, on the ground of their expediency and necessity under the circumstances, in which Canada was placed. That was the argument which justified all tyranny—an argument which had been repudiated at all times in this country, and which he trusted there was spirit enough left still to repudiate, notwithstanding the grave and solemn tone of the remonstrances uttered by the noble Viscount at the head of the Administration, deprecating all observation of his government in Canada, because that observation could not be made without the greatest injury to a Government which had violated the constitutional principles on which it should have acted.
Lord Brougham—I have been told by the noble Viscount that lawyers have been found to say that these acts are legal; I beg therefore to give notice that I shall, when this House next meets, move for a copy of their opinion; and I now move for the date at which Sir Charles Paget first attended the Council, inasmuch as he was not on the spot when it was formed and it may turn out that only four instead of five were present when those ordinances were passed. I never till this night heard,
1030
and I did expect that in this ouse, the highest court of justice in the kingdom, in this Parliament, the temple of English liberty, I never should have heard the ears of your Lordships outraged and insulted by the principles which the noble Viscount has promulgated—that the more extreme the powers are which you have felt it necessary and deemed it your duty to confide to a governor, the more extravagant the authority which your coercion bills have reposed in his hands, the less watchful it becomes you, the senate of England, to be, how he exercises those extraordinary powers; that if an ordinary privilege is conferred on him, if an everyday authority is communicated to him—if he goes out with the law of England, common and statute, to administer by the powers known to that law—then, indeed, you may scrutinize—then you may watch, and if he should overstep the ordinary restricted limits of that common authority, then it is the duty and the province of Parliament to interpose; but that when you arm him with dictatorial power—when you say all law shall be silent except that which you enable him to make—when you tell him he shall have legislative powers with a very slight restriction and within the amplest conceivable limits (but still not without some restriction, not without some limits, as the very act under which he derives his authority plainly attests)—the more extreme the powers, the more extravagant the privileges with which you arm him, the more it becomes you to shut your eyes and fold your arms, and sit quiescent, while he exceeds those excessive powers. I should humbly have thought, the more power was given the more vigilance was required as to the manner in which it is exercised; and I have always hitherto been taught to believe, that the larger the powers conferred on any officer, the less excuse has he for taking more than is given him, and exceeding the ample authority already placed in his hands. Then came another general observation on the evils of a popular government, from the head, too, of a liberal Administration, from the representative of Whig principles in this country. A popular government, like all others, has its evils; who denies it? But I was not prepared to expect, that that should be set down among the mischiefs which I reckon the greatest duty, the highest benefit, the

1031
most ample advantage, the consummate glory of a popular constitution—namely, that it abhors arbitrary power, that it courts publicity and investigation, that it challenges inquiry, that it defies opposition, that it stands on its own merits, and above all, never seeks to skulk in the recesses of arbitrary power, to escape from scrutiny—above all, to overrule the principles of justice and of known law, by planting in the place of known defined law, that wretched substitute which consists in law vague and unknown; and if anything yet more alien to the principles of a free constitution can be imagined, it is, that expediency should be pleaded as an extenuation for what cannot be defended, namely, illegal acts, and above all, that the expediency should be most pressed upon us, the ampler, the more extravagant the powers with which the wrongdoers were, for the time, invested. The noble and learned Lord then alluded to the charge which had been brought against him of being actuated in his references to this subject by personal animosity and a factious spirit. He had resisted the passing of the late Act from the very first; he had solemnly protested against its being made law; and to show, that he had no personal feelings of vindictiveness to gratify by attacking the conduct of Lord Durham in his absence, he had, on the contrary, stood forward on a previous occasion, to defend him, even when deserted by the noble Viscount in the case of the appointment of Mr. Turton. Under these circumstances, he defied all the charges which might be levelled at him, that he had allowed party feeling or personal influences to guide his conduct with respect to this question. He deemed it a question of high interest, of vast importance to the peace of Canada, to the credit of the law, to the credit of that House, to the credit of the Government itself. The noble Viscount justly assumed, that he did not mean to move an address for the recall of the Governor, and to stop his administration in the outset, which might give rise to very great evils, of which he would not undertake the responsibility; there was a great difference between that and saying, they must shut their eyes and fold their arms, and do nothing. He was neither prepared to remove Lord Durham, nor to create him absolute in Canada, to put him above all law, and allow him to supersede the very authority which sent
1032
him there. So far from being against Lord Durham, so far from being hurtful to him, these discussions, which the noble Viscount said, had been prematurely, but he maintained necessarily, indispensably, unavoidably entered upon, by calling his attention to the fact of his not having vested in him absolute discretionary powers, would be the best thing, the most wholesome thing, the safest thing, which could be desired for Lord Durham himself.
The Duke of Wellingtonbelieved, that there was no question before the House at present. The noble and learned Lord had given notice of a motion for tomorrow.
Lord Brougham: I have moved for the date of Sir Charles Paget's attendance at the council.
The Duke of Wellingtoncertainly could not but agree with the noble and learned Lord, that those parts of the ordinance which the noble Viscount himself admitted to be illegal, were fit subjects for inquiry in that and in the other House of Parliament, and not only fit subjects for inquiry, but it was absolutely necessary, that Parliament should inquire into them, and apply a remedy. It was impossible to say what the consequences might be. He must say, that until he entered that House that evening, and had received from his noble Friend near him (Lord Ellenborough) a paper which he held in his hand, he was not aware, that the noble Earl, the Governor of Canada, had stated in his dispatch, that he had adopted transportation to Bermuda, because he did not think it right to transport them to a convict colony. It appeared to him, that the noble Earl was not at all aware of what he was doing. It really appeared to him, that some steps ought to be taken in this country to set the Government there right upon transactions which appeared to be totally and entirely illegal. He agreed with the noble Viscount, that it was not right to come there night after night, to attack the Earl of Durham; but when there was a case of this description, in which the conduct of the Government in Canada was positively illegal, it was absolutely necessary that this House and the other House of Parliament should take the subject up, with a view of adopting some means to set the Government there right upon this subject, and to apply a remedy. He saw it stated by his Excellency, in a paper laid on their Lordships' table, that the measures which ho had taken had met

1033
with the entire approbation of Sir John Colborne, and the leaders of what was called the British party in Canada. Now, he thought it extremely improper, that a person to whom the public were so much indebted for the state of things as they were found in that country by the Governor-general should be charged, in connection with the leaders of a party, with approving of the measures taken by his Excellency. Sir J. Colborne had filled a high situation in that country with credit to himself, and advantage to his Sovereign, and his name ought not to be dragged in on such an occasion, in the way in which it had been used. He hoped and trusted, that the noble and learned Lord would bring forward this question, with a view to apply a remedy, as that was the object for which they ought to look; and when once that was done, there would be no necessity for attacking the Earl of Durham day after day, and these discussions would be at an end.
Lord Glenelgsaid, that with regard to the noble Duke's observation about Sir J. Colborne, he must say, that he had not the slightest conception that it was intended, in what the noble Duke had read, that they should apply to Sir J. Colborne as connected with the leaders of the British party. He had never understood it so, and until the noble Duke had suggested the idea, he had never heard any allusion of the kind, nor did he conceive it possible that it could be so understood. What he understood was this, that the measures of his Excellency had been approved of by Sir J. Colborne, and also by the leaders of what was called the British party, and he firmly believed, that that was the sole intention of his Excellency. He conceived it impossible to imagine that these expressions could be taken as connecting Sir J. Colborne, with the leaders of the British party, because it was well known, that Sir J. Colborne kept aloof from all parties. His loyalty and attachment to this country were well known both in Upper and Lower Canada, where, in the most critical and difficult circumstances, when party spirit raged on both sides—the one party calling itself the liberal party and the anti-British party, the other the British party—in the midst of their struggles he said, distinctly, that Sir J. Colborne, standing at the head of the Government, kept aloof from all interference, or even the suspicion of taking a party view of these transactions.
1034
This was only a tribute that was due to that excellent and gallant Officer; it was a tribute from his own strong feelings, so strong, that he never could have consented to produce the paper in question if it could have been considered as connecting Sir J. Colborne with any party of whatever description; and he was persuaded further, that the noble Earl who wrote the letter had never had any such intention when he expressed himself in those terms. It was contrary to the whole course of his correspondence which related to Sir J. Colborne; it was contrary to the impression uniformly conveyed of his feelings in that respect, as it was contrary to the real character and conduct of Sir J. Colborne himself.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that it was not his intention to enter into the discussion of the legality or illegality of the conduct of the Earl of Durham upon this occasion, inasmuch as his noble and learned Friend had given notice of a motion, when the whole subject would be submitted to the consideration of their Lordships. But he rose for the purpose of impressing upon their Lordships the absolute necessity of coming to a decision, and a speedy decision, upon the legality of this matter. This ordinance might have been acted upon. It might have been already acted upon. A party might have been found at large, he might have been seized, brought within the jurisdiction of the courts in Canada, already tried, and he might already have suffered punishment. It, therefore, became necessary for them, without delay, to come to a distinct and precise understanding upon the legality or illegality of this measure, and to guard against the consequences of mistake. He, therefore, trusted, that his noble and learned. Friend would bring forward his motion at the earliest possible period at which the subject could be submitted to the consideration of their Lordships, in order that they might have an opportunity of pronouncing, not merely with respect to the legality or illegality of that part of the ordinance to which the noble Baron (Lord Glenelg) had referred, and the illegality of which had been admitted, but also with respect to the point to which the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne) had referred, and which he stated distinctly, that he considered to be legal upon the highest legal authority in this country. He would impress upon their Lordships,

1035
therefore, without delay, to take this subject into consideration, to guard against the mischievous consequences that might result from these ordinances being acted upon, and afterwards pronounced illegal.
Lord Broughamsaid, he would take the earliest possible opportunity to bring this subject before the House. There was another reason why it was impossible but that some step should be taken, as this act gave judicial power of punishment without trial—of passing, privilegio, private and personal laws, acts of attainder, and bills of pains and penalties, as well as mere rules and regulations. If this had been stated at the time the bill was before their lordships, they would have said, that they never meant to do such a thing, and would not give any such power. His opinion was, that the act did not give that power. That was also the opinion of those whom he had consulted of higher authority and weight in Westminster-hall. He thought that the best course would be to introduce a declaratory act, which he would do on the earliest convenient day, to explain, define, and limit the power. He would now move for a return of the date at which Sir Charles Paget, Colonel Cooper, and Sir James Macdonnell first attended the council of his Excellency, the Governor-general of Canada; also which of the councillors were present on the 28th of July, when the ordinance was made.
Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Viscount Melbournemoved the Order of the Day for the House taking into consideration the amendments made by the House of Commons in this bill, and their reasons for dissenting from their Lordships' amendments. When these amendments were last under the consideration of their Lordships, he took the liberty of stating, that some of these amendments would probably not be concurred in elsewhere, and of expressing a hope, that any alteration which he introduced into them would be received by their Lordships in a spirit of candour and fairness, and that some of them, at least, they would be disposed to admit. It was not his intention to go into a general statement of the amendments. The most convenient plan would be to consider them as they arose, and he should
1036
therefore move them in the order in which they stood.
Amendments to be read.
Viscount Melbourne, in moving, that their Lordships agree to the proviso, added by the Commons to Clause B, for the purpose of enabling the lord lieutenant to alter the boundaries of any borough which he thought might require alteration, observed, that their Lordships had ingrafted upon the bill the whole of the provisions which related to boundaries. He thought, it was trying the patience of the Commons pretty well, to send them down the bill with an entire new bill added in the middle of it.
Lord Lyndhurstthought, that it was much more convenient to define the boundaries in the present bill, than leave it to be done by a separate enactment. Now, what was the course which their Lordships pursued in defining the boundaries in the present bill? They took the report of the Government Commissioners—a report sanctioned by the Government itself, and upon which a noble Lord, a Member of the Government, founded the bill, which he introduced in the other House. That bill was not carried through, so they took as boundaries the lines pointed out by the Commissioners. Could any thing be more fair and reasonable? The noble Viscount opposite suggested, that, contrary to what they did in the English Municipal Bill, and also in the Scotch, they should leave the defining of the boundaries to the advice and discretion of the Privy Council. It was impossible, that their Lordships could accede to such a proposition. The amendment, gave the Lord-lieutenant the power, not only to alter the boundaries, but also to make a new distribution of the wards. The Lord-lieutenant would not exercise the power himself, but it would be handed over to Mr. Secretary Drummond, and Mr. O'Connell, who would, of course, alter the boundaries, and make a distribution of the wards according to their own views. He therefore suggested to their Lordships the utter impossibility of agreeing to such an alteration.
Lord Plunkettwas unable to comprehend how the noble Lord could say, that the Privy Council of Ireland was under the direction and control of Mr. O'Connell. They were the sworn officers of the Crown, and did he, or did any one suppose, that they would sacrifice their

1037
sworn duties? Was it fair to say, that they could not be intrusted with the performance of the duties which this bill gave to them?
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that the persons who were to settle the boundaries under the act, would be appointed by the Government. That would, therefore, become a matter of patronage, and from past experience, he should say, would probably be under the direction of the gentleman, whose name had just been mentioned. That of which he thought just complaint could be made, was, that the bill had been introduced without the preliminary steps having been taken which were necessary to the preparation of such a measure. He thought it would be much better to have a new bill in the next Session for settling the boundaries, than agree to such an amendment as that which was then sent to them from the Commons.
The Duke of Richmondregretted to hear such frequent mention of the name of Mr. O'Connell, for it had the effect of making that gentleman appear of much greater importance than he really was. He thought, on the whole, that it would be much better to postpone the measure till the next Session of Parliament.
Motion negatived, and the Commons amendment disallowed.
Viscount Melbournemoved, that the next amendment of the Commons be agreed to, that which fixed the qualification at 8l. He would not trouble their Lordships with any remarks upon the subject, for they must all be already aware of the arguments on both sides of the question. He hoped, that they would not persevere in the absurdity of seeking to establish the larger qualification in the poorer country.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he still adhered to his former opinion—indeed, he thought, that instead of 5l., the qualification should simply be, as in England, a household qualification.
The Earl of Wicklowunderstood the amendment to be an 8l. qualification with a rate, and he was pleased to find, that the other House had acted in so conciliatory a spirit. It was his opinion, that their Lordships ought to meet the Commons in the same spirit, and agree at once to the amendment.
Lord Ellenboroughconsidered, that the mode in which the Commons effected the change, was objectionable, and he would
1038
rather take the original proposition, than the amendment now before them.
Their Lordships divided.—Content 67; Not Content 144: Majority 77.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Lismore.

Richmond

LORDS.

Argyll

Holland

Norfolk

Plunkett

Leinster

Glenelg

Sutherland

Hatherton

Leeds.

Dacre

MARQUESSES.

Sudely

Lansdowne

Seaford

Conyngham

Saye and Sele

Clanricarde

Langdale

Headfort.

Cottenham

EARLS.

Dinorben

Ilchester

Howden

Albemarle

Lilford

Gosford

Barham

Effingham

Mostyn

Uxbridge

Vaux

Wicklow.

Strafford.

VISCOUNTS.

BISHOPS.

Melbourne

Derry

Falkland

Hereford.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKE.

VISCOUNTS.

Wellington.

Canning

MARQUESSES.

Canterbury

Abercorn

Exmouth

Aylesbury

Gage

Downshire

Hawarden

Exeter

Hood

Ormonde

St. Vincent

Salisbury.

Strangford.

EARLS.

BISHOPS.

Abingdon

Oxford

Bandon

St. Davids

Bathurst

LORDS.

Brecknock

Alvanley

Clancarty

Ashburton

Clanwilliam

Rayning

De Grey

Bexley

Delawarr

Calthorpe

Devon

Carberry

Digby

Colchester

Eldon

Colville

Falmouth

Delisle

Haddington

Dunsany

Jersey.

Ellenborough

EARLS.

Forester

Limerick

Lyndhurst

Mansfield

Montagu

Munster

Rayleigh

Poulett

Reay

Ripon

Redesdale

Roden

Sandys

Rosslyn

Sondes

Shaftesbury

Southampton

Tankerville

Stuart de Rothsay

Verulam.

Tenterden

Wharncliffe

1039

Proxies.

DUKES.

Winchilsea.

Montrose

VISCOUNTS.

Northumberland.

Combermere

MARQUESSES.

Doneraile

Bute

Ferrard

Camden

Lorton

Hertford

Sidwouth

Huntley

Strathallan

Waterford

Sydney

Westmeath.

BISHOPS.

EARLS.

Bangor

Airlie

Gloucester

Balcarres

LORDS.

Bradford

Abinger

Caledon

Arden

Cardigan

Bagot

Donoughmore

Boston

Dunmore

Carrington

Elgin

Carteret

Guilford

Churchill

Hardwicke

Clinton

Harrington

Delamere

Horne

De Saumarez

Hopetoun

De Tabley

Home

Douglas

Leven

Downes

Lucan

Feversham

Macclesfield

Forbes

Malmesbury

Gifford

Maye.

Glenlyon

EARLS.

Grantley

Morton

Harris

Mount Edgcumbe

Manners

Onslow

Maryborough

Plymouth

Monson

Powis

Rivers

St. Germans

Rodney

Sandwich

St. Helens

Selkirk

Wallace

Somers

Walsingham

Stamford

Willoughby de Broke

Waldegrave

Wodehouse

Warwick

Wynford.

Westmoreland

Paired off.

NOT CONTENT.

CONTENT.

Bp. of Carlisle

Bp. of Durham

Aberdeen

Camperdown

Beauchamp

Sligo

Beresford

Bateman

Braybrooke

Denman

Brownlow

Burlington

Buccleuch

Meath

Carnarvon

Petre

Charleville

Fingall

Clare

Poltimore

Clonbrock

Montfort

Courtown

Devonshire

Cowley

Carlisle

Dynevor

Ducie

Eglintoun

Belhaven

Fitzgerald

Brougham

Galloway

Breadalbane

Harewood

Stourton

1040

Hereford

Crewe

Kenyon

Erroll

Kintore

Dalhousie

Liverpool

Methuen

Londonderry

Carew

Lothian

Roxburghe

Melville

Shrewsbury

Moray

Byron

Mount Cashell

Bp. Ripon

Orford

Lichfield

Orkney

Portman

Ravensworth

Wrottesley

Rolle

Suffield

Rutland

Anglesey

Saltoun

Segrave

Sheffield

Lovat

Sinclair

Besborough

Skelmersdale

Hamilton

Talbot

Leitrim

Thomond

Thanet

Tweeddale

Gardner

Wilton

Charlemont

Commons amendment rejected.
On the Clause relating to the administration of charity trusts.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that they should insist on their amendment.
The Marquess of Lansdowneinquired, whether it were the wish of noble Lords opposite, to confer the administration of these charities upon the present corporators for ever?
Lord Ellenboroughdenied, that such was their wish or their intention, but he did think, that until Parliament should otherwise provide, it would be better to leave them in the hands of those to whose direction it was the intention of the donors that they should be intrusted, than that they should be placed in the hands of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Plunkett), who must be totally unacquainted with persons, and local interests, and must necessarily be surrounded by persons who had political and personal partialities to gratify, and who would negociate for the appointment of their friends to these offices. He certainly thought, that perverting charities to political purposes, was little less than sacrilege. There was no principle in which he would concur more readily than that; but till Parliament could devise a better system of charity administration, he thought that it would, upon the whole, be better to leave these trusts in the hands of the present corporators.
The Lord Chancellorquite agreed in the doctrine laid down by the noble Baron, but he doubted, whether he was proceeding in a way to effect his object, The

1041
charity trusts would not vest in the corporation, in whom the donors intended that they should be vested, but in the excorporators, mere individual persons, in whom it was never intended that they should vest. The noble Baron seemed to think, that it would be easy to devise some plan for the better administration of these charities in which Parliament might concur. But the English Municipal Bill had been for some time the law of the land, and Parliament had not yet succeeded in devising any satisfactory plan for the administration of the English charity-trusts. Such an object had been aimed at, but it had not been attained. He had told their Lordships, what would be the effect of rejecting that measure—namely, the sacrifice of a large portion of the charity trusts; for it was evident, that if they came into Chancery, a considerable portion would remain there. It had been said, in the other House of Parliament, and elsewhere; that these trusts had been applied to the furtherance of political and party purposes. He was glad, that he had now the opportunity of explaining, to their Lordships the real state of the case, and of removing any erroneous impressions which might exist on the subject. He believed, that there were 102 cases in which applications had been made to the Court of Chancery for the appointment of trustees. These applications, according to the usual and established rule of the court, were referred to the Master, and certain regulations were made with a view to the saving of expense, and so great was the satisfaction with which both the parties applying and opposing, viewed the appointments made, that, four or five cases excepted, there was no appeal from the Master's decision, and in all these cases but one, the Master's choice was confirmed. That individual case related to the question, whether a particular estate was left for Church purposes, in which case the rule was laid down, that being a case not provided for in the English bill, although it was in the present, the trustees appointed should all be members of the Church of England. The Master, in this case, was of opinion, that the property was not left specifically for Church purposes, and he appointed some trustees who were not members of the Church of England, but, upon the best consideration which he could give to the subject, it appeared to him, that the property in question was left for Church
1042
purposes, and, therefore, the Master's report was so far varied. Their Lordships, therefore, might feel assured, that so far from applying these trusts to the furtherance of political and party purposes, he had not had the opportunity of doing so. It was said, that the same course might be adopted in Ireland. But what did their Lordships propose to do by the clause as it stood? They would appoint Parliamentary trustees, over whom the Court of Chancery would have no control. The trustees might pervert the trusts to any purpose, but the Court of Chancery could not remove them. It was most unfortunate, that no arrangement had been made for the better administration of these charities, but there was no comparison between the advantages of the mode proposed by the House of Commons, and that which was contained in the bill.
The Marquess of Lansdowneconsidered it most extraordinary, that noble Lords opposite should wish these trusts to vest in the ex-mayor, or ex-aldermen, after they had been accused and convicted before Parliament of a mal-administration of those very charities, and had been expelled from office on those very grounds.
Lord Plunkettavowed, that he felt a strong political bias, but if he had ever allowed his political feelings to influence his conduct as Chancellor, his conduct would have been most base and unworthy of his trust. He repelled the imputation which had been cast upon him with scorn, of which it was impossible for him to state the degree. If he was a person of that sort and description as would listen to the representations of political partisans, he was unfit and unworthy for the high office he had the honour to fill, and ought to be removed from it. But by the mode in which these appointments were made, a mode precisely similar to that pursued by the Court of Chancery in England, it was impossible for him as Chancellor of Ireland to interfere, except on a disputed appointment. The Chancellor never took upon himself any one of these offices, and if any person should come to him with a political story in his mouth, and recommend individuals as trustees or receivers, that person would be guilty of a gross contempt of court, and the Chancellor, if he listened to any such application, would be guilty of a gross abandonment of his duty. All these appointments were made on a reference to one of the Masters of the

1043
Court, and the Chancellor himself knew nothing about them, unless exceptions were taken to the Master's report; and on behalf of the Masters of the Court of Chancery in Ireland, he begged to state, that no set of men could have discharged the duties imposed upon them more faithfully and impartially; but if political bias could have any effect, as had been suggested, and which he denied, upon those who had sworn duties to perform, he must remark, that the great proportion of the Masters in Chancery in Ireland were gentlemen with whose politics he had not the good fortune to agree. He must add, that this had been a most wanton and uncalled for attack upon individuals who were sworn to administer impartial justice. He was sure, that the Masters in Ireland had not pursued any course of conduct which was not the result of their unbiassed judgment. For himself, he would say, that he had no desire to undertake the discharge of the duties connected with those appointments; and, with regard to what had been suggested, he would only add, that the whole of his conduct in the court over which he had the honour to preside, and his whole life, was the best answer to the imputation that he had violated a sworn duty.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that lie had before co-operated with his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, in arranging bills of very great and vast importance, and he begged to assure him, that he should be most happy to co-operate with him in the production of a bill for the regulation of trusteeships generally throughout the country. He would not say one word as to the manner in which his noble and learned Friend had exercised the duties imposed upon him in reference to the trusteeships of corporation charities, but he was bound to state, that he continually received from all quarters statements complaining that the great majority of the trustees appointed through the intervention of the Court of Chancery—not immediately under the eye of his noble and learned Friend—were warm and violent political partisans; and to obviate this evil, it was, that he, for one, objected to the alteration in this clause which had been introduced by the House of Commons. Owing to the indisposition of a noble and learned Friend, not now in his place (Lord Brougham), the proceedings, with his proposed bill for the regulation of charitable trusteeships had been suspended, and the
1044
appointments had consequently been thrown into the hands of the Court of Chancery, and the result had practically been (though not intended by his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack), that party appointments had been made. He had received recently a letter from Bristol on this subject, from which he would read one passage, and then show the letter to his noble and learned Friend. It was from a gentleman with whom he was wholly unacquainted, it was dated the 7th of July, 1838, and signed "Christopher George," who described himself to be a town-councillor of the city of Bristol, and he stated, that in that city the management of the municipal charities had fallen into the administration of a set of trustees, twenty-one in number, and of whom eighteen were what were called Liberals, and a large number were Dissenters. He went on to add, "that the members of the Established Church in Bristol regretted to see the charities founded by the pious Whiteson and Carr for the advancement of the Protestant Established Church superintended and conducted by a board of trustees composed of Baptists, Socinians, and Quakers." "Surely," added the writer, "surely this ought not to be." It was his wish to remedy the evil, and for this purpose he thought that the admininistration of charitable trusts in Ireland should remain in the hands of the persons who now held them, until Parliament should pass a general measure for the regulation of charities. He did not deny, that there were difficulties in the way, but he should be happy to co-operate most heartily and cordially with his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, in meeting those difficulties.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he could not answer an opinion of Mr. Christopher George, an individual whom his noble and learned Friend did not know, nor could he vouch, that any such person existed. He could, however, state, that the case of Bristol had never been brought before him, (the Lord Chancellor) for the Master's report was confirmed without opposition, all parties being satisfied with the appointments that had been made.
Clause, with certain amendments, agreed to.
The other amendments were gone through, and a Committee appointed to manage the conference with the House of Commons.