Sitting of 29 January 1838

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord WORSLEY, from Hull, in favour of Mr. R. Hill's plan for conveying Letters.—By Mr. PARROTT, from Kingsbridge, and other places in Devon, by Mr. DIVETT, from Exeter, by Mr. BAINES, from Selby, Yorkshire, for the abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.—By Mr. ESTCOURT, from the Graduates of Glasgow University, complaining of the Apothecaries Act.—By Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY, from Marylebone, condemning the Civil List.—By Mr. WHITE, from Sunderland, and by Mr. GROTE, from places in Suffolk, in favour of the Ballot.—By Mr. LISTER, from Bradford, against making War in Canada.—By Mr. WAKLEY, from Brighton, to remit the punishment of the Glasgow Cotton spinners.—By Sir R. INGLIS, from Clergymen of Leeds, against the Marriage and Registra-
616
tion Acts.—By Mr. LEADER, from Westminster, Lambeth, Paddington, and other places, against the Canada Government Bill.

AFFAIRS OF CANADA.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the third reading of the Canada Government Bill.
Sir George Sinclairsaid, that as he had never taken part in any of the discussions respecting the affairs of Canada during the present or any former Session, he should take the liberty on this occasion to trespass on the patience of the House. He believed that no Bill had ever been introduced to which, during its progress through the Committee, so much had been added, or from which so much had been taken away. The acquiescence of the noble Lord in the very seasonable suggestions of his right hon. Friend, the Member for Coventry, had taken no one by surprise on either side of the House. Without pretending to the gift of second sight, he had at once felt persuaded that the noble Lord would give the preference to second thoughts. This result was anticipated by all the Gentlemen who sat around him as soon as they heard the very first sentence of the very able, lucid, and useful speech of his right hon. Friend—so useful to the country, and at the same time so useful to the Government. He knew not whether his right hon. Friend was in the habit of killing two birds with one stone, but he had certainly attained two objects in one speech. He had both shown his patriotism and served his party. He did not for one moment imagine, after the disclaimer of his right hon. Friend, that he had communicated his views beforehand to the noble Lord; but his own sagacity and experience must have convinced him that such a complimentary precaution would be quite superfluous; and, without any assurance from the noble Lord's own mouth, he must have known that he was rendering a most essential service to the Government—extricating them from a notable dilemma, aad sparing to them the danger and mortification of a defeat which was probable in this House and inevitable elsewhere. This proposition must have come like a godsend upon the astonished mind of the noble Lord; he must have felt, that
"Quod obtanti Divûm promittere nemo
"Audebat, volvenda dies en attulit ultro."
If a fire had occurred in Downing-street, and that his right hon. Friend, without

617
giving any previous intimation, had opportunely hurried with an enormous engine to the noble Lord's dwelling, and succeeded in extinguishing the flames, he would be just as certain that he was rendering to the noble Lord an invaluable service as if he had given previous notice of his intention. He was very desirous to record the expression of his deep sorrow and heartfelt reluctance at supporting a Bill so despotic in its principle, and, till amended, so objectionable in its provisions; but the misconduct of her Majesty's Government had reduced Canada to such a state, that he was compelled to adopt this course by a paramount sense of duty, and by the entire absence of an eligible alternative. I at one time (continued the hon. Baronet) entertained a hope that it might have been possible to have given the constituencies of Lower Canada another trial, by allowing them once more to elect a House of Assembly, and should have gladly adopted this plan, in the hope that by the result of recent transactions, the majority of the rebels would have been humbled, sobered, and undeceived. But, Sir, I am deterred from acceding to any such proposal by the effect which must be produced on the minds of the colonists by the speeches of those Gentlemen, both here and out of doors, who call themselves the friends of the Canadians, although, by fostering their prejudices, and exaggerating their grievances, they are, in fact, the worst enemies to the peace and prosperity of the province. If these orators had lamented the imprudence and folly of the insurgents, had expatiated upon the benefits which they derive from the continuance of British connexion, and had expressed a loyal desire for the success of her Majesty's forces—in short, if their speeches had resembled that of the right hon. Member for Coventry, the manifestation of such opinions on their part might have greatly tended to restore a sound and constitutional tone of feeling throughout Canada. But their harangues have been characterised by language the most inflammatory and the most revolting, and derive additional importance, as well as inflict additional injury, from the circumstance that most of the Gentlemen by whom they were pronounced, received, during the last general election, the most cordial and active support on the part of her Majesty's Ministers. The Comptroller of the Household, if I am rightly informed,
618
was chairman of the hon. Member for Westminster's (Mr. Leader's) Committee. The Attorney-General was on the hustings at Brentford, as a partisan of the Member for Kilkenny, and I believe that no tradesman could obtain the renewal of a warrant for employment in her Majesty's household if he presumed to vote for Sir George Murray, who would have so ably supported her Majesty's Government on this occasion. It must, therefore, be supposed that the Canadians will suspect her Majesty's Ministers of not being in their hearts so hostile as they now pretend to be to the sentiments of the very representatives whose returns they were the means of securing. Sir, I altogether disapprove of the policy pursued by her Majesty's Government. I wish that at the close of last Session they had adopted those views as to the urgency of the case which were entertained by every class of politicians with the exception of the Ministers themselves. They would not have incurred the heavy responsibility of neglecting to take such precautionary measures as might have prevented those scenes of carnage and desolation which all parties concur in deploring. I am quite willing to vote for such reinforcements of troops and such supplies of money as may be necessary for the due maintenance of her Majesty's legitimate authority, and for the protection of our loyal fellow-subjects in Canada, who, if the insurgents had succeeded, would doubtless have been exposed to murder, exile, or confiscation. Sir, I wish to speak with very high respect of the talents, acquirements, and experience of the Earl of Durham; and the only considerations which disconcert and alarm me, in reference to the noble Lord's appointment, are the expectations entertained and the eulogiums pronounced by the philosophical Radicals, or Radical philosophers, on the other side of the House. I myself, Sir, wish to speak with unaffected esteem of the ability and the honesty of those Gentlemen, however much I may differ from their views; but in the Morning Chronicle of this day I find them described. They form but a very small section of the Radical Reformers, and their object seems to be to form a still smaller section by their intolerance and insufferable self-conceit. Such, Sir, is the language used by the leading Ministerial organ, in reference to the very men without whose gratuitous assistance its patrons

619
could never have climbed into place, and without the continuance of whose powerful aid they would soon relapse into insignificance. Sir, I certainly admit, that the constitution of Canada ought to occupy a prominent place in the catalogue of its grievances, but I understand this statement in a very different sense from that which many Gentlemen attach to it. It appears to me that we could not render a more essential service to Canada, or take a step more calculated to insure good Government, than if we raised the qualifications which give a right to the elective franchise. What kind of representatives can we expect to be chosen by constituents, an overwhelming majority of whom can neither read nor write? Is it not far more probable that they will select Jack Cades and Massaniellos, than John Hampdens or Algernon Sidneys, and that the noble Lord would have a better prospect of success than his distinguished ancestor, Lord Russell? The present system unhappily strengthens the hands and facilitates the manœuvres of certain mischievous demagogues and factious incendiaries, who, by pandering to the worst passions of human nature, have rendered a large proportion of an ignorant, unsuspecting, and excitable peasantry, the dupes of their misrepresentations, the tools of their intrigues, and the victims of their ambition, and who, when defeat has taken place, or rather, as soon as conflict is impending, are found to skulk in quest of personal safety into some contiguous province, afraid to face the storm which they themselves have raised, or to participate in the dangers in which thousands are involved through their reckless and desperate machinations. But, Sir, I cannot help taking this opportunity to notice a subject of still greater importance than the bill which we are now discussing, although by no means remotely connected with it—a subject which involves not only the interests of Canada, together with those of our other dependencies, but the welfare of the mother country, and the stability of our institutions. Are her Majesty's Ministers entitled in point of influence, or competent in point of ability, to preside over the destinies of this great empire? Are they actuated in their general policy by the principles of justice, firmness, discernment, and consistency? Do their bonâ fide partisans constitute even a numerical preponderance within these walls? Do they themselves
620
command the respect or enjoy the goodwill of our constituents out of doors? I deny all these propositions. If a call of the House were to take place to-morrow, and that every Member, on answering to his name, were obliged to lay his hand upon his heart, and to declare upon oath whether he has or has not confidence in the statesmanlike wisdom and political integrity of the Government, I feel persuaded that a very large majority would be compelled to answer that question in the negative. With regard to the sentiments of the British nation, the respectable, intelligent, and religious classes, throughout the length and breadth of the land, are lost in astonishment when they consider the general conduct of her Majesty's Ministers—at the suddenness with which they trim—and at the shabbiness with which they truckle. Their tortuous and vacillating course, their veerings round on the one day, and their backings out on the next, are viewed not only by every straightforward Conservative with disgust, but by every honest Radical with indignation. Take for instance, their proceedings with regard to Canada, which are so strictly in keeping with their virtual abandonment of the Irish appropriation clause, or the artful suspension of the English Church Rates Bill. They were repeatedly warned by both sides of the House in the course of last Session that by their uncertain and fluctuating system they would neither satisfy the loyal, nor confirm the wavering, nor overawe the disaffected; they were assured that, in order to carry their own measures into effect, a large increase of force was indispensable, and yet they were contented to persist in a set of feeble and meagre resolutions, sufficiently offensive to provoke resentment—sufficiently tame to encourage resistance. They seem to have inverted the old adage, as if they deemed cure more expedient than prevention. They are at this moment only preparing the armament which ought to have reached Canada, or the adjacent provinces at least four months ago. The Government has now reached the nadir of political ignominy, and is presenting to the world such a spectacle as was never before exhibited by British statesmen—that of a Ministry distinguished by these striking and anomalous characteristics—office without power, support without confidence, pretension without talent, and profession without performance. They can neither manage the

621
affairs of the country nor carry through the business of this House without the superintendence and advice of a right hon. Friend near me, who is not more conspicuous for his immeasurable superiority in all those intellectual endowments which adorn the character of the statesman and insure the respect of the country, than for the unparalleled forbearance and almost chivalrous magnanimity with which he conducts his opposition to the very politicians from whom, when he himself was in office, he never obtained even common justice. Sir, I am quite aware that from his brilliant position in the world, my right hon. Friend may be as indifferent to the patronage and emoluments of office as his antagonists are tenacious of its influence and advantages; that the acceptance of power involves almost as great a sacrifice on his part as the forfeiture of place upon theirs; but I trust that he will no longer rest satisfied with correcting blunders and preventing mischief—that he will soon be placed at the head of an Administration which will at all events pursue a straightforward and intelligible course. The country will then cease to endure the misfortune and submit to the mortification of being misgoverned by selfish and slippery Ministers, who feebly maintain their ground by the discreditable expedient of playing two parties against each other, of each of which they stand equally in dread, and by both of which they are equally despised.
Sir Harry Verneydid not consider the conduct with respect to the Canada Bill of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had been so chivalrous as his hon. Friend had just represented it. On the contrary, he considered that conduct to be totally the reverse of chivalrous. In talking of the Bill, his hon. Friend had not been able to place his finger on any part of the conduct of her Majesty's Government with respect to it, that he could justly condemn. As to what his hon. Friend had adverted to, with regard to the not sending additional troops to Canada, the conduct of the Ministry, in that respect, had been approved of by his Grace the Duke of Wellington. ["No, no!"] Notwithstanding the contradiction of hon. Members opposite, he asserted that his Grace the Duke of Wellington, with that noble independence of party which had always distinguished him, had absolved her Majesty's Ministers of blame
622
for not having sent additional troops to Canada. It was true his Grace said, that the garrisons in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia might be strengthened with advantage. But he (Sir H. Verney) contended, that if that had been done, the moral effect of the whole transaction would not have been as complete as it was at present. The event had justified the conduct of Government. The Government could not be blamed for the insurrection in Canada. The hon. Baronet had himself agreed to the resolutions regarding Lower Canada, although he now condemned them. Why did not the hon. Baronet condemn them when they were first brought forward? The hon. Baronet had not done so; he had acquiesced in the resolutions, and now he was one of the first to come forward and complain of them as the cause of the insurrection. He was glad that the hon. Baronet, in commenting on the general conduct of Government, was unable to find fault with at least one of their acts—the selection which they had made of Lord Durham as a mediator with the colonies. It certainly was a happy circumstance, that an individual, like that noble Lord, could be found willing to forego all the advantages which he enjoyed in this country, and to accept what, under any circumstances, must be a most arduous, delicate, and painful office. He could not forget that which, although it had not been alluded to in the discussions that had occurred on this subject, he could not but consider as one of the chief causes of the disturbances in Canada, namely, that the conduct of Englishmen there was anything but conciliating towards the ancient settlers; and, therefore, he hoped for much from the mild and conciliatory, yet firm and energetic, character of the noble Lord in question. In the course of their observations, hon. Members had found fault with the American government. Now, he did not think that that censure was founded in justice. On the contrary, he thought that, considering the excited state of public feeling in the United States, the American government had shown a great degree of forbearance and moderation, and a disposition to maintain friendly relations with this country. He hoped that the success which had attended, and which he trusted would always attend, her Majesty's arms in Canada, would not prevent her Majesty's Government from en-

623
tering into a full consideration of the state of all our North American colonies, and he hoped that the noble Earl would be intrusted with a full and final settlement of them. It would be a noble object for the noble Earl to propose to himself, not only to establish the present peace of the North American colonies, but to bind them in a strong band of union, freedom, and prosperity.
Mr. Humesaid, that the hon. Baronet who had just relieved himself by the delivery of a long speech, had taken a great deal of trouble to attack the policy of the Government. If he did not know that his hon. Friend conscientiously thought that there could not be a worse Government than the present one, and that he had entertained that opinion for the last two or three years, he should have looked upon his speech as a faithful transcript of the leading article of a morning print. After all his long tirade against the Government, the hon. Baronet said, he was going to vote for the Government bill. ["No, no."] He was going to vote for the bill as amended. There were some who thought that, leaving out the last clause might have an injurious effect, and that the Government might have resisted that part of the amendment which deprived the Crown of the power to terminate the existence of the bill while Parliament was not sitting. Opinions, therefore, being so divided on parts of the measure, he was surprised at the unmeasured language made use of by the hon. Baronet opposite, in expressing his opinions on the bill of the Government. The hon. Baronet had alluded to that portion of the Members of the House who were called Philosophical Radicals, and in doing so had not fairly described them. The Radicals were anxious to promote the welfare of the people; they were unwilling to support any measure directed against popular rights; and the hon. Baronet was therefore perfectly correct in saying, that they were indignant at such a measure as had been brought forward by the Government in regard to Canada, as they considered that measure a gross violation of the constitutional rights of the people of that colony. He hoped the hon. Baronet would allow him to draw a comparison between the measures of the Government and those which had been brought forward by the Friends of the hon. Member. The present Government had brought for-
624
ward and carried many measures highly favourable to popular rights, and he and those with whom he acted, had always supported those measures; as their object was the attainment of the greatest good for all classes of the people. He could see no kind of comparison between the measures of the Government and those which had been brought forward by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tarn-worth; and he would ask the hon. Baronet opposite, to point out any measure of his friends calculated to meet the wishes and the wants of the people. The hon. Baronet had said, that the people were hostile to the present Government. He denied,, that such was the case, although he admitted that the people were displeased with the measure proposed by her Majesty's Ministers with respect to Canada. But the hon. Baronet had not alluded to one measure of the Government, but to their general policy; and the people or at least a large majority of them, did approve of the general policy of Ministers. He did not give his unqualified support to either Whigs or Tories, and he only supported such measures of either party as he considered were for the good of the people. He certainly disapproved of some of the measures of her Majesty's Ministers, but he could not join in the general and unqualified censure of their conduct which had been pronounced by, the hon. Baronet opposite. He had thought it necessary to say thus much on what had fallen from the hon. Baronet, and he should now proceed to direct the attention of the House to the Bill which was the subject of debate. Notwithstanding all that had been effected in the Committee in regard to the measure, he still entertained strong objections to it, because, in his opinion, it interfered unnecessarily with the constitutional rights of the people of Canada, and it was, therefore, a most improper measure to be passed by a reforming Ministry. The Government were powerful for doing evil, because their bad measures were supported by the Members on the Opposition benches; but if they brought forward good measures, tending to good government, and to promote the welfare of the people, then he was sorry to say that they failed, because they were met by the whole weight of Opposition of the other side of the House. He was sorry to see both parties supporting the present Bill, which was disgraceful to

625
a reformed Parliament, and the general support of such a measure by a reforming Parliament made him feel the keenest regret. He would ask the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to point out one valid ground for suspending the constitution of Lower Canada, and putting an end to the meetings of the House of Assembly of that colony. If the noble Lord meant to found his reasons for introducing such a measure on the revolt which had taken place, then he would tell the noble Lord that he had altogether failed, for the House of Assembly was not committed in the revolt, and had taken no part in it. The Assembly of Upper Canada was about to meet for the transaction of business, and the revolt was not terminated in that province, and he would ask why the Legislature of the Upper Province was to be allowed to assemble while the revolt was not terminated, and the Legislature of the Lower Province be prevented from meeting, when it appeared from the latest accounts that the revolt in Lower Canada was at an end? The noble Lord had placed the refusal of the supplies as his foremost reason for suspending the constitution, and he would read to the House the observations of the noble Lord in regard to this point of the question. The noble Lord had said — "In a constitutional government it was impossible, if the supplies were refused year after year, that the machinery of Government could go on. If in this country you were to refuse the supplies for a single year you would produce the most disastrous consequences. Refuse the supplies, and you disorganise the army; refuse the supplies, and you shake public credit to its centre; refuse the supplies and you dissolve the constitution." If the noble Lord acted on that principle, he was going to overturn the most important and valuable privilege of Parliament and of the Assembly. If the noble Lord said, that Parliament was not to refuse the supplies, then he knew of no other means in the hands of the representatives of the people, whereby they could resist a bad Government or a despotic Sovereign. If such a principle were acted on, the rights and privileges of that House were at an end. He held in his hand a resolution of the House of Commons in the year 1678, by which the House claimed that all Bills for aids to the Sovereign should originate with them, and in which they asserted their right to limit all such
626
grants, and denied any power in the House of Lords to alter bills of supply. Now, he would ask the noble Lord whether he meant to support the principle contained in that resolution, and the principle laid down by Mr. Fox, in 1784? If he did, how came the noble Lord to act in opposition to it? In 1793, the House of Assembly of Lower Canada, passed a resolution similar to that passed by the House of Commons, and the very words used in the resolution of the Imperial Parliament were adopted by the Assembly. That resolution had been a standing rule ever since, and he would ask the noble Lord how, when that resolution only carried out the principle of the resolution of Parliament, he could object to the exercise of an acknowledged right? No fact had been stated to prove, that the House of Assembly had gone beyond their rights and privileges, and therefore in condemning them and suspending the constitution, the Parliament of Great Britain was acting in a most unwarrantable manner. In 1821, the Assembly voted the Governor's salary on condition that he resided in the province, and in the same way the supply bills of 1831–32, contained many conditions. The Governor, too, had sent a message to the Assembly, in which a wish was expressed that the different items should be distinctly stated, thereby encouraging the proceedings of that body. He contended, therefore, that the House of Commons were the guilty parties in seeking to punish the Assembly for the exercise of a right which they had been encouraged to assert. But there was no reason that the people should be punished because their representatives had refused the supplies, by such a tyrannical Bill as the present. Again, there was no valid ground for supposing that the leading Members of the Assembly, had been committed in the revolt; but, supposing that some members of that body had participated in the proceedings of the revolters, was that any reason why the privileges of a whole people should be taken from them, and that they should be deprived of a Legislative Assembly? Would hon. Members say that the condition of Wiltshire, Hampshire, and Sussex, in 1830, would have presented a valid ground for depriving the whole people of their representative rights; and would they not rather have proposed the immediate meeting of Parliament for the purpose of considering

627
the disturbances which had taken place and providing a remedy? If the constitution of Canada was to be set aside on such frivolous grounds, he would beg hon. Members to reflect on the dangerous precedent they were affording to any despot who might ascend the Throne. It appeared to him a most serious proceeding, and he was sorry to find the House so generally in its favour. Vattel was an author very much quoted now-a-days, and Vattel had said that the people had a right to be well-governed, and at as cheap a rate as possible; and that if the people were deprived of these their inalienable rights by force or fraud, they would be justified in using every means in their power to recover them. Now, he would ask, had the Canadians been well governed? Had they known what it was to have good and cheap government? The reports of the Commissioners, from time to time, proved that they had not; and that considerable discontent had existed, and that the prosperity of the country had been checked for want of a good and cheap government. Was it a wonder, then, that the Canadians had acted against the existing Government? When they applied to that House last Session for relief, after having petitioned repeatedly, but in vain, for the same object, how were they treated? Instead of any conciliatory measures being passed by the House, severe resolutions were adopted—resolutions which, it appeared from the dispatches which had been received, had excited fresh discontent, and produced increased dissatisfaction. Lord Gosford had particularly pointed out the seizure of the money in the military chest as a great grievance. Would they, then, go on to add insult to injury? Ought they not rather to abandon this Bill, and immediately proceed to meet the Canadians on fair grounds, and concede to them everything they wanted? He was sure that this country could afford to do justice to Canada, and that without delay. They were not dealing with a doubtful case. They were appealed to by the representatives of 377,000, and those who opposed that appeal were backed only by 34,000. It was on behalf of that large number of people that he implored the noble Lord to consider whether the course he proposed to pursue was likely to produce any good effect. The noble Lord had on a preceding evening made some allusion to him
628
and his hon. Friends, as being censurable for uttering inflammatory speeches, whereas they had only stood up to support liberal principles, and to protest against such tyrannical measures as the present Bill. A right hon. Gentleman on a former evening said, that nine-tenths of the miseries suffered by the Canadians had been brought upon them in consequence of their paying attention to the bad advice of persons in this country. Now, so far from he and his Friends having given bad advice, they had lifted up a warning voice to the Government, and called upon Ministers, from time to time, to reconsider and alter the policy they were pursuing towards Canada. But those who had followed that policy were beginning to discover the evil consequences of it, and therefore they endeavoured to shift the blame from off their own shoulders. He denied that the disturbances which had occurred were to be attributed to the course which he and his Friends had pursued. On the contrary, those were to blame who had delivered violent and abusive speeches in that House, calling Papineau a malicious demagogue and traitor. Yes, that was the sort of language which had led to the present state of things in Canada, the people of which had been called an ignorant people, and one right hon. Gentleman said, that not two in a hundred of them could write or even read. Language such as that had been coupled with a refusal of justice and a denial of reform. Ministers had said to the Canadians—"We will not give you reform—we will not redress your grievances; but we will do more—we will take the whole control of your money away from you, and rob your Exchequer." Instead, then, of blame being thrown upon him and his Friends, Ministers deserved all the blame, for their conduct alone had produced the mischiefs which were said to exist in Canada. Had not the right hon. Baronet opposite said, that he knew the resolutions which had been sent out would excite resistance, and that he blamed the Government for not sending out troops with the resolutions in order to enforce them? Therefore it was clear that Ministers by proposing and passing those resolutions had excited the revolt. The noble Lord the other night challenged him to propose a remedy for the evils in Canada, and he would now do so. First, he would advise her Majesty to direct an immediate

629
redress of the grievances complained of in the petitions from Canada; secondly, the House should reject this Bill; thirdly, the first act of the Government should be to remove the Colonial Secretary (Lord Glenelg) from his office. Every dispatch proved that noble Lord to be incapable of carrying on the government of the colonies. He would not repeat what had been said the other night by the right hon. Baronet opposite, but he would assert that imbecility and want of management had marked the proceedings of the noble Secretary for the Colonies, though perhaps he meant as well as any man. Instead of sending Lord Durham out as a messenger of peace, or a dictator to act under Lord Glenelg, let Lord Durham take Lord Glenelg's office, and let the country see what he would do, and how far he would carry the principles which the Canadians wished to see adopted into operation. It would be better to do that than to pass this Bill, or to send Lord Durham out to Canada. Believing that the course proposed to be pursued by her Majesty's Ministers would be unproductive of any good, he should move as an amendment, "that the Bill be read a third time that day six months."
Sir R. H. Inglisdid not rise for the purpose of following or answering every statement made by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, who, however he might think the principles which he was accustomed to advocate were popular, was himself no proof of their popularity. He would not, like the hon. Member, be tempted to enter into the merits or otherwise, of the present Administration, nor at this hour, when he could not believe there was any real intention, notwithstanding the amendment had been proposed, of taking the sense of the House by a division, should he enter into the general question of the proceedings and policy of her Majesty's Government either before the rebellion and revolt in Canada or since, with reference to the best mode of proceeding. He rose for the single purpose of urging her Majesty's Ministers to remember, that even if at this moment the rebellion were suppressed, from that moment their difficulties began. They would have then to deal with a people divided in religion, divided in blood, and divided in all the pursuits of civil life: Protestant and Roman Catholic; English and French; commercial and agricultural. He conceived that a great mistake had been com-
630
mitted on the first annexation of Canada to the Crown of England, when a marked prominence was given to the religion of the conquered people. This had been ably urged a week ago by his hon. Friend, the Member for Droitwich: and he (Sir R. Inglis) desired again to urge, not the mere expediency, but the duty of the Government to pay just attention to that subject, when, as now, the whole constitution of Canada was open to revision. If the plan suggested by his right hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth, in his speech on Thursday or Friday night last, to unite the four great provinces of the North American possessions into one great dependency, were adopted, as his other suggestions had been adopted, then it was quite clear—the majority of the inhabitants, being persons attached by Protestantism, by language, and by blood, to the mother country—that it would be compatible with the preservation of our supreme power to leave to the Roman Catholics and the French Canadians the fullest exercise of their present privileges, and yet, at the same time, to repair the mischiefs already committed by giving a just prominence there to the Established Church of this country. He trusted that the present opportunity would not be lost for accomplishing this object; and that the noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) would not be deceived by the hon. Member for Kilkenny as to the relative numbers in those dependencies. In them there is an overwhelming majority of persons deeply attached to England, and connected by religion, language, and by blood with it; and he therefore called upon her Majesty's Ministers to protect those persons against the inroads upon their civil and religious liberties which a majority of French Canadians in the House of Assembly so much endangered. Regarding the mistakes committed in 1763, in 1769, in 1774, and, above all, in 1791, as the great and fundamental errors of the policy of this country with regard to Canada, he hoped that an endeavour would be made to remedy, so far as the; Imperial Parliament could remedy, the evils which exist, and to continue, or rather to restore and enlarge, those religious advantages which he thought the subjects of this country ought to carry with them wherever they might, with the permission of the Crown, be located. It had been stated correctly by his hon. Friend, the Member for Droitwich, the other night, that at the present moment no provision

631
was made, either by the local legislature in Lower Canada, or by the executive government, for the maintenance of the bishop of the Church of England, who was still placed there. He believed that that individual was enabled to discharge his functions by means not derived from either of those bodies, and he called upon the Government to remove the disgrace of such a state of things as the placing such an individual in a prominent situation without supplying him with the means of maintaining his efficiency. Without going into the Canadian question generally, he felt bound to state that he could not but look with almost unmixed pain on the conduct which had been pursued. He trusted that the remedy proposed by the Bill as it stood would be effectual—it might, perhaps, have been spared, if vigorous measures had been taken before. The Bill improved, as it now was, had his most cordial support.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsaid, the hon. Member for Kilkenny had observed that the House of Assembly in Lower Canada had not been guilty of any infraction upon the principles of the constitution of that colony, and the hon. Member had asked her Majesty's Ministers and the Parliament why, by such means as this Bill, they sought to put an end to the House of Assembly? He had no difficulty in supplying an answer to that question. It was a fact well ascertained that several members of the House of Assembly were already in gaol on charges of high treason, and by the last accounts which had been received from that province, it appeared that rewards had been offered for the apprehension of not fewer than twelve other Members of that body upon similar charges. He asked, therefore, whether under such circumstances any rational man could think of continuing that legislative body with any hope or expectation of legislation from it calculated to tranquillise the province; on the contrary, could any being doubt but that the assembling such a body would add to the agitation which unfortunately already existed there? The hon. Member for Kilkenny had designated the Bill as a despotic measure; he concurred with the hon. Member in thinking that it was a strong measure; he believed that in the history of Parliament its parallel was not to be found. But did history present any similar necessity for such a measure? He believed from the best consideration he could give to the
632
question that this was a Bill of justice and expediency. It was a measure of justice to give protection to the properties and persons of a very large proportion of the inhabitants of that province who were loyally attached to the connexion with this country. At the same time, he must admit, that there were numbers in revolt who claimed a redress of grievances, but those persons neither possessed the property nor the intelligence of the other portion of the population, and their leaders were not distinguished either for their talent or their courage. He contended that the Canadians, having all the rights and blessings which the British constitution bestowed upon them, had no just cause of complaint. Upon some temporary matters differences might have arisen, but for the settlement of those differences a ready manifestation had always been shown by the mother country. But when their demands were for a change in the Legislative Council, making it elective, and for having the control of the executive government, then it became necessary to resist them. If those demands had been conceded, a republican form of government would, in fact, have been established, and it would have been impossible to continue the connexion now existing between this country and Lower Canada. He believed that in the whole history of the colonies of this or of any other country, not an instance could be found where so much favour and generosity had been shown as had been shown in the course of the legislation of Great Britain in regard to Canada. Their corn, their wood, and their ashes were allowed to be imported here with almost a nominal duty. Was that the case with any other colony? Certainly not. He believed that by the present rebellion the greatest infliction had been committed upon the people of Canada that had ever befallen any set of men. British capital, while tranquillity existed there, was flowing in at an immense rate. Banks were established with large capitals—great public works were carried on with money belonging to individuals in this country—all these advantages had been suspended; but he hoped that tranquillity would soon be restored so that no great interruption might be given to that disposition which existed to resume and continue those advantages to the colony. At the same time, while he made these observations, he begged it

633
to be distinctly understood that he went a great way beyond many hon. Members in blaming the policy of her Majesty's Government with regard to their proceedings in Lower Canada. The hon. Baronet, he Member for Buckingham (Sir H. Verney), had stated that a sufficient force was in Canada at the time of the breaking out of the revolt, and that the event had proved the accuracy of that statement. He denied the truth of that assertion. He would contend that if a larger force had been in Lower Canada, to aid and support the civil power in the maintenance of peace and tranquillity, no revolt would have taken place, and we should have been spared the horror of shedding so much blood for the purpose of suppressing that revolt. He knew not whether any inquiry would be instituted with regard to the conduct of Government respecting Canada at the bar of this House; but sure he was that there was evidence sufficient in the documents which had been laid before the House to justify such an inquiry; and independent of those public documents, he, of his own knowledge, knew that for a period of more than two years representations had been made by the merchants of London engaged in trade with Canada, almost weekly, but certainly monthly, to the Secretary for the Colonies, of the state of alarm and dismay which existed in Canada in consequence of the tumultuous proceedings of large bodies of armed men. But to these representations no heed whatever was taken, and the present crisis had unfortunately followed. He must say, that the measure before the House had his entire concurrence.
Mr. Grotesaid, that the hon. Member who had just sat down, and who declared himself a supporter of this measure, had told the House, nevertheless, that it was a strong measure, which had no parallel in British legislation. The description which that hon. Gentleman had thus given of the measure must serve as his excuse for troubling the House with a few observations at this its last stage. He desired to enter his protest against the third reading of a measure of this severe description, though he was well aware how unavailing such a protest would be. The hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford had stated one thing which was most true, and which deserved to be well laid to heart by every Gentleman who considered this subject. He had said when this
634
rebellion should have been put down, that at that moment the real and greatest difficulties of the Government would commence. That was his opinion, too, and it was because be entertained that opinion, and strongly entertained it that he was the more strenuous in his opposition to the present Bill; and because also it was his opinion, that while the Bill would remove none of the existing difficulties, it would add very much to some, and those the most serious of them. He foresaw no consequence likely to arise from this Bill so imminent and inevitable as the multiplication of discontent and irritation throughout the province in the minds of men; of those, perhaps, who as yet had taken no part in the revolt—and that of the most dreadful and deplorable kind. He saw in the Bill no remedy proposed for any of the evils that now constituted the grievances of the Canadians, while he saw in it one great grievance added to those already existing, of which, even those who had hitherto abstained from taking part in these matters could hardly fail to feel the weight and the burden. The alterations made in the Bill since the second reading were not of a nature to make much alteration in his opinion. His opinion was pronounced upon it when the preamble still remained as the noble Lord originally introduced it; and it was for those gentlemen who had been wedded to the Bill on account of the preamble, and who were inclined to pardon the severe measures which the Bill itself sanctioned, in consequence of the beautiful phrases put forth in the preamble—it was for them to express the regret they must feel at missing so important a part of its features; but for his part his objection was founded on the nature of the enacting clauses, and those clauses remained still unaltered, or, if any thing, they were rather aggravated. But if those clauses in themselves appeared to him severe, objectionable, and calculated to create a strong sense of anger and discontent in the minds of those who were to be subject to them, he would say, that the nature of those clauses was extremely aggravated, when they were taken in conjunction with the speeches uttered in that House by those by whom they were supported. For the tenure of those speeches led him to foresee only one consequence from the suspension of the Canadian constitution, which was this—that instead of that genuine and

635
faithful representation of the people, which was now the most important element of the Canadian constitution (for we should not have that element restored to its present state) we should have the representation of the people cut down, abridged, and reduced to a name. It would be a name and a shadow, instead of a substance and a reality. When he recollected, too, the suggestion of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Caithness, in which he dwelt upon the necessity of raising the qualification of the electors of Lower Canada—coupling that with the declarations made by certain influential Members on the Ministerial side of the House, and more especially by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Coventry, and the hon. Member for Lincoln, insisting, as they did, upon the gross ignorance and incapacity of the Canadian people—he could not misinterpret these indications. He could not draw any other inference except that the present representation of the people—large and faithful — would be exchanged for one neither large nor faithful; but the representation of a part of the people instead of a representation of the whole. He, at any rate, would not lend his hand to the destruction of the representative institution, which at least had the merit of faithfully representing the people of Canada, in the present state of precariousness and uncertainty as to what he should get in its place. He must say, it was to him a rather remarkable circumstance, a strange and preposterous revolution, when he found that that side of the question which was called the Conservative side, was, on this occasion, left to be supported by some twelve or fifteen extreme Radicals, and that those who, on all former occasions, were the unyielding advocates of every existing institution, and the stern opponents of all innovation and change, were now the most earnest in the work of destruction. When it was said, that the Canadian constitution had been found not to work as it was intended to do, his reply was, that if that were the case the fault was with the Executive Government, because the Executive Government had not thought fit to use the prerogative which the constitution intrusted to them. It remained only with her Majesty's Government to improve the Legislative Council, and introduce harmony between the different branches of the Legislature, by appointing such Members to the Legislative
636
Council as would be acceptable to the majority of the people. This would have been no innovation. It would have been the exercise of the very prerogative which was given to the Executive Government by the constitution of 1791, and which was, at that time, highly appreciated as a power vested in the Government for the best of purposes, though it now appeared to be renounced by every one. If, then, the Executive Government did not think fit to exercise that prerogative, surely they had no right to come and tell us that the constitution was unworkable, and that there was no remedy, except to destroy that constitution altogether. He denied the inference, and would contend that it was entirely in consequence of the want of a timely and proper exercise of the prerogative of appointing Members to the Legislative Council that this evil had arisen, and that they were now called upon to enact this destructive measure. Had that power been used, harmony would have been restored, and the constitutional government of Lower Canada would have gone on prosperously up to this hour. They might easily foresee the difficulties which would open when this suspension of the constitution should have been once brought into operation, hearing, as they had done already, an hon. Gentleman, who was a staunch supporter of the measure, proposing to her Majesty's Ministers to saddle the colony with the Established Church. A very pleasant prospect it was to be called upon to sanction, the annihilation of one of the few representative assemblies which really did represent the people, and put in its place a well paid Established Church. The same reasons which led him to wish to improve those representative institutions in this country, which imperfectly and unfaithfully represented the people, and by so improving them to make them the faithful representatives of the people, induced him to be strenuous in preserving this Canadian assembly, which did really and truly represent the people; and he should, therefore, be found on his side maintaining a strong Conservative line of conduct when the thing to be preserved was the most valuable jewel which a people could possibly possess. He doubted and mistrusted the power of the Government to restore this assembly, and he did not feel confident that it was ever their wish to do it. But most certainly when he observed, that

637
during the progress of the Bill through the House, the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had been compelled to abandon the preamble for the purpose of conciliating the support of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, he knew that whatever new constitution it might be deemed proper to give to Canada, it would not be only what the noble Lord himself might approve of, but what the right hon. Baronet would also approve of; and having heard that right hon. Baronet accused by hon. Members in that House of entertaining a distinct hatred of all representative institutions—though, in the present instance, he did not conceive that the right hon. Baronet was deserving of that reproach more than the noble Lord himself—he could not help appealing to hon. Gentlemen who supported this Bill to say what ground they had for believing that they should ever get back such a constitution as that now existing when it should be once destroyed, seeing that it could only be restored with the approbation of a right hon. Gentleman who was opposed to all representative constitutions. In spite, therefore, of the great volume of debate which had been poured out upon this question, he had heard nothing to alter the conviction he entertained when he first delivered his opinion upon it. He feared that they had sown injustice, and that they would reap trouble and calamity. Whatever the present grievances of the Canadian people might be (they seemed to be almost on all hands admitted, as well as the necessity of redressing them) he felt that by this measure they were about to add one more grievance of so serious a kind, that the people of Canada would be led to entertain feelings of discontent and irritation, which it would be exceedingly difficult for any party, however good their intention, ever hereafter to eradicate or subdue.
Mr. Warburtonentirely agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for London, that by this measure they were destroying a free constitution to have, probably, in its place one approaching despotism. They were not only effecting a revolution, but they were doing so in the spirit of those revolutions that were occurring in South America. But what he would contend for, as he had on former occasions, was, that as England must cease to govern these states at no remote period, it ought
638
to treat them with all the consideration due to their future greatness. He knew it was a humiliating thing, and unfavourable to national pride and national vanity, to think of the necessity of contracting the limits of empire, and to part with what was fancied to be among the most valuable of the national possessions. He said fancied to be so, because it did appear to him as rational to talk of the moon belonging to ourselves, as to talk of a great and extensive territory 3,000 miles away from the mother country being a part of our empire. But he really thought if they looked at the great, and glorious, and godlike work of establishing a great and free republic out of the incoherent elements, such as the provinces of Canada were, they would feel that it was an object worthy the ambition of a great and powerful nation. It was a great act for a state like this to accomplish. He believed that the people of this country would reflect on this; and that they now felt that it was a greater honour to have raised a mighty republic like that of the United States, than to have subjugated India. If the people regarded the honour of having raised up such a free and great state, and would then consider what the united provinces now forming our North American colonies might become, if fostered in a similar manner, they would have a great and important object before them in the furtherance of which all conflict of party feeling would cease, and there would no longer be called for measures of severity towards provinces that were now alienated and discontented. He hoped that these considerations would reconcile the people of this country to that separation which either now, or at an early period, must take place, and that they would have their attention fixed upon the necessity that must soon arise for such a separation. He trusted that the glory of having been the parent of a great, an extensive, and a free state would be considered a sufficient reparation to them for the apparent sacrifice of the national honour. Condemning it, as he did—hoping, however, that it would not have any of those melancholy results which he anticipated from it—he would avail himself of the present opportunity of passing his last malediction on this unfortunate Bill.
Mr. Borthwicksaid, that the hon. Member who had last spoken had forgotten that this was not a permanent but a tem-

639
porary measure, which would afford an opportunity to her Majesty's Government to give such a constitution to Canada as would be agreeable to the feelings of the people of that country. He expressed his astonishment at the recommendation which had proceeded from the hon. Member for Bridport, that we should erect a republic in the Canadas, and observed that he could not think a republic a legitimate offspring of Great Britain. He relied on the loyalty and good feeling of the people of Lower Canada, and believed that they would not be deluded by their late leaders any longer. He thought that if the people of Canada were solicited by those who had now deserted them to raise again the standard of revolt, they would say, "How shall we trust to you? How follow where you lead? Where we thought you lions, ye. were hares—where foxes, geese." He must say, however, that if her Majesty's Government had interfered in proper time to suppress the treasonable language which had been employed, we should not now have had to deplore the loss of life and property which had taken place.
The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 110; Noes 8: Majority 102.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Aglionby, Major

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Alston, R.

Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.

Attwood, W.

Fitzalan, Lord

Barnard, E. G.

Forbes, W.

Bateman, J.

Freshfield, J. W.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Gibson, J.

Bernal, R.

Grey, Sir G.

Bewes, T.

Grimsditch, T.

Blair, J.

Harland, W. C.

Blennerhassett, A.

Hastie, A.

Borthwick, P.

Hawes, B.

Brodie, W. B.

Hawkins, J. H.

Busfield, W.

Heathcoat, J.

Byng, right hon. G. S.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Carnac, Sir J. R.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Cayley, E. S.

Hodgson, R.

Chapman, A.

Horsman, E.

Clay, W.

Hoskins, K.

Collier, J.

Hughes, W. B.

Craig, W. G.

Hutton, R.

Dalmeny, Lord

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Darby, G.

James, W.

Denison, W. J.

Jenkins, R.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.

Loch, J

Duke, Sir J.

Lockhart, A. M.

Duncan, Viscount

Logan, H.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Mackenzie, T.

Easthope, J.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Eaton, R. J.

Macleod, R.

Evans, Colonel

Macnamara, Major

640

Martin, J.

Sugden, rt. hn. Sir E.

Marton, G.

Surrey, Earl of

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Palmerston, Viscount

Tancred, H. W.

Parker, J.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Thompson, Alderman

Philpotts, J.

Thornley, T.

Planta, rt. hon. J.

Tufnell, H.

Plumptre, J. P.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Poulter, J. S.

Verney, Sir H.

Protheroe, E.

Walker, R.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Westenra, hon. J. C.

Richards, R.

White, A.

Russell, Lord J.

Wilberforce, W.

Salwey, Colonel

Wilshere, W.

Sheppard, T.

Winnington, T. E.

Stanley, E. J.

Wood, C.

Stanley, W. O.

Wood, Sir M.

Steuart, R.

Worsley, Lord

Stewart, J.

Yates, J. A.

Stuart, H.

Young, G. F.

Stuart, V.

TELLERS.

Strutt, E.

Gordon, R.

Style, Sir C.

Seymour, Lord

List of the NOES.

Attwood, T.

Warburton, H.

Baines, E.

Williams, W.

Currie, R.

Leader, J. T.

TELLERS.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Hume, J.

Wakley, T.

Grote, G.

On the question that the Bill do pass,
Sir E. B. Sugdenrose to make one observation, which was, that the alterations introduced into the Bill had verified the prediction of his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel), that the instructions from Lord Glenelg to Lord Durham would never be carried into effect, and would not be acted on, for, as the Bill was now framed, it would be impossible for Lord Durham to call together a convention; and the noble Lord was now deprived of the power of making an infraction of the Canadian and the English constitutions. Ministers had, by their alterations, left the Bill precisely in the state in which the hon. Member for Tamworth wished it to be, for the noble Lord (Lord Durham) would only have the exercise of the prerogative at his command, and he would be a bold man who would venture to use it in calling a convention.
Sir George Greyin a matter of mere law would be sorry to put his opinions in competition with those of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but he must say, that in the present instance the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong; for in the instructions given to Lord Durham, that noble

641
Lord was not authorised to call together an assembly having legislative power, but only a body of persons to give him advice, which was not repugnant to the act of 1791, nor to any other act, and on which there was not placed the slightest obstruction by the Bill which had been read a third time.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that the only reason why the House had been induced to look with the slightest favour on the Bill of the noble Lord was the circumstance that it was to be carried into execution by the Earl of Durham, and from the consideration, founded on his Lordship's character, his energy, and his discretion, and also of his love of liberal principles, that the House had a security for the discreet, firm, and fair exercise of those powers. But it now appeared that the noble Lord would not reach Canada till the end of April or the beginning of May, and in the meantime it was proposed to allow the act to be carried into effect by the commander-in-chief; and he (Mr. Wakley) therefore wished to direct the attention of the House and of the Government to the accounts which had been received from Canada of desperate engagements, or he should rather say massacres, which had taken place there, and which were of so sanguinary a nature as not to be described in the English language, and the recital of which could not but harrow up our feelings. In The Morning Chronicle of that morning, he found it stated that Colonel Maitland "detached the grenadiers, 1st and 2d companies, to favourable positions, to intercept any of the rebels attempting to escape from the church, and which answered effectually, as upon the taking of that building a number of the rebels fell under the fire of part of those companies;" and it was added, that they afterwards set fire to the church itself. This statement was received from Sir J. Colborne, and was published in a supplement to The London Gazette of Friday last. He would ask, what description of force could have been employed against the Queen's troops when only one of them was wounded? and yet they set a watch round the church to destroy any who tried to effect his escape. Was such conduct as this to be borne— was it to be tolerated? Was this a Christian land—did we live under a Christian government? Was it in such scenes as these that we could boast of the religious
642
institutions of this country? In his opinion, it cast a stigma on the character of the whole country, and could it give rise to anything but deep indignation? He did not say that such conduct received the sanction of the Government, but as it had taken place, it behoved Ministers to step forward at once, and in a bold and energetic manner, and to tell Sir J. Colborne that he had gone beyond his duty of simply maintaining the laws when he indulged in vengeance. Again, he found from the accounts of Upper Canada, that Indians were engaged in the war. Were they chosen for this duty because of their known cruelty in their conduct of war? Did the Government sanction the marching or conveyance in steam-boats of 250 Indians, in company with one of the regiments assisting Sir F. Head? It was the custom of some hon. Members to say, that it was the exciting language held by other hon. Members which induced the Canadians to revolt; but he must say, that the revolt was caused by the conduct of the Imperial Legislature, which had abolished the Canadian constitution, or had completely neutralised its powers, and by these acts seemed almost to have driven the Canadians to the necessity of revolt. He again protested against the bill. As the insurrection had been put down, he held it as an unnecessary and unconstitutional proceeding, and as placing a blot on the English legislation, which it would take years to wipe out.
Lord John Russellobserved, that the only part of the hon. Member's speech which required any notice from him, was that in which he had quoted the statements appearing in The London Gazelle. He knew, that the hon. Gentleman had no wish to make any misrepresentation, but he must have misunderstood the passages in the dispatches of Sir J. Colborne, Colonel Maitland, and other officers. The fact was, that the circumstances referred to, were amongst the usual occurrences of war. There were many persons in the church; it was fortified and made a place of offence, from which the British troops were fired upon, and, according to the laws of war, it was destroyed; and if troops, marching through a village, were fired upon, the usual measures of war were taken. If those who had surrendered and had laid down their arms, had not received quarter, then, indeed, the hon. Member's observations would have been just; but he

643
did not find any such statement in the dispatch. But not only should those who did lay down their arms be received as prisoners, bat it was necessary that the best means should be taken to prevent the others from retiring as a body in arms, and from taking up another position from which they might again attack the troops. The hon. Member had said, that there could not be much resistance, as only one soldier had been wounded; but this only showed how little discipline had been used to enable men to cope with the British empire, as well as the extent of the rashness and the guilt of the persons who had induced the Canadians to revolt. With regard to the Indians, he could only observe, that they were not employed as a regular military force; some had attended Sir F. Head, but the circumstance was of a totally different nature from what had been stated. All the troops had been removed from one province, and the militia was called out to meet several persons who were collected on the road to Toronto, and who had commenced the outrages by murdering a military officer who had retired from the service after having greatly distinguished himself in war, who was living with his family, and who was murdered on his road to the city. When persons were thus attacked, it was possible that all the inhabitants, British, Canadian, and Indian, should unite to put down the insurrection, acting, as they did, under fear of their lives and property. This was, however, an entirely different description of measure from that which was taken by Sir John Colborne, which did not affect the propriety of intrusting the powers of the act to that officer before the arrival of Lord Durham, and which were under present circumstances placed in his hands.
Bill passed.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of DEVON, from Exeter, to extend Education.—By the Duke of SUTHERLAND, from Etruria, Staffordshire, for the abolition of Slave Apprenticeship.—By Lord ASHBURTON, from places in Essex, to the same effect; from Hull, Elgin, Edinburgh, and other places, for a reduction in the rate of Postage; and from Manchester, against the abolition of Imprisonment for Debt.—By the Earl of MINTO, from Hawick, for improvement in the Post-office management.

SLAVE TRADE.
Lord Broughamspoke as follows:* I hold in my hand a petition from a numerous and most respectable body of your fellow-citizens— the inhabitants of Leeds. Between 16 and 17,000 of them have signed it, and on the part of the other inhabitants of that great and flourishing community, as well as of the county at large in which it is situated, I can affirm with confidence that their statements and their prayer are those of the whole province whose people I am proud to call my friends, as it was once the pride of my life to represent them in Parliament. They remind your Lordships, that between eighteen and nineteen
* From a corrected report published by Ridgway, and dedicated to Marquess Wellesley.

597
millions have been already paid, and the residue of the twenty millions is in a course of payment to the holders of slaves for some loss which it was supposed their property would sustain by the Emancipation Act, whereas instead of a loss they have received a positive gain, their yearly revenues are increased, and the value of their estates has risen in the market. Have not these petitioners—have not the people of England a right to stale, that but for the firm belief into which a generous Parliament, and a confiding country were drawn, that the Bill of 1833 would occasion a loss to the planter, not one million, or one pound, or one penny of this enormous sum would ever have been granted to the owners of slaves? When it is found that all this money has been paid for nothing, have we not an equal right to require that whatever can be done on the part of the planters to further a measure which has already been so gainful to them, shall be performed without delay? Have we not an undeniable right to expect for the sake not more of humanity towards the negroes than of strict justice to those whose money was so paid for nothing, under a mere error in fact, we, we who paid the money, shall obtain some compensation? And as all we ask is not a return of it, not to have the sums paid under mistake refunded, but only the bargain carried into full effect, when the Colonial Legislatures refuse to perform their part, are we not well entitled to compel them? In a word, have not the people of England a right to demand that the slavery which still exists under the name of indentured apprenticeship, shall forthwith cease, all pretext for continuing it, from the alleged risk of the sudden change, or the negro's incapacity of voluntary labour, having been triumphantly destroyed by the universal and notorious fact of the experiment of total emancipation having succeeded wherever it has been tried, and of the negro working cheerfully and profitably where he has been continued an apprentice? In presenting this petition from Yorkshire, and these thirteen others from various parts of the country, I have the honour of giving notice, that as soon as the unfortunate and pressing question of Canada shall have been disposed of by the passing or the rejection of the Bill expected from the Commons, that is, in about a week or ten days, I shall submit a
598
motion to your Lordships with a view of enabling you to comply with the earnest prayer of your countrymen, by fixing the period of complete emancipation, on the 1st of August in this year instead of 1840.
But, my Lords, while I thus express my entire concurrence in the sentiments of these petitions, and of the various others which I have presented upon this subject, I cannot conceal from myself that there is a very material difference between the subject of their complaint and of the complaint which I made at our last meeting respecting the continuance not of slavery, but the slave trade, which I cannot delay for a single hour bringing before Parliament. The grievance set forth in the petitions is, that the Emancipation Act according to some, did not go far enough and fast enough to its purpose—that while some hold it to have stopped short, in not at once, and effectually wiping out the foul stain of slavery, others complain of our expectations having been frustrated in the working of the measure by the planters and the local authorities—that enough has not been done, nor with sufficient celerity to relieve the unhappy slave of his burthen—nevertheless all admit that whatever has been effected has been done in the right direction. The objections made are upon the degree, not upon the nature of the proceedings. It is, that too little relief has been given to the slave —that too late a day has been assigned for his final liberation—that he still suffers more than he ought; it is not that we have made slavery more universal, more burthensome, or more bitter. But what would have been said by the English people—in what accents would they have appealed to this House—if, instead of finding that the goal we aimed at was not reached—that the chains we had hoped to see loosened still galled the limbs— that the burthen we had desired to lighten still pressed the slave to the earth—it had been found that the curse and the crime of human bondage had extended to regions which it never before had blighted—that the burthen was become heavier and more unbearable—that the fetters galled the victim's limbs more cruelly than ever—what, I ask, would then have been the language of your petitioners? What the sensation spread through the country? What the cry of rage echoing from every corner of its extent, to charge us

599
with mingled hypocrisy and cruelty, should we allow an hour to pass without rooting out the monstrous evil? I will venture to assert, that there would have burst universally from the whole people an indignant outcry, to sweep away in a moment every vestige of slavery, under whatever name it might lurk, and whatever disguise it might assume, and the negro at once would have been a free man. Now this is the very charge which I am here to make, and prepared to support with proof, against the course pursued, with a view to extinguish the slave trade. That accursed traffic, long since condemned by the unanimous voice of all the rational world, flourishes under the very expedients adopted to crush it, and increases in consequence of those very measures resorted to for its extinction. Yes, my Lords, it is my painful duty to shew what, without suffering severely, it is not possible to contemplate, far less to recite, but what I cannot lay my head once more on my pillow without denouncing, that at this hour, from the very nature of the means used to extirpate it, this infernal traffic becomes armed with new horrors, and continues to tear out, year after year, the very bowels of the great African continent—that scene of the greatest sufferings which have ever scourged humanity—the worst of all the crimes ever perpetrated by man!
When the act for abolishing the British Slave Trade passed in 1807, and when the Americans performed the same act of justice by abolishing their traffic in 1806, the earliest moment, it must to their honour be observed, that the Federal Constitution allowed this step to be taken; and when, at a later period, treaties were made, with a view to extinguish the traffic carried on by France, Spain, and Portugal, the plan was in an evil hour adopted which up to the present time has been in operation. The right of search and seizure was confined to certain vessels in the service of the State, and there was held out as an inducement to quicken the activity of their officers and crews, a promise of head-money,—that is, of so much to be paid for each slave on board the captured ship, over and above the proceeds of its sale upon condemnation. The prize was to be brought in and proceeded against; the slaves were to be liberated; the ship, with her tackle and cargo, to be sold, and the price distri-
600
buted; but beside this, the sum of five pounds for each slave taken on board was to be distributed among the captors. It must be admitted that the intention was excellent; it must further be allowed that at first sight the inducement held out seemed likely to work well, by exciting the zeal and rousing the courage of the crews against those desperate miscreants who defiled and desecrated the great high way of nations with their complicated occupation of piracy and murder. I grant it is far easier to judge after the event. Nevertheless, a little reflection might have sufficed to shew that there was a vice essentially inherent in the scheme, and that by allotting the chief part of the premium for the capture of slaves, and not of slave-ships, an inducement was held out, not to prevent the principal part of the crime, the shipping of the negroes, from being committed, but rather to suffer this in order that the head-money might be gained when the vessel should be captured with that on board which we must still insult all lawful commerce by calling the cargo— that is, the wretched victims of avarice and cruelty, who had been torn from their country, and carried to the loathsome hold. The tendency of this is quite undeniable; and equally so is its complete inconsistency with the whole purpose in view, and indeed the grounds upon which the plan itself is formed; for it assumes that the head-money will prove an inducement to the cruisers, and quicken their activity; it assumes, therefore, that they will act so as to obtain the premium: and yet the object in view is to prevent any slaves from being embarked, and consequently any thing being done which can entitle the cruiser to any head-money at all. The cruiser is told to put down the Slave Trade, and the reward held out is proportioned to the height which that trade is suffered to reach before it is put down. The plan assumes that he requires this stimulus to make him prevent the offence; and the stimulus is applied only after the offence has been in great part committed. The tendency, then, of this most preposterous arrangement cannot be questioned for a moment; but now see how it really works.
The slave vessel is fitted out and sails from her port, with all the accommodations that distinguish such criminal adventures, and with the accustomed

601
equipment of chains and fetters, to torture and restrain the slaves—the investment of trinkets wherewith civilized men decoy savages to make war on one another, and to sell those nearest to them in blood—with the stock of muskets too, prepared by Christians for the trade, and sold at sixteen pence a piece, but not made to fire above once or twice without bursting in the hand of the poor negro, whom they have tempted to plunder his neighbour or to sell his child. If taken on her way to the African Coast she bears internal evidence, amply sufficient, to convict her of a slave trading destination. I will not say that the cruisers having visited and inspected her, would suffer her to pass onward. I will not impute to gallant and honourable men a breach of duty, by asserting, that knowing a ship to have a guilty purpose, and aware that they had the power of proving this they would voluntarily permit her to accomplish it. I will not even suggest that vessels are less closely watched on their route towards the coast than on their return from it. But I may at least affirm, without any fear of being contradicted, that the policy which holds out a reward, not to the cruiser who stops such a ship and interrupts her on the way to the scene of her crimes, but to the cruiser who seizes her on her way back when full of slaves, gives and professes to give the cruiser an interest in letting her reach Africa, take in her cargo of slaves, and sail for America. Moreover, I may also affirm with perfect safety, that this policy is grounded upon the assumption, that the cruiser will be influenced by the hope of the reward, in performing the service, else of what earthly use can it be to offer it? and consequently I am entitled to conclude, that the offering this reward, assumes that the cruiser cares for the reward, and will let the slaver pass on unless she is laden with slaves. If this does not always happen, it is very certainly no fault of the policy which is framed upon such a preposterous principle. But I am not about to argue that any such consequences actually take place. It may or it may not be so in the result; but the tendency of the system is plain. The fact I stop not to examine. I have other facts to state, about which no doubt exists at all. The statements of my excellent friend, Mr. Laird, who, with his worthy coadjutor, Mr. Oldfield, have recently returned from Africa, are before the world, and there has been no attempt made to contradict
602
them. Those gallant men are the survivors of an expedition full of hardships and perils, to which, among many others, the learned and amiable Dr. Briggs, of Liverpool, unhappily fell a sacrifice—an irreparable loss to humanity as well as science.
It appears that the course pursued on the coast is this: —The cruiser stationed there to prevent the slave trade, carefully avoids going near the harbour or the creek where the slavers are lying. If she comes within sight, the slaver would not venture to put his cargo on board and sail. Therefore she stands out, just so far as to command a view of the port from the masthead, but herself quite out of sight. The slaver believes the coast is clear; accomplishes his crime of shipping the cargo, and attempts to cross the Atlantic. Now, whether he succeeds in gaining the opposite shores, or is taken and condemned, let us see what the effect of the system is first of all, in the vessel's construction and accommodation—that is, in the comforts, if such a word can be used in connexion with the hull of a slave-ship—or the torments rather prepared for her unhappy inmates. Let us see how the unavoidable miseries of the middle passage are exasperated by the contraband nature of the adventure—how the unavoidable mischief is needlessly aggravated by the very means taken to extirpate it. The great object being to escape our cruisers, every other consideration is sacrificed to swiftness of sailing in the construction of the slave-ships. I am not saying that humanity is sacrificed. I should of course be laughed to scorn by all who are implicated in the African traffic, were I to use such a word in any connexion with it. But all other considerations respecting the vessel herself are sacrificed to swiftness, and she is built so narrow as to put her safety in peril, being made just broad enough on the beam to keep the sea. What is the result to the wretched slaves? Before the trade was put down by us in 1807, they had the benefit of what was termed the Slave Carrying Act. During the twenty years that we spent in examining the details of the question—in ascertaining whether our crimes were so profitable as not to warrant us in leaving them off—in debating whether robbery, piracy, and murder, should be prohibited by law, or receive protection and encouragement from

603
the State, we, at least, were considerate enough to regulate the perpetration of them, and while those curious and very creditable discussions were going on, Sir William Dolben's Bill gave the unhappy victims of our cruelty and iniquity the benefit of a certain space between decks, in which they might breathe the tainted air more freely, and a certain supply of provisions and of water to sustain their wretched existence. But now there is nothing of the kind, and the slave is in the same situation in which our first debates found him above half a century ago, when the venerable Thomas Clarkson awakened the attention of the world to his sufferings. The scantiest portion which will support life is alone provided; and the wretched Africans are compressed and stowed into every nook and cranny of the ship, as if they were dead goods concealed on board smuggling vessels. I may be thought to have said enough, but I may not stop here. Far more remains to tell, and I approach the darker part of the subject with a feeling of horror and disgust which I cannot describe, and which three or four clays gazing at the picture has not been able to subdue. But I go through the painful duty in the hope of inducing your Lordships at once to pronounce the doom of that system which fosters all that you are about to contemplate.
Let me first remind you of the analogy which this head-money system bears to what was nearer home, called blood-money. That it produces all the effects of the latter, I am certainly not prepared to affirm; for the giving a reward to informers on capital conviction had the effect of engendering conspiracies to prosecute innocent men, as well as to prevent the guilty from being stopt in their career, until their crimes had ripened into capital offences; and I have no conception that any attempts can be made to capture vessels not engaged in the trade, nor, indeed, could the head-money, from the nature of the thing, be obtained by any such means. But, in the other part of the case, the two things are precisely parallel, have the self-same tendency, and produce the same effects; for they both appeal to the same feelings and motives, putting in motion the same springs of human action. Under the old bounty system no policeman had an interest in detecting and checking guilt until it
604
reached a certain pitch of depravity, until the offences became capital, and their prosecutor could earn forty pounds, they were not worth attending to. The cant expression, but the significant one is well known. "He (the criminal) is not yet weight enough—he does not weigh his forty pounds," was the saying of those who cruised for head-money at the Old Bailey. And thus lesser crimes were connived at by some, encouraged, nurtured, fostered in their growth by others, that they might attain the maturity which the law had, in its justice and wisdom, said they must reach before it should be worth any one's while to stop the course of guilt. Left to itself wickedness could scarcely fail to shoot up and ripen. As soon as he saw that time come, the policeman pounced upon his appointed prey, made his victim pay the penalty of the crime he had suffered, if not encouraged him to commit, and himself obtained the reward provided by the State for the patrons of capital felony. Such within the tropics is the tendency, and such are the effects of our head-money system. The slave-ship gains the African shores; she there remains unmolested by the land authorities, and un-visited by the sea, the human cargo is prepared for her, the ties that knit relatives together are forcibly severed, all the resources of force and of fraud, of sordid avarice and of savage intemperance, are exhausted to fill the human market; to prevent all this nothing or next to nothing is attempted; the penalty has not as yet attached, the slaves are not on board, and head-money is not due; the vessel, to use the technical phrase, does not yet weigh enough, let her ride at anchor till she reach her due standard of five pounds a slave, and then she will be pursued. Accordingly the lading is completed, the cruiser keeps out of sight, and the pirate puts to sea. And now begin those horrors, those greater horrors, of which I am to speak, and which are the necessary consequences of the whole proceeding, considering with what kind of miscreants our cruisers have to deal.
On being discovered, perceiving that the cruiser is giving chase, the slaver has to determine whether he will endeavour to regain the port, escaping for the moment, and waiting for a more favourable opportunity, or will fare across the Atlantic, and so perfect his adventure and consummate his crime, reaching the American

605
shores with a part, at least, of his lading. How many unutterable horrors are embraced in the word that has slipt my tongue. A part of the lading! Yes, yes; for no sooner does the miscreant find that the cruiser is gaining upon him, than he bethinks him of lightening his ship, and he chooses the heaviest of his goods with the same regard for them as if they were all inanimate lumber. He casts overboard men and women and children. Does he first knock off their fetters? No! Why? Because those irons by which they have been held together in couples for safety, but not more to secure the pirate crew against revolt, than the cargo against suicide—to prevent the Africans from seeking in a watery grave an escape from their sufferings; those irons are not screwed together and padlocked, so as to be removed in case of danger from tempest or from fire, but they are rivetted—welded together by the blacksmith in his forge, never to be removed nor loosened until after the horrors of the middle passage, the children of misery shall be landed to bondage in the civilized world, and become the subjects of Christian kings. The irons, too, serve the purpose of weights, and if time be allowed, in the hurry of the flight, more weights are added, to the end that the wretches may be entangled, to prevent their swimming. Why? Because the negro, with that Herculean strength which he is endowed withal, and those powers of living in the water which almost give him an amphibious nature, might survive to be taken up by the cruiser, and become a witness against the murderer. The escape of the malefactor is thus provided both by lightening the vessel which bears him away, and by destroying the evidence of his crimes. Nor is this all. Instances have been recorded of other precautions used with the same purpose, Water-casks have been filled with human beings, and one vessel threw twelve overboard thus laden. In another chase, two slave ships endeavoured, but in vain, to make their escape, and my blood curdles when I recite, that, in the attempt, they flung into the sea 500 human beings of all ages and of either sex. These are things related not by enthusiasts of heated imagination—not by men who consult only the feelings of humanity, and are inspired to speak by the great horror and (inextinguishable indignation that, fills their breasts, but by officers on duty—
606
men engaged professionally in the Queen's service. It is not a creation of fancy to add, as these have done to the hideous tale, that the ravenous animals of the deep are aware of their prey, when the slave-ship makes sail; the shark follows in her wake, and her course is literally to be tracked through the ocean by the blood of the murdered, with which her enormous crimes stain its waters. I have read of worse than even this. But it will not be believed. I have examined the particulars of scenes yet more hideous, while transfixed with horror, and ashamed of the human form that I wore—scenes so dreadful as it was not deemed fit to lay bare before the public eye—scenes never surpassed in all that history has recorded of human guilt to stain her pages, in all that poets have conceived to harrow up the soul—scenes compared with which the blood-stained annals of Spain;—cruel and sordid Spain—have registered only ordinary tales of avarice and suffering, though these have won for her an un-envied pre-eminence of infamy—scenes not exceeded in horror by the forms with which the great Tuscan poet peopled the hell of his fancy, nor by the dismal tints of his illustrious countryman's pencil, breathing its horrors over the vaults of the Sistine chapel. Mortua quin etiam jungebat corpora vivis. On the deck, and in the loathsome hold are to be seen the living chained to the dead, the putrid carcase remaining to mock the survivor with a spectacle that, to him, presents no terrors—to mock him with the spectacle of a release which he envies. Nay, women have been known to bring forth the miserable fruit of the womb surrounded by the dying and the dead, the decayed corpses of their fellow victims. Am I asked how these enormities shall be prevented? First ask me to what I ascribe them, and then my answer is ready—I charge them upon the system of head-money which I have described, and of whose tendency no man can pretend to doubt. Reward men for preventing the slaver's voyage, not for interrupting it—for saving the Africans from the slave-ship, not for seizing the ship after it has received them, and then the inducement will be applied to the right place, and the motive will be suited to the act you desire to have performed.
But I have hitherto been speaking of the intolerable aggravation which we superadd to the traffic. Its amount is

607
another thing. Do all our efforts materially check it? Are our cruisers always successful? Are all flags and all the slavers under any flag subject to search and liable to capture? I find that the bulk of this infernal traffic is still un-diminished; that though many slave-ships may be seized, many more escape and reach the New World; and that the numbers still carried thither are as great as ever. Of this sad truth the evidence is but too abundant and too conclusive. The premium of insurance at the Havannah is no higher than twelve and a-half per cent. to cover all hazards. Of this four and a-half per cent. is allowed for sea risk and underwriter's profits, leaving but eight for the chance of capture. But in Rio it is as low as eleven per cent., leaving but six and a-half for risk of capture. In the year 1835, eighty slave ships sailed from the Havannah alone; and I have a list of the numbers which six of these brought back, giving an average of about 360, so that above 28,000 were brought to that port in a year. In the month of December of that year, between 4,000 and 5,000 were safely landed in the port of Rio, the capital of our good friend and ally, the emperor of Brazil. It is frightful to think of the numbers carried over by some of these ships. One transported 570, and another no less than 700 wretched beings. I give the names of these execrable vessels—the Felicidad and the Socorro. Of all slave-traders, the greatest—of all the criminals engaged in these guilty crimes, the worst, are the Brazilians, the Spaniards, and the Portuguese, the three nations with whom our commerce is the closest, and over whom our influence is the most commanding. These are the nations with whom we (and I mean France as well as ourselves) go on in lingering negotiation, in quibbling discussion, to obtain some explanation of some article in a feeble, inefficient treaty, or some extension of an ineffectual right of search, while their crimes lay all Africa waste, and deluge the seas with the blood of their inhabitants. Yet, if a common and less guilty pirate dared pollute the sea, or wave his black flag over its waves, let him be of what nation he pleased to libel by assuming its name, he would in an instant be made to pay the forfeit of his crimes. It was not always so. We did not, in all times nor in every cause, so shrink from our duty through delicacy or through fear.
608
When the thrones of ancient Europe were to be upheld, or their royal occupants to be restored, or the threatened privileges of the aristocracy wanted champions, we could full swiftly advance to the encounter, throw ourselves into the breach, and confront alone the giant arm of republics and of emperors wielding the colossal power of France. But now, when the millions of Africa look up to us for help—when humanity and justice alone are our only clients, I am far from saying, that we do not wish them well. I can believe, that if a word could give them success—if a wave of the hand sufficed to end the fray, the word would be pronounced, the gesture would not be with olden; but, if more be wanted—if some exertion is required—if some risk must be run in the cause of mercy, then our tongue cleaves to the roof of our mouth; our hand falls paralyzed; we pause and falter, and blanch and quail before the ancient and consecrated monarchy of Brazil, the awful might of Portugal, the compact, consolidated, overwhelming power of Spain. My Lords, I trust, I expect, we shall pause and falter, and blanch and quail no more. Let it be the earliest, and it will be the most enduring glory of the new reign to extirpate at length this execrable traffic. I would not surround our young Queen's throne with fortresses and troops, or establish it upon the triumphs of arms and the trophies of war—no, not I! I would build her renown neither upon military nor yet upon naval greatness; but upon rights recured, upon liberties extended, humanity diffused, justice universally promulged. In alliance with such virtues as these I would have her name descend to after ages. I would have it commemorated for ever, that in the first year of her reign, her throne was fortified and her crown embellished, by the proudest triumph over the worst of crimes—the greatest triumph mortal ever won over the worst crime ever man committed.
The Earl of Mintosaid, that after the eloquent speech of the noble and learned Lord, and after the severe attack which the noble and learned Lord had made on the officers of the profession over which he had the honour to preside, their Lordships would naturally expect a few observations from him. The greater part of the speech of the noble and learned Lord was directed to prove that, in consequence of the paying of head money, the

609
officers employed to put down this traffic were induced to neglect their duty and the orders of their country, and to allow the escape of vessels fitted out for this most iniquitous traffic. He would admit, that the statements so powerfully addressed to their Lordships by the noble and learned Baron, of the horrors of the slave trade were not in the slightest degree exaggerated. The noble and learned Lord, however, had directly imputed to the officers of the navy, that in consequence of the profit they derived from head-money, they were induced to allow vessels to pass in to the coast to get a cargo, in order that they might capture these vessels on returning with a cargo. To use the noble and learned Lord's own words, those gallant Officers were induced to allow vessels equipped for the slave trade to escape in order that they might weigh enough; they were induced to watch at the mouths of the rivers and to wait till the slaver had taken in a cargo. Now, he would not say that not a single such instance had occurred; but, with all the opportunity he had of acquiring information, he could say, that no such instance had come to his knowledge, nor did he believe that any such existed. He regretted that the noble and learned Lord should make such charges without bringing forward a single case of neglect of duty. It might be perfectly true that in many cases the officers might find it necessary to allow the vessels to take in a cargo before they could attempt to capture them, as they might not until then become subject to the articles of the treaty. But there were many cases in which they took a contrary course, and he could assure their Lordships that the only complaint he ever heard against the officers was, that they were too ready to take these vessels, that they were too little careful of themselves, and that they did not sufficiently attend to their own security against prosecutions. Had any such instances as those referred to by the noble and learned Lord occurred, the officers so guilty would have justly lost their commissions; but he must say, that no such instance had he ever heard of. On the contrary, every letter he received from those who were thus employed lamented the difficulties in the way of obtaining the means of the capture and conviction of these vessels until the cargo was embarked, and they all urged the conclusion of further treaties.
610
If those treaties were extended to all those nations under whose flags the slave trade were carried on, there would be no difficulty in putting down the traffic; but as long as those treaties remained in the state they were in at present it would be impossible effectually to put down the traffic. The case was not the same with regard to Spain as with regard to Portugal; because with Spain we now had a treaty which effectually enabled us to capture slavers under the Spanish flag, but with Portugal this was not the case, and the consequence was, that a great part of the traffic was carried on under Portuguese colours, and the cruisers of this country were unable to capture the vessels until they had taken in a cargo. The noble and learned Lord in the course of his eloquent and forcible speech had condemned the conduct of the Government in strong terms for being on friendly terms with nations which recognized this most detestable traffic. When the noble and learned Lord held a high official situation in the Government of this country why did he not take this subject into consideration? But had there been no change? Had not the present Government at least obtained this advantage, that the Spanish flag would no longer cover this traffic? He begged pardon for making these few observations, but he could not listen to such insinuations against the profession over which he had the honour to preside, he could not hear them compared to the police officers of the Old Bailey, without offering some defence and making some explanation.
Lord Broughamsaid, that the noble Earl had entirely mistaken what he had said. He had never made such charges against the officers of the cruisers as the noble Earl had imagined. The noble Earl, therefore, only denied what he (Lord Brougham) had never stated. His charge was this—that there being a slaver on the coast of Bonny or Calabar, which was known to be there, and which the cruiser knew to be there, he had asked, was it true or not, that the cruiser instead of co-operating with the authorities and preventing the unhappy cargo from being embarked, went out to sea just far enough not to be seen, but not so far as not to see the port, and there waited until the vessel came out? It might be very easily said that this was done to entice out the vessel, in order to capture her. Yes; but

611
it enabled the vessel to put, in the meantime, its unhappy cargo of human beings aboard. Was it, he would ask, true or not that they enabled these vessels to come out, and coming out to be chased, thus running the risk of tempting the master and crew of the slaver to throw overboard its human cargo in order to lighten the vessel? It was very possible that he had been misinformed; but he could refer to an excellent authority in the book lately published by Mr. Laird. As to the statement of the noble Earl, that when he (Lord Brougham) was in the Government nothing was done to remedy the evils, he begged to say that circumstances had very much altered since then. Neither Spain nor Portugal was now precisely in the same condition that they were in at that time. This country had now much more weight in Lisbon, if any body could have weight or influence in such an anarchical form of Government. Again, the Government of Spain was entirely dependent on this country, which was not the case in the reign of Ferdinand 7th. During the last eighteen months the most satisfactory indications had been given of an improved feeling on the part of the French Government, and he had no hesitation in saying, that the Government of this country would not do its duty to the character of the country, or to the cause of humanity, if it did not take immediate steps with France to put down the slave trade at all hazards. The Earl of Minto said, that as he understood the noble and learned Lord's question, it was this—whether or not it was the case that those cruisers lay off the mouths of rivers in which they had reason Jo know that a slaver had entered, for the purpose of taking in a cargo, long enough for the cargo to be taken in, in order that they might capture the vessel when she came out? He must repeat what he had said before, that if any officer knowing that a slave-vessel had gone into a river into which he could safely follow her, for the purpose of taking in a cargo of slaves, that vessel being under colours which entitled the cruiser to capture her under the equipment article, any officer failing to do so, and waiting till the vessel got a cargo, would be guilty of a breach of duty; and if it came to his (Lord Minto's) knowledge, that officer would be called to account. But he knew of no such case. He did know of many cases in which officers had been unable to follow vessels, or
612
had been unable to seize them, because they carried flags which did not place the vessel under the equipment article. He hoped that the distinction was sufficiently intelligible. There was nothing which an officer desired more than to have an opportunity of getting into the rivers, and of taking those vessels before they get their cargoes, when they were entitled so to do. Such things were of constant occurrence. Some of the most gallant actions had been performed in this way, and by very young officers. A remarkable instance had occurred not long ago, when a midshipman was directed to enter a river in a boat, in order to obtain information about a suspicions vessel, to learn what colours she sailed under, and what men she had on board. He met the vessel coming down the river, he boarded her with his six men, and though she was armed with thirty men, he captured her and brought her out. There were several such cases. It would be preposterous to suppose that officers would expose themselves to censure by going on board vessels sailing under the Portuguese flag, unless they were quite certain that slaves would be found on board. Under such circumstances, then, the only course that officers had to take was to lay off at a distance, or to be out of sight, in order that they might be able to make a capture. He knew of no case where officers could legally have made a capture where they had failed to do so.
Lord Broughamwished to know if there could be the slightest objection to abolish head-money, and paying a reward for the tonnage of the vessel captured?
The Earl of Mintothought, that the noble and learned Lord had made out no case to show that head-money had the effect which he had described; at the same time he did not mean to say but that it might have that effect. Head-money was continued, and, in certain cases, a reward was given according to the tonnage of the vessel.
Lord Broughamdeclared, that his objection was to the giving head-money in any case.
Lord Ellenboroughconsidered that there could be no doubt but that the head-money had had the effect of affording an inducement to those evil consequences which had been described. He thought that where gallant actions had been achieved by young officers, the remuneration ought

613
to be as great as when large vessels made a capture on the open sea, and where but slight peril at least was encountered. The noble and learned Lord had, in his opinion, ably described the horrors which followed from a slaver being pursued, and he had no doubt but that there was an inducement to the master of the slaver to destroy the slaves on board, in order that the reward of those who pursued them might be lessened.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, that if there were no objection to the remuneration by tonnage, it would be much more desirable than the mode by head-money. He could not but think that the House and the country were obliged to his noble and learned Friend for calling their attention to the great and crying enormity of that traffic as it was called. Undoubtedly, the people must think that vigorous measures were enforced with respect to this trade, when they saw it abolished by Act of Parliament, and when they found, year after year, fresh treaties ostentatiously paraded as having been recently concluded with foreign states, and with small and insignificant states too, as an instance he might mention Bolivia, with which country a treaty was, he believed, concluded last year, for the suppression of the slave trade, although that country never had any slaves, and never had been engaged in the trade. Yet this trade was, nevertheless, carried on to as great an extent, and with tenfold more cruelty than ever; and he had no hesitation in saying, that if this country had left Spain and Portugal to carry about those poor creatures as they pleased, humanity would have been less outraged, and fewer atrocities committed. The state of our relations with Portugal was unsatisfactory on this point, and he thought ought not to be submitted to by this country. It ought to be remembered that the family now on the throne held its seat there by our intervention; and connected as we thus were with them, he did think that it was too much that Portugal should be (as the noble Earl had informed their Lordships, and no doubt truly) the real bar to putting an end to the trade. England had sent out a fleet to blow the Dey of Algiers out of his citadel, because the depredations of his subjects were inconsistent with the regulations of civil society, yet England suffered the kingdom of Portugal to stand a nuisance on the ocean, by carrying on a trade the horrors of which
614
were aggravated by England's interference. He did think, therefore, with the noble and learned Lord, that some way or other might be found to put an end to this state of things, and to prevent the perpetration of horrors consequent on it.
Lord Glenelgcould state, on the part of his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department, that he was at the present moment engaged in negociating a treaty with Portugal with the view of putting a stop to this trade. He certainly must coincide in the opinion expressed by the noble Lord, that the horrors of the trade would not have been aggravated to their present height if we had never meddled with it as carried on by other nations; but he also thought Parliament would not have done its duty, or satisfied the expectations of the country, if the fear of aggravating those horrors had prevented them from taking every means to extirpate the trade. It was very difficult for this country to interfere in the matter without infringing the respect due to foreign states. With respect to the horrors of the slave trade he must say he believed the account given of them by the noble and learned Lord was not exaggerated, for they heard the same on all hands; but he must also say that he did not think the noble and learned Lord had satisfactorily proved that these horrors were at all attributable to the giving of head-money. It might be as the noble and learned Lord had stated; but he did not think that the fact had been proved. He admitted that head money afforded a temptation to persons to allow the shipment of slaves, but no other course was open to them for rewarding the captors, except in the case of vessels sailing under the flag of a nation with which we had a treaty, including the equipment article. He was not, however, prepared to defend the practice of head-money—indeed he had not examined the merits of the question.. The practice had been established several years ago by persons well informed on the subject, and was intended as a means of stimulating the exertions of both officers and sailors on board the cruisers, and of securing good treatment for the slaves after capture. He certainly thought those officers and men employed in such a pestilential climate, and on such a disagreeable duty, were entitled to some reward for their exertions. With respect to vessels sailing under the flag of nations whose treaties included the

615
equipment article, rewards were given not only according; to the number of slaves, but to the tonnage of the vessel captured, and indeed his wish was, to abolish head money altogether. The only nation that still persisted in endeavours to thwart the exertions of this country to put down the abominable slave traffic was Portugal. He deeply regretted, while he could not conceal the fact, that vessels sailing under the Portuguese flag were constantly guilty of violating not only the laws of humanity, but the direct stipulations of the treaty with this country. He knew it was the anxious wish of his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department to bring the question to a satisfactory issue, and in the meantime whatever could be done to alleviate the miseries of the slaves he was sure would be done by him.
Motion agreed to.
Lord Redesdalesaid, that it had teen his intention to move for copies of all despatches received by the Colonial-office from the governors of her Majesty's colonies of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward's Island, during the year 1837, and the date of each despatch, but he understood that there was some objection to their production.
Lord Glenelgsaid, that copies of the despatches could not be produced, but he was ready to tell the noble Lord the dates of the times at which they were received.
The Earl of Devonpresented a petition from Exeter, praying for the more general extension of the benefits of education.
The Duke of Sutherlandpresented petitions from Etruria, in Staffordshire, and other places, praying the immediate emancipation of the slave apprentices in the West Indian colonies.