Sitting of 27 February 1838

THE PENITENTIARY CASE.
Lord John Russellsaid, with regard, to the question which had been put yesterday on the subject of the persons who were confined in the Penitentiary, he thought it would be best to ask for a report from the Commissioners of that prison, with respect to the whole of the circumstances of the respective cases. He could not refer to this subject without returning his thanks to the hon. Gentleman who had put the question to him, for his having had the courtesy to give him notice of his intention to make the inquiry, and also for his having propounded the question in such a manner as to show that his object was only to obtain information, and not to criminate any parties. The practice of bringing forward questions of this description, casting imputations on Ministers of the Crown, taking care that it was without notice—
Viscount Sandonrose to order. I wish to know whether it is in order to allude to what has taken place in another House. I rise to ask whether it be in order, there being no question before the House, to refer to such matters, there being no person in this House who is connected with the subject, and to take this opportunity of making reflections on the course of conduct pursued in another House.
The Speakersaid: The question is, whether the rule is, that there should be no reference, in debates in this House, to the particular proceedings in the other House. Undoubtedly, as a general rule, it is not expedient, nor is it within the rules of this House to make allusion to what takes place elsewhere.
Lord John Russell: for the purpose of bringing myself in order with respect to a motion being before the House, I may be permitted to move for a paper. I move, therefore, for a copy of a letter directed

205
to the Commissioners of the Penitentiary with respect to these cases. In before addressing the House I did not state anything but what occurred with reference to the question. I said, that the hon. Gentleman who put that question—and I repeat it—had acted in conformity with what I think is due both with respect to the duties of public men regarding public affairs, and also in conformity with what is due as regards the courtesy usually shown by one private individual to another. The hon. Gentleman gave me due notice of what he meant to propose, and when he did so propose it, it was as a question, and as seeking for information, and without making reflections upon any one. And that I say was a reputable and discreet course of conduct, and a course different from that which has been adopted by others. I do hope that I am not to be placed in this situation—that I am not to be allowed in this House to state what I think is due to my own position and character as a Minister of the Crown, relating to the administration of justice—and that I am not to give a notice with regard to attacks made on me in any other place respecting that conduct. I do not believe, that any party, whether in opposition or whether in support of the Ministry, has ever pursued that course. I am sure it was not the course which was taken when I was in opposition to the Government with regard to the administration of justice, nor was it usual then to make a question relating to such a subject a matter on which to raise arguments on party politics. I do not mean to enter into the question which was put to me by the hon. Gentleman, further than to repeat that I will take care that there shall be a report of the circumstances relating to these cases laid on the table of this House, made by very respectable persons, who hold the situation of Commissioners of the Penitentiary and of inspectors of prisons, and I shall then be satisfied with the judgment of this House on the details of the case. The noble Lord concluded by moving for a copy of a letter written by direction of the Secretary of State to the Commissioners of the Penitentiary.
The paper was ordered.

IPSWICH COMMITTEE.
Mr. Aglionbywished to apply to the House that the ordinary rule with regard to the presenta-
206
tion of petitions might in his case be dispensed with, as he had a petition to which he desired to draw the attention of the House, which had peculiar reference to the question which had been adjourned for debate from last night. There was another ground, however, on which he appealed to the House, which was, that it was his intention on a future day to found a motion on the petition, and he therefore desired to obtain leave that it should be printed. It was from Mr. Rigby Wason, and referred to the Committee on the Ipswich election, and having read it through, he believed there was nothing in it which could be deemed to be an infringement of the orders of the House. It contained nothing which impugned the motives of the Committee, nor did it allude to the decisions of particular individuals. The prayer of it was, that, considering the decisions contrary to those which had formerly been given, and some of them contrary both to law and common sense, the House would inquire into the means by which they might be prevented from being hereafter acted upon as precedents; and also that the House would adopt some measure by which an improvement of the law as regarded election petitions might be insured. Under these circumstances, therefore, he desired that the petition should be printed, but he desired first to read its substance to the House. The hon. Member read the petition, which, having stated the formal facts with regard to the petition, went on to allege that there were certain decisions come to by the Committee which, without impugning the motives of the Committee, were not, in the petitioner's judgment, legal. In order to exhibit instances, he stated, that one voter was struck off because he was a parish constable, and another instance of a deputy returning-officer.
Petition to lie on the table.
Mr. Aglionbymoved, that it should be printed.
Mr. T. Gibsonrose and said, that he thought the House would be unable to do strict and impartial justice to both parties unless the evidence taken before the Committee was brought before the House He hoped, therefore, that some hon. Member who had sat on the Committee would move, that the evidence should be printed. With regard to the decision as to the special constables, it was a unanimous vote, and could not be considered a

207
party decision, and it was a decision, in point of fact, upon the plain construction of an Act of Parliament.
Mr. Jenkinssaid, that as Chairman of the Committee, he had intended last night to move for the production of the minutes, but he had been prevented doing so by his understanding that the hon. Member for South Essex would have moved for them. He was most anxious that the minutes should be produced, in order that the conduct of the Committee might be vindicated; and he, therefore, moved as an amendment to the motion of the hon. Member opposite, that they should be laid on the table.
Sir R. Heronwished distinctly to state that he did not wish to impugn the decision come to on the occasion alluded to. He happened to have voted in the minority, but the question was exceedingly difficult to decide, and he was by no means satisfied that he gave the vote in the way in which it should be given. He was no lawyer, and he gave his decision conscientiously and to the best of his abilities, but he did not mean to assert that his judgment was perfectly right. There were opposite decisions of Committees on this point; he did not, therefore, impugn the proceedings that had taken place, but it showed how bad the practice was when there were such contradictory decisions.
Mr. Williams Wyundid not object to the motion under existing circumstances, but after the accusations brought against the decisions of the Ipswich Committee, the house could not deny the Members of it the opportunity of making public their proceedings.
Petition to be printed.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—MR. O'CONNELL.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the Breach of Privilege,
Mr. Pendarvesfelt so strongly for the honour and dignity of the House, that he ventured to put himself forward on the present occasion to endeavour, if possible, to avert from the House the evils which were likely to result from the debate last night, and the course it was then resolved to take. He never recollected in that House so great excitement as prevailed on that occasion, and he trusted that hon. Members now in cooler moments, would see the expediency of
208
not pursuing the course which was likely to lead to protracted debates for several nights, more especially when they saw many hon. Members rise in their places, and avow the same sentiments which they had censured in the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. They might depend upon it that the country out of doors did not wish to see such a course pursued as was proposed in the matter, on which public opinion was almost universal throughout the kingdom. Many persons had expressed opinions similar to those of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and he was sure the general feeling of the public was, that the matter should not be proceeded further with. It was with this view, though little accustomed to speak in that House, that he had ventured to come forward to propose his amendment. It would be much better for the House to take up the subject of the amendment of the election law, instead of pursuing the course which was last night entered on. There was already before the House a Bill of his hon. Friend, the Member for Liskeard, for the amendment of the law of elections, and he really believed, that it would be more satisfactory to the country if the House at once proceeded with it, rather than occupy further time on the subject. He should, therefore, propose, as an amendment to the motion of the noble Lord (Lord Maidstone), that "the House, taking into consideration that several Members of that House had avowed their belief that the decisions of Election Committees, sworn well and truly to try the matters before them, were biassed by party interests and feelings, and considering that such decisions have, since the late elections, been impugned in the strongest terms by the public press, and considering also, that the House had ordered a Bill to be read a second time to regulate and alter the mode of trial of contested elections, is determined to proceed no further in this matter."
Amendment put.
Mr. Cresswellwished shortly to state his reasons for preferring the original motion to the amendment which had just been proposed. He was the more anxious to do that because the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had thought it becoming in him last night to impute to hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House, that in supporting the resolution submitted by the

209
noble Member for North Northamptonshire, they were taking part in a very shabby motion or proceeding. In his humble judgment it did not very well become the noble Lord to charge Members on that side of the House with any shabbiness in the transaction. He must take the liberty on this subject to call the attention of the House to the conduct of the noble Lord with respect to this matter, since the noble Lord, the Member for North Northamptonshire, first gave notice of his motion in that House. On that occasion, the noble Secretary for the Home Department thought it becoming him to give a conditional notice, that if the House entertained the motion of the noble Lord, the Member for North Northamptonshire, that he (Lord John Russell) would bring forward a motion respecting a right rev. Prelate. Now, if the noble Lord, when he gave this conditional notice, did not intend to bring it forward provided the condition was fulfilled, but to offer it merely as a diversion to help a political ally, to say the least of it, it was not a very dignified course of proceeding. Or, if the noble Lord upon that condition being fulfilled, intended to prosecute his notice, and to call the attention of the House to some supposed offence in the conduct of the right rev. Prelate against the privileges of that House, at a time long gone by, and which was then well known to the noble Lord, and which he had not thought it to be his duty to bring forward at the time; if it was his intention to bring forward this subject, not in discharge of what he owed to his public duty, but in a spirit of retaliation, then the conduct of the noble Lord was something worse than undignified. The motion before the House was, that the censure of the House should be passed on the hon. and learned Member for Dublin by the Speaker. Some objections had been stated to this course, and. among others by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, who proposed that they should let the matter drop. He was not most anxious for the infliction of punishment, as he thought that the honour of the House had been vindicated by the course that had been taken. He entertained great respect for the votes of that House; and, if he wished for a testimony to his character, where could he find one more satisfactory to himself than from among those with whom he then sat and acted? But,
210
according to all Parliamentary usage, they were bound to proceed with the matter, in the way proposed by his noble Friend. The House last night contained upwards of five hundred Members, and they came to a determination, by a solemn vote, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, by giving utterance to the language complained of, had cast a false and scandalous imputation on the honour and conduct of Members of that House. All the Ministerial power and authority was exerted last night to get Members together who would vote for proceeding with the order of the day; but, notwithstanding all that could be done, the motion of the noble Lord was carried by a majority, and immediately the motion was carried that the expressions used by the hon. and learned Member involved a false and scandalous imputation on the honour and conduct of the Members of the House, it was followed up by the motion, which was also carried, that Mr. O'Connell, having avowed that he had used the said expressions, had been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, and he thought that they were bound to adopt the subsequent motion, that the hon. and learned Member be reprimanded in his place by the Speaker. It was said that the proposed punishment was trifling, and they had been taunted by hon. Members opposite because they did not go much farther with their punishment; but he would ask, if hon. Gentlemen were dissatisfied, why they did not propose something further themselves? It was said that their honour was not vindicated by the course taken, but he thought that the verdict of the House was a sufficient vindication. What was the case in the proceedings in a court of justice? In a case of libel, or other matter of this kind, where the verdict of a jury was in favour of a party, his honour was considered to be vindicated. With such an accusation against those who were the jury that was to try them, they came to the House, and the noble Lord and his colleagues said, that they did not believe that the Opposition were guilty of what was imputed to them, but for reasons which affected them, they did not think it was necessary that the Members on that side of the House should be vindicated. It was proposed that they should take as the measure of punishment to be inflicted, the quantity and nature which was consistent with the former usages of Parliament, and if any

211
Member on the Ministerial side of the House thought that a greater degree of punishment should be inflicted he might move for it. But what was the nature of the punishment to be inflicted? Was it of so light or trivial a nature as hon. Members stated? All punishment was light or heavy according to the impression it made upon the minds of those subjected to it. He had had some experience in the criminal courts, and he had seen some persons who had been sentenced to slight punishment who appeared to feel most intensely the situation in which they were placed, while others had been sentenced to capital punishment, and appeared almost indifferent about the matter. He had seen some completely overpowered by the sentence of one month's imprisonment, while others regarded six months' imprisonment, accompanied with hard labour on the tread mill, as a matter of perfect indifference. He knew not what the feelings of others might be, but he should have felt his conduct and character deeply involved, if he considered that such resolutions as those which he had described had been carried against himself, and that in consequence of having been found guilty of a breach of the high privileges of that House, he had been ordered to be reprimanded in his place, aggravated as this punishment would be by such observations as the Speaker might deem becoming his high office in passing this censure. He did not know what were the feelings of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin on this subject, but he knew that he should have ever reflected with shame and sorrow at being subject to the rebuke of that House. He trusted that in entertaining such an opinion he was actuated by the feelings of a gentleman and a man of honour; and if he thought those feelings would be lessened by remaining among the Members of that House he would take the earliest opportunity of retiring from public life.
Mr. Williams Wynnsaid, that the course proposed to be pursued was warranted by all the precedents of the best times, and was sanctioned by the opinions of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, Mr. Wyndham, and Lord Grey, namely, that in cases of breach of privilege like the present the Members should be reprimanded in their places. It was now, however, for the first time proposed that after the House had voted a person guilty of a high misde-
212
meanour they should pass the matter by as undeserving of notice; and for the adoption of this course three reasons were assigned in the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cornwall. The first was, that several Members of that House had avowed their belief that the decisions of Election Committees, sworn well and truly to try the matters before them, were biassed by party feelings and attachments. The charge against the hon. Member was, that he imputed foul perjury to Members on that side the House. Was this accusation of such a trivial nature, or were the words in which it was couched, reasons for passing it without notice. This was not a party vote. If it had been a party proceeding it would not have received the sanction of a majority of that House, for the motion was supported by the honourable feelings which actuated many of the supporters of her Majesty's Ministers. These hon. Gentlemen, however, last night considered that they could not support the course that the Government had pursued in this matter without submitting to disgrace. The orders and rules of the House had been set at defiance in that case, and the hon. and learned Member had been declared guilty of a breach of the privileges of that House. The Minister deemed it to be incumbent on him to support the privileges and orders of that House, yet last night the noble Lord and his colleagues gave their votes in support of those who had charged Members on both sides of the House with perjury; nor could he admit that such a charge, which the House had already voted to be false and scandalous, and a breach of its privilege, was to be passed over, because the Member who had been guilty of this offence had sufficient power over certain other Members to induce them to repeat and participate in his offence. The next ground urged for not proceeding with this case was, that such decisions since the late elections had been impugned in the strongest terms by the public daily press, He would ask, was the idea to be borne that the House should frame its proceedings from the orders of the daily newspapers? No such reason had ever before been alleged in the journals or votes of that House, and he trusted that it never would be allowed. No Member in that House had ever, he trusted, been influenced in his vote by such an allegation. The third reason assigned for not proceeding was, that the House had ordered a bill to be read a second time for the

213
amendment of the law relating to the trial of controverted elections. But what had the second reading of a measure to do with the present proceeding? That Bill, indeed, proposed to reduce the number of Members on each Committee from eleven to five—but he who would perjure himself as one of eleven, would equally do so as one of five, and if that bill passed into a law, the power of punishment would equally be required for those who imputed perjury to the tribunal under the new bill as it was under the existing law. He was satisfied the House could come to no other course consistent with what it had already done, or with its honour, but that of sanctioning the motion of his noble Friend.
Mr. Goringwas understood to say, that although he thought that the words of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin were unjust, he was satisfied that the House was losing its character and dignity by pursuing the course which it had adopted towards the hon. and learned Member for Dublin.
Viscount Castlereaghwas very anxious to set himself right before the House as to his vote of last night, in reference to the charge which had been preferred by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, against several hon. Members at his (Lord Castlereagh's) side, of having imputed something very like perjury to the Roman Catholic Members of that House. For himself, he could only say this, that whatever sentiments might be entertained by others, he was quite incapable of attributing to any Gentleman in that House, let his politics be what they might, anything which he should feel himself constrained to decline to do, consistently with his own sense of honour. He spoke as an Irishman; and as no Irish Member at his side of the House had risen during the progress of this debate, he availed himself of this opportunity to declare his conviction, with reference to his Roman Catholic fellow countrymen, that their honour, integrity, and conscientious feelings were equal in intensity to those which he himself entertained, If he had not felt thus, he would not have been justified in his vote of last night, nor should he have felt himself prepared to have acted as a judge upon himself. Whether the imputation had been cast on the other side of the house or not, was no justification of the language that had been used, and he felt himself personally, though
214
he had not served upon any Committee, yet, as liable to serve, he felt himself aggrieved by it. Many hon. Members had certainly softened down the offensive expressions which it contained; he could only wish that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had done the same. He did not think that that hon. Member would have lost anything of the high position in which he stood, while he would have saved the House a good deal of disagreeable discussion had he done so. As an individual whose honour was dear to him, he could not, in justice to his feelings, do otherwise than vote for a continuance of the proceeding commenced by the noble Lord, the Member for Northamptonshire. Indeed, to pursue any other course would, in his opinion, be only to stultify the decision they had already come to. Her Majesty's Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite, for he should put them together, had already made two attempts to get rid of the question by a by-way proceeding, but he did not think that either the well-prepared course of the noble Lord last night, nor the ill-digested amendment proposed that evening, were likely to get the House out of the dilemma. If the House were true to itself no other course could now be taken than for the right hon. Gentleman in the chair to administer that rebuke to the hon. and learned Member which followed as a necessary result of the vote of last night.
Sir Frederick Pollockfelt himself compelled to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, why he had thought fit last night to impeach the conduct of Members at that (the Opposition) side of the House, as "shabby," while to-night he sat silent, apparently prepared to vote that they should pass by the question altogether. Now, if the one proceeding was shabby, the other was ten times more so. He did not know to what extent the noble Lord might be a judge of what constituted a shabby proceeding, but he protested against the noble Lord's being considered a judge of what was shabby on that, the Opposition side of the House. He was really surprised at the tone adopted by the noble Lord when he taunted the noble Lord, the Member for Northamptonshire, with declining to follow up the vote of that House—a vote in which the noble Lord felt himself bound to concur, by some stronger measure than that which had been proposed; he was

215
surprised, he said, at the tone assumed by the noble Lord on that occasion, when he I considered that the noble Lord was now prepared to pass by the proceeding altogether. Was that a course respectful to the House? Was it in accordance with the dignity which should characterise their proceedings, or was it respectful to the country, who looked at their proceedings with so much anxiety? He begged to assure the House that he had presented himself with the greatest reluctance, and would not have done so had any other Member risen to address it. But he did not think it would be decorous towards the country to proceed at once to vote upon this question without further discussion. He entirely agreed with the, hon. Member for Liverpool, that if they should do no more than what they had already done, they would still have done; a great deal. They would have vindicated the character of that House from an imputation sufficient to exclude any man upon whom it might rest, from sitting in the society of gentlemen. Having done that, he cared very little about the pains, penalties, or punishments, that might or could be inflicted upon the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. It was not by chains or imprisonment, or any apparatus of punishment, that the honour and dignity of that House was to be upheld, but by public opinion. To what extent was this liberty of expression to go? He for one considered that the conduct of certain hon. Gentlemen last night, instead of showing that the supporters of the original motion were wrong in the course they had adopted, had, in his humble opinion, only proved that they had begun too late. Where was the matter to terminate if that House were indifferent to the grave charge of foul perjury made against a large portion of its Members? If they did not check it, he might say that the usefulness of that House as a branch of the constitution was at an end. As stated by the hon. Member for Liverpool, it would become an assembly in which no Gentleman would sit. What, then, was the course which they ought to adopt? The noble Lord opposite had suggested that the highest penalties within the power of the House should be inflicted. But there were very grave reasons why the House ought not to pursue the course to which the noble Lord had invited them. By it they would exhibit the hon. Member for
216
Dublin as a martyr in some shape or other, God knew how, whether in defence of the laws and decencies of society, or not. He thought, therefore, that the House would best consult its own dignity, and indeed its magnanimity, by adopting the mildest possible course in reference to that hon. and learned Member. Besides, public opinion had altered very much upon this subject within the last twenty or thirty years. The same opinion did not now exist respecting the efficacy of dungeons, chains, and prisons, as formerly; and if the hon. and learned Member for Dublin should not feel the reprimand of that House—nay, if he did not already feel their vote of last night, he did not think that the force of imprisonment could make him feel it. It was not the punishment of the individual, but the asserting of the dignity of the House, that they aimed at. One word respecting himself. He had voted last night that the charge of perjury was false and scandalous, not because he was indifferent to the imperfections of the present law, but because he conceived it to be the duty of that House, as long as that law was in operation, to protect those who were called upon to take part in its operation from charges from which every tribunal in the country was protected. Those who respected the character of that House would, therefore, he was sure, concur in the proposition consequent upon the decision that a breach of privilege had been committed.
Mr. Harveycould not exactly understand the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he had asked them, on the one hand, whether they were prepared to treat as a nullity their vote of last night, while in the earlier part of his speech he seemed to be exceedingly anxious, as indeed was also the hon. Member for Liverpool, to impress upon the House the serious character of the sentence which had been already pronounced. Up to the present time he was ready to concede to hon. Gentlemen opposite that they had not been animated by the narrow views of party in throwing off the blow which they considered to have been aimed at their honour. The resolution which had been proposed in so amiable a manner by the noble Lord opposite had effected that; but it was one thing, allow him to tell the House, to vindicate its honour, and another to avenge it. Hon. Gentlemen ought, in his opinion, to be satisfied with the vote to which the House

217
had come last night. They stood well with their own feelings, and he could not help saying, what must be still more acceptable to them, with the country. But if they pressed the matter further, and imparted a personal character to what at the present moment assumed the higher pretension of principle, they would invite the consideration in the public mind whether they had not descended from the noble path of vindicating their honour thus assailed, to attack a powerful individual, whose political influence they felt and feared. It appeared to him that if the hon. and learned Member for Dublin did not feel the resolution already come to by the House, he would be perfectly indifferent to the censure which hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to pass upon him. If they persisted, that censure would bear the character of a political penalty; they would thereby injure the efficacy of their resolution, and make the public at large regard the affair more as a triumph of partisanship than a vindication of insulted honour.
Colonel Conollywould not vote for the amendment proposed, because, in doing so, he would be only stultifying the vote he had already given in favour of the resolution. Neither was he prepared to pass to the previous question, as proposed by one noble Lord, or to inflict the deepest punishment in their power upon the individual from whom the imputation emanated, as proposed by another noble Lord; because, by none of these courses did he conceive they would vindicate the honour or authority of that House.
Viscount Maidstoneobserved, that when the House came to a vote last night, he conceived that the question had been decided upon, and that some punishment would follow as a matter of course. He appealed to the Speaker, if ever there was an occasion like this, upon which the House had come to a similar decision, when that decision had not been followed up by some other proceeding? Surely it was not to go forth to the country that on Monday they said "Yes," and on Tuesday "No." Why not proceed in the customary way? Where was the use of holding the scales of justice in one hand, and the sword in the other? Of the courses proposed he was undoubtedly in favour of the most lenient, but with their vote of yesterday recorded, a vote come to after due and deliberate consideration, he did
218
not think the House would be acting consistently or in conformity with former usage if they now adopted the amendment proposed.
The House divided on the motion that the original question remain:—Ayes 249; Noes 225: Majority 24.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Colquhoun, J. C.

A'Court, Captain

Conolly, E.

Adare, Visct.

Copeland, Alderman

Alexander, Visct.

Corry, hon. H.

Alsager, Captain

Courtenay, P.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Cresswell, C.

Ashley, Lord

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Ashley, hon. H.

Damer, hon. D.

Attwood, M.

Darby, G.

Bagge, W.

Darlington, Earl of

Bagot, hon. W.

De Horsey, S. H.

Bailey, J.

Dick, Q.

Bailey, J., jun.

D'Israeli, B.

Baillie, Colonel

Dottin, A. R.

Baker, E.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Douro, Marquess of

Barneby, J.

Dowdeswell, W.

Barnes, Sir E.

Duffield, T.

Barrington, Viscount

Dugdale, W. S.

Bateman, J.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Bateson, Sir R.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Bell, M.

East, J. B.

Benett, J.

Eastnor, Viscount

Bentinck, Lord G.

Eaton, R. J.

Bethell, R.

Egerton, W. T.

Blackburne, I.

Egerton, Sir P.

Blackstone, W. S.

Egerton, Lord F.

Blair, J.

Eliot, Lord

Blennerhassett, A.

Ellis, J.

Boldero, H. G.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Bolling, W.

Estcourt, T. H. S.

Borthwick, P.

Farrand, R.

Bradshaw, J.

Fielden, W.

Bramston, T. W.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Broadley, H.

Follett, Sir W.

Broadwood, H.

Forbes, W.

Bruce, Lord E.

Forester, hon. G.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Gladstone, W. E.

Burdett, Sir F.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Burrell, Sir C.

Goddard, A.

Calcraft, J. H.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Campbell, Sir H.

Gore, O. J. R.

Canning, rt. hon. Sir S.

Gore, O. W.

Cantalupe, Viscount

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Chandos, Marq. of

Granby, Marq. of

Chaplin, Colonel

Grant, hon. Colonel

Chapman, A.

Greene, T.

Christopher, R. A.

Grimsditch, T.

Chute, W. L. W.

Grimston, Viscount

Clive, Viscount

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Hale, R. B.

Codrington, C. W.

Halford, H.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Halse, J.

Cole, Visct.

Harcourt, G. G.

219

Harcourt, G. S.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Hardinge, rt. hon. Sir H.

Neeld, J.

Hawkes, T.

Neeld, J.

Hayes, Sir E.

Norreys, Lord

Heathcote, Sir W.

Northland, Viscount

Henniker, Lord

O'Neil, hon. J. B. R.

Herbert, hon. S.

Ossulston, Lord

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Packe, C. W.

Hill, Sir R.

Pakington, J. S.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Palmer, R.

Hinde, J. H.

Palmer, G.

Hodgson, F.

Parker, M.

Hodgson, R.

Parker, R. T.

Hogg, J. W.

Patten, J.

Holmes, hon. W. A'C.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Holmes, W.

Peel, J.

Hope, G. W.

Perceval, Colonel

Hope, H. T.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Hotham, Lord

Pigot, R.

Houldsworth, T.

Planta, rt. hon. J.

Houstoun, G.

Polhill, F.

Howard, hon. W.

Pollock, Sir F.

Hughes, W. B.

Praed, W. M.

Hurst, R. H.

Price, R.

Hurt, F.

Pringle, A.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Pusey, P.

Irton, S.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Irving, J.

Richards, R.

Jackson, Sergeant

Rickford, W.

James, Sir W. C.

Rolleston, L.

Jenkins, R.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Jermyn, Earl of

Round, C. G.

Johnston, H.

Round, J.

Jones, W.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Jones, T.

Rushout, G.

Kemble, H.

Sanderson, R.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Sandon, Viscount

Knight, H. G.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Knightley, Sir C.

Scarlett, hon. R.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Sheppard, T.

Law, hon. C. E.

Shirley, E. J.

Lefroy, rt. hon. T.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Lewis, W.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Litton, E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Lockhart, A. M.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Logan, H.

Stanley, E.

Long, W.

Stewart, J.

Lowther, Viscount

Stuart, H.

Lowther, J. H.

Sturt, H. C.

Lucas, E.

Sugden, rt. hon. Sir E.

Lygon, hon. General

Thompson, Ald.

Mackenzie, T.

Thornhill, G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Tollemache, F. J.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Trench, Sir F.

Mahon, Viscount

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Maidstone, Visct.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Marsland, T.

Verner, Colonel

Marton, G.

Villiers, Viscount

Master, T. W. C.

Vivian, J. E.

Maunsell, T. P.

Wall, C. B.

Maxwell, H.

Williams, R.

Meynell, Captain

Williams, T. P.

Miles, P. W. S.

Wodehouse, E.

Miller, W. H.

Wood, Colonel T.

Milnes, R M.

Wood, T.

Moneypenny, T. G.

Wyndham, W.

220

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

TELLERS.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Baring, H. B.

Young, J.

Fremantle, Sir T.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Sir C.

Duncan, Viscount

Aglionby, H. A.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Aglionby, Major

Dundas, Captain D.

Ainsworth, P.

Easthope, J.

Alston, R.

Ebrington, Viscount

Anson, hon. Colonel

Ellice, Captain A.

Anson, Sir G.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Archbold, R.

Ellice, E.

Attwood, T.

Erle, W.

Baines, E.

Etwall, R.

Ball, N.

Evans, G.

Baring, F. T.

Evans, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Barron, H. W.

Ferguson, R.

Barry, G. S.

Fergusson, rt. hon. C.

Beamish, F. B.

Finch, F.

Belfast, Earl of

Fitzgibbon, hon. Col.

Bellew, R. M.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Bentinck, Lord W.

Fitzsimon, N.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Fort, J.

Bernal, R.

French, F.

Bewes, T.

Gillon, W. D.

Blackett, C.

Gordon, R.

Blake, M. J.

Goring, H. D.

Blewitt, R. J.

Grattan, H.

Bodkin, J. J.

Greenaway, C.

Bowes, J.

Grey, Sir G.

Bridgeman, H.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Briscoe, J. I.

Grote, G.

Brocklehurst, J.

Guest, J. J.

Brodie, W. B.

Hall, B.

Brotherton, J.

Handley, H.

Browne, R. D.

Harland, W. C.

Buller, C.

Harvey, D. W.

Buller, E.

Hastie, A.

Busfield, W.

Hawes, B.

Byng, G.

Hawkins, J. H.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Hayter, W. G.

Callaghan, D.

Heathcoat, J.

Campbell, Sir J.

Hector, C. J.

Carnac, Sir J. R.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Hodges, T. L.

Chalmers, P.

Hollond, R.

Chetwynd, Major

Horsman, E.

Clements, Viscount

Howard, F. J.

Codrington, Admiral

Howick, Viscount

Collier, J.

Hume, J.

Collins, W.

Hutton, R.

Colquhoun, Sir J.

James, W.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Craig, W. G.

Johnson, General

Crawford, W.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Currie, R.

Lambton, H.

Curry, W.

Langdale, hon. C.

Dalmeny, Lord

Lefevre, C. S.

Davis, Colonel

Lennox, Lord G.

Dennistoun, J.

Leveson, Lord

D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C.

Lister, E C.

Divett, E.

Loch, J.

Duckworth, S.

Lushington, C.

Duff, J.

Macleod, R.

221

Macnamara, Major

Seale, Colonel

Mactaggart, J.

Seymour, Lord

Maher, J.

Smith, hon. R.

Mahony, P.

Somers, J.

Marshall, W.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Marsland, H.

Standish, C.

Martin, J.

Stanley, M.

Maule, hon. F.

Stanley, W. O.

Maule, W. H.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Melgund, Viscount

Strangways, hon. J.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Strutt, E.

Morpeth, Viscount

Stuart, Lord J.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Stuart, V.

Muskett, G. A.

Style, Sir C.

Nagle, Sir R.

Talbot, C. R. M.

O'Brien, W. S.

Talbot, J. H.

O'Callaghan, hon. C.

Tancred, H. W.

O'Connell, M. J.

Thomson, rt. hon. C. P.

O'Connell, M.

Thornley, T.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Townley, R. G.

Ord, W.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Paget, Lord A.

Turner, E.

Palmer, C. F.

Turner, W.

Palmerston, Viscount

Vigors, N. A.

Parker J.

Vivian, right hon. Sir R. H

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Parrott, J.

Wakley, T.

Pattison, J.

Walker, C. A.

Pease, J.

Walker, R.

Pechell, Captain

Wallace, R.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Warburton, H.

Philips, Sir R.

Ward, H. G.

Philips, M.

Wemyss, J. E.

Philips, G. R.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Pinney, W.

Westenra, hon. J. C.

Ponsonby, C. F. A. C.

White, L.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

White, S.

Poulter, J. S.

Wilbraham, G.

Power, J.

Wilde, Sergeant

Price, Sir R.

Williams, W. A.

Prime, G.

Wilshere, W.

Redington, T. N.

Winnington, T. E.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Winnington, H. J.

Rich, H.

Wood, C.

Rippon, C.

Wood, G. W.

Roche, E. B.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Roche, W.

Wrightson, W. B.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Wyse, T.

Rundle, J.

Yates, J. A.

Russell, Lord J.

Salwey, Col.

TELLERS.

Sanford, E. A.

Stanley, E. J.

Scrope, G. P.

Steuart, R.

On the main question being again put,
Mr. Grattanmoved, by way of amendment, that words to the following effect be added to the motion:—"Notwith-standing that the Members for the county and city of Cork, for Sligo, for Liskeard, and for Falkirk, have avowed in their places in this House sentiments similar to those expressed by the Member for the city of Dublin, and though this House has permitted to pass uncensured and even unnoticed a published charge of the Bishop
222
of Exeter accusing the Roman Catholic Members of this House of a disregard of their oaths, and of manifesting, in the exercise of their rights as Members of Parliament, treachery, aggravated by perjury." He called on the noble Lord, the Member for Downshire, to adopt this amendment, because that noble Lord had said, that they should deal out equal justice to all parties. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire had asked, how would they stand in the eyes of the public if they did not proceed with the motion? and he taunted the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) last night with not having come forward. What position, let him ask, would they place the hon. and learned Member for Dublin in by their present proceeding? They were for passing a censure on the hon. and learned Member; but they were unwilling to censure others who had avowed the same sentiments—he meant the hon. Members for the county and city of Cork, for the borough of Sligo, for the borough of Liskeard, and for Falkirk; but could they punish them or the hon. and learned Member for Dublin without taking into consideration the conduct of the Bishop of Exeter; they were ready to do justice, they said; but how would they do it? By punishing one, and not the others. If it were stated, that the charge of the Bishop of Exeter was long since gone by, he would reply, that the author of that charge was now in the eye of the law a libeller; for it was to be bought at this moment in the booksellers' shops in London. One word as to the prudence of these proceedings. He admitted the propriety of what was said by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) that the words which had been used were not to be justified; he said last night, that he did not justify them. He thought, that that of, which there was reason to complain might have been complained of in a different manner; but he would say, that great provocation had been given—that a deep injury had been inflicted; and, the country feeling this, for the House to proceed on the matter would be to render itself perfectly ridiculous. Let them bear in mind what had taken place in the case of Sir Francis Burdett. The motion having been made for the hon. Member for Dublin to attend, suppose he sent for answer, that he denied the right of the House to interfere. What would the noble Lord do then? Suppose the Speaker issued his war-

223
rant, and on the Sergeant-at-arms going to execute it the people took the part of the hon. and learned Member. ["Oh, oh!"] Did not the people take a part with the hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Burdett) in 1812? The hon. Baronet encountered their power with defiance; he said he looked on their warrant as so much waste paper; he did as Cromwell did—treated them with contempt. Though he would not use the words of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, he would say, that he did think the proceedings of these Committees were shameful and disgraceful. He again asked the House would they run the chance of a repetition of the ridiculous scenes which were enacted in 1812? So far from the dignity of the House having been vindicated by any such proceedings, they would render themselves the laughingstock of the entire community. What was the origin of this business? The whole of that of which they had to m-plain originated in the connexion of the hon. Gentleman opposite with the Spottiswoode party. Look at the provocation. In what manner had the organs of that party spoken of the Roman Catholic clergy? They had called them "unprincipled, barbarous rebels," "Popish ruffians," "surpliced ruffians," "atrocious hypocrites," "wretched imposters," "beings who were a disgrace to the name of Christianity." What would have been said if he had called the Bishop of Exeter "a surpliced ruffian." Such were the words that were used to describe those who were the supporters of the hon. Member for Dublin. Such were the words used by those who were parties to the getting up of petitions for the express purpose of defeating the elections of the people of Ireland. The feelings of the hon. Member for Dublin were naturally roused and excited by such proceedings. Without intending to defend the latter words used by the hon. and learned Gentleman in his speech, he would say, that he was perfectly right in what he said in the first portion of that speech. He declared, that "the Irish people wanted a measure that would protect them from being exposed to the machinations of the Spottiswoode gang." Was that true, or was it not? Did not that party attempt to run down every Member who had not the means of incurring the great expense necessary to defend his seat? Was there not a petition against the seat of the hon.
224
Member for Westmeath, though he had a majority of 500? He hoped that that petition would be found to be frivolous and vexatious.
The amendment having been put,
Mr. E. B. Roche,rose to explain his reasons for having last night declared that he was a participator in the opinions expressed by the hon. and learned Member. He complained of the proceedings of the election committees, as exhibiting a perversion of public principle to party spirit. The division of last night was more of a party division than any other that had taken place this Session. The fact was, the motion of last night was directed against an individual whom the Gentlemen opposite dreaded. He was persuaded it was not the result of that squeamish sensitiveness, so much talked of, but of personal enmity towards the hon. and learned Gentleman. He adopted the expressions used by the hon. and learned Member, because he believed them to be substantially correct. It was said that the hon. and learned Gentleman, having laid down a principle of conduct for himself which rendered him irresponsible for any strong language that he used, ought to be particularly careful that he did not give personal offence; but he, in adopting the language of the hon. and learned Member, was ready to give anybody who objected to those expressions any satisfaction that they might require.
The Speaker: The House is placed in an entirely new situation by this discussion. The House has come to certain resolutions expressing its censure and displeasure with regard to certain expressions used elsewhere, and avowed in this place by an hon. Member. The consequence of that decision has been, that various other Members have since risen for the purpose of repeating, reiterating, and avowing similar expressions. The object of that course, no doubt, was to court for themselves the censure which had been pronounced upon another. It was accompanied also with this irregularity, and by what I must call this great novelty. Hitherto no expression has been noticed, and made the foundation of any proceeding against an hon. Member, unless the words were taken down at the time; and what had usually happened? According to the former usage and practice of Parliament, whenever the words of an hon. Member were taken down, it was on the motion of some other hon. Member

225
who viewed them in a sense opposite to that of the hon. Member who used them. Now, the House has seen the very reverse of that done. For the motion to take the words down was made by an individual who agreed in the main part, but not wholly with the expressions used. Now, if the House be prepared to sanction such a practice, it is impossible to say to what extent it may go. Every hon. Member of the same opinions may rise in succession and voluntarily commit that which the House has pronounced to be a grave and serious offence. I put that very point to the consideration of the House last night. I pointedly called the attention of hon. Gentlemen to the expressions which they were about to use, as far as I could judge what those expressions would be by those which they had previously used: but it must be obvious to all who hear me, that if an hon. Member be determined to persevere in using the expressions against which he had been warned, I have no power to prevent him; it would remain with the House to deal with that Member as it might think proper.
Mr. E. B. Rochesaid, that no man felt greater respect than he did for the opinion of the Chair; but this was a subject on which his constituents and himself felt so strongly, that though he was anxious to bow to the Chair on every other occasion, he could not consent on this to yield up his own deliberate judgment. The Speaker had informed him that punishment might follow his perseverance in his present course, and the knowledge of that circumstance impelled him the more strongly to declare his dissent from the resolution to which the House had come last night, and his concurrence with the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He hoped that it would not be considered contrary to the rules of the House if he then proceeded to read from a written paper his adoption of the expressions used by Mr. O'Connell. ["Order."]
Lord John Russell,in speaking of order, observed that for his own part he fully agreed in the observations which had fallen from the Chair. He had been in hopes that the hon. Member for the county of Cork, having heard what had fallen from the Chair, would have been content to abide by that authority which was due to the station and opinion of the Speaker. He regretted that the hon. Member had not taken that course, because he thought,
226
that after the decision to which the House had recently come, it was a want of respect to the whole House to continue the conduct which the hon. Member had declared himself prepared to adopt, and to read a written statement containing sentiments and language similar to, or rather identical with, those used by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He was aware that, if the hon. Gentleman persisted in the course on which he had entered, the mode in which the House would deal with it might be very different. He hoped, however, that the hon. Member, from his own sense of what was due to the House, would not persist in his present course. He confessed, that with his views he thought that it was natural that hon. Gentlemen should not be satisfied with the vote of the small majority of last night that the language used by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was false and scandalous. But every thing had been done that was required for their own satisfaction. Any further proceedings would be an attempt to embarrass the proceedings of the House, and he therefore did hope, that upon consideration, the hon. Member would not think it necessary to carry his opposition further.
Mr. E. B. Roche: As the objection raised by the House in general, and by the noble Lord, appears to be to my reading these words from a paper, I think it is sufficiently reconcileable to my views to state them. ["Order.'] I am not aware I am out of order; I must say, that I fully concur in and adopt the sentiments and expressions of the hon. Member for Dublin. ["Order;" "Chair;"] that I believe them to be the sentiments of my constituents; that I stand here to represent those constituents; and when I cease to represent them, either from fear or any other motive, I ought no longer to retain my seat.
Mr. Humerose to request that the hon. Members words might be taken down. He apprehended it was perfectly consistent with the rules of the House that any hon. Member might request words which he thought objectionable and improper, to be taken down. ["Oh!"] The hon. Gentleman would correct him if he had taken down his words wrong—"I most fully concur in and adopt the sentiments and expressions of the hon. Member for Dublin, as expressed at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, and admitted in his place in this House."
Mr. C. Bullerhoped the House would observe the malice of the hon. Member for Kilkenny.
Mr. Humesaid, hon. Members might think it a very unusual course, that concurring as he did with the hon. Member for Cork, he should have taken an objection to the words he had employed. Now, there were two modes of dealing with a matter. One was to attempt to reason on it; the other was when reason failed, to have recourse to ridicule. He was desirous of throwing ridicule on the conduct of the other side; he was now trying to do that; he wanted to show, as he said last night, that it was impossible to say where hon. Members wished that such proceedings should stop. The hon. Member for Cork and several other Gentlemen had made the same declaration as the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and he was ready to do the same. If the resolutions agreed to by the House were adopted with the view of maintaining their honour and dignity, he would ask was it consistent with their dignity to punish one man for having used certain expressions, and abstaining from punishing others who declared their perfect concurrence in them? He did not think be had abused that freedom of speech which was the right of every Member of the House, and he begged to request that the words might be read by the clerk, in order that he might take a further proceeding regarding them.
Mr. C. Bullersaid, it had become difficult now to know whether the subject before the House was the language taken down as having been used by the hon. Member for the county of Cork, or the amendment of the hon. Member for Meath. His hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, had explained to the House that his object was to throw ridicule on the decision of last night. He must say, as far as that pleasantry might be carried on legitimately, he entirely concurred in the object which his hon. Friend had in view in that exercise of his power; but that pleasantry, his hon. Friend should recollect, might be carried on too long, and he thought this kind of joke had been carried on quite long enough. But he begged Gentlemen opposite to recollect that this matter was not considered a joke by many Members of that House. He begged them seriously to look at the probable consequences of the motion they had unfortunately, and h would say unadvisedly,
228
carried. Did they suppose they could with impunity indulge personal animosity against a distinguished Member of that House, and quench those feelings of nationality which were more or less strong in all men? Did they suppose that those feelings which the hon. Member for Cork had expressed—and he believed every hon. Gentleman opposite would agree with him here—with the general ardour that became his youth, if with the indiscretion natural to youth—would not be shared by the whole of that population which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin represented? He was not justifying the words of that hon. and learned Member. Agreeing with him in much of the censure he had passed on Election Committees, he did not agee with him in the feelings he imputed to the Members of those bodies, nor did he adopt the language, the unjustly offensive language, of which the hon. and learned Member had made use. His name had been mixed up in this foolish matter; the hon. Member for Dublin had alluded to words he had uttered, and had said, that they formed a justification of those which he himself had spoken. As far as those words showed that a Member of the House who had taken much pains to understand this subject could come forward, and under no influence of party feeling or momentary heat endeavour to portray in the strongest terms the opinion which he believed the public entertained on this question, so far the hon. and learned Member might rely on his words; but it was not his wish to use words offensive to any Gentleman; it was not his habit to couch a censure in language which he thought would wound the feelings and provoke the indignation of a man of honour, or to exceed the just limits of calm and deliberate discussion. He wished to call the attention of the House to the consequences of the present constitution of Election Committees. He did not pretend to decide on the motives which governed the decision of those bodies; he would say that he thought the Members of them were generally men of the highest education, intelligence, and honour, but the people asked, what must be the character of the system that set such men loose from the obligations imposed on them both by their honour and their oaths? He did not say, that such was his opinion, but he asked if there was one Gentleman on the other side who would say, that he did not believe that such a discreditable opinion prevailed in the minds of a great portion

229
of the people? He did not wish to have it supposed he had at all taken up the opinion which he believed the public very unjustly entertained; but as it did obtain in the public mind, would they act wisely, would they act justly, to visit with severe punishment an hon. Member who had merely delivered his opinion in terms of more than ordinary coarseness? He had alluded last night to the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Ripon (Sir E. Sugden); he had said, that the imputation which they conveyed, though not the language itself, was as offensive as that implied in the words of the hon. Member for Dublin. He now deliberately declared that he would far rather be stigmatised in terms the very coarseness of which showed the passion that dictated them, than have gross injustice and corruption imputed to him in the calm and judicial language of the right hon. Gentleman. He appealed to that right hon. and learned Member, who had exercised in another country the highest judicial functions, and exercised them in such a manner that the incorruptibility and high integrity of his judicial conduct was the one point on which parties in that distracted country agreed—he would ask that right hon. Member how he would have felt if any man could have said of him that his decisions were influenced by a bias towards his political friends? He conceived that no violent language—no language imputing the foulest perjury, the grossest corruption, in the coarsest terms, could be so painful to the feelings of a high-minded judge as the opinion passed by the right hon. Gentleman last night. In delivering that opinion the right hon. Gentleman had spoken the sentiments as well of his own as of the other side. Was it just, then, was it politic, to endeavour to fix the opprobrium of a reprimand on an individual who only conveyed, in coarse language, the same censure as the right hon. Gentleman himself? Nothing yet advanced in the course of the debate, as far as he could judge, had shaken the plain common-sense views and sound policy advocated last night by the noble Lord below him (Lord J. Russell). Hon. Gentlemen opposite, exulting in the expectation of a majority, had refused to listen to the noble Lord; but he believed that they would regret their majority now that they had obtained it. Grant that the language used was coarse, yet the imputation cast was just. Grant that they could make an example of the hon. Member for
230
Dublin, and that it was right to do so, was there no one on the opposite side open to the same charge, and deserving the same punishment? It could not be supposed that when the zeal of Gentlemen opposite so far outweighed their discretion, Gentlemen on his side would not try to retaliate. Were they to pass by the imputations of the press if they made up their minds to resent charges of this kind? Some of those imputations were so gross that he hardly liked to mention them, but he would say, that if any persons in that House were especially bound to resentment, it was the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair and those who were intrusted with authority by the House. If they were to entertain charges made outside the House, what were they to do with regard to charges insinuated in such a way as no one could misunderstand, respecting the mode in which ballots were carried on? "I believe, Sir," said the hon. Member, addressing the Speaker, "that, safe in the dignity of your high position, safe in the estimation which I know every fair and honest man, of whatever party, willingly accords to you, you may despise those contemptible slanders; but if these matters are made the topics of after-dinner speeches, the House will not long be safe from having them intruded into our discussions." Surely those on the opposite side would pause before they set this example; they had shrunk when they heard the conduct of their episcopal champion arraigned. It was said, that the Bishop's charge could not come under their cognizance, because it alluded to Members if the last Parliament. But was it not still a breach of decorum and gentlemanly conduct? Was it forgotten that the charge was spoken to a body of clergy, and in a church? Hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they considered the multitude of attacks levelled against those occupying that (the Ministerial) side, and passed over with-out notice, might with advantage imitate their moderation. He would venture to suggest this course to them, and he would remind them that it would be attended with this benefit—that it would save them from much trouble and inconvenience, which he had incurred for two nights past in this very foolish business, in being obliged to go without his dinner. He must request the hon. Gentleman who had moved the amendment to withdraw his name from the amendment, in which he did not choose to have it mixed up. The hon. Gentleman had forgotten, that it was

231
most annoying and vexatious to have one's name conjoined with that of the Bishop of Exeter.
Mr. Gillondid not think the course pursued by hon. Gentlemen opposite at all creditable to them. The question of privilege was one of the most dangerous description. He only spoke the sentiments of his constituents when he said, that the conduct of the Election Committees was most corrupt. As for any stigma which the House might propose to inflict on the hon. Member for Dublin, he for one should be proud to bear a share of it.
Lord John Russellsaid, that he should give his vote against this last proceeding on this subject, and state shortly to the House the view he took of the case, without entering into any unnecessary argument upon it. Indeed, it was unnecessary to enter into any argument, because what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liskeard very nearly expressed what he thought. He wished the House to recollect, that for some years past attacks had been made of the most gross and abusive kind upon Members of that House, and especially on those who sat on that (the Ministerial) side of the House; he wished the House to recollect that in the autumn of 1836, the very word "perjury" applied to Members of that House, only qualified by being joined in the connexion, "treachery aggravated by perjury"—he begged the House to recollect, that last year he had advised the House not to notice these expressions otherwise than by contempt, and he was glad to find that that contempt had been shown by the House; he begged also to call to the minds of the House the conduct of the Members who had been charged with the crime of perjury, that they had not thought it necessary, although their feelings must have been sorely wounded at the imputations cast upon them, to call upon the House for any kind of vindictive proceedings, or for censures on that occasion. He begged the House also to call to mind, that on various occasions, expressions had been used out of doors highly derogatory to the Queen's Ministers, not only as public men, but as gentlemen, and he thought it right to say, that neither by prosecution nor proscription, nor by taking away of honours, station, office, nor by any other means, had the Ministry done anything that could show vindictive feelings on those occa-
232
sions. What was the situation of the House now? That a Member had used very strong expressions against a party in that House to which he did not belong, and a member of that party had brought before the House the subject of that charge; 254 Members had voted against the proposition of that Member, and 263 in favour of it, the majority belonging to the party against whom the charge was made. That was not the manner in which decisions of that House with respect to privilege used to be expressed, that was not the manner in which the decisions of juries of this country were formed, nor, with respect to any twelve men accused of perjury, was it the custom that they should be put into the box to try the charge. With respect to the decision of the House last night, he felt some consolation in the very trifling nature of the punishment which it was proposed to inflict, adopting precedents not of very great importance. One of them, indeed, was a very bad precedent, where a person during the prosecution of Mr. Warren Hastings was ordered to be reprimanded, and with regard to the other precedent, that was the decision of the majority who voted to reprimand Sir Francis Burdett in his place in that House. But he did think that those who adopted that conduct were proceeding from a worse course to a better, for the ancient manner of settling affairs of this description was, that Members should be punished by imprisonment, which, however was found, as the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon had said, to be quite inefficacious. When the House had begun to mitigate the punishment it thought proper to inflict on its Members, it no longer imprisoned, but took the course of ordering a reprimand, and this was a step to a better mode of proceeding, which was, to take notice of cases of imputed breach of privilege only when they interfered with the functions of that House. But having so long gone on in this course, to reprimand a Member in his place for expressions applying only to a part of the House, would be to go from a better to a worse course. He might be told by hon. Members opposite, that this was the mildest kind of punishment which could be inflicted, and that it was little more, in fact, than what had been already done. But, as he had last night taken the liberty to say, he could not be convinced that they might not go on from

233
the milder to the worse course—that they might not, if they once stopped in the course of progressive improvement which he had described, in fact, go back to the ancient harsh proceedings—that they might not come to have recourse to those more violent modes of punishment which, of late years, had been wholly dropped. He lamented that the House should have done anything which appeared to tend that way, and that it should have taken this course in a case in which the expressions used did not apply as against the whole House, but against that part of it which formed the majority on the occasion of the late vote. He trusted that those who felt with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, certainly far more fully than he did, would do their best to restrain their feelings, because he thought that the only chance of the matter ending without any pernicious result, was, that they should not proceed farther on the subject than the vote to which they were about to come. and that the House should rest satisfied with that vote.
The House divided on the main question, that Mr. O'Connell be reprimanded:—Ayes 226; Noes 197: Majority 29.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Broadley, H.

A'Court, Captain

Broadwood, H.

Adare, Viscount

Brownrigg, S.

Alexander, Viscount

Bruce, Lord E.

Alsager, Captain

Bruges, W. H. L.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Ashley, Lord

Burdett, Sir F.

Attwood, W.

Burrell, Sir C.

Attwood, M.

Calcraft, J. H.

Bagge, W.

Campbell, Sir H.

Bailey, J.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir R.

Bailey, J., jun.

Cantalupe, Visct.

Baker, E.

Castlereagh, Visct.

Baring hon. W. B.

Chandos, Marquis

Barneby, J.

Chaplin, Colonel

Barnes, Sir E.

Chapman, A.

Barrington, Visct.

Christopher, R. A.

Bateman, J.

Chute, W. L. W.

Bateson, Sir R.

Clive, Visct.

Rell, M.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Codrington, C. W.

Bethell, R.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Blackburne, L.

Cole, Viscount

Blackstone, W. S.

Colquhoun, J.

Blair, J.

Conolly, E. M.

Blennerhassett, A.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Cresswell, C.

Bolling, W.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Borthwick, Peter

Darby, G.

Bradshaw, J.

D'Israeli, B.

Bramston, T. W.

Dottin, A. R.

234

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Jermyn, Earl of

Douro, Marquis of

Johnston, H.

Dowdeswell, W.

Jones, W.

Duffield, T.

Jones, T.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Kemble, H.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Dungannon, Viscount

Knight, H. G.

Eastnor, Visct.

Knightley, Sir C.

Eaton, R. J.

Law, hon. C. E.

Egerton, W. T.

Lefroy, rt. hon. T.

Egerton, Sir P.

Lewis, W.

Egerton, Lord F.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Eliot, Lord

Litton, E.

Ellis, J.

Lockhart, A. M.

Estcourt, T.

Logan, H.

Estcourt, T.

Long, W.

Farranti, R.

Lowther, Visct.

Feilden, W.

Lowther, J. H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Lucas, E.

Follett, Sir W.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Forbes, W.

Mackenzie, T.

Gaskell, James Milnes

Mackenzie, W. F.

Gladstone, W. E.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Glynne, Sir R.

Mahon, Visct.

Goddard, A.

Maidstone, Visct.

Godson, R.

Marsland, T.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Master, T. W. C.

Gore, O. J. R.

Maunsell, T. P.

Gore, O. W.

Maxwell, H.

Goulburn, H.

Miles, W.

Graham, Sir J.

Miller, W. H.

Granby, Marquis of

Monypenny, T. G.

Grant, hon. Col.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Greene, T.

Neeld, J.

Grimsditch, T.

Neeld, J.

Grimston, Visct.

Norreys, Lord

Hale, R. B.

Northland, Viscount

Halford, H.

O'Neil, hon. J. B. R.

Halse, J.

Packe, C. W.

Harcourt, G. G.

Pakington, J. S.

Harcourt, G. S.

Palmer, R.

Hardinge, rt. hon. Sir H.

Palmer, G.

Parker, M.

Hawkes, T.

Parker, R. T.

Hayes, Sir E.

Patten, J. W.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Henniker, Lord

Peel, J.

Herries, rt. hn. J. C.

Perceval, Col.

Hill, Sir R.

Perceval, hon. G.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Planta, rt. hon. J.

Hinde, J. H.

Polhill Captain F.

Hodgson, F.

Plumptree, J. P.

Hodgson, R.

Pollock, Sir F.

Hogg, J. W.

Praed, W. M.

Holmes, hon. W.,

Price, R.

Holmes, W.

Pringle, A.

Hope, G. W.

Pusey, P.

Hope, H. T.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Hotham, Lord

Richards, R.

Houldsworth, T.

Rickford, W.

Houstoun, G.

Rolleston, L.

Hughes, W. B.

Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.

Hurt, F.

Round, C. G.

Irton, Samuel

Round, J.

Jackson, Serjeant

Rushbrooke, Col.

James, W.

Rushout, G.

Jenkins, R.

Sanderson, R.

235

Sandon, Viscount

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Scarlett, hon. R.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Sheppard, T.

Verner, Colonel

Sibthorp, Colonel

Villiers, Viscount

Sinclair, Sir George

Vivian, J. E.

Smyth, Sir. G. H.

Williams, R

Somerset, Lord G.

Williams, T. P.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Wodehouse, E.

Stanley, E. J.

Wood, Col. T.

Stewart, J.

Wood, T.

Stuart, H.

Wynn, rt. hn. C. W.

Sturt, H. C.

York, hon. E. T.

Sugden, rt. hn. Sir E.

Young, J.

Thompson, Alderman

Young, Sir W.

Thornhill, G.

TELLERS.

Tollemache, F. J.

Baring, H. B.

Trench, Sir F.

Fremantle, Sir T.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Sir C.

Dennistoun, J.

Aglionby, H. A.

D'Eyncourt, hon. C. T.

Aglionby, Major

Duckworth, S.

Ainsworth, P.

Duff, J.

Alston, R.

Duncan, Viscount

Anson, Sir G.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Archbold, R.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Attwood, T.

Dundas, Captain D.

Baines, E.

Dunlop, J.

Ball, N.

Easthope, J.

Baring, F. T.

Ebrington, Viscount

Barron, H. W.

Ellice, Captain A.

Barry, G. S.

Ellice, E.

Beamish, F. B.

Erle, W.

Bellew, R. M.

Evans, Sir D. L.

Bentinck, Lord W.

Evans, G.

Bernal, R.

Evans, W.

Bewes, T.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Blackett, C.

Fenton, J.

Blake, M. J.

Fergusson, rt. hon. C.

Blake, W. J.

Finch, F.

Blewitt, R. J.

Fitzpatrick, J. W.

Blunt, Sir C.

Fitzsimon, N.

Bodkin, J. J.

Fleetwood, P. H.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Fort, J.

Bridgeman, H.

Gillon, W. D.

Briscoe, J. I.

Gordon, R.

Brocklehurst, J.

Grattan, H.

Brodie, W. B.

Greenaway, C.

Brotherton, J.

Grey, Sir G.

Buller, C.

Grote, G.

Buller, E.

Guest, J. J.

Bulwer, E. L.

Hall, B.

Busfield, W.

Handley, H.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Harland, W. C.

Callaghan, D.

Harvey, D. W.

Campbell, Sir J.

Hastie, A.

Campbell, W.

Hawkins, J. H.

Carnac, Sir J. T.

Hayter, W. G.

Cayley, E. S.

Heathcoat, J.

Chalmers, P.

Hector, C. J.

Codrington, Admiral

Hobhouse, T. B.

Collins, W.

Hodges, T. L.

Craig, W. G.

Hollond, R.

Crawford, W.

Horsman, E.

Curry, W.

Howick, Viscount

Dalmeny, Lord

Hume, J.

Davies, Colonel

Hutton, R.

236

James, W.

Russell, Lord

Jephson, C. D. O.

Salwey, Col.

Jervis, J.

Sanford, E. A.

Lambton, H.

Scrope, G. P.

Langdale, hon. C.

Seale, Colonel

Lefevre, C. S.

Smith, R. V.

Lennox, Lord G.

Somers, J. P.

Lister, E. C.

Standish, C.

Lushington, Dr.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Lushington, C.

Stanley, W. O.

Lynch, A. H.

Stewart, J.

Macleod, R.

Strangways, hon. J.

Mactaggart, J.

Strutt, E.

Maher, J.

Style, Sir C.

Mahony, P.

Talbot, J. H.

Marshall, W.

Tancred, H. W.

Marsland, H.

Thomson, rt. hon. C. P.

Martin, J.

Thornley, T.

Maule, hon. F.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Turner, E.

Morpeth, Viscount

Verney, Sir H.

Morris, D.

Vigors, N. A.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Vivian, rt. hon. Sir H.

Nagle, Sir R.

Wakley, T.

O'Brien, W. S.

Walker, C. A.

O'Callaghan, hon. C.

Walker, R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Wallace, R.

O'Connell, M.

Warburton, H.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Ward, H. G.

Ord, W.

Wemyss, J. E.

Palmer, C. F.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Palmerston, Viscount

Westenra, hon. J. C.

Parker, J.

White, H.

Parrott, J.

White, L.

Pattison, J.

White, S.

Pechell, Captain

Wilbraham, G.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Wilde, Sergeant

Philips, Sir R.

Williams, W.

Philips, G. R.

Williams, W. A.

Pinney, W.

Wilshere, W.

Ponsonby, C. F. A. C.

Winnington, T. E.

Poulter, J. S.

Winnington, H. J.

Power, J.

Wood, C.

Pryme, G.

Wood, Sir M.

Redington, T. N.

Wood, G. W.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Wrightson, W. B.

Rich, H.

Wyse, T.

Rippon, C.

Yates, J. A.

Roche, E. B.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

TELLERS.

Rundle, J.

Stanley, E. J.

Russell, Lord J.

Steuart, R.

Viscount Maidstonemoved, that Mr. O'Connell be ordered to attend in his place in the House to-morrow to receive the reprimand of the Speaker.
Mr. Humesaid, that if Mr. O'Connell was to be punished, every other Member who had adopted his words ought to be dealt with in the same manner. He would move that the words of all such Members be taken down in writing by the clerk at the table.
Mr. Gillonsaid, he adopted the words

237
of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin.
Mr. Humemoved, that the words be taken down. He had now put hon. Members at the opposite side in the wrong box, and let them get out of it as soon as they could.
Motion agreed to. Ordered accordingly.

PROMOTION IN THE MARINES.
Lord G. Lennoxsaid, it was with deep regret that he felt himself again obliged to call the attention of the House and of the Government to the subject of the slow promotion of the officers of the Royal Marines. He certainly did expect, that after the strong manner in which hon. Gentlemen from all sides of the House last year, when the subject was brought before them, expressed themselves in favour of that body, the matter would have been taken up by the Government, and that it would have been unnecessary for him to have troubled the House again this year. He was the more particularly induced to hope so from the expressions which had fallen from the Secretary to the Admiralty. He did hope that the House would agree with him in thinking, that the time was now come when some measure should be adopted to accelerate the promotion of a useful, meritorious, gallant, and long-suffering body of men. The House was aware that the Ordnance and the Marines were the only branches of the British service in which there was no purchase of rank. It was not his (Lord G. Lennox's) wish to obtain promotion for the Marines at the expense of any other corps; all he asked for them was, that they should receive their fair share of promotion, and within a reasonable time, so that after a certain period of service they might be enabled by promotion to discharge their duty with satisfaction to themselves and benefit to the public. He would now proceed to state to the House what had been done by the Admiralty in the matter since he last had the honour of bringing the question before the House. It was far from his intention to say, that they had done nothing, but he could not say that they had done much, at least as much as, in his opinion, they ought in justice to have done. In June, 1837, nine field officers were allowed the full retiring allowance—were allowed to retire on full pay. Vacancies being thus occasioned,
238
certain promotions took place—four colonels, four lieutenant-colonels, four field-officers, and twenty-four subalterns. They reduced, however, the number of field-officers from sixteen to twelve, and of the subalterns from 102 to ninety. What prospect was it for a poor marine to be obliged to serve in all parts of the globe, and not to be allowed to retire until a medical officer certified that he was no longer able to serve? In his opinion, every officer after forty years ought to be allowed to retire and enjoy his full pension, the hard-earned reward of long and faithful service, and not be compelled, as he now was, to remain in until a medical officer certified he was no longer able to serve. No good could be effected under such a system. At present the Marines had only twenty-one field-officers for 9,000 men, while the Artillery-corps had seventy-two for 7,000. In Spain the Marine-corps had 1,200 men with only two field-officers. It was quite plain to any one that that was not a sufficient number. The reduction in the number of the field-officers had proved fatal to the promotion of the lieutenants and subalterns. He would now take the liberty of saying a few words upon the personal pay of the captains of Marines. In 1805 the pay of officers of the Line of all ranks was increased; that was not the case with the officers of the Royal Marines. He submitted, that there was no reason why the pay of captains of Marines should not be put on the same footing with that of captains of the Line. Had not their conduct been as gallant, and were they not as deserving? Captains of Marines were also put in a situation in which no captains of the Line were put. A captain of the Marines was sometimes called upon, as in Spain, to take the command of 700 men, which was never the case with a captain of the Line, and yet the former, generally an old and experienced officer, was not considered worthy of receiving the same amount of pay as the latter, who might be a boy of twenty-four years of age. In point of fact, the captain of Marines receives 13 d. a-day less. He trusted, therefore, t hat the House would see, that something ought to be done. If any class of officers required promotion, it was the lieutenants of Marines. Thirty-nine had served in the last war, and many of them had seen twenty-eight years of service. The year 1837 might be called the Jubilee year of the Marines, as they received more pro-

239
motion in that one year than they had done for the last twenty years put together. They had indeed a boon then conferred upon them, in the promotion of seventy-three officers. The Artillery, however, had 107, and the Engineers seventy-five, for the same period. From 1814 to 1820 there had been only one promotion among the Marines, while the Artillery had 125, and the Engineers fifty-six. To place the Marines on the same footing of promotion with the other corps he would give a description of what should be done for them, which would save him the trouble of more fully detailing his reasons to the House. He thought that five colonels ought to be made general officers; twenty-one captains, lieutenant-colonels; thirty-six captains, brevet-majors; and twenty-six lieutenants, captains. He was sure it would be wasting the time of the House to detail the nature of the claims of the Marines upon the gratitude and support of the House and of the country. It would be sufficient to say, that in all their naval actions the Marines had shared in the danger. As they had shared in the danger, he wished that they had also shared in the honour. He would only remind the House, that when, unfortunately, a mutiny was raging in their fleet, the Marines remained faithful to a man. He would detain the House no longer. He thanked them for the kind manner in which they had been pleased to listen to him. He would express his most earnest hope that, by their votes that night, they would show to the officers of the Marines that the House was desirous of doing them justice, and duly appreciated their meritorious labours. By supporting the Address to her Majesty they would cheer the drooping spirit of many a gallant old Marine. The noble Lord moved "That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take into her serious consideration the expediency of adopting some plan to accelerate promotion generally in the corps of Royal Marines, so that it may keep pace in a fair and equitable degree with those branches of her Majesty's forces whose system of promotion is progressive; and also to take the case of the captains of the Royal Marines into her Majesty's consideration, with a view of placing them on the same footing as those of her Majesty's regiments of the Line; and likewise to provide some measure for the benefit and
240
relief of those first lieutenants of Marines who served during the late war."
Captain Boldero,in rising to second the motion, said, that the able advocacy of the noble Lord had produced a great effect on the House last Session, and all parties had agreed that the marines had received very little kindness or generosity from the country, that they were an injured body of officers. When the noble Lord had formerly brought the subject under the consideration of the House, he did not press his motion to a division for two reasons. In the first place, the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Admiralty, declared that he would take such proceedings as would satisfy the views of the noble Lord; and, secondly, because many thought that the motion infringed on the prerogative of the Crown. After a lapse of some time, there was an order in council, the object of which was to reward worn-out and meritorious officers, and to enable the marines to keep pace in a fair and equitable degree, with other officers employed in her Majesty's service, whose promotion was progressive. Thirty-six officers were allowed to retire on pensions in a short time afterwards, but in their places only twenty were promoted, thereby diminishing the number of future casual promotions by sixteen. There was no chance of preferment for the middle branches, and the corps was absolutely in worse circumstances now than it was last year. The officers were reduced, and from the pay of the colonel commandant, 100 l. a-year had been taken away, whilst lieutenant colonels were appointed to the rank of colonels, without any additional pay. The Marines, it should be understood, were not considered a separate corps, until after the siege of Gibraltar, when through their valour, that fortress became the property of England by conquest, although it appeared to belong to Spain, by the map of Europe. After the mutiny at the Nore, the conduct of the marines received the royal approbation on account of their bravery and loyalty, and they were honoured with the title of "The Royal Marine Corps." They were then placed on the same footing with officers of the line, but since then, from the year 1814 to 1820, no promotions had taken place. Some time since, he moved for returns of promotion in the Artillery and Engineers, which were produced. He also moved for similar returns of the promotions

241
in the marine corps, but could not get any list. At the conclusion of the American war, eleven officers were killed, but the vacancies were not filled up. In the army and the navy, those officers who had distinguished themselves in general actions, generally found their conduct recognized as a claim to favour and advancement; but in the memorable engagement of Trafalgar, although 100 officers of marines were present, one captain only was advanced to a brevet majority. By a Committee of the House it had been decided, that all sinecures which fell in from the marine service should be divided between naval and marine officers; but although the sum of 4,190 l. 11 s. 8d. had fallen in, 300 l. only had been given to two officers of the latter corps, one of whom had been fifty-five years, the other fifty-six, in the service. He thought that more field-officers should be employed. In the Mediterranean, there were 1,000 marines embarked in our ships, but there was no field-officer. In Pembroke dockyard, there was only one major to 200 men. In Spain, where there were 1,200 men, there was only one field-officer, and to the valour of these men he was sure the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster would bear ample testimony. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by saying that the officers of marines were not actuated by any invidious or jealous feeling towards the officers of the navy, or the ordnance, and in setting forth their own claims, did not wish to detract from the merits of others.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, that no blame could attach to the Government for the non-promotion of officers of the marines, as it was the custom in that corps, as in the Artillery, that all advancement should be decided by seniority, and not by any brilliancy of achievement in the service. Before he stated his objections to the motion of the noble Lord, he would refer to what had fallen from the noble Lord and the hon. and gallant Member, as to what he had stated last year to the House. He had stated last year, when the noble Lord brought forward his motion, that the subject was under the consideration of the Admiralty; and though it would have been imprudent for them, having so recently come into office, to adopt any decisive measures, yet long before the noble Lord's motion, the subject had been under the consideration of the board, and
242
measures had been taken to carry out the Order in Council. Knowing, at the time, that there was a considerable number of inefficient officers, it was usual to have some report on that point, and the Physician General of the Forces, and the Adjutant General of Marines had been called upon to report what officers were inefficient for duty; and every officer they reported unfit for duty had been placed on the retired list on the full pay of his rank. It was utterly impossible to go further than that, unless they had put in retirement officers able and unwilling to retire. He could not understand how the noble Lord made out his statement, for the retirements on full pay amounted to 9,617 l. a-year—he alluded to officers who had retired under the Order in Council of July. The number of officers was two colonels, three lieutenant colonels, one major and two captains, and the amount of their pay was 9,617 l. a-year, and every inefficient person had been removed. It was true that, in the opinion of some officers of the marines, other of their superior officers might be considered unfit; but if the character of superior officers was to be ascertained by the opinion of the juniors, who were interested in the matter, a very large proportion of the senior officers of the corps would have to retire on the actual pay of their rank, a mode which he thought would not be satisfactory to the House or the country, and he was sure it would not be just. This measure provided for the retirement of all those who were unfit for the service. The next step of the Admiralty was to provide greater means of retirement. The more retirements took place from the head of the corps, the better for the junior officers. Before the Order in Council, the number of retired commandants was two, now it was eight. The House would not sanction a measure which would compel officers to retire who were willing to do duty; but unless they forced officers to retire, they could not increase further the number of retirements. They had, however, increased the number of retirements from two to eight, the lieutenant-colonels from three to four, the captains from twenty to twenty-nine, and they had allowed full pay to second lieutenants. The next step was to give rank to officers. The second commandant was a lieutenant-colonel, not with a lieutenant-colonel's pay, but with a higher rate of pay; and, by way of accelerating promo-

243
tion, they gave officers, without increase of pay, the rank of colonel, and they increased the lower ranks. And when he stated to the House the effect of this, the House would be of opinion, that nothing could be so inopportune as for the noble Lord to bring forward this motion, and to complain of want of promotion. Take the 1st of January, 1838; there were four colonel commandants, all of whom had been promoted since the 1st of January, 1837. There were four second commandants, all of whom had been promoted since the same time to the rank of colonel. There were thirteen lieutenant-colonels, twelve of whom had been promoted since the 1st of July, 1837; there were ninety -two captains, of whom twenty-three had been promoted since the same time; and one hundred and twenty-four first lieutenants, of whom forty-seven had been promoted since the same time. These were the effects of the measure, and yet the House had been told there had been no promotion. Was there any officer in the House acquainted with promotion in any corps, who could say, that there had been any thing like such promotion as had been the effect of this order in Council obtained by the Admiralty? It was true that they did, at the same time, reduce, to a certain extent, the number of officers in the corps, because they did not think themselves justified in keeping up such a number of officers at an expense of 5,000 l. a-year. But when the hon. and gallant Member compared the marine officers with the officers of the line, he forgot the difference between the two services. Out of the 9,000 marines, 1,300 or 1,400 were employed in small ships, in which there was no officer with them of the rank of captain. Even in line-of-battle-ships, where there were 100 marines, there was not always a captain with them. When they reduced the number of captains, therefore, it was because, considering the number of men, they could not accelerate promotion at so large an expense. When a comparison was instituted between one service and another, the House would also consider the different circumstances of the corps. The pay of a captain of marines was less than that of a captain of the line by 1s. ld. a-day; but consider the different circumstances of the two, and the expenses to which the latter was subjected, which made a total difference between the two services. But if the comparison was
244
good as to one service, it was good as to another, and compare the pay of a captain of marines with that of a lieutenant in the navy, who was of equal rank. The difference between the pay of a lieutenant in the navy and a captain of marines was 4s. a-day. A captain of marines had 10 s. 6d.; a lieutenant in the navy only 6s. 6d.; one comparison was as just as another, and it would be as just to raise the pay of the lieutenant of the navy to that of the captain of marines, as to raise the latter to that of a captain of the army. He had stated thus much, because he had felt it necessary to show the House that the Admiralty had adopted efficient measures to improve the situation of these officers, and he was at a loss to know what further steps could have been taken to accelerate promotion, unless there had been a total departure from the principle of seniority. He would now state the grounds on which he resisted the motion of the noble Lord. When the noble Lord made his motion last year, and when he made his statement that the subject was under the consideration of the Admiralty, a right hon. and gallant Member, not now in his place, had reproached him for not having resisted it on the ground that it interfered with the prerogative of the Crown. He was as ready as any one to stand up for the prerogative of the Crown, but he did not think it necessary to drag it on all occasions before the House. But on the present occasion, when the noble Lord, in his (Mr. Wood's) opinion, and he hoped in the opinion of the House, repeated his motion, he was compelled to resist it, on the ground that it was a direct interference with the prerogative of the Crown, with which the House had no right to interfere. He was especially bound to take this course on the present occasion, when a motion of this description was made, because, by reference to the motions of the last and present Session, it would be seen, that hon. Members had brought forward motions which did interfere with the military services. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had a motion respecting officers of the navy; the noble Lord now brought forward a motion respecting the pay and promotion of the marines; and the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport a motion respecting punishment in the navy. What would be the consequence if the House were to take up all these questions? If the promotion, the rate of pay, and the

245
punishment of the army were to be taken from the Crown by the House—if the House was prepared to adopt and to sanction these motions, it would be taking away the prerogative which was the right of the Crown by the law and the Constitution, and it would endanger the establishments of this country if such a course were permitted. He should resist the motion of the noble Lord, because it was an interference with the prerogative of the Crown, according to the practice of the House, and the constitution of the country. If hon. Members were to take up such cases (not individual cases, which they had a right to take up)—if hon. Members took up such cases for the sake of obtaining some temporary popularity, or for the purpose of gaining popularity amongst a particular class, where no responsibility attached to them, great unfairness would necessarily arise; because if the noble Lord on this occasion took up the case of the Marines, and if the House sanctioned this, and if an hon. Member brought forward such a motion with respect to some other branch, it would cause the greatest confusion. 'With regard to the motion of the noble Lord, he resisted it on the ground that it was a direct interference with the royal prerogative, and the House could not adopt the motion consistently with the constitution.
Mr. Humesaid, that when the hon. Member talked of this being an unconstitutional course, he would tell him what he did not seem to know, that it was the constitutional duty of the House, if any case came to the knowledge of a Member in which any part of the public money had been improperly applied, to bring it before the House. If the services of the Marine corps were compared to those of other branches of the military force it must be admitted in the House, as it had been admitted out of the House, that justice had not been done to the Marines in the granting of honours and promotions to the officers. If any man would take the trouble to look into the matter, he would find that this corps had been very unjustly treated, though none was more deserving of rewards and encouragements. He had said as much on a former occasion; and one cause of the neglect which the officers of the Royal Marines had suffered was, that they had not so many friends among the aristocracy as the other services had. He certainly did think that the Govern-
246
ment had done right in carrying into effect the improvements and promotions of last year, and he did not rise to complain of them for doing so. But he did complain that the Secretary of the Admiralty should object to the motion of the noble Lord, that it would interfere with the prerogatives of the Crown. To make the service efficient was the object of the motion. The corps at present was not efficient, but it ought to be. On the score of economy it ought to be rendered efficient, otherwise whatever money it cost was a wasteful expenditure. The paltry addition of 13d. a-day was not worth consideration. It was impossible that men could go on always without hopes of promotion. The Marine officers had suffered long and patiently. What must be the feelings of men who had become old in the service in the Marine corps, when they saw officers of the line promoted to posts of honour, and even made field officers, who were scarcely born, when they, as marine officers had served their country many years and now remained as they were then? A sense of justice and humanity ought to dictate a better policy towards these men. If there were no vacancies in the retired list, let some inducements be held out to make men accept of retirement. As the hon. Baronet, the chairman of the East India Company, was in the House, he (Mr. Hume) hoped he would tell the House how the company treated their corps of soldiers whether in actual service or not. He was always an advocate for economy, but he did not support that kind of economy which disregarded the claims of men who had done their duty to the country honourably and efficiently. It was unjust to let such men grow grey in the service without receiving those rewards to which they were entitled. He should be sorry to see promotions and rewards carried on in the same ratio as it was in the land service; but he thought that there was a medium between the two. It was impossible that officers in the Marine corps could be content unless they received the same pay, the same encouragements, and the same promotions as the officers in the land-service. He thought the motion, so far from being objectionable, was one of the least objectionable motions that had ever been introduced into that House. It was "That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take into her

247
serious consideration the expediency of adopting some plan to accelerate promotion generally in the corps of Royal Marines." What objection could there be to that proposition, seeing, that promotion in that corps had been proverbially slow? Was it an interference with the prerogative of the Crown to do an act of justice? The motion was a very proper one, according to his view of it, and he thought the Admiralty would do well to pay attention to the statements which had been made by the noble Lord.
Sir C. B. Veresaid, that it had always appeared to him that the neglect of the interests and claims of the officers of the Royal Marine corps was not only an act of injustice to them, but a great injury to the public service of the country. The present motion was certainly not so objectionable in form as that which was brought forward last year for a Committee of inquiry into this subject. He wished to suggest to the noble Lord, that he should not carry out the whole of the address, but only adopt this portion of it, "That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take into her serious consideration the expediency of adopting some plan to accelerate promotion generally in the corps of Royal Marines, so that it may keep pace in a fair and equitable degree with those branches of her Majesty's forces whose system of promotion is progressive." He would stop there, because then there would be no particular mode pointed out; nothing objectionable would then be contained in the address; but her Majesty would see that justice done to that noble corps which they all wished, in such a way as it might please her Majesty to direct. He was persuaded that the House would recollect when the subject was brought forward last year, although the noble Lord withdrew his motion, because it was promised that it would be taken into consideration, it was spontaneously approved of by the House, and that the whole House agreed that it was a question which ought to be favourably entertained. The hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Admiralty however, undertook, on the part of the Admiralty, that it should be made a subject of inquiry, with a view to some satisfactory arrangement. It was then decided by the House that it was desirable that such a step should be taken, and that there
248
was no intention to limit the expense on the part of the House. He had now the pleasure to find that the hon. Member for Kilkenny was disposed to treat the subject with the same liberality, and that he would not object to see an item placed on the estimates for that purpose, and he was sure that no other hon. Gentleman would make any objection. The hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Admiralty, had stated that a great deal had been done already. That was true. But certainly not to that extent of liberality which the cases of these men deserved. He thought the intention of the House was, that saving money should not be the only consideration attended to in this case, but that the object desired should be accomplished by an expenditure equal to the case, though without doubt a proper economy should be exercised. He hoped some measure would be adopted which would not limit or reduce the number of officers, but which would maintain an adequate number, in order to continue promotions progressively and steadily, because if the promotions were made from the lower and middling classes, without any concurrent arrangements with regard to appointments, the promotions must entirely cease. An instance had been mentioned already by an hon. and gallant Gentleman, of two lieutenants, who had served in the late war, and who distinguished themselves in the action between the Shannon and the Chesapeake. They did not obtain any distinction or reward whatever. Perhaps it was not in the power of the First Lord of the Admiralty to bestow any on them, but a promise was given that they should succeed to some staff appointments, meaning certain small staff appointments, which were the only things to which the officers of marines could look to with any degree of certainty. Of those two officers, one was still living; the other died some years ago. But the one who was still living, was still a lieutenant. [An hon. Member: He has been promoted.] If he had been promoted it was only very recently, because it was not long since he had seen and conversed with the commander of the Shannon on the subject, who had taken great pains to get him the promised appointment, but without success. He hoped the motion of the noble Lord for the address, as far as be (Sir C. B. Vere), had stated, would be supported by the House.
Lord A. Lennoxrose to say a few words in reference to what had fallen from his hon. Friend, the Secretary for the Admiralty, who, if he mistook not, had charged his noble Relative with seeking for popularity by bringing forward his motion. He thought it ill became his hon. Friend to make that charge, because he was convinced that the only object which his noble Relative had in view was to do justice to a gallant and most meritorious corps. His hon. Friend, the Secretary for the Admiralty, appeared to suppose that the navy estimates would pass without any thing being said with regard to the naval service; but he thought the hon. Gentleman was mistaken. It appeared from the navy estimates, which he held in his hand, that there was the sum of 4,490 l. arising from appointments which had fallen in, and in lieu of which pensions were to be granted. He wished to guard against stating anything which would seem by possibility to attribute a want of respect to the army, of which he was a member, or to the navy, or the artillery; but he wished to see the marines placed on an equal footing with the other branches of her Majesty's forces. It was, however, a very different case with the officers of the army, who obtained each step of advancement by purchase. What he alluded to more particularly was the Ordnance corps. Looking at the sum of money he had just mentioned, he was led to ask why it was that only two officers of marines received pensions of 150 l. a-year? ["No, no, it is 300 l."] There were two major-generals on the list each receiving 300 l. a-year. Now everybody knew that a major general of marines ranked with a rear admiral of the navy; but there were two rear admirals at the bottom of the list who received 300 l. a-year each, while the former got only half the amount, though one of them was seventeen years, and the other twenty-two years senior to those rear admirals. He did think that his noble Relative had made out a case for the consideration and support of the House. He found that case supported by even the hon. Member for Kilkenny, who, in regard to public expenditure was the greatest screw in the House. He hoped the House would adopt the motion of his noble relative.
Sir E. T. Troubridgewished to make some remarks with regard to the survey of the Royal Marine Corps which had taken
250
place, because he had been connected with it, he having, in company with the Physician General of the Navy, and the Adjutant General of Marines, inspected the corps with a view to ascertain its real condition. He knew well the merit of this distinguished corps in every service in which they had been engaged, and if he were to act on his own determination, he would give a bonus in every case. It had been reported that some of the officers were inefficient. When he went to inspect the corps he found that those reports were incorrect. One lieutenant-colonel who had been reported inefficient, was found mounting his horse to put his corps through their movements. He was asked whether he had any complaint to state, or whether any of his officers were inefficient; he replied that they were most efficient. Four or five years ago, a captain was stated to be ill and enfeebled by age, and he was asked to retire; when the case was examined, he (Sir T. Troubridge) found that the captain could walk twenty miles a-day, that his age was only forty, and that he was able and healthy. But when he found an officer inefficient, he had reported him, and removed him, and appointed another. If the House wished to do justice to one party, however, it ought to do justice to all parties, and have regard to the subordinate officers as well as to their superiors. It had been said, that a captain of marines received 13 d. a-day less than a captain of the line, but it had been lost sight of and forgotten, that officers of the marines, when embarked, received rations or their provisions in addition to their pay. He trusted that from his manner of addressing the House on the present occasion, it would not be supposed that he was seriously objecting to any improvement on the marine corps, nothing could be further from his wish: but at the same time lie had other duties and claims upon him, and from those duties he would never in any situation shrink, however painful they might be. He should gladly unite with the noble Lord in advancing the interests and advantages of the gallant corps which was the subject of the present motion, but there were many other branches of the service equally deserving. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the House, that since the promotions which had taken place since last Session, promotions to an extent un-

251
precedented in any branch of the public service, the effects thereby produced had not yet been seen in the divisions of the marines. If he might be permitted to speak his private and individual feelings on this occasion, his wish would be that before the House came to a vote on this subject, the case should receive fair consideration, aided by the production of the papers which would show the effects of the recent promotions. By such a return, the real state of the question would be much better understood by hon. Members than at present was possible. His hon. Friend, the Secretary for the Admiralty, had gone in detail into those promotions, and upon them it was not necessary for him to dwell further. His hon. Friend had also urged the point with regard to the interference with the prerogative of the Crown, and he certainly did think that this motion, if carried, would bring the whole executive of the country, the Horse Guards, the Admiralty, under the controul of this House, and he thought it would be better at once that regular Committees should be formed to regulate the whole of the services. That would be much better than that fault should thus be found with those by whom those affairs were administered. Admitting to the fullest extent the gallantry of the corps in question, he entreated the House to pause and consider well before it took into its hands the executive administration of all the services, which would be most detrimental to their efficiency.
Captain A' Courtdid not rise for the purpose of going into details on the present occasion, but to express a hope that the claims of this most valuable corps would receive the fullest consideration on the part of her Majesty's Government. He should content himself with further observing, that whether in the presence of the enemy, or in cases of insubordination in the naval service, the Royal Marines had always evinced bravery and patriotism. He would only allude to the services recently at Hernani, of a battalion of marines, under the command of Colonel Owen, when they covered the retreat of the Legion, and did such good service. That fact, at least, showed that during the long peace, the energy and bravery of the corps had not been, in the least degree, impaired, and he hoped that in the distribution of honorary distinctions, now creating such a sensation in the country, the
252
services of Colonel Owen—a Queen's officer commanding the Queen's troops—would not be overlooked or forgotten.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he thought the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down showed the extreme inconvenience of a motion like that now before the House. Was there any body who denied, or attempted to deny, the services—the eminent services—of the royal marines on all occasions when those services had been required. No man was more ready or willing than his hon. and gallant Friend near him (Sir T. Troubridge) to do full justice to that branch of the service, but at the same time, he and the House ought not to lose sight of the fact, that if the gallantry of the corps—if the reliance of the country on their services on future occasions—if the confidence of the country was to be reposed, it could not alone be confined to the corps of royal marines. His hon. Friend (Mr. C. Wood) had put this question on a proper footing,—namely, was the House disposed to undertake the duty of the administration of the active military service of the country? Were hon. Gentlemen opposite, who themselves were so much attached to the prerogative of the Crown, inclined on the present occasion to depart from the warning which had been given them by the right hon. and gallant Officer opposite, who, though not himself affected by this question, was an ornament to the profession? He alluded to the right hon. and gallant Member for Launceston. Was the House disposed on the present occasion to throw that authority aside, and to undertake for itself to say what ought to be the state of promotion in any branch of the service? The House was fully entitled to know the improved state of promotion in the corps of Royal Marines, and he was fully prepared to move for the production of documents to show that result; but if the House would undertake to affirm by a single vote, unaccompanied by more of deliberation than had taken place to-night—absolutely to affirm that this corps should be placed in a different relative position from other branches of the service, then the House would interfere with the prerogatives of the Crown, and establish a most dangerous precedent. Slowness of promotion had been complained of in this corps. Now, what had been the result since the order in council in July last? There being four colonels commandant, the full number had been made up; of lieutenant-

253
colonels, the full number being thirteen, twelve had been filled up; of captains, the full number being ninety-two, twenty-three promotions had been made, forming one-fourth of the whole; and the number of first lieutenants being 124, forty-seven had been promoted, being two-fifths of the whole. Now there was no branch of the public service in which, during four times the length of period, such an extent of promotion had taken place. Certainly, in the civil department, there had not been one-tenth part of this promotion. But with regard to the marine force, his hon. Friend near him (Mr. C. Wood) had stated, that by a former Board of Admiralty in 1834, there had been a very considerable promotion in this body, and he defied hon. Gentlemen opposite, who knew any thing of the other professions, to prove that there could be exhibited such a rapidity of promotion in those professions as had been stated to-night in reference to the marine corps. The hon. and gallant Officer who spoke second in the debate (Captain Boldero) had alluded in terms of just commendation, undoubtedly, to the recent conduct of the marine forces on the coast of Spain. He could have wished that the hon. and gallant Member had been satisfied with praising the marine force, instead of indulging in an attack on another service in the absence of their commander, who, if present, he did not doubt would have been able to give an answer to it. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had appealed to the Chairman of the East India Company as to the payment of the officers in the Company's service, but if a comparison between the East India Company's and the Queen's service were instituted and the latter were to be fashioned after the former, the Government of her Majesty would have to produce estimates of a very different character. He would take one instance as an example. What did the establishment of the East India Company at St. Helena, at the time of its surrender, cost that body? About 96,000 l. a-year. Now he believed that the establishment proposed by her Majesty's Government would come within two-thirds of that amount. He spoke from memory; but he believed that the maximum of the expense of the establishment would not exceed 30,000 l. per annum. He mentioned this not in blame of the East India Company, but only to show that there could not have been a more inappropriate comparison. But on this occasion her Ma-
254
jesty's Government was placed in a most extraordinary situation. Generally speaking, on questions like the present, a charge suggested against the Government was one of extravagant profusion, of an undue attempt to extend their patronage and of their means of influence. What was the case here? Why, the Government were charged with not appointing a field officer to the dock-yard at Pembroke. Now this did not show that they were keeping up the force for the purpose of patronage or promotion, for no hon. Member had said that the corps of Royal Marines, at the present moment, was not adequate and ready to perform its duty to the country. Would, then, the House consent to establish a new rule for this corps which would affect all the other branches of the military service of the country? Could it be denied that the true policy was to maintain a military, a naval, an artillery, and a marine force equal to the defence of the honour and the rights of England, and not that the establishment should be kept up with a view to the claims of any branch of the service for past services? What had been the course since the termination of the war? Had the army that fought at Waterloo been kept up, and the navy that won the victory of Trafalgar been maintained? Certainly not; but the establishment had only been maintained in proportion to the wants of the country. He asked hon. Members, and particularly his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Goulburn) to consider whether they would be disposed to sanction this interference with the prerogatives of the Crown. He asked them if they were disposed to lay down this principle of an interference in the promotion of the army, the navy, and the admiralty, and even he would go to the extent, which must follow, of an interference with the promotion in reference to the administration of justice by the House of Commons, if this motion were entertained? He would suppose that, for the sake of a vote, hon. Members opposite would sacrifice that principle; but even supposing that for a moment, would they decide without knowing the new facts affecting the case? And he would bring that to a test by moving an amendment on the motion of the noble Lord. Hon. Gentlemen, whoever they might be, who were in favour of that motion, ought to be in favour of the amendment, which had for its object the production of matter which would bring to the attention of the House

255
the actual facts of the case. Her Majesty's Government had been charged with the non-redemption of the pledge which they gave last Session. The hon. and gallant Officer opposite (Sir C. B. Vere) had said, that he would support the motion of the noble Lord, provided the latter clause of that motion were left out. The hon. and gallant Officer made a distinction in words, but not in substance, and therefore he presumed that his judgment would be the same as formerly. Now, last year the question was for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the state of the marine service. That motion was brought forward by the noble Lord who had brought forward the present motion, and what was the present motion? It was this:—
"To call the attention of the House to the slow promotion of the officers of the Royal Marines, and to move that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take into her serious consideration the expediency of adopting some plan to accelerate promotion generally in the corps of Royal Marines, so that it may keep pace in a fair and equitable degree with those branches of her Majesty's forces whose system of promotion is progressive; and also to take the case of the captains of the Royal Marines into her Majesty's consideration, with a view of placing them upon the same footing as those of her Majesty's regiments of the line; and likewise to provide some measure for the benefit and relief of those first lieutenants of the Royal Marines who served during the late war."
Now, would any man say, that that was not a more distinct interference with the prerogatives of the Crown than any Committee of Inquiry could be? Suppose that address to be carried, was it possible for the Crown to do otherwise than to carry into effect the declared wishes of the House of Commons? But, suppose a Committee had been appointed to inquire into the matter, would the report of that Committee, even if adopted by the House, be as stringent on the royal prerogative as an address, moved in and adopted by that House, and carried to the foot of the Throne? He contended that it was a principle of the monarchy under which they lived, that promotion in these branches of the public service should proceed from the Crown, and not from Parliament. If a contrary principle were laid down, where was Parliament to stop? If adopted, it would place the Crown in the position of ratifying or adopting the decisions of the House of Commons—a position in which he was sure no hon. Gentleman
256
would wish to see the Crown placed. The principles would divest the Crown of its best prerogative, and compel the military profession to look to that House, and not to the Crown. He objected to the motion—first, as being an interference with the royal prerogative; and, secondly, on the narrower grounds of the want of information before the House; and therefore he should move, as an amendment on the motion of the noble Lord, for a "return of copies of the order in council, dated July, 1837, with reference to the corps of Royal Marines, and of the effects of the promotions thereunder."
Captain Boldero,in explanation, begged to observe, that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had thrown out a suggestion that he (Captain Boldero) had made a remark reflecting on the character of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster. He begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he had never wished to allude in the slightest degree to the character or conduct of that hon. and gallant Officer. All he had done was to ask for the vote of the hon. and gallant Officer in favour of the motion of the noble Lord, and accompany that vote with a declaration to the House of the value of that corps from whose services he had received so much benefit. It had been said that this motion had been brought forward in order to court the favour of constituencies. He begged leave to deny, that he had been actuated by any such motives, or that he had a single voter who could be benefitted by the motion which he had thought it his duty to that branch of the service to support.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had misconceived him, if he supposed that he had imagined the hon. and gallant Gentleman to have cast any reflection on the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster. His observation was, that the hon. and gallant Member having made the statement that the marines did their duty on the occasion to which he alluded, might have confined his praise to them without attacking other corps, in the absence of one who was best able to defend their conduct. He had never supposed that the hon. and gallant Member had in any way alluded to the conduct of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster.
Sir A. J. Dalrymplewished to guard himself in the vote which he should give

257
on the present occasion, from being supposed to interfere with or to infringe upon the prerogatives of the Crown. His hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir E. T. Troubridge) had said, that sooner than this motion should be entertained the subject matter should be left for the adjudication of Committees of that House. Now, he, for one, would ever raise his voice against such an interference on the part of this House with the royal prerogatives in naval and military matters. He did not look at this matter in that point of view, though he was free to confess that it involved a question which he did not approach without some feeling of difficulty. He was not in Parliament last year; but it appeared to him, that though a great deal had been done, both with regard to the increase of pay and also to the regulations regarding retirements and promotions, still the advantage to the marine corps had not been so great as had been stated, and therefore he should support the address, with the exception of the latter part, which had been objected to by the hon. and gallant Member for Suffolk (Sir C. B. Vere).
Sir J. R. Carnachoped he might be permitted to offer a few observations to the House. He could not think that any argument was necessary, to show that a corps like the Royal Marines ought to be placed in a situation equal to that of any other branch of the service. The officers of marines complained that they were labouring under disadvantages which did not affect officers of regiments of the line, of the artillery, of the engineers, or of the navy. They complained of the slowness of promotion. Could any one deny that fact? During the last five years, of the officers promoted to the rank of colonels commandant, the youngest had been fifty-eight years in the service. The senior lieutenant colonel promoted had served forty-two years, the senior major forty years, and several of the senior captains were of the same standing. But the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty had told the House that by the orders in council of last year, a boon had been conferred on this corps, and promotions had been accelerated to a degree never before known in any branch of the service. Look at the facts. It was found, that even after this boon had been given, the senior lieutenant was forty-five years in the service, and the same gradation took place in all
258
lower ranks. Now, when it was seen that a gallant officer was compelled to look to the higher ranks and emoluments of his profession, through the long and gloomy vista of a series of years through which few men could hope to live—when it was remembered that there was no permanent provision for those officers, he trusted the House would be convinced that the service would be anything but attractive to the youthful aspirant for distinction, and under the present system afforded a prospect the most deplorable. The officers of the royal marines asked no favour. They only desired to be placed on a footing of equality with other branches of the service. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had travelled into a comparison of the expenses of the East India Company, and had sneered at the expenses of the St. Helena establishment. That was a question with which this House had nothing to do. It was true, that, on the subject of civil services, the right hon. Gentleman was competent to form a judgment, but he did not think that he was acquainted with all the details of a military establishment. He knew, that the efficiency of the Indian army had been destroyed by the slowness of its promotion. That was the present case of the marine force of her Majesty. The East-India Company had not been disposed to be extravagant, but they found it necessary, for the efficiency of their army, to make arrangements for the acceleration of promotions, and those arrangements were, that every subaltern officer, after twenty years' service, should be entitled to the full pay of a captain; after twenty-four years, to the full pay, for life, of a major; after twenty-eight years' service, to the full pay of a lieutenant-colonel; and after he had served thirty-two years, to the full pay of a colonel. He felt it his duty to stand up there and deliver his sentiments. Some such arrangements ought to be made with respect to the marine forces of the Crown. He cordially concurred in the motion of the noble Lord, and he trusted that it would meet with that support to which it was justly entitled.
Mr. Goulburndid not wish to prolong the debate, but merely to state the reason why he should support the amendment of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer in preference to the motion of the noble Lord. He would not have it understood, however, that, in taking that course,

259
he was insensible to the great merits of the corps of the royal marines—a corps, whose achievements had been acknowledged, not for the first time, in that House, this night. Nor did he mean to imply, by his vote, that the position of that corps was precisely that which, after full examination of the question by the Government, it had a right to expect and ought to be placed in. But he knew from experience, questions of so great difficulty as this, affecting the regulations of the different branches of the public service, ought not, because some discrepancies existed in the system, which discrepancies, when stated to a popular assembly, were calculated to enlist in favour of that branch of the public service, a large portion of the public sympathy, to be decided by such feelings. He thought, after the declaration which had been made by the Government last Session, evincing an anxiety to take measures for an improvement of the system, that the House had a full right to be informed of the measures which had been taken, not on the mere statement of an individual Member of this House, but in such a shape as would enable every Member of the House to form an opinion what the value of the additional advantages were to the corps in question. On other grounds there would be great inconvenience in acceding to the address without full knowledge of all the facts, and for these two reasons, without further trespassing on the House, he should give his vote in support of the amendment of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Sir H. Viviansaid, God forbid that he, an old soldier, should get up in his place to detract from the claims of one of the most meritorious corps in her Majesty's service. The grounds on which he wished to appeal to the House were very simple. He knew what difficulties they had in meeting the claims put forward by the different corps of the army for promotion. If they were to accede to the motion of the noble Lord, the consequence would be, that persons would be constantly coming down to the House with petitions from officers of every corps in the service. He earnestly hoped, therefore, that the House, instead of agreeing to the motion of the noble Lord, would vote for the amendment of his right hon. Friend.
Captain Pechellhoped the House would beware of the statement of the right hon.
260
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had brought all the weight of official language to bear on the unfortunate marines. The right hon. Gentleman had treated them most unmercifully. He would contend that the marines ought to be put on the same footing as the other corps of the army. The Board of Admiralty had done much for them, but they were still in a very unfair position. Let not the House suppose, that because, at the late election for Portsmouth, a doctor in the royal marine corps had been a candidate, the marines were in very great prosperity. This was a rare case. He entreated the House to support the motion of his noble Friend, and he hoped they would not be led astray by the statement of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, but would insist that the marines should be placed on the same footing as other corps in the service.
Admiral Adamsaid, that if the House interfered in the manner proposed by his noble Friend, the Member for Sussex, and took the power of promotion out of the hands of the Government, while it gave them nothing but the disagreeable duty of punishment or disapprobation, when called for, the efficiency of every part of the forces must be impaired.
Lord G. Lennox,in reply, observed, that he was rather astonished to hear the gallant Admiral object to the terms of his motion, more especially as the gallant Admiral had said last year, in reference to this subject, that the course would be not to refer the matter to a Committee, but that the more constitutional mode would certainly be an address to the Crown. As a reference had been made to a private letter of his, he would be bold to mention the subject of a private conversation with the Secretary for the Admiralty. He had asked the hon. Gentleman for the orders in Council, and the hon. Gentleman's reply was, "There they are, you may see them, but we never have given them, and we never will." The Secretary for the Admiralty had said that thirteen captains had been promoted. Now, in fact, there were but twelve, but he would make him a present of one. But how stood the case with regard to these twelve? Two colonels had died—no thanks to the Admiralty for that. Then, one colonel had been made a major-general, and one had been made adjutant-general, so that there were but eight promoted after all. Mo-

261
tives had been attributed to him in the course of the debate by which his conduct had never been influenced. It had been said that he was anxious, by bringing forward this motion, to obtain popularity among his tenants and constituents. He did not seek for popularity more than any hon. Member of that House, and he was only actuated by a sense of what he felt to be right and just. He had but out constituent who was a marine officer, ant he was the doctor who lately stood for Portsmouth, in opposition to her Majesty's Government, but he should not be sorry to have a great many more of such supporters. As some objection had been entertained to the latter part of his motion, he was willing to stop at the word "progressive."
The House divided on the original motion curtailed according to Lord G. Lennox's statement:—Ayes 100; Noes 87 Majority 13.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Captain

Farnham, E. B.

Adare, Viscount

Forbes, W.

Alexander, Viscount

Freshfield, J. W.

Alsager, Captain

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Attwood, W.

Godson, R.

Attwood, M.

Gore, O. J. R.

Bagge, W.

Gore, O. W.

Bailey, J.

Grimsditch, T.

Bailey, J., jun.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Barnes, Sir E.

Hale, R. B.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hawkes, T.

Blackburne, I.

Hodgson, R.

Blackstone, W. S.

Hogg, J. W.

Blair, J.

Holmes, W.

Blake, M. J.

Hotham, Lord

Bolling, W.

Houldsworth, T.

Borthwick, Peter

Houstoun, G.

Bradshaw, J.

Howard, R.

Bramston, T. W.

Hughes, W. B.

Bruges, W. H.

Hume, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hurt, F.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Jackson, Sergeant

Campbell, Sir H.

Jenkins, R.

Carnac, Sir J. R.

Johnson, General

Chandos, Marquess of

Knight, H. G.

Chaplin, Colonel

Leader, J. T.

Chetwynd, Major

Lennox, Lord A.

Chute, W. L. W.

Lockhart, A. M.

Clayton, Sir W. R.

Logan, H.

Codrington, C. W.

Lowther, J. H.

Courtenay, P.

Mackenzie, T.

Craig, W. G.

Maidstone, Viscount

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Masters, T. W. C.

De Horsey, S. H.

Monypenny, T. G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Neeld, J.

Duke, Sir J.

Neeld, J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Norreys, Lord

Dundas, Capt. D.

O'Neil, hon. J. B. R.

Eliot, Lord

Pechell, Captain

262

Perceval, Colonel

Talfourd, Sergt.

Pringle, A.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Rippon, C.

Verner, Colonel

Rolleston, L.

Wakley, T.

Round, C. G.

Wallace, R.

Round, J.

Wemyss, J. E.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Wodehouse, E.

Rushout, G.

Wyndham, W.

Seale, Colonel

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Sinclair, Sir G.

TELLERS.

Stewart, J.

Boldero, Captain

Stuart, H.

Lennox, Lord G.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Morpeth, Viscount

Aglionby, H. A.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Aglionby, Major

Palmerston, Viscount

Ainsworth, P.

Parker, J.

Alston, R.

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Archbold, R.

Parrott, J.

Baines, E.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Barneby, J.

Philips, M.

Blake, W. J.

Pinney, W.

Bodkin, J. J.

Power, J.

Bridgman, H.

Price, Sir R.

Brocklehurst, J.

Protheroe, E.

Brotherton, J.

Pusey, P.

Busfield, W.

Redington, T. N.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Rice, rt. hn. T. S.

Chalmers, P.

Rich, H.

Curry, W.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Dalmeny, Lord

Russell, Lord John

Dunlop, J.

Seymour, Lord

Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.

Smith, R. V.

Finch, F.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Stanley, M.

Fitzsimon, N.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Fleetwood, P. H.

Steuart, R.

Gillon, W. D.

Stewart, J.

Gladstone, W. E.

Stuart, Lord J.

Gordon, R.

Style, Sir C.

Goulburn, right hn. H.

Talbot, J. H.

Greenaway, C.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Grey, Sir G.

Thornley, T.

Hawes, B.

Turner, W.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Verney, Sir H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Vivian, right hon. Sir R. H.

Horsman, E.

Howick, Viscount

Warburton, H.

Hurst, R. H.

Ward, H. G.

Hutton, R.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Langdale, hon. C.

Williams, W. A.

Lefevre, C. S.

Wilshere, W.

Lynch, A. H.

Wood, C.

Maher, J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Mahoney, P.

Yates, J. A.

Marsland, H.

Maule, hon. F.

TELLERS.

Melgund, Viscount

Stanley, E. J.

Milnes, R. M.

Troubridge, Sir T.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time: Custody of Insane Persons.
Petitions presented. By Lord DACRE, from Wisbeach, and several other places, by the Duke of CLEVELAND, from Stockton-upon-Tees, by the Duke of SUTHERLAND, from Kelso, and several places in Scotland, and by Lord BROUGHAM, from Taunton, Wellington, Appleby, Burn-

189
ham-market, Cardiff, Evesham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and many other places, for the immediate and total abolition of Slavery.—By the Bishop of EXETER, from inhabitants of the city of Cork, to protect the Protestant Church against the Roman Catholics.—By the Earl of RADNOR, from Bradford (Wilts), and by Lord BROUGHAM, from St. Michael's, Dublin, for the Ballot.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from the Benevolent Society of Smiths, London, for an extension of the royal mercy to the Glasgow Cotton Spinners; and from St. Michael's Dublin, against Tithes, and for Municipal Reform in Ireland.—By Lord LYNDHURST, from the Cordwainers of Glasgow, complaining of the combination of workmen, and praying for an inquiry.

THE PENITENTIARY.
Lord Broughamwished to ask a question of the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne) relating to a statement which had become public, and to which he (Lord Brougham) should not have called the attention of the House if it had been made in a vague and uncertain manner; but it was a statement which had been very distinctly and very specifically made in public at a meeting of magistrates, and, as he understood, had attracted much of public attention. It related to a person whom he ought to call a gentlewoman if she had not degraded herself by crime. It related to Miss Newman, who, as their Lordships might recollect, was tried with her mother at the Old Bailey, and found guilty upon two of the worst out of five indictments for an extensive system of robbery. Being so found guilty, Miss Newman was sentenced to fourteen years' transportation, which sentence was commuted to imprisonment in the Penitentiary, where she was some time confined, but whence, under very suspicious circumstances (and this was the ground of his question), she had of late been transferred to Bethlem or to some other public lunatic asylum, The matron of that hospital, shortly after Miss Newman became an inmate of it, had a suspicion awakened in her mind that all was not right; she thought that some partiality had been shown and that some favour was intended towards this person, whose disease she suspected was not real. It certainly was remarkable, seeing that Miss Newman had availed herself of the best legal advice, that insanity was not set up either at the trial as a defence against the charge, nor subsequently, when she had been found guilty, to prevent her receiving sentence. Their Lordships were aware that no person could be punished, that no person could even receive sentence, any more than he could be tried, if the mind were alienated at the period at which he was brought up for judgment. This
190
made the whole case very suspicious. It appeared extraordinary that a person who had been engaged in such a complicated course of guilt, who had displayed so much skill, so much collectedness of mind in the commission of crime, should all at once be driven distracted simply by a sentence which certainly was not more severe than she must have anticipated. But upon a few days' further acquaintance the matron, being a skilful person, became certain that the madness was not real, as she saw in the patient none of the symptoms which attended that woful malady. The matron then intimated to this person that her art was discovered, and would not be allowed to screen her; adding that if she went on feigning madness she would be treated as she feigned, and be made subject to the discipline of the House. Whereupon the feigning ceased, and the patient, with strange rapidity, relapsed into a state of sanity. It was said, however, that this person still continued in the lunatic asylum—that though known to be perfectly sane, she had not been restored to the Penitentiary, but was allowed to enjoy a state of great ease and great comparative comfort, in a place whose proper inmates were those who suffered from nature's severest misfortune—not those who were deeply stained by the world's crime. These were the facts stated at the meeting of the justices, and he therefore wished to know from the noble Viscount whether they were correct or not. He begged to add that the noble Viscount could, on this occasion, have no ground of complaint against him for not giving notice of the question he intended to ask. In the first place, the subject was broached last night in the House, and it might therefore be reasonably supposed that the noble Viscount would be fully prepared to give any answer that might be required to-day. But that there might be no doubt upon the point, he (Lord Brougham) thought it might be as well to give a formal notice of his intention. Therefore between seven and eight o'clock that morning, he sent a note to the noble Viscount, couched in as respectful terms as he could employ, intimating his intention of putting a question that evening; but adding, that by so giving a formal notice he (Lord Brougham) by no means intended to express disapprobation of the opposite course, namely, the bringing forward such a motion or the platting such a question as

191
the present without any notice at all. He believed that the note so sent by him to the noble Viscount had been received, though the noble Viscount had not deemed it necessary to favour him with a reply.
Viscount Melbournehad certainly received the noble and learned Lord's note, and as the object of it seemed to extend no further than to give notice of certain business to be transacted in that House, he really had not thought it necessary to go through the form and ceremony of returning an answer. He now begged pardon for the omission; and at the same time begged leave to thank the noble and learned Lord for the very temperate and fair manner in which he had brought forward the question, as well as for his courtesy in giving notice of his intention to introduce it—a course which tended more than any other, not merely to his convenience, which was nothing, but to a full, fair, and satisfactory discussion of any topic that might be brought under the consideration of the House. The facts which the noble and learned Lord had related with respect to this individual were for the most part true. Miss Newman was convicted along with her mother, in February 1837, of various acts of robbery. It was a conviction which excited a good deal of attention at the time, and was regarded as a matter of interest all over the town. The sentence passed upon her was fourteen years' transportation. That sentence, however, was commuted to confinement in the Penitentiary upon the special recommendation of the learned Judge who tried the case—the Recorder of London. The Secretary of State yielded to the recommendation of the learned Judge, although it was in some degree contrary to what otherwise would have been his opinion; and this person was confined in the Penitentiary. Not long after she had become an inmate of that establishment there came the strongest representations possible from the governor, of the great disturbances which she created in the prison; of the great difficulty of managing her; of her breaking through all rules; and of the utter impossibility of confining her within any of the decent bounds of order. She refused food—violently assaulted every person who came near her—made loud outcries, and, in short, disturbed the whole prison. Of this conduct the governor made repeated representations. At the same time he must observe, that
192
although the actions of this person were the actions of derangement, it was for a long time the opinion of the governor, and also of the medical attendant of the prison, that the madness was simulated and pretended. However, this nuisance, this annoyance to the governor and to the whole prison, continued more and more; and as the actions of the disturber were the actions of a mad woman, Dr. Monro was desired by the government to see her, and report upon her case. Dr. Monro accordingly saw her, considered her case, and gave it as his opinion that her madness was pretended. He held in his hand two letters written by Dr. Monro, in which that gentleman stated what were the symptoms and what his opinion of her case. In the first letter, which was dated the 20th of September, 1837, Dr. Monro, after entering into some detail of the case, said, "I am persuaded that the symptoms she exhibits are assumed." And again, in the second letter, which was dated Oct. 23, 1837, he said, "Having again visited Julia Newman, in the prison at Millbank, I see no reason to reverse my former opinion." About this time, however, there began to prevail in the prison a different opinion. The medical attendant of the Penitentiary, who previously had strongly coincided in the opinion expressed by Dr. Monro, began to waver in that opinion, and to entertain the idea that this person was actually insane. It must be observed that Dr. Monro, when he expressed his conviction that the symptoms of madness were assumed, at the same time signified that although such was his opinion, founded upon the few opportunities he had had of seeing the patient, yet that he was not absolutely determined in it, and that if a different opinion should prevail in the mind of the medical attendant of the prison, he should have no objection to receive the patient into the hospital of Bethlem. About that time a letter was received from the medical attendant of the prison, in which he stated, that, after four months of close and careful observation, he was induced to alter his former opinion, and to believe that Julia Newman really was not in herright mind. In consequence of that letter an immediate communication was made to Dr. Monro and to Mr. Anthony White, a surgeon, as their Lordships knew, of great eminence, which terminated in the transfer of the supposed lunatic from the Penitentiary to Bethlem. Under all the circumstances,

193
and after all the representations that had been made to him upon the subject, the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, thought that the course most fitting to pursue would be to have this person placed in an establishment which was peculiarly intended for the treatment of the insane, in order that it might be clearly ascertained whether she were really mad or not. As to any suspicion of partiality or favour in the case, he (Lord Melbourne) could not see how such a feeling could have arisen in any one single person's mind. The prisoner had hitherto continued in Bethlem, because until yesterday the noble Lord, the Home Secretary, had received no report upon her case. Yesterday evening, however, a report was received from the authorities of that asylum, stating that Julia Newman was perfectly sane, and that they entertained no doubt that she had been perfectly sane throughout, and that her madness was a pretence and deception from beginning to end. Under these circumstances, he thought that no blame could attach to his noble Friend the Home Secretary, for the course he had taken. He wished now to say a few words with respect to the cases brought forward by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) last evening. His noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, considering the gravity and weight of those cases, and also the effect which they were likely to have upon the public mind, felt it necessary that a full report of them should be drawn up, and that that full report should be laid upon the table of the House. He did not exactly know the object of the complaint made by the noble and learned Lord last night, whether it were intended to apply to the punishment as being too severe, or to the conduct of the superintendents of the prison as being improper. These were the cases of three children convicted at Quarter Sessions in the country. Three female children, each of them, he believed, of the age of ten years—
Lord Lyndhurst: The ages of the children to whose cases I referred were seven, eight, and ten years.
Viscount Melbourne: I believe not. I believe that is not the real state of the case.
Lord Lyndhurst: I can only say, that their ages were so stated to me by a magistrate, who had seen the children, and investigated their case with great attention.
Viscount Melbournebelieved it was not so. He did not know how the mistake in the noble and learned Lord's mind had arisen; but he believed that each of the children in question had attained the age of ten years. But upon a point of this kind a year more or less was not of any material importance. They were three very profligate children. One of the worst moral signs of the present day was the great number of crimes committed by children of a tender age. This evil was entirely new in the country, and appeared to have been the growth of the last thirty or forty years. He was assured, that at that distance of time the number of offences committed by children were rare and few, in comparison with those which were committed now. One of the principal causes of this increase of juvenile crime was most unquestionably the profligacy of the parents themselves, who made their children the instruments for executing their own evil designs. These three children were sent up from the country, with a representation from the magistrates by whom they were tried that they had been prosecuted with the view of removing them from the pernicious example v structive counsel of their parents. This was the object of the magistrates in imposing the amount of punishment (originally seven years' transportation, but commuted to three years' confinement in the Penitentiary), of which the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) complained. The object of the magistrates was to remove the children from the control of their parents, and to give the Government an opportunity of effecting a reformation in their character and conduct. He could conceive persons objecting to that course, although he did not know whether the noble and learned Lord was one of them, and he could conceive persons saying, "I do not think much of your reform; I would rather follow the old course;" he could conceive persons saying, "Take the circumstances of the person brought before you and the circumstances of the offence with which he is charged into consideration—pass sentence upon him accordingly, and do not trouble yourself about what becomes of him afterwards." He could conceive persons who entertained such notions; but they were different from the object—different from the policy—of the present Government. The object of the present Government was reformation;

195
and when these children were sent up by the magistrates, with a statement that they had been committed for the purpose of rescuing them from the evil influence of their parents, he should like to know what course his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, could take except that of sending them to the Penitentiary, which was a prison especially appointed for the purpose of working a reformation in offenders, and the only prison which the Government had to use for that purpose, until the new one, for which money had been voted by Parliament, and which was to be built in the Isle of Wight—a prison to be more especially devoted to the object of reformation than any yet established,—was completed. As to the manner in which the children had been treated in the Penitentiary, when be said last evening that the charge made by the noble and learned Lord reflected upon the persons who had the entire control and management of the establishment, he was told that he was entirely wrong, and that the reflection, if any reflection there were, must be taken as falling upon the Secretary for the Home Department. Seeing, however, that the discipline of the prison was directed by certain particular rules which had been laid down, not by the Secretary of State, but by a Committee of that House in 1835, if any undue severity had been practised he still thought that the blame must be attributed to the officer of the prison, and not to the Home Secretary. With respect to solitary confinement, he believed there was no such thing in the Penitentiary except as a punishment for prison offences. Separate confinement there certainly was, but solitary confinement, that was to say, complete exclusion without being visited, without being seen, without going out to public worship, as a general practice was, he believed, unknown in that establishment. In the report which he had received with respect to these children it was stated that they took exercise regularly twice a day, half an hour each time, in company with the other prisoners of their ward; that they attended school together twice a week; that in addition to that schooling they received instruction in classes twice a week, once from the chaplain, and once from the schoolmaster; that they attended divine service in the chapel on Sunday, and that they were regularly visited and instructed during the week by benevolent Christian
196
ladies, who spent much time with them This, he thought, could hardly be regarded as a condition of very great hardship. The report besides contained a statement of the very great improvement which had taken place in the habits, morals, and learning, of the children, since they had become inmates of the prison. The noble and learned Lord also brought forward the cases of two young men who, he said, had been kept in solitary confinement for some time; he did not state how long. The names of these two persons were Welsh and Ray. They had been convicted of serious offences, and were sent to the Penitentiary, with the view, if possible, of effecting some reformation in their ill-conducted and irregular lives. It was stated in the paper with which he (Lord Melbourne) had been furnished, that Welsh and Ray were in the Penitentiary for one year, that they were confined in separate cells like other prisoners, but had never been placed in solitary confinement except for prison offences. It seemed that Welsh, whose conduct was the most irregular, had been reported thirty times, and subjected to solitary confinement fifteen times, the extent of that confinement amounting to twenty-two days in the whole, the longest period of confinement at any one time being three days. Ray, whose behaviour had not been so disorderly, had been confined only on a few occasions, and that for a very short time. This was a short and plain statement of the facts as they had actually occurred. Whether it would be satisfactory or not to the two noble and learned Lords he could not say, but was quite sure it would be satisfactory to the House in general.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that his attention had been first drawn to this subject by what had passed before the magistrates at their public meeting. He had seen the same statement in several of the public papers, and he had afterwards had personal communication with two of the magistrates, who had told him, that their representations were perfectly correct. One of the magistrates had himself seen the children, and he had told him distinctly, that the youngest was not more than seven and a half years old when she was first placed in the prison. Lord Hale had stated, and he believed it to be the law of the country, that no child could commit a felony under the age of seven.

197
If this child, then, had just turned that age, it seemed to him, that the punishment inflicted had been very severe; for to punish such a child with as verity which would be considered extreme for persons of mature age was highly improper and inconsistent with the spirit of the law. But, further, it appeared, that the theft which had been committed by this child had been committed at the instigation of her mother, who had been indicted or receiving the goods which the child had stolen. The mother was tried and convicted of that offence, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, whilst the child was sentenced to transportation for seven years. Now, he had said, to impose that punishment on the child was, in the highest degree, improper, and upon that ground he had imputed some blame to the noble Lord, the Home Secretary; but it was said, that the noble Secretary was no party to that transaction. He fully admitted that; but the sentence must have been brought under his consideration, because there could be no confirmation of it without his consent; and the noble Lord, therefore, had been a party to the confirmation of a sentence of transportation for seven years on a child not much more than seven years old, for a theft which she had committed at the instigation of her mother. Now, had any contradiction been given to that part of the statement? The noble Viscount said, the children had not been committed to solitary confinement. He was aware of the distinction, and he had stated, that they had been punished by what was called separate confinement, which to persons of that age, and under the circumstances, amounted to solitary confinement. But let them mark the statement of the noble Viscount. During the whole of the night the child was secluded and during a great part of the day; still she was allowed to take exercise for a certain time, but during that time she was not permitted to communicate with any person—she was not allowed to go to church on Sunday, and on two occasions in the course of the week and for three hours—three hours only in the whole week—she was allowed to go to school. Was not that in reality solitary confinement? Was not the distinction which the noble Viscount had attempted to draw a minute distinction indeed, and one entitled to no weight or consideration? He had stated, and it
198
had not been contradicted, that the effect upon the voice of the children was visible and palpable to all those who had any communication with them. That information had been conveyed to him by a magistrate who had seen them; but he did not choose to make the statement upon the authority even of that verbal communication, and accordingly he had written a letter to that magistrate, asking him what he meant by the effect on their voice; and that Gentleman stated, in his answer, that "the effect was to render their voices feeble, low, and inarticulate—to produce a kind of inward speaking, visible to and palpable to every one who heard them." He would beg leave to ask, then, if the statement he had made last night was not true in every particular? But what had been his object in making that statement? He considered, that the administration of justice in this particular case had been harsh and severe, and he considered, too, that the prison discipline had been harsh and severe; and he had therefore thought it expedient and proper, by way of example, to call their Lordships' attention to the particular facts of this case. The noble Viscount had stated, that the representation was incorrect with respect to Welsh, who had suffered, as he had been informed and had, stated considerably in health of body and mind. Now, upon that point he had received a letter from a magistrate which confirmed his statement; for in that letter the magistrate said, that a relation of the prisoner had told him, and was ready to maintain the truth of it upon his oath, that ever since his release from the penitentiary Welsh had been incapable of gaining a livelihood, or even doing any slight work in the yard of the workhouse. Now that statement might incorrect. The statement of the noble Viscount might be correct, but it was at least sufficient to show, that the matter ought to be put into a course of investigation, and if the noble Viscount would propose a Committee to inquire into these cases he should be most happy and ready to attend every hour of its sitting. He was only desirous of ascertaining the truth. It was to be remembered, that the Penitentiary was directly under the superintendence of Government. It was visited and conducted by persons appointed by the, Government, and everything, therefore, which took place in an establishment of that nature, so man-

199
aged and directed, ought to be watched with peculiar vigilance, and it was for that reason partly, that he had felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the subject of these cases, and more particularly to that species of punishment which had been alluded to, because he had been a party to those proceedings of their Lordships which had led them to state unanimously their opinion, that extension of solitary confinement—and he was unable to distinguish between that and separate confinement—beyond a very limited time was harsh, unnecessary, and severe. Their Lordships had expressed that opinion by adopting the amendments which he had proposed to the series of measures formerly under their consideration. He hoped, he believed, now, after the statements which he had made, that their Lordships would think, that he had been justified in bringing the question before that House; that he had not only been justified, but that it was his duty so to do. And he would appeal to the few noble Lords who were present, to say whether there was anything in his tone or manner of bringing it forward, which could justify any man in imputing to him, that he had introduced the subject from party or political motives or with any other view than to discharge what he felt to be his duty as having been connected with the law of the country, by pointing out to public attention a case which he considered to present an instance of the harsh administration of that law?
Lord Broughamentirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend that the distinction between separate and solitary confinement was most flimsy, shadowy, and unsubstantial. It was admitted on all hands that the matter could not rest here; and in their Lordships' House—the tribunal of justice of the last resort in this country—it would be highly proper to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole of the cases. With regard to the case of the young child, the defence of the magistrates who sentenced the child was, that she was so young that every means ought to be employed to reclaim her; and, secondly, that it was absolutely essential to separate the parent and child. Now, as to the first point, the objection to solitary confinement was that it had no tendency to cure persons of their thievish propensities, or to deter others from the same offence, and that its effects were
200
grievous to be considered. The separation of the parent and child might be effected in two ways—they might send the parent to Botany Bay, or they might send the child to Botany Bay. In this case there could be no doubt that the mother was the principal offender, but the child was sentenced to transportation, the mother to six months' imprisonment. He should have thought it was reasonable if the mother had received the more severe punishment; but perhaps that might be an awkward mode of looking at the question.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the magistrates had sentenced the child to seven years' transportation, in order to give the Government a more immediate control over her. His noble Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, could only send her to the Penitentiary or to Botany Bay, or shorten the punishment which would be to do that which the magistrates had especially guarded against. He did not think that there was any sufficient case for a Committee; but if it should appear to be the opinion of their Lordships that it was desirable to appoint a Committee he could, of course, have no objection.
The Earl of Radnorthought, that a Committee should be appointed. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had said that there was no difference between separate and solitary confinement when applied to children; of course in that case the difference could not be as great as in the case of adults, who felt the great punishment to consist in the absolute solitude—the total seclusion and total absence of employment—which characterised solitary confinement. He had been informed that the cells of the prisoners in the Penitentiary were adjacent, and that the prisoners actually conversed from one cell to another. He had reason to believe that there was no truth in the statement that those children could not speak articulately; for in fact their voices were quite as full as those of children of their age generally were. That was the representation which had been made to him and by a person who had seen the children. With respect to the boys, too, the governor said that the only difference he found in them was that they were rather more orderly, but that they were just as acute as when they entered the prison; and with respect to Welsh, he had declared that he

201
was much more comfortable in the Penitentiary than in the workhouse. He (the Earl of Radnor) only wished that for the future noble Lords would take a lesson and not be so ready to come forward with statements, without having first instituted every possible inquiry as to the truth of those statements; for undoubtedly great mischief was frequently done by those hyperbolical statements. As, however, those introductory representations had been made, it was advisable that a Committee should be appointed, and then he believed that the result would be to show that the statements which had been made were wholly unfounded.
Lord Lyndhurstbegged leave to ask the noble Lord what course he could have taken for the purpose of obtaining information in these cases, except that of applying to the magistrates before whom they had been investigated?
Lord Broughamwished to say one word in his own defence, and that of his noble and learned Friend, against the lecture which the noble Earl mounting in cathedram had delivered ex cathedrâ against noble Lords for calling attention to facts that were in every one's mouth, and were discussed in every circle of the law within this city. His noble and learned Friend had not chosen this matter as the subject of a party attack; it had been pressed upon his attention. Application had been made to him in private; but since the noble Earl (Radnor) had ceased putting questions to Ministers whenever they were in their places, since he had ceased making frequent motions, since his habits had so entirely changed, did they think he had forgotten that Parliament was never better occupied than in considering any grievance alleged by any of the subjects of this realm? Did the noble Earl hold, that because his noble and learned Friend had obtained those statements in private from a person whose name was not before the public, he was therefore guilty of a breach of duty, which ought to call down a lecture, in the terms of a formal reprimand, for rashly bringing forward unfounded accusations? Let his Lordship wait till he saw whether they were unfounded. The statements which had been made were only those which had remained uncontradicted for a length of time, and which had been proclaimed to the world at a meeting of magistrates. He considered that the statements were made
202
on a very solid foundation; and if his noble and learned Friend had not brought them forward he should have thought him a most fastidious Member of Parliament.
The Earl of Devonsaid, that it could not be denied that his noble and learned Friend might by possibility have made a more accurate and satisfactory inquiry before he brought this matter forward. He the (Earl of Devon) had for many years been one of the Committee under whose direction the Penitentiary was placed, and he consequently knew that nothing could have occurred within that place upon which five or six gentlemen of great intelligence and respectability and of the highest honour would not have been perfectly ready and able to give him every information. In his opinion it would have been better for his noble and learned Friend to have applied to one of those gentlemen. It was said that the application had been made to those who knew best concerning the matter; but the magistrates had no jurisdiction or superintendence over this prison. It was not his business to defend the Secretary of State, but he confessed that it was not easy to see what other course the noble Lord could have taken with respect to these children. There was the greatest danger in confining them in an ordinary prison amongst other offenders, where they would be subject to every species of contamination; and they had accordingly been then placed where they could have the most accurate and careful superintendence. He had the opportunity of knowing from persons well informed on the subject, that there was no foundation for the charge as to the articulation of the children, and it was the opinion of several highly-respectable persons that the prisoners had much improved, and were in a happier and more healthy state than when they were sent to the Penitentiary.
Lord Lyndhurstbegged only to ask his noble Friend what statement made by him, except that having reference to the articulation of the children, had been at all contradicted? If he would point out one single fact which had been contradicted then he (Lord Lyndhurst) would admit the weight of his observations.
Lord Broughamwished to say another word upon this second lecture, and he could not help observing that Chairmen of Quarter Sessions were very fond of giving them lectures. "Never touch a

203
magistrate," said the late Mr. Wyndham, "because the instant you do so all the rest of the Justices set their backs up, and then follows a buz, buz, and bubble, bubble, and they are all upon you as if the most sacred penetralia of the Constitution had been entered." So it was with his noble and learned Friend. There was the Whig on that side of the House—and the rank Tory near him, and the Waverers not far off. Every, Justice in the country was on the back of his noble and learned Friend—and all this for supposing that a Justice was a fallible animal—he begged pardon—a fallible being. But the noble Lord had said, why didn't they apply to five vastly respectable men. For that purpose it would have been as well if their names had been mentioned, but this quinquevirum of respectability was not applied to, and for the best reason, because they wished to know facts, of which those respectable men knew nothing, and all of which were in the breasts of other persons—such facts as the indictment, the trial, the conviction, upon which the magistrates were the proper, and, indeed, only authority.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, it might, perhaps, have been Quixotic in him to take up the case against the magistrates, but most undoubtedly he had not supported them.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had no intention to enter into the facts of those cases, but he wished to make one or two observations on some general principles, which had been introduced into the discussion. It was an increasing evil that persons put forward children to commit thefts principally because they imagined that the child would escape with a slight punishment, and that was a practice which not only produced but perpetuated crime. Now it had been found that the habit of keeping these young offenders from other criminals was the only way of reclaiming them. It appeared to him that that was a most desirable object which might very properly in that manner be attained. It had been stated as to the young men that one of them especially had been rebellious in prison, and had been subjected to solitary confinement for a very short time. It could not be supposed that that punishment had affected their minds. In conclusion, he begged to move that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the cases of Matilda Seymour, Ann Gray, and Harriet Simpson, prisoners in the Pe-
204
nitentiary, Millbank, and of John Welch and William Ray, who have been lately confined in that prison.
Lord Lyndhurstsuggested that Miss Newman's case ought to be included in the inquiry.
Suggestion agreed to, and Committee appointed.