Sitting of 30 July 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Militia Ballot Suspension; Detatched Portions of Counties (Ireland).—Read a second time:—War Office; Transfer of Funds; Conveyance of Estates.—Read a third time:—Post-Office; Customs; Joint Stock Banks.
Petitions presented. By Mr. BROTHERTON, from Salford, in favour of Mr. Owen's system.—By Mr. GIBSON, from Ipswich, for increased encouragement to the Established Church.—By Mr. HINDLEY, from Ashton-under-Line, against the sanction of Idolatrous practices in India.—By Viscount SANDON, from Wesleyan Methodists Congregations in Liverpool, and by Mr. GLADSTONE, from Wes-
792
leyan Methodists of Newark, to the same effeet.—By Mr. SHAW, from Dublin, against the Spirit Licences (Ireland) Bill.

BRIMSTONE AT NAPLES.
Lord Sandonwished to ask his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade a question relative to the commerce of the country. Negotiations had been pending some time between the Government of this country and that of Naples respecting the high duty imposed by this Government on Neapolitan oil in consequence of the high duty imposed by the Neapolitan Government on fish imported from our colonies. In order to do further injury to our commerce, the Neapolitan Government had recently confided the monopoly of brimstone to a French company. He rose to ask his right hon. Friend whether he was in possession of a copy of the decree by which that monopoly was established, and if he was, whether he would have any objection to lay it on the table?
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, that his noble friend, in putting a question to him, had endeavoured to raise an argument. He did not, however, agree with him as to his argument; for what had been done by the Government of Naples as to the sulphur, had nothing whatever to do with the oil question. The decree of the Neapolitan Government on the subject of sulphur was directed quite as much against the French Government as against ours. With respect to the question which his noble Friend had put to him, he had to reply, that it was only two or three days ago that he was officially made acquainted with the fact that the Neapolitan Government had entered into the unwise proceeding of raising sulphur in Sicily under a monopoly. As soon as he should receive an official copy of the contract which that Government had made, he would lay it on the table of the House. He had already seen a copy of it which had been privately furnished him; and he had submitted it to the law officers of the Crown for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Neapolitan Government could enter into such a contract, conformably to the treaties into which it had previously entered with us. If it could not, there was an end to the question; if it could, we could only try what we could effect by good offices.

CIVIL LIST ACTS.
The House in Committee on the Civil List Acts.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose for the purpose of bringing under the consideration of the House what he hoped would prove a final and satisfactory settlement on the subject of pensions, and he approached that question on the present occasion with a deep feeling of interest and anxiety, and with a fervent hope that the House would accede unanimously to the resolutions with which he intended to conclude. The different turns which the debate took on the Pension List at the time when it occurred were too fresh in the memory of the House to require him to detail them at length and were besides set out in the report at present upon the table. It was therefore only necessary for him to state, that in the month of December last a committee was appointed to inquire into this subject, a committee which included the names of several gentlemen who were accustomed to take a strict and economical view of the pensions on the civil list, and who formed collectively a tribunal that was perfectly impartial and independent of all control. When he said that the committee was impartial, he did not mean to deny, that it was constituted of gentlemen of one particular view in politics, but that had been no fault of his, for he had been anxious to secure the services of several hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they, having opposed the inquiry altogether, felt that they should be acting inconsistently if they sat upon the committee which was to conduct that inquiry, and therefore declined to become members of it. That determination upon their part deprived him of the services of several gentlemen on whose authority both the House and himself would have placed great reliance. The Committee, however, had met and sat 35 days. It was attended by the great bulk of the Members appointed to serve on it, and he rejoiced that in consequence of a recent regulation of the House, not only the attendance of members, but also the different votes which they had given, were exhibited in the report; indeed, he might say, that the report was agreed to unanimously, for 16 Members were present when it was agreed to, and, looking at the names of the members who were absent and at the votes which they had given on the different divisions at which they had been present, he had no hesitation in saying, that had they been present, they also would have agreed in the report with the same unanimity as
794
those did who were present. He thought also that when the House read over the names of the members who agreed to the report, it would be of opinion that the public was fairly represented in that committee. He must now inform the House, that as soon as the committee was appointed, he had addressed to every individual on the pension list a circular letter, stating that he should be happy to receive from them any communication with which they might please to honour him as to the origin of their pensions, and as to the necessity for the continuance of them. He had made this as a private communication, because he felt that he had no right, as the House had determined to afford an inquiry to place any limit upon that inquiry. He believed, that there was not one individual to whom that circular was addressed who did not consider it as written with a view to do justice to them on the one hand, and to satisfy the just expectations of the public on the other. Early in the month of February it was thought necessary, with a view of facilitating the business of the committee, to classify the pensions. The first question which the committee had to consider was, whether they should call for a justification of those pensions which appeared to have been granted as rewards for services. On this there were several divisions, but not on the merits of the cases, but as to the resolution to which the committee should come—namely, whether they should put a pension in class No. 1 where those pensions were put on which no doubt then existed, but which were to be open to further evidence, or in class No. 2, where those pensions were placed which were expressly reserved for inquiry at a future time. After having completed the first branch of the inquiry, the committee resumed the examination of the pensions reserved for further consideration, and went through them with the utmost industry and attention. Indeed, he must take the liberty of saying on behalf of the committee that nothing could have been more industrious or sedulous than their discharge of the very delicate duties intrusted to them. Having gone through the whole list, they proceeded to classify the pensions according to the system detailed in page 13, of the report under the heads of the services to which they were referable, distinguishing army, navy, and judicial pensions, as

795
well as those connected with the departments of the civil service, with literature and the arts, with private services rendered the Royal family, with the exercise of the royal bounty and charity, with compensations awarded for forfeited estates, and with miscellaneous matters not included in those designations. It was true that some pensions could not be strictly said to have been granted in return for the services mentioned above, but they bore more or less relation to them. He believed he might say, that the classification having been made, the committee had acted most fairly and correctly in the investigation of the individual cases. They had considered all the services rendered by the pensioner himself and his family which could be taken as justifying the pensions, and he must say with great pride that the list of services contained in the appendix did the greatest honour to those connected with the various branches of the public service, and even if no other result had flowed from the inquiry (though it had most important and useful results), it would at least have produced a valuable memorial of the merits of public servants, which could not be unacceptable either to the House or the public. He could refer, if it would not be improper to occupy too long the attention of the committee, to various classes of services, which he could wish to see brought before the public. He had pleasure in saying, now that the inquiry was completed, that nothing had passed to cause him to regret in the slightest degree the step he had taken in proposing it. On the contrary, he might appeal to those Members of the Committee who had conducted the examination, who were the least disposed to approve of the pension list, to say whether many of the objections they originally entertained to it had not been removed in the progress of the inquiry, and whether the suspicion of abuse that had existed was not, to the honour of the pensioners themselves and of the various Governments who had administered this branch of the Royal prerogative, materially lessened, and in the pensions of recent date entirely removed. If such had been the result, if a branch of the public expenditure to which suspicion, jealousy, and reproach formerly attached, had been cleared from these imputations by a free and honest examination, surely the service thus rendered was most imporant to the public, and to the individuals themselves,
796
who had been subjected to great and unmerited reproach. He should not occupy the attention of the Committee, more especially as he hoped there would be no difference of opinion on this subject, with any prolonged examination of the various cases, but, he could not avoid referring to one or two in order to show the benefits that had resulted from the inquiry. There was no part of the subject which had attracted more censure than the pensions given to foreigners, inasmuch as that was thought to be a diversion of the public funds from their legitimate use. If anything could add to the suspicion and reproach thus engendered, it would be the circumstance of the foreigner being a lady. There were two foreign ladies on the list, relative to whose claims the public had no opportunity of judging before the inquiry was instituted, who bore the illustrious name of Biron. It had been found in this case that the grant of the pension, so far from affording ground for reproach, merited the warmest approbation. The ladies were daughters of the late Marèchal Biron. When the celebrated Lord Rodney, a short time before he proceeded to his command in the West Indies, was residing at Paris, being in circumstances of great pecuniary embarrassment, he was arrested for debt, and thereby prevented from discharging his professional duties. Marèchal Biron, hearing of the fact, and feeling that it would be unworthy of a great nation to deprive a gallant officer, though an enemy, of the opportunity of performing his duty to his country, stepped forward and paid the amount of the debt. Lord Rodney was thus allowed to return to this country, where he was appointed to a command in the West Indies, and shortly afterward met the French fleet in that memorable battle by which he so much signalized himself, and achieved so great a triumph for Britain. Many years after this, when the calamities of the French revolution had passed, the family of Marèchal Biron were residing, poor and defenceless, in London. When his Majesty George the 3rd. was informed of their condition, the Monarch sent for them, and acquainted them that he felt England owed a debt of obligation to Marèchal Biron, and granted the pension. He need not say that a pension more honourably merited as the tribute of a nation's gratitude for services done to the country over which the donor ruled could not possibly exist.

797
Thus it turned out that a pension than which none might appear more open to censure had been found worthy of the greatest praise. Of the various communications laid before the committee there were many which did the greatest honour to those who had made them, and none more so than the letter he should now take the liberty of reading, which would be found in the sixth page. It was from the daughter of General Carey, who fell while commanding the troops of his Majesty, in the West Indies. The pension, he would merely premise, was one of those which might seem most open to objection, and respecting which there was no document in any public office that could give the wished-for information. It was as follows:—
"Vienna January 11, 1838.
"Sir,—Living, on account of the smallness of my income, in the most retired manner at the above place, I have nothing to offer in justification of the liberty I take in addressing you but the information I have received through the medium of the newspapers, that all of that despised and degraded class called pensioners are desired to send to you, Sir, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, an account of their several claims to the pensions they have hitherto received. Taking it then for granted that I am rightly informed, I beg your patience to the enforced recital. My father the hon. General Lucius Ferdinand Carey, commanded at the taking of the Island of St. Lucia from the French, in the year 1780, and died of his wounds on the day of its capture.
"The pension which was granted to his daughters was not obtained through the favour of any Minister, but was given by the voice of Parliament, and the consent of our ever-respected Sovereign George the 3rd.; it consisted of 80 l. each, and was bestowed as some small remuneration for the incalculable evils which fell upon a family of infant daughters by the loss of a father just as he became able to provide for them—by the loss of a father's protection and all the comforts of a father's house; nor did the wide-spreading evil end here; the neglected, almost as if (by high and rich connections) unacknowledged, children, in process of time became patronless young women without friends, protector, or introduction; and, to make the measure of their affliction quite full, were deprived of their rank as viscount's daughters by the premature death of their parent, and left to wander about the world in helpless degradation, and something nearly allied to want. I must not, however, suffer this melancholy enumeration to make me forget that which I must ever remember with gratitude—viz., that this pension, which in these dear times furnishes me with little more than daily bread, and obliges me, to obtain
798
that, to live in banishment, was yet the means of procuring me that religious and solid education adapted to my fortunes, which has enabled me to bear up against all the sorrows of them. I have, indeed, enjoyed it long; perhaps the gentlemen of the committee will think too long; but that has been the will of God, and not my fault; and it is true that, as it is my only resource, I should be glad to retain it, if I can be allowed so to do with honour and without reproach, and to receive it with that dignified thankfulness with which the daughter of an usefully brave British officer may accept a national testimony of her father's deserts; but if this cannot be, and his services are considered as having been long remunerated, why then, Sir, I can cheerfully resign that which I shall hope may lessen the distress of some younger and weaker child of affliction; and being, by God's blessing, able, both in body and mind, to seek my own subsistence in the education of the children of some more fortunate family, as I was obliged to do in Mr. Pitt's time, when the pensions were at times four, five, or six quarters in arrears, I may, perhaps, find an answer to the quarterly question of my mind, whether such wages as I should then receive for my honest service, were not more honourable than the degrading reception of a pension so grudgingly bestowed. Leaving this weighty matter, under your sanction, in the hands and choice of the gentlemen of the committee, I beg leave to subscribe myself, Sir, your most obedient humble servant,
"LAVINIA MATILDA CAREY MORTIMER,
"Aged 67."
Would any one deny, that this letter furnished a beautiful proof how nobly the daughter of a British officer could assert her claim to the bounty of the nation—how nobly and proudly she could speak of his services? This was not the only commendable letter that had proceeded from some who, before the inquiry, were considered to belong to a class of degraded persons; and the publication of these documents in the report, was well calculated to rescue them from unmerited reproach. A similar letter had been received from the widow of the late gallant Sir Home Popham, admirable for the calm and dispassionate, though earnest manner, in which it referred to his services. The letter concluded in these words:—
"I do not undervalue, by any means, the pecuniary advantages of the pension; with my family and my wants that were impossible; have I not, ere this, borne heavier privations? and for my country! I have. But I do value high, and above all, the touching testimony to the merits and to the memory of Sir Home Popham borne in the continuance of that pension by a grateful country, ministered by a Royal hand to his widow, and that because he

799
was as true an officer as ever left a widow in a nation's care."
He might multiply instances in which the publicity given to services hitherto not generally known, would dispel the delusion that existed on this subject more, perhaps, than on any other question which had engaged the public attention. It was not merely in the naval or military professions that brilliant services had been performed which fully entitled those who rendered them to the public gratitude, for in the civil departments of administration, pensions had been earned by services as important as any that had been performed on the field of battle. He had alluded, on a former occasion, and he could not avoid doing so again, to the case of his lately deceased friend, Colonel Stewart, who was not more distinguished for his military than for his civil services, and who might be said to have perished in the service of his country as truly as if he had died in battle. The acknowledgment of the public gratitude, in the shape of a pension to his surviving daughter, was not more just than in the case of pensions connected with the names of Wellington, Hill, Beresford, and Lynedoch. Services performed in the humbler branches of administration were not to be overlooked more than the great actions of those who had filled a high place in the eye of their country and the world. Of this class, were those of Mr. Cumming, of the India Board, and Colonel Edwards, of the Colonial-office, who also might be said to have perished in the public service. Such, too, were those of the rev. Mr. Proctor, mentioned at page 83, to whose widow a pension had been granted. The Forest of Dean was an extraparochial district, and had been left without a provision for the religious and moral instruction of the inhabitants. Mr. Proctor devoted much of his time and labour to an unrequited discharge of professional duty among them, as was stated with great beauty and simplicity by his widow whose letter would be found in the report. To the care of the inhabitants of the forest he sacrificed his health and time, and this pension was given to his widow as a tribute to his merits. Nothing could dispel more effectually than these cases the suspicion of public or private corruption, or prove more satisfactorily that the administration of the Royal bounty had been, on the whole, equitable and becoming; and, therefore,
800
he said, that the publication of their details would be a service to the pensioners and the public. He had stated, when doubts were expressed as to the course that might be taken by the committee, that if he could imagine the consequence of appointing it would be the recommendation of any act of injustice, he would be as adverse to it as any one could be; but that he had confidence that a Committee of that House would conduct the inquiry, not only with strict fidelity to the public, but with the greatest sympathy and consideration for all parties concerned. He must say, that the result of the examination had fully confirmed those anticipations. It had been insinuated with regard to those pensions that had been abandoned by their holders, that there was something disingenuous in the reference made to them in the Report. It had been said, that Lord Auckland, Mr. Drummond, and Lord Elphinstone, who resigned their pensions on being appointed to the offices they now filled, had, in point of fact, only done so under the pressure of the examination of the Committee. Never had there been a greater misstatement, to use no stronger term. Lord Auckland had resigned his pension on his appointment to the office of President of the Board of Trade, formerly filled by him; Mr. Drummond had given up his when appointed to his situation in the Irish Government; and Lord Elphinstone had abandoned his when he was made governor of Madras. Others had subsequently surrendered their pensions. But he must say he thought it would not be just or generous to say of the individuals who had thus surrendered, that what they did was done under apprehension of this examination. He knew, that previously many persons holding pensions were withheld from surrendering by the apprehension, lest if they did so they might be considered as throwing discredit on the motives of those who did not. But when the Committee was appointed, it was immediately felt that Parliament having sanctioned the principle of inquiry, there no longer existed any reason why they should not surrender, which they accordingly did. This was undoubtedly the reason of surrender with some. Another point to which he wished to call attention was this:—The Committee had considered with respect to a certain class of pensions, that although no case might be made out for the withdrawal of the pension, yet the

801
circumstances of the parties made the continuance of the charge of their pensions on the public no longer necessary. These pensions had been originally conferred, not for services, but out of the royal bounty, in consideration of the impoverished circumstances in which the parties were then involved, and which no longer existed. The Committee thought, that where such was the case the pension should cease and determine. And it was only right to observe, that many persons had acted on this principle. Thus, Lord Sidmouth, on becoming entitled by bequest to a large property, immediately resigned the pension he enjoyed. On the same principle the late Lord Farnborough, Mr. Moore, Mr. Marsden, and Mr. Charles Bathurst, had surrendered their pensions. The same had been done by several others, and among the rest the Duchess of Newcastle had some years ago voluntarily parted with her pension. Another class was that of pensions which the Committee recommended should be suspended during the continuance of the present circumstances of the holders, but they thought, that the contingent reversion of those pensions—contingent upon the event of a change of those circumstances, that was to say—should be preserved to the parties, but that only on the responsibility of Government and if absolutely necessary. The third class was the reverse of the former, and comprehended many persons to whom the Committee were of opinion the existing pensions should be continued for the present, but in which the term of the original grant should be limited to another, and generally a shorter period. The last class was one through which the Committee had gone with great reluctance, as it comprised those cases in which they thought it expedient that the pensions should altogether cease. But the class was not a numerous one. Indeed, there were but very few names on it. The groundwork on which these parties were thus classed was, that their pensions should hereafter cease, and undoubtedly he could have wished, and the same was the feeling of the Committee, that the result of the examination had been not only to limit the class, but to dispense with it altogether. But if, under all the circumstances, the Committee had abstained from making this recommendation to the House, they would not have possessed any claim to the confidence either of the House or of
802
the public, and their report, without this portion of it, instead of having afforded any grounds for the settlement of the question, would only have provided new elements of reproach, that which they called a settlement of the question being in reality no such thing. Before he sat down he thought he ought to state to the house what had taken him and the Committee wholly by surprise—he meant the state of the law respecting pensions. The law was, that the Crown was debarred from making grants of pensions which should be binding on their successors to the throne. This was enacted by a statute of Anne, But that statute did not extend to Scotland and Ireland, and, consequently, the Crown had been accustomed to exert the power of granting pensions by patent, payable out of the Irish and Scotch revenues—in Ireland to a large extent, in Scotland to a small extent. These grants the Committee, to their surprise, found were not only binding on the Crown, but every way valid in point of law. For when they first discovered the fact, they took the joint opinion of the law officers of the Crown, both of England, Ireland, and Scotland, and thence ascertained the law to have been at the time of these grants as he had stated. Now, with respect to this, the Committee could not bring into question the existing law, and therefore they concluded that pensions founded on patent should be respected, and they would not go further into the examination of them. He wished now to press upon the House the consideration of what would be the practical working of the new arrangements recommended by the Committee in the savings which would be gained on the whole Pension list at the end of a certain period of years. The House would find this statement at the beginning of the report, and he had every reason to believe it correct, on the authority of Mr. Finlaison, a gentleman who was employed to calculate the Government annuities. Taking into account new pensions that might be granted, the maximum of saving would amount in the month of June of the year 1839 to 4,935 l. per annum; in 1844 the savings, or decrease per annum of the pensions below the present amount, to 34,334 l.; in 1849, to 67,295 l.,; in 1854, to 90,904 l., and the savings in twenty years from this time, or 1858, would amount to 104,874 l. per annum on the amount in 1839.

803
The pension list of that period would be 106,023 l. less in amount than at present, and 130,523 l. less than the Pension-list in 1830. The whole charge in 1858 would not exceed 34,877 l. This, he must beg it to be observed, was the maximum amount of the savings, and that amount was given owing to the great difficulty of arriving at precision, in consequence of the ages of the parties being unknown. And while on this point he must beg to throw from himself on the Committee the responsibility of having instituted the inquiry respecting ages of parties, against which so much had been said and written. He was innocent of this charge, especially so far as referred fo the cases of ladies. He threw from himself therefore the responsibility of this step to which he only agreed when he found from the chairman of the Committee that it was essential to the whole investigation that this inquiry should take place. He could assure the House that they had found extraordinary difficulty in arriving at these ages. Some cases presented the most startling anomalies. In one case the age of the pensioner was represented as considerably less than the number of years during which the party had been in receipt of the pension. Such were the difficulties they had to contend with in the returns of ages: but it was not merely in these returns that such difficulties were found; for the gentlemen who made up these returns had stated to him that cases of a similar nature occurred in the office of the commissioners for the purchase of Government annuities. A lady desirous of purchasing had given her age as forty—no, thirty-nine, for thirty-nine he believed was the more popular age than forty—on which the clerk said, "Four years ago you gave your age as thirty-nine." She said, "I know that; but though I know that if set down as thirty-nine I shall give more, yet the public will gain so much the more, and at all events it is no business of yours." In point of fact, however, the age was of no great consequence to the public, the death of the parties being the important element. But he could not set down without referring to the recommendations of the Committee at the conclusion of the report. These he thought were of considerable importance, and they were agreed to unanimously by the Committee, and as frankly adopted by Government. They would prove, he hoped, additional
804
checks and safeguards on the expenditure in pensions. The first recommendation was very important, but its importance could only be fully estimated by one who had served on the Committee. The recommendation was, that in case of all future civil list pensions, the warrant, or instrument of appointment, should contain on the face of it the cause for which the pension was conferred, What could be more simple than to state on the face of the warrant the grounds on which the pension was granted? And if that principle had been proceeded on in regard to all the old pensions, as it had been in the cases of perhaps some half dozen, much of the obloquy with which the pension list and pensioners had been branded would never have arisen; and if a Committee had sat to examine into the subject, they would have accomplished the object in as many hours as they lately spent days. The second recommendation was, that where pensions were granted for services to persons other than the individual by whom the services were rendered, care should be taken, if these pensions were granted for younger lives, that the amount of the pension should be reduced so as to prevent any undue increase of charge to the public. The next recommendation was, that where pensions were bonâ fide gifts of the royal bounty in relief of distress, not in reward of services or of literary or scientific merits, such pensions should be granted with the distinct understanding that they should cease when the circumstances of the parties no longer required their continuance. The next recommendation was not important in point of money, but possessed considerable constitutional importance. That recommendation which was the fourth, said that for the future the mere combination of poverty and a peerage should not without service form the groundwork of a pension. He thought it was important to the honour and credit of the Peers that this should be acted upon; for in his opinion nothing could be more detrimental to the influence of the peerage than any appearance of the Crown's acting upon the principle that the combination of poverty with hereditary rank constituted a claim to a pension. At the same time the Committee thought it would be most unjust to deprive the peerage of any of the ordinary inducements to public services which all other classes were entitled to claim; but they

805
did not think it fitting to place the Peers in a situation to which the usage is attached that merely hereditary rank if held with a reduced fortune should give a claim to a public pension. That was the opinion of the Committee, and in that opinion Her Majesty's Government entirely coincided. The fifth resolution merely extended to Scotland and Ireland, what had been already done in England, with respect to limiting the re-grant of civil list pensions. Lastly the Committee recommended that all pensions to be granted should be held liable to deduction or suspension, in the event of the parties being appointed to office in the public service, thus rendering the continuance of the pensions unnecessary either for a time or permanently. This had been done in some cases of pensions submitted to the Committee. He did not say, that it ought to be done in all those cases; but they were all held liable to the application of that principle. He should only advert to one point more. Now that this inquiry was complete, he thought he might say, without presumption, that the Government had endeavoured to procure for the Committee whatever they might require, and that no effort had been employed on their part to create delusion or to check the Committee in the full exercise of their discretion. He would say that the Government had done all for the Committee they could do. The Committee had recommended that the question should be finally settled by placing on the consolidated fund all pensions which might be regranted subsequent to this examination. The Committee had made this recommendation, because they did not think it rested with them to grant or regrant any pensions, but that they ought to be granted by funds set apart for that purpose by Parliament, but distributed at the discretion of the Crown. All, then, that the House had to decide was whether, on the information which he had given from the report, they were prepared to grant her Majesty a sufficient sum to enable her to regrant these pensions. But he must entreat the House and the public, if they wished to obtain full information on the subject, to turn to the report and the appendix. They had heard remarks put forth tending to create great distrust and jealousy of the proceedings of this Committee. He would entreat them therefore to compare the allegations which had been
806
made on the subject of the pension list with the report of the Committee, and see whether or not on public grounds they were not justified in making this examination, and whether the result was not such as must be satisfactory to all parties. He moved "That it is expedient that provision be made out of the consolidated fund to defray the charge of pensions granted prior to the accession of her Majesty."
Sir C. Lemonfound, that in all previous inquiries of this kind the pensions granted on the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, were always made the first branch of inquiry. In 1689 an investigation of this kind took place, in which it appeared that the Bishop of Exeter had a pension of 30 l. a-year on those revenues; the Earl of Bath 3,000 l. a-year; Sir Peter Killigrew the same sum. In 1694 the pension list amounted to 5,630 l. altogether. He was quite aware that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he laid on the table the bill for the better administration of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall which he had promised, would have an opportunity of clearing up that mystery which had often been mentioned in that House as hanging over those revenues; he was aware of this, and he presumed that his right hon. Friend intended to put off till that opportunity the supplying this omission in his present speech.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: It was no omission, the Committee declined entering on that subject.
Mr. Warburtonthought hon. Members ought to have had the report in their hands, at least a sufficient time to allow the paper to dry. He had not had half an hour to make himself master of the recommendations of the Committee, and to look for the different claims of the different classes of pensioners on whose cases they were about to resolve, If any hon. Member would support him, he would move the adjournment of the further consideration of this matter until such a day as might be suitable.
Sir E. Wilmot, in excusing himself for not having attended the Committee, said, that shortly after they had commenced their sittings he was taken ill and confined to bed for a fortnight, and that, on recovering, he would have resumed his attendance, but that he did not wish to vote for a report of which he could have known nothing, and which was then prepared.
Sir R. Peelbegged to say, without entering into a discussion on the merits of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he still retained all the opinions which he had before expressed upon the subject. He thought it would have been infinitely better, as they were about effectually to prevent any future abuse, and place the Pension List upon a new footing, had the principle of secession hitherto pursued on the demise of the Crown been adhered to. Even though that principle had not been adopted, he thought it would have been better, when the opportunity presented itself of revising those grants, that the inquiry should have been conducted by the Crown, as likely to be conducted with more justice and consideration than it could possibly be by a Committee. He had not the slightest doubt that this Committee had faithfully and honestly discharged its obligations to the country, while it dispassionately and fairly considered individual claims. His objection was not so much to the proceedings of the Committee as to the original constitution of it. There were various reasons which would make him distrust individual claims; but if he entered upon that question, he would be liable to the objection he was urging against the Committee. He was bound to say, however, that he could not understand the grounds upon which, in some instances, the pensions had been continued, and in others discontinued. He was afraid that such a consequence would inevitably flow from the circumstance, that while in some cases the number of Gentlemen, on the Committee, for and against, being equally balanced, it remained with the chairman to decide; in others there was a large majority, although they might be cases perfectly analogous. Thus, as it appeared to him, former decisions were at variance with decisions subsequently come to. He must say, therefore, that he could not acquiesce in the withdrawal of those pensions. He did not feel himself at liberty to enter into the particulars of those cases; at the same time, were he to do so, it would not be with any desire to make any charge against the Committee. The consequence he had referred to was, he conceived, almost inevitable in dealing with delicate questions of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman, in the conclusion of his speech, said, that the parties receiving
808
pensions, would still look to the Crown as the authority by which they so received them. Now, if the Committee had thought proper to continue every pension on the list, surely no one could say, that it was the Crown which had decided that they should be granted. Had the inquiry been conducted by the Treasury, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer as an adviser of the Crown would have had the power to recommend the continuance of pensions, in all which cases, no doubt, the Crown would have granted them, yet the party receiving the pension would still have to acknowledge that it was to the liberality of the Crown it owed the continuance of it. In this case it was very different. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for instance, advised a certain pension to be continued, it would be, or might be, overruled by the Committee, contrary to his sense of justice, or at least of enlarged liberality. On the other hand, those parties whose pensions were withdrawn, must feel that they were not withdrawn by the deliberate act of the Crown, but by the House of Commons, or rather a portion of the House of Commons, overruling the opinion of the Minister of the Crown. He therefore could not concur in the proposal; and he was very much afraid that the opinion of the pensioners would, inevitably be, that their claims had been confirmed or rejected, not by the authority or will of the Crown, but according as their several cases happened to make a favourable or unfavourable impression on the Committee.
Mr. A. Sandfordhaving upon all former occasions given his support to propositions for the appointment of a Committee of this kind, now felt bound to state, that the result of the inquiry confirmed his opinion as to the propriety of instituting such an investigation. He was now more strongly convinced than ever, that the investigation in every sense of the word was most correct and proper, not only as regarded the public but the pensioners themselves. He thought, that the report and the appendix would have a powerful effect in disabusing the public mind as to the manner in which these pensions had been given. It was certainly satisfactory to hear, that the right hon. Baronet did not accuse the Committee of any wilful injustice. All that the right hon. Baronet said was, that he thought the investigation would perhaps have been conducted with

809
more justice by the Treasury than it could possibly be by a Committee of the House of Commons. He (Mr. Sandford) wished that circumstances would have permitted the Committee to have placed their report in the hands of the House for a longer time before the present discussion arose; but that was impossible. He would only add, that the Committee had endeavoured as far as possible to carry out the principle upon which it was appointed, and so to conduct the inquiry as to do at once full justice to the public, and to the parties whose names were found upon the Pension-list. It was not without regret, that one single pension had been removed, and it was certainly very gratifying to him, and, he believed, to the other Members of the Committee also, to find upon minute investigation that the great mass of persons whose names were upon the list had a strong claim for the pensions they received.
Resolution agreed to. House resumed.

SUPPLY.
The Order of the Day for going into a Committee of Supply having been read,
Colonel Sibthorprose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the various commissions that have been issued since 1830 to the present time, or period, at which the above return may be dated. When he looked to the incomplete returns before the House, so unsatisfactory to the public, and so difficult to comprehend, and in which there was no just grounds assigned for the several commissions to which they referred, he felt, that in moving for a Select Committee, he was only discharging a public duty. Commission after commission, had been extended at an expense to the country of upwards of 2,000,000 l. With regard to the record commission, which had been appointed in 1800, and which, in itself, has cost nearly 1,000,000 l., they were still in the same darkness and difficulty as to what additional amount would be required for taking care of those records. [Lord J. Russell: "That Committee has expired."] In 1836, he moved for returns, which were granted, but full of mistakes. In 1837, others were granted, correcting, in some degree, those mistakes, which were principally omissions. Amongst those returns, he found the tithe commission, which was, he believed, still in force. The expense of it
810
he found to be, "as far as could be made up in the office," 3,496 l. 8s. ld., including sums paid to the assistant-commissioners on account. With respect to the county-rate commission, the return had been undefined and unsettled. There had been no return as to the commission respecting the two Houses of Parliament. With respect to the commission of public works, Ireland, there had been no account or detail of any expense whatever given. The commission, on the state of religious instruction in Ireland, cost 43,031 l. 7s. 9d., and yet he would beg to ask, whether the state of religious instruction was better now than when that commission had been appointed? He would contend, that it was not. The whole was a direct job, unsatisfactory in its details, and what was worse, it was to this hour unsettled. From the commission on the fees, and emoluments of public offices, no return, no account, no explanation, had been given. The inquiry into the state of revenue and expenditure in Ireland, cost 2,186 l. 13 s. 7d. The tithe commission, which, as he had already noticed, cost 3,496 l. 8s. 1d., was still incomplete. He should like to know what had been done. The commission respecting municipal corporation inquiry in Scotland had cost 5,042 l., though the Commissioners had acted gratuitously—an example which he should like to see followed by other Commissioners. The commission of education in Ireland cost 140,454 l. 1s. 7d.; but of this only 114,204 l. 7s. 4d. had been paid. He wished to know why the difference had not been paid. Looking at the whole of these commissions, from some of which no return had been made, and from others no satisfactory return, he had a right to call on the Government, to grant a committee of inquiry. The municipal boundary commission had cost above 21,000 l., though it had turned out a total failure after all. The total amount of the expenditure of these commissions, not including the record commission, which, of itself, had cost nearly 1,000,000 l., nor the expense of the registering barristers, nor the Poor-law inquiry, with its brutal adjunct of placing superintendents, as they were called, over the poor of the country, was not less than 3,000,000 l. taken out of the pockets of the people, and this expenditure, let him add, was incurred by a Government, which had come into office with promises of economy and retrenchment in their mouths.

811
He would leave it to the country to decide, how those promises had been fulfilled, and how the Government had redeemed its pledges. What he sought by his motion was, to have a clear and satisfactory return of the expenses of all these commissions, and not such brief and garbled statements as had been already made. As he knew, that such a committee as he wished, could not be conveniently appointed this session, he should feel satisfied, if the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would consent to its appointment at an early period next Session. The hon. and gallant Member concluded, by moving, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the various commissions issued since the year 1830, distinguishing those which had expired, and those which had been abandoned, and also those still in existence, for the purpose of ascertaining the expense of each, and the result of their inquiries, and also the reasons for which any such commissions had been discontinued.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not accede to the motion of the hon. and gallant Member. There was not a single item of expenditure on commissions that had not by necessity been brought under the consideration of Parliament, and no money had been granted for those purposes, without the sanction of the House, either by a special act, or by the ordinary estimates of the year. The present was not a suitable time to discuss the merits of those commissions, and he trusted, that the House would not hold out the least hope of encouragement to the motion of the gallant Member, either now, or at any future time.
Amendment negatived.
The House went into Committee.

SUPPLY—EDUCATION (IRELAND).
On the vote of 50,000 l. for National Education in Ireland being moved,
Mr. S. O'Brienrose to call the attention of the House to the partial distribution of the grant. In his opinion, either power should be given to raise money by assessment, or the grant ought to be increased; or indeed both ought to be done, for without it national education in Ireland could not be effectually promoted, and the House would not do its duty to that country until a good school was established in every parish. At the same time, if there were a large proportion of both Protestants
812
and Catholics in a parish who refused to unite in a system of education, he did not say that any assistance should be given to them. He hoped he had enabled the House to judge that this money had not been distributed according to the local wants of particular districts; that the grant ought to be increased, and also that a united education should be the basis of any system adopted in Ireland, so that those who might conscientiously hold different views from those of the board should not be excluded from its range and benefits.
Mr. James Grattanwas not prepared to increase the grant, though he wished to see the sums already voted appropriated with the greatest benefit to the country. He objected to the whole proceedings of the board, who, in his opinion, looked more to the quantity than the quality of education introduced, and thought that a better system ought to be established.
Viscount Morpethconfessed, that the statements of both his hon. Friends who had just spoken, appeared to him a little affected, for the former complained of the number of grants which had been already made as not sufficient, whilst the hon. Member for Wicklow seemed to think there had been too much money voted for this purpose already, and deprecated the grant of more to be applied in the same direction. With respect to the expense of the establishment in Dublin, the greater part had been incurred in fitting up school rooms and training masters, a point of material consequence, as the want of proper teachers was so much felt in establishing the system of education that was to be adopted. With respect to raising money by assessment, by the regulations laid down in the letters of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, it was expressly stated that local funds should be raised before any aid should be granted. When complaint, therefore, was made of the state of education in any district, it would, he thought, be found that the complainants had been deficient in the requisites laid down by the regulations on which the board was bound to act. As to altering the system itself, that was a large question on which Parliament might at some future time be required to give its serious consideration, both as to this country and as to Ireland, and also whether it should be made to depend on local contributions or not. The acrimony and hostility with

813
which the board in Ireland was at first regarded, was daily decreasing; and he had no doubt, that the more its operations were known and watched, the more would it be said to meet the beneficent views of Parliament, in establishing a system of religious instruction to all classes, to which no difference of religious persuasion should form a necessary bar, and upon which the social condition of Ireland so much depended for improvement.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY-MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhaving moved a vote of 8,928 l. for the Roman Catholic College (Maynooth), for the year ending 31st. of March 1839,
Colonel Sibthorpopposed the grant, as exclusively applied to one religious persuasion. He disclaimed any intention to give offence to the Roman Catholics, some of whom he was happy in reckoning among his friends, but he thought that it was inconsistent with the Protestant religion of this country to vote a sum for the support of a religion opposed to that which was established here. In the then thin state of the House, however, he would not divide upon it.
Colonel Percivalsaid, that this grant had caused much excitement in England, and he had no doubt that if the estimates had been brought forward at a different period of the year the opinion of the counties in England against the grant would have been made manifest. He should consider it a dereliction of his duty, however, if he did not state, that his hostility to the grant had been increased since the last opportunity he had of addressing the Committee upon this subject. An election had since passed, and the conduct of the gentlemen educated at Maynooth, the Roman Catholic priests, had been such as to show the necessity of some amendment in the system of education pursued in that college. Instead of being the promoters of peace and harmony and good will, they were only the instigators of revolt and tumult. He himself, had been the subject of attack, and his political conduct had been canvassed for five or six weeks before, and also after the election in every chapel but one. He would not, however, be deterred; and although his gallant Friend would not divide the House upon it, he trusted that her Majesty's Government would at an
814
early period of the next session give an opportunity of sifting the whole matter.
Colonel Vernerconsidered that this was an institution subversive of morality and good faith; and surely before the grant was agreed to, an inquiry ought to be set on foot. He knew that there had been an inquiry in the year 1826, but great changes had taken place since that time, and they ought to compare the declaration made by the friends and advocates of the Catholics before the Emancipation and Reform Acts had passed, with the sentiments now openly put forward and generally adopted. Many petitions from the people of England had been, night after night, laid upon the table of that House, calling upon them to make an inquiry into the system on which the college of Maynooth was conducted, and these petitions ought to be attended to. The estimates also ought to have been brought forward at an earlier period of the Session, when Irish Members capable of giving expression to their sentiments were present. In vain had the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer been asked in the spring to fix an early day for the discussion of the Irish estimates, but to-night, seeing those (the Opposition) benches empty, he had hurried them on, when they were not expected, postponing the militia estimates; and he (Colonel Verner) considered this as an unfair and unjustifiable substitution. If the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln should not move, that this grant should be withdrawn, he felt it to be his duty to make such a motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it was not competent to the hon. and gallant Member to make the motion to which he had alluded in the Committee of supply; for they could not enter into such a question. They might vote against the grant, but they could not obtain a committee to inquire into the general subject. With regard to the complaint that the Irish estimates were improperly taken out of order, he begged to deny that such was the case. The estimates were all numbered, and were taken according to their regular course, and the complaint was entirely without foundation. If hon. Members had desired that the question should be considered more at large, it was quite within the powers of any one of them to move for a committee at any period of the Session. They seemed, indeed, to be

815
aware of this fact; for one hon. Gentleman had already made a motion to that effect. It was true that the house was counted out on the day on which the subject came on for investigation; but the only inference which could be drawn from that fact was, that the motion was not agreeable to the House, as indeed it could not be, when it was made the vehicle for a general attack upon the Catholic clergy of Ireland. In reference to the grant, it was one of old standing, and not one which it was sought to introduce now for the first time. It had been established by Mr. Pitt on the recommendation of Edmund Burke, and it had been besides supported by men of all parties, and by men of the greatest weight in Ireland and in this country. The hon. and gallant Member had said, that in the college of Maynooth, principles subversive of morality and good faith were inculcated in the minds of the pupils. He denied, however, that such was the fact, and he must state, that he had seen men who had come from that college as highly educated and endowed, and as useful in the discharge of the duties of their respective situations, as those who had been educated at any other colleges. If hon. Gentlemen really wished the question of the grant to be fairly discussed, it was in their power, and it was their duty to give a notice by which the matter might be brought fairly under discussion, and if they did not give such a notice he was entitled to retort upon them, and to say, that they were afraid to bring the matter forward because they knew that public opinion was against them. The mere striking off this vote would not have any effect in putting down Maynooth, which seemed to be, in fact, the object of those who opposed it. The college would be taken up and supported by others, besides the Government, and the only effect which would be produced by such a course would be to create a dislike to its promoters in all those who had been educated at the college, who were in the course of education there, or who hoped to obtain their admission to it.
Mr. Ellisthought the really advisable course would be to grant a committee to inquire into the state of education at Maynooth, and he thought the very fact stated by the right hon. Gentleman that the grant was recommended by Burke, and established by Pitt, was a sufficient ground
816
for adopting this recommendation. He hoped that the hon. and gallant Member would not persist at present in calling upon the House to reject this grant, and at the same time he suggested that measures should be taken as early as possible to cause the inquiry to which he had alluded to be made.
Colonel Vernerobserved, that the way to judge of Maynooth was to look at the conduct of the priesthood. He defied the hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches to point out any Protestant clergyman who had ever been guilty of such outrageous conduct as that which had been recently exhibited by a Roman Catholic clergyman who had received his education at that seminary. The gallant Colonel then proceeded to read an extract from a speech made by the Rev. M. Doyle, as chairman of an anti-tithe dinner, given to him on a Sunday, at Kilkenny, by 150 persons. In that speech he declared his determination to oppose any Tithe Bill which did not go to the entire abolition of tithes, and said, that if the present Tithe Bill were passed, he would agitate the rent-charge. Yes, he would follow the advice of Lord Anglesey, and would "agitate, agitate, agitate." A magistrate, of the name of Hawkshaw, was present at that dinner, and heard that speech. He wished to ask the noble Lord opposite whether he had struck, or intended to strike, the name of that magistrate out of the commission of the peace, for hearing such a speech.
Mr. O'Connellhad not heard that the "Battle of the Diamond" was one of the toasts given at the dinner to which the hon. and gallant Colonel alluded. The worthy magistrate, whose presence at an anti-tithe meeting seemed to excite the indignation of the hon. and gallant Colonel, had not given that toast, or any toast like it, and all that he had done was, to sit by whilst the Rev. M. Doyle was making his speech. He was sorry that the three gallant Colonels opposite, the Church militant he supposed of that House, had not the courage to divide against this grant; for if they had had such courage he should certainly have divided with them, for this grant was most decidedly against the voluntary principle which, in matters of religion, he should always uphold. They only talked—they would not divide. [The three gallant Colonels conversed together for a short time]. Now

817
there is a council of war holding, and let us see what the results will be. Oh! these gallant Colonels! I must venture a parody against them.
"Three colonels in three different counties born—
Did Lincoln, Sligo, and Armagh adorn;
The first in gravity of face surpassed—
In grace the second—sobriety the last.
The force of Nature could no further go;
To beard the first she shaved the other two."
It was, however, but a paltry return for their giving a million to the Protestant clergy of Ireland to refuse so paltry a grant as 8,900 l. for the education of the Roman Catholic clergy of that country.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin boasted of having given 1,000,000 l. to the Protestant clergy of Ireland. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman be kind enough to inform the House of the amount of the sum which he had been instrumental in withholding from them? He objected to the grant then before the House, because it contravened and stultified the main principle on which the Established Church of England in Ireland was founded.
Viscount Morpethfelt that it was not incumbent upon him to defend the origin of a grant which was recommended by Mr. Burke, established by Mr. Pitt, sanctioned by Mr. Perceval, and dignified by the Royal Protestant assent of George 3rd. The grant now proposed was scanty and penurious, and he thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would feel extremely indignant, if a similar spirit of parsimony was extended towards the Protestant universities of the country. He would not, however, propose to extend this grant at present, for he feared that such a proposition would tend to increase that spirit of religious animosity which he was most anxious to allay. He only proposed to make the grant of former years, which was a most paltry and parsimonious provision for the priesthood of so extensive a country as Ireland; and still more so, for a priesthood invested with such immense responsibility as that which fell on the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland. They had recently granted 900,000 l. to the Protestant clergy of that country. Could they now be so ungracious as to refuse 8,900 l. for the education of their Roman Catholic brethren? If they were to be always talking of the objectionable doctrines taught at Maynooth, they must not be surprised if they sometimes heard of the not very satisfactory doctrines which had recently
818
become fashionable at Oxford, A book had been published lately, which certainly would be likely to make disciples of a new school, and which he was given to understand proceeded from that university. It was a work called "The Remains of the Reverend R. H. Froude," and was published, he believed, by Mr. Newman, who was the principal of one of the colleges in Oxford. Mr. Fronde said,
"You will be shocked at my avowal that I am every day becoming a less and less loyal son of the Reformation. It appears to be plain, that in all matters which seem to us indifferent or even doubtful, we should conform our practices to those of the Church, which has preserved its traditionary practices unknown. We cannot know about any seemingly indifferent practice of the Church of Rome, that is not a development of the apostolic and it is to no purpose to say, that we can find no proof of it in the writings of the six first centuries—they must find a disproof if they would do anything."… "I think people are injudicious who talk against the Roman Catholics for worshipping saints, and honouring the Virgin and images, &c. These things may perhaps be idolatrous; I cannot make up my mind about it."… "P. called us the Papal Protestant Church, in which he proved a double ignorance, as we are Catholics without the Popery, and Church of England men with the Protestantism."… "The more I think over that view of yours about regarding our present communion service, &c., as a judgment on the Church, and taking it as the crumbs from the apostle's table, the more I am struck with its fitness to be dwelt upon as tending to check the intrusion of irreverent thoughts, without in any way interfering with one's just indignation."… "Your trumpery principle about scripture being the sole rule of faith in fundamentals (I nauseate the word) is but a mutilated edition, without the breadth and axiomatic character, of the original."… "Really I hate the Reformation and the reformers more and more, and have almost made up my mind that the rationalist spirit they set afloat is the of the Revelations."
He therefore called upon hon. Gentlemen to look at home before they threw their missiles of invective abroad in future; and at any rate, whether they looked at home or abroad, he called upon them to look at the errors of each other with something like a spirit of reciprocal kindness.
Mr. W. E. Gladstonehad never heard a speech more cruelly unjust than that made by the noble Lord. Even if Roman Catholic principles were inculcated in the University of Oxford, that fact had properly no relation to the question; but he had no hesitation in characterizing the

819
assertion as a mere vulgar calumny. If the noble Lord would read the preface of the book he had quoted, he would find that the editor expressly guarded himself against being supposed to entertain the opinions of the author, and stated, that he gave it to the world as the singular production of a remarkable mind.
Mr. Wysesaid the only question was, whether the Catholic clergy were to be educated or not? for if they were, it was better they should be educated at home than abroad.
Mr. G. Knightsaid, he should vote in support of the grant, on the ground that the diffusion of education everywhere, but especially in Ireland, was the best mode of supporting and advancing the progress of Protestantism.
Mr. Philip Howardobserved, that hon. Gentlemen should bear in mind that the greatest part of the Colleges of Oxford had been erected by the Roman Catholics as well as most of the Churches throughout the country. He really thought that in fairness, it scarcely became those who came into possession of splendid edifices ready built for them to grudge to the Roman Catholics who raised them, so paltry a sum, so inadequate a retribution if he might so express himself, as the grant then proposed to Maynooth College.
Grant agreed to.

SUPPLY—LORD DURHAM'S COUNCIL.
The sum of 500,000 l. being proposed to defray the expenses (in addition to the ordinary amount) incurred by the insurrection in Canada.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that looking altogether to the expenses in which the retention of the Canadas had involved this country, he submitted it to the House whether it were worth while to retain a colony which had proved so expensive and unprofitable an acquisition. They had only to look to the vast sums which had been sunk fruitlessly in canals, and to the folly of enforcing a trade in timber with that country when a much better quality could be obtained in European ports, to feel the force of this observation. He was convinced that the annual expense of this Colony to England was not less than 2,500,000 l. How much better would it be to apply this sum to a reduction of the general taxation of this country. In his mind they should seek the earliest opportunity, consistently with the claims of
820
individuals, to effect a peaceable separation.
Sir E. Sugdenrose to direct the attention of the House to the present state of Canada with reference to the constitution of the Special Council. That council, as appeared by a document which had been recently laid upon their table, consisted of five persons. Now, in one of the earliest clauses of the act of Parliament which passed this Session, it was stated, that the Governor-general should have authority to appoint such special councillors as he might think proper, without specifying any particular number; and the noble Lord opposite, in introducing the bill, said that no particular number of special councillors should be appointed by the bill, but that five should constitute a quorum; and in a subsequent clause it was enacted that no act should be valid unless it was introduced by the Governor-general himself in the presence of five at least of the Special Council. In the instructions sent out to the Governor-general, he was authorized to appoint such individuals as he pleased to select for the post of Special Councillors, the number not being less than five. The Governor-general had done exactly what he (Sir E. Sugden) had anticipated, for, although the act of Parliament did not say, that there should be more than five of these Councillors appointed, yet the inference was irresistible that there should be more than that number; because, if there were to be five at least present when the Governor in order to make their proceedings valid, surely this supposed that the body itself should be composed of more than five. He had taken the opportunity of stating his opinion on this point to a member of the Government. If his opinion were a correct one, there could be no doubt that the acts of the Council would be void, on the ground of irregularity in the formation of that body, contrary to the terms of the act, and it was certain that advantage would be taken of this objection by persons in the Colony who might be affected by the acts of the Council. As he was on his legs, he could not avoid saying a word or two with respect to the parties appointed by Lord Durham as his council. When the House heard of the authority given by the act relating to Canada to the Governor-general to appoint a Special and Executive Council, no member doubted that the object was, and indeed the whole context

821
of the act bore out that meaning, that these bodies might exercise some control over the acts of the Governor-general himself. In the Executive Council the Governor-general was to have the initiative of every measure, But was it not a mockery to talk of any control being exercised over the Governor-general by a body selected from his own military staff, or by members chosen from his own household? When the noble Lord dissolved the Special Council appointed by Sir John Colborne, he assigned as his reason that his object was to take the whole responsibility on himself of all the measures which he might deem it necessary to originate. Sir John Colborne construed the act differently, for besides his Executive Council he appointed a Special Council, consisting of twenty-one, eleven of whom were Canadians. This body exercised a power analogous to that of a Legislative body, and passed several important measures. When the Earl of Durham thought fit to dissolve that body, he appointed the Executive Council, consisting of only five members, selected as he had already described; Mr. Buller was one of the five so named. He had been one of the Special Council, but was afterwards named as one of the Executive. Now, what control could he be likely to exercise over the acts of the Governor-general? Did any one doubt that if he ventured to assert an opinion of his own at variance with that of the Governor-general, he would not be allowed to continue a member of the Council. He had no wish to allude to the acts of my Lord Durham by anything like severity of comment, as he was aware that any doubt as to the legality of his conduct there would tend to weaken his authority; but he thought that Parliament having suspended the whole constitution of Canada, to place the whole power in the hands of one individual, they ought to look with a vigilant eye on his acts, and of all things take care that the Council to assist him should be legally constituted. He had not heard that any opposition had been made in Canada to any of the parties appointed to the Council, but he felt that objections might be made to the constitution of the Council by parties who might be affected by its acts. It was not his intention to submit any motion on the subject. He threw it out as a matter for the consideration of the Government. If they concurred with him in his view of the point, it would
822
be for them to decide whether they should not pass a short hill to cure the defect. If they differed from him in the construction of the act, he would reserve to himself the right of introducing the subject on a future occasion.
Lord John Russellthought if the right hon. Gentleman had been strongly impressed with a sense of the inexpediency of weakening the authority of the Governor-general at this time, he would have spared some of the observations he addressed to the House. The right hon. Gentleman had again stated his opinion as to the illegality of the way in which the Special Council had been constituted by Lord Durham; and said, that it was not legally constituted because it did not consist of more than five members. Of course, any observation of the right hon. Gentleman, if it had much weight in it, would not have failed to have had weight on the minds of others; but he must say, he had not heard that opinion supported by any other person than the right hon. Gentleman himself. It appeared to him (Lord John Russell) that the fact of five members only being appointed could not well affect the legality of the proceeding, because the act only said, that not less than five should be present at any council. [Sir E. Sugden: Five at least.] Yes, that five at least should be present. The course which Lord Durham had taken, was one at which five persons had been present. Others, indeed, might think that Lord Durham ought to have appointed more than five; but supposing five to have been appointed, and five to have been present at the special council that had been held, he could not conceive how it could be a point of objection to the constitution of that council, that there had not also been two or more absent members appointed, but who had never attended or taken any part in the council. He could not well understand how a man could say, "It is very true the Governor-general was present, and the five Members required by the Act were present; but then I object to the legality of the council, because there were not two or three useless absent members belonging to it who had never taken any share in their proceedings." It did not appear to him, in point of reason, that that objection could be entertained. The right hon. Gentleman next found fault with the composition of the Special Council. He had told the right hon. Gen-

823
tleman before, that he thought it probable, that the persons who would be appointed members would not be Canadians, but persons connected by office or military appointments with Lord Durham. That had been the case. The persons appointed were persons so connected with the Governor-general. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was not right in inferring that because that was not the case with Sir John Colborne's administration, and was the case with Lord Durham's administration, therefore either one or the other must be wrong in the course he had taken. Because it was quite competent for Sir John Colborne to call together any number of Canadians, and for the purpose which he had in view, yet it might be quite as proper and wise of Lord Durham to call other persons to his council for different purposes, and to be effected in a different manner. It was expressly understood, when orders were sent to the Colony for Sir John Colborne to appoint a council, that it was by no means incumbent on Lord Durham to appoint the same persons to the Special Council. An inference might be drawn from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman that he supposed a wide difference of opinion had existed between Sir John Colborne and Lord Durham. [Sir E. Sugden: I had no intention to imply any such thing.] He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say so. He begged to state, that no difference of opinion had existed between those two parties. During the short time Lord Durham had yet acted in Canada, Sir John Colborne had given him the utmost assistance and counsel that he was capable of rendering, and Lord Durham had derived the greatest advantage from the representations he had received from Sir John Colborne; and, indeed, the intercourse between the Governor-general and the very distinguished officer whom he succeeded had been of the most satisfactory kind both to Lord Durham himself and to the Government at home. With respect to the larger question of the policy of those appointments, it was one which might be debated on another occasion. But he could not exclude from his consideration, whenever that question should come to be debated, the manner in which those appointments had been looked upon in the province of Canada itself. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to think that the opinion of the Canadians
824
was much to be attended to in this country. Now, the opinion of Lord Durham, expressed before he left this country, was that which he thought, any man of sense and decision would be expected to entertain, namely, that, the success of his mission would depend very much on the manner in which the Special Council might be received in Canada. "Because (said Lord Durham) if these dissensions, which have been carried on so long and with so much animosity, have made every person in Canada either of one party or the other, I shall not be able to find any person who is not suspected by those of the opposite party, unless it be those who are called the 'moderates,' and who not being attached to either party makes them disliked by both. In that case, therefore, I should think it more expedient to appoint persons who are not connected with Canada at all, than to expose my Government to suspicion and to hatred, either by one party or the other in Canada." The inspiring confidence in his Government among the people of Canada of different origin and denomination was in itself a very considerable point in the matter which he was to carry on. It should be recollected, that the commission on which Lord Durham went out, was in the first place to preserve an important province to the empire of the mother country, and in the second place to lay the foundation of lasting peace and harmony among the various inhabitants of that Colony. Was it not important, then, in order to take away all ground of distrust, or apprehension of failure, that the measures of his Government should be attended with the assent, approbation, and confidence of both the British and French Canadians? He should, therefore, whenever the question came to be decided in estimating whether Lord Durham was or was not right in the appointment of persons totally unconnected with Canada, consider that it was a very great element in the decision to which Parliament might come in respect to that question, whether or not Lord Durham's measures had been favourably viewed by those among whom he was sent to administer public affairs. He must say, that it was at least very satisfactory to the Government at home to find from the various letters and accounts received, that both the British inhabitants and the French Canadians were disposed to receive with favour, and to look with confidence to

825
the administration of the nobleman who had been sent by her Majesty to restore peace and harmony among them. With regard to the rest, the right hon. Gentleman would consider it a want of courtesy towards him if he again repeated, that though receiving dispatches from time to time from the Government of Canada, it was quite impossible for the Government at home to enter into an explanation of the reasons for each particular measure and a justification of each particular step, until that Administration had gone considerably further, and until those measures had been prepared and carried into effect, which, he confidently believed, would result in retaining that Colony to the British Crown, and in restoring peace among its inhabitants. Those were the great objects to be obtained; and although there might be persons in this country who did not look to those objects, he must say, that those in Canada who were attached to the British Crown were the persons most interested in this matter, and, therefore, most to be regarded. They felt, that it was a vital question to them, in the first place, not to be exposed to civil war, and, in the second place, not to have those harassing and vexatious dissensions continued which had so very long distracted that province. It was to them a question of vital interest; while to us it was rather a matter of mere speculation; though even in this country, he thought, it ought rather to be an object of desire that Lord Durham should succeed, than that we should oppose, by any hostility, impediments to his success.
The Attorney-Generalthought it right to say something about the doubt expressed by Sir E. Sugden respecting the formation of the Special Council. He could not participate in that doubt. It seemed to him, that there being five members of the Special Council, and all being present, no reasonable doubt could exist of the validity of the acts of that Council. By the second clause of the act such and so many special councillors were to be appointed as her Majesty and the Governor-general should please. No number was specified. When they came to the following section then it was said, that five at least should be present when any act was done. What was the meaning of that? Why, that at least there should be five councillors appointed, Five
826
were appointed in the manner specified by the act; the condition, therefore, was performed, and, in his humble opinion, there was no reasonable doubt, that the acts of that council were valid.
Mr. O'Connelldeplored the crimes, that had been committed against the Canadians. A greater crime never was perpetrated than when the British Legislature took away from the House of Representatives in Canada the command of the purse of the Canadian people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Sugden) had talked a great deal of constitutional principle, but where was his love of constitutional principle when the House of Commons was robbing the Canadians of the first principle of the Constitution, planted by the British Legislature in Canada—namely, the right over the public purse? The friends of liberty in Canada had, at first, everything in their own power, and might have insured success if they had managed well. But for their own folly, wickedness, and crime, they would have decidedly prevailed. The moment, however, that Papineau and the rest shed blood, and broke out into rebellion by forming military companies, in spite of the executive power, at that instant they lost the support of every man who looked to obtaining the freedom of any people by constitutional means, and they deserved the greatest misfortune, that could fall upon them; they deserved the greatest of all misfortunes—that of putting their country into the power of despotism. It was a despotism; Lord Durham was a despot. The question then remained, how had Lord Durham conducted himself with such despotic power? He acknowledged, that having a high esteem for that nobleman's character, he was afraid he would have sacrificed it in the vain attempt to conciliate parties in Canada. His delight, however, could hardly be expressed at that noble Lord's success, hitherto, for that noble Lord had conciliated all parties there. Every letter that arrived expressed the satisfaction of the people of Canada at his proceedings. The noble Lord had acted with a degree of perfect impartiality between the French-born, and the British-born, Canadians, and between all sects of Christians; and they were all unanimous in their expressions of regard for him. One of the first things, that made the noble Lord popular was, the abolition of that very council of

827
which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken. The last of his acts was signally admirable for its humanity. Governor Arthur had been gorging himself with the blood of those poor wretches, who—[Oh! Oh!]. Yes! he did gorge himself with the blood of his victims, and there were many people in this country, who would have encouraged him in going on with that blood-shedding system. But Lord Durham most properly interfered. He put out of the country all those men who had taken a guilty part in carrying on the insurrection, and he had kept in banishment those who, having taken a less active part in the rebellion, had fled. That act had been followed up exceedingly well, and the whole conduct which Lord Durham's government had hitherto adopted was an earnest of his desire to establish permanent peace in that country without depriving the people of any portion of their rights longer than was absolutely necessary to enable him to restore harmony among them. He trusted, that the noble Lord would speedily accomplish his object, and would then return to this country with a higher character than even that with which he left it. The noble Lord seemed to have been attacked not only here, but elsewhere, with a determination of purpose most extraordinary. First impressions had been taken up against him with the greatest avidity, and there appeared to be a disposition to run him down. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite complained, that in the selection of his council the noble Earl had acted illegally. First, he said, the persons chosen were the noble Lord's dependents. Now, what could be the mighty independence of any council in the appointment of the Crown, and removable by the Crown at pleasure? Then, forsooth, there must be five councillors at least, and, therefore, it was argued, that there must be more than five; that five was not five, but must be six or seven. That was legal arithmetic. It was a compliment to be paid to one of great legal knowledge to find out a mare's nest like that. For his part, he could not compliment the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon his arithmetical discovery especially as from that very doubt might arise another insurrection? for those who were striving for freedom in Canada might say, "Oh! we will not obey these new laws, for the late Lord Chancellor of Ire-
828
land has said, that all the acts of Lord Durham are perfectly illegal, and that five is not five." He had felt it necessary to say thus much, for he perceived, that there was a perpetual running fire opened against Lord Durham, and that he was attacked by all species of political adversaries; but, he believed, that the gratification which that noble Lord would feel at having pacified Canada and preserved his own reputation would abundantly recompense him for all these attacks.
Sir Charles Grey, having paid considerable attention not only to the particular act referred to, but to many other acts of Parliament relating to Canada, could not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that the proceedings of the Special Council would be at all invalidated in consequence of five members only constituting that council. There was one observation which fell from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin to which he wished to advert. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that the act of Parliament had conferred on Lord Durham powers of despotism. Now, if such an opinion were to go forth in Canada it would be calculated to do immense mischief. There were parties in that province who would be most ready to persuade Lord Durham, that he did possess those powers. But he begged to express his decided opinion, that the act did not confer any despotic power on the Governor-general. The utmost it conferred was a legislative power to the Governor-general in Council, which was previously possessed by the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly. It would be ruinous to have it supposed, that the power it conferred was despotic.
Lord J. Russell, in consequence of a word which had dropped from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin respecting the conduct of Governor Arthur, wished to make one observation. He should be sorry, that it should be understood, that Sir George Arthur had at all been anxious in any case to enforce the extreme execution of the law where circumstances did not make it, not only justifiable, but absolutely necessary.
Vote agreed to.
The House resumed.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of ABERDEEN, from the Island of Newfoundland, calling attention to the distracted state of that Colony.—By the Earl of RIPON, from Lincoln, to Enfranchise Church Property on just and equitable terms.—By the Bishop of HEREFORD, several, against the encouragement of Hindoo Idolatry.—By the Earl of CAMPERDOWN, from Leith, against the Appropriation of Municipal Funds under the Prisons (Scotland) Bill.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Chelmsford, complaining of certain Convicted Prisoners having been Liberated.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, several, from places in Yorkshire and elsewhere, for the repeal of the Beer Bill.—By Lord SONDES, from Stafford, Derby, Runcorn, and other places, against the encouragement of Hindoo Idolatry by the Indian Government.

CANADA—LORD DURHAM'S PROCLAMATION.
Lord Broughamwished to call the attention of their Lordships to the announcement of a proclamation of ordinance which he had seen in the public papers, and which was of the greatest importance to the people of Canada. It was a proclamation agreed to by the Earl of Durham in council, and which, if the noble Earl presumed to carry into effect, he would be guilty of no less a crime than murder. So outrageous, so abominable a violation of the law, ought not, if it did exist, to be suffered to continue for an hour. He hoped, however, that no such proclamation had been issued. But the American papers had stated the fact, and they had also given the names of the parties appointed to act on the Special Council. As was the case with the former selection, no Canadian was named. He saw that the military secretary, the aide-de camp, and the civil secretary, were enrolled, but no Canadian, Then Lord
756
Durham had issued a proclamation stating, that certain persons had declared themselves guilty, and, therefore, the Governor-general, without bringing them to trial, without having any regular examination, had sentenced them himself to transportation to Bermuda, and declared that they should be put to death if they left the place of their banishment and again appeared in Canada. This, if carried into effect, would be gross murder. Neither the Governor-general nor any one else had the least right to pass any sentence, much less a sentence of a nature so highly penal, unless the parties had been previously tried. But it appeared, that these individuals, if they returned from transportation, were to be put to death. Now, what was the course adopted in this country? Why, if the party returned (and it was every day's practice), he could not be summarily put to death under the mandate of any person. It was only when the court, which had legal jurisdiction, ordered him to be put to death that execution could be inflicted on him. It was made a capital felony, by Act of Parliament, to return prematurely from transportation, after a man had been regularly tried, convicted, and sentenced. But, in this instance, the moment a man confessed himself guilty, he was, without any legal form having been gone through, sentenced to transportation, and subjected to death if he returned from it. But this was not all. By this proclamation or ordinance, Mr. Papineau and others, who had not confessed themselves guilty, who had made no admission of the kind, were outlawed, and it was proclaimed, that if they entered the territory of Canada, Upper or Lower, they were also to be put to death. There had been already a most outrageous tampering with the law, when 1,000 l. was offered for evidence; but this was nothing When they looked to a proclamation by which the Governor-general pronounced that he was prepared, should circumstances arise, to commit a capital felony. His commission only allowed the Governor-general in Council to frame general laws—not to make a sudden regulation under which men were to be hanged. The whole proceeding was utterly at variance with the known, and just, and established law of this country.
Lord Ellenboroughrose to move for a copy of the proclamation to which his noble and learned Friend had alluded.

757
Also, for the names of the persons appointed to act on the Special Council, and the day on which the proclamation or ordinance had passed. His noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, would see the propriety of his calling for the date; because, he believed, connected with the date, he could show that three other grounds of illegality with reference to this proceeding existed, besides that which his noble and learned Friend had pointed out. Before Sir J. Colborne left the Special Council he sanctioned certain rules for the government of the proceedings of that council. One of these rules set forth, that every meeting of that council should be convened by proclamation twenty-one days before the meeting took place. Now, the council at which this ordinance was passed was summoned on the 28th of June, and proceeded to business on that day, which was manifestly against the regulation. Again, the 15th resolution directed, that when any new law was introduced, any Member might move, that it should be read a second time on the next day of meeting, and that it might then be read, unless some more distant day was proposed. In this case, however, the rule was wholly departed from; and the ordinance was read a first, second, and third time, and agreed to, on the same day—the day that he had already mentioned. This was contrary to the standing order. It was at least irregular, if not actually illegal. He now came to his last, but to his most important, objection. Five persons only had been appointed to the Special Council, and it had been ordered, that five should be present when any act was passed. The ordinance in question was discussed on the 28th of June; and he found that one of the five members of the Special Council did not arrive at Quebec till the 29th of June, the day after the ordinance was passed. Therefore, there could have been only four members in the council when the decision took place, which rendered the whole proceeding illegal. There was not anything, he must observe, that required more anxious deliberation than cases of that description to which the ordinance referred; because it was necessary to draw a line of distinction between persons who, on the first glimpse, might seem to be involved in the same degree of criminality; and it was a nice thing to declare, without serious deliberation, that some should be
758
transported, and others, on their recognizance, set free. Here he saw, after a very short consideration, that eight persons should be transported to Bermuda, and hanged if they dared to come back; and sixteen more were outlawed—banished from the colony, and subjected to capital punishment if they returned. Others, it appeared were to be pardoned on giving security. These, he repeated, were matters that required deep consideration; but here twenty-four cases of transportation and banishment, with the penalty, on returning, of death, were decided in one day. Great punishment was awarded against these persons, while pardon was extended to others. It was necessary that their Lordships should have these papers before them, in order, that they might investigate a proceeding which appeared to him to be disgraceful to the Government, and likely to bring into hatred the authority of this country.
Lord Glenelgwas quite ready to lay upon their Lordships' table any papers upon the subject in his possession. All that he now had were the ordinances, and some private letters, which he was not at liberty to produce. He had only to observe, that it was premature to condemn the conduct of Lord Durham, which had gained the confidence of both parties in Canada.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he did not absolutely condemn Lord Durham. He only condemned him, in the event of its being true, that he had issued such a proclamation. He appealed to any lawyer in the House whether murder would not be committed in hanging a man without first bringing him to trial.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that considering the difficulties of Lord Durham's position—considering the distracted state of the colonies over which he was sent to preside—considering the state of the empire, and how deeply the empire might be affected by what passed in that House, it was in the very highest degree imprudent, and he would add, unpatriotic—it was sacrificing the interests of the country to the interested party—it was sacrificing the highest objects to the desire of attacking an individual, to pass such a decided and determined condemnation upon an act which had been deemed necessary by the noble Lord who was upon the spot, and had the best means of judging what was fit to be done and what

759
was for the benefit of the State. He had no objection to the production of the papers, or to the fullest discussion in that House or elsewhere of what had been done in the province. He could not refrain from expressing the strong opinion which he felt upon the course which had been adopted in reference to Canadian affairs.
Lord Broughamdissented most strongly and peremptorily from the doctrines which had been laid down by the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government. He held it to be neither premature, nor imprudent, nor unpatriotic in that House to keep a watchful eye on the exercise of the dictatorial powers which had been intrusted to the Governor-general of Canada. They were told during the debates which preceded the passing of the bill that Parliament would be always at hand to superintend and control the exercise of those powers. "Don't fear," said the noble Viscount and his colleagues, "to give ample authority. It will be always under the control and supervision of Parliament, and if unduly exercised, Parliament can be called upon to interfere." Powers ample and extensive were accordingly given—powers hideous and portentous in their nature, and yet even these had been exceeded by the noble Lord to whom they were intrusted. This authority, however ample and tyrannical, was not considered sufficient by those upon the spot. They were exceeded to an extent, that if before they were given any one had predicted such a result, it would immediately have been pronounced to be impossible. The noble Viscount talked as if the powers given to Lord Durham had been exercised, but not exceeded. Was the issuing of such an ordinance an exercise of the powers of the act? Instead of confining himself to the powers of the act, the noble Earl was running in the teeth of the act, and of every known law and usage in England. The noble Viscount had talked of a person upon the spot knowing best what was necessary to be done for the good of the public; he would ask was it necessary to commit a felony for the good of the public? Was it necessary to hang a man before they brought him to trial? Could any difficulties of the noble Lord's position—could any state of the empire, justify the tolerating of such orders? The House, he thought, would fail in their duty to their country if they allowed a single day to
760
elapse without calling for an explanation of such proceedings. He denied, that he sought an occasion of attacking Lord Durham. These ordinances had been published in America, and were known to the world. But, says the noble Lord, Lord Durham has conciliated all parties in Canada. Did all parties in Canada, then, approve of illegal acts? When Lord Durham was given up by the noble Viscount, he had defended the noble Lord, and by doing so called down upon himself the censure of a right rev. Prelate for whom he had a great respect, because he always acted conscientiously, and also the censure of a noble Duke. Nothing could be more solemn than the denunciation upon that occasion by the noble Viscount of Lord Durham and Mr. Turton. In its generality there was wanted no charge, however odious. He never desired to be set-down more in his presence or in his absence—in public or in private—than to have it said of him by the one who had appointed him to a confidential situation, "I have seen with deep regret the acts which he has done, and am greatly surprised at them." With respect to the charges which had been made against him by the noble Viscount, of being influenced by factious motives, he regarded them as little as the noble Viscount used himself to regard similar charges when he was accused for bringing charges against the Government of that period, being influenced by factious motives.
Lord Glenelgrepeated, that he had no objection to lay the papers upon the Table.
Motion agreed to.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS.
The Marquess of Lansdowne, in moving the third reading of the Juvenile Offenders' Bill, said, that he wished to correct a statement which he had formerly made respecting the number of children lost or abandoned in the town of Manchester. He had stated the numbers correctly, according to the police returns, but the inference which he had drawn was incorrect, for the number of children returned as lost or abandoned included the whole number every day in the year; and, consequently, it was not to be inferred, that that immense number was the actual number of children permanently lost or abandoned; for the fact was, that a great number included in the returns were afterwards claimed

761
by their parents and returned to their homes.
Bill read a third time.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that he was desirous before the bill passed of calling their Lordships' attention to it. The subject was one of great interest and importance, and he was ready to admit fully that the object of the bill was in every respect laudable. Its object was to have a separate prison for offenders under a certain age; and nothing could be more desirable than that offenders of that class should be enabled to avoid that influence and example, which were found to be prejudicial to their morals, when they were kept in the same custody with the general class of offenders. Looking at the preamble, he found, that part of the object of the bill was to reform and instruct juvenile offenders. The object, therefore, was highly laudable, and in proportion to the importance of the object was the importance of considering the manner in which that object was to be effected; but he did not find on the face of the bill, nor in the statement of the noble Marquess, either today or on a former occasion anything which could give them any insight into the system which was intended to be pursued. In the first place, however, he wished to remark, that the observations of the noble Marquess with regard to the town of Manchester were founded in a total misapprehension; the fact was, that there were scarcely any instances of children being lost or abandoned there. A humane regulation existed in the town, by which the police took any children whom they found wandering to the nearest police station, that parents might know where to claim them; for this purpose they were taken there; and though it was true, that in that manner upwards of 8,000 had been found within the last four years, still he understood that all of them, with the exception of a single instance, had been claimed and had returned to their parents. Now, considering the importance of this subject, he submitted that there ought to be, either on the face of the bill or in the statement of the noble Marquess, some explanation of the course which was intended to be pursued. If they intended to adopt anything like the separate system, he protested vehemently against it; but further, there was a principle now introduced for the first time in this bill, to which he very strongly objected. In all
762
the prisons of this country whether county gaols, houses of correction, or penitentiaries, a system of inspection was established, which had been of the greatest public benefit. Nothing was so liable to abuse as imprisonment, sometimes from negligence, sometimes from indifference, sometimes from cruelty, sometimes from passion, and therefore the law had wisely provided for the strict inspection of all the gaols of this country. By the 31st of George the 3rd, visiting magistrates were appointed, who were bound to inspect the prisons three times in every quarter, and individual magistrates had the right of inspecting them at any time. That system had been found to work very beneficially; and it applied to all the prisons of England, with a single exception, and that exception was the Penitentiary at Millbank, which the magistrates had no right to visit, and which did not come under their jurisdiction; but so anxious was Parliament on this subject, that a committee had been appointed by the Privy Council for that purpose. Now, what was the principle which was attempted to be established for the first time by this bill? That no magistrate should have any right to enter the juvenile prison, which was to be liable to the inspection of no one but the individuals appointed by the Government, and in the pay of the Government. It would, perhaps, be said, that there was already persons appointed as inspectors of prisons; but they were appointed by the Government, and dependant upon the Government; and as the existence of their offices did not interfere with the visiting power of the magistrates in regard to other prisons, he protested most strongly against the principle which was sought to be established. He knew some noble Lords considered this bill an experiment, which ought to be made on the responsibility of Government, and that that responsibility would be diminished if they admitted the magistrates to have any control or influence in the management of this prison; and he admitted, that it was an experiment which should be made on the responsibility of the Government; but how were they to know in what manner the system worked, and with what success it was attended, unless some persons were allowed to witness its operation besides those who were dependent on the Government and favourable to their views? Another point which rendered this inspec-

763
tion still more important was, that the governor was to have the right to inflict corporal punishment: it was true, the Secretary of State was to lay down certain regulations, but who was to apply them? The nature and extent of that corporal punishment was left in the breast of the governor, for anything that appeared to the contrary. For these reasons he submitted, that the general rule ought not to be departed from in this instance, but that the visiting magistrates should be required to report either to the bench of magistrates, if the noble Marquess pleased, or to Parliament, or to the Secretary of State, from time to time, upon the success of the system. He had said, that if the separate system of punishment were to be adopted for the reformation, instruction, and improvement, of juvenile offenders, he protested strongly against it; and why? He had had his attention drawn to this subject by being a member of a committee of their Lordships, which sat early this Session; and he would advert to the separate system established in the Penitentiary which was then examined. He did not mean to make any charges against any individuals or body of men connected with that prison, for he believed that the persons superintending the Penitentiary were persons of great humanity, and discharged their duty well and faithfully; but his objection was to the system; and he would state the instance of one of the persons to whom that inquiry before their Lordships extended—he meant the case of Matilda Seymour. She had been instigated by her mother to commit a trifling theft, and her mother received the goods which she stole. Both were tried and convicted; and the mother was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and hard labour, which consisted, he believed, in being kept at the washing tub. The child was sentenced to be transported; but her sentence was commuted into a sentence of imprisonment for three years. That child was scarcely an object of punishment; at the most she was about ten years of age, and she had acted at the instigation of her mother. Accordingly, it must be said, by way of defence, that the sentence was not intended as punishment, but for her reformation and instruction. She was sentenced to the Penitentiary for three years for her improvement and reformation. But if the Government undertook the reformation and improvement of chil-
764
dren, it should establish a different system from that pursued in the Penitentiary—a system entirely different from the separate system. What was the evidence of the resident governor himself? He had said, that the system was not generally applicable to children; and Mr. Russell, another governor, had expressed the same opinion, even in stronger terms. Was he not right, then, in saying, that if the Government undertook the reformation and instruction of children, they ought to establish a different system? Some exercise was necessary for the preservation of health; but what description of exercise ought it to be? Merely putting one leg before another was not sufficient for a child. The exercise ought to be of every kind and variety; every part of the body ought occasionally to be brought into activity; and at the same time the mind should be employed to render the exercise beneficial, Their Lordships, assenting to these observations, would be surprised at the kind of exercise which was allowed to this child, who was put there not for punishment but improvement. For half an hour in the morning, she was allowed to walk in single file round a small yard, enclosed by a high wall; and if the weather permitted, for half an hour in the afternoon. That was all the exercise she was allowed in the twenty-four hours. Again, he had made a calculation of the average number of hours out of the twenty-four during which she was shut up by herself in a cell not much larger than that table. If they added together the hours for attendance in chapel, for instruction, for washing, and for walking, the amount would be twenty hours in the week, or less than three hours each day; so that this child, not more than ten years of age, was to be confined for twenty-one hours out of the twenty-four during three successive years, in a cell not larger than that table; and in order that the child might derive no instruction from without, the window-cills were so high as to prevent her from looking out, and there was that child kept for twenty-one hours out of the twenty-four—not kept there for punishment, but for the reformation of her morals and the improvement of her mind. Was he wrong, then, when the Government was presenting a bill respecting the imprisonment of juvenile offenders, to call their attention to these matters, and to urge the necessity of adopting a different system? There was

765
a beautiful passage of a French author, St. Pierre, in which he spoke of the impression produced by external objects on the mind of a child, and of the manner in which the young mind gradually expanded under the influence of those impressions: but here they had acted on a directly contrary principle; they acted on the principle of shutting out all external sources of improvement from the mind of the child, and of barbarising and stupifying its mind. He hoped, therefore, the noble Marquess would have the kindness to tell them, that a system of this kind was not intended to be established under this bill. The beautiful lines of their great epic poet, afforded almost a literal description of the situation of that child placed under the cruelties of that system:—
"Thus with the year
Seasons return; but not to me returns
Day, or the sweet approach of eve or morn,
Or sight of vernal bloom or summer's rose,
Or flocks, or herds, or human face divine;
But cloud instead, and ever-during dark
Surrounds me, from the cheerful ways of men
Cut off, and for the book of knowledge fair
Presented with a universal blank
Of nature's works to me expunged and rased."
Almost literally did these beautiful lines apply to the situation of that child. The effect of the confinement had been this—that in a short time she was afflicted with scrofula, and the medical man had said that she would not recover as long as that confinement was continued; and he had further said that scrofula and consumption arising from confinement, were the prevalent diseases of the establishment. Would she not have been better if she had been allowed to walk in the garden of the establishment? Undoubtedly she would; but then the strict rules of discipline would have been broken. He had called their Lordships' attention to this matter for the purpose of mentioning the evidence of the Chairman at the Middlesex Quarter Sessions (Mr. Sergeant Addams), who was a member of the Children's Friend's Society. What was the evidence of the learned Gentleman? Why, that in that society they acted on a principle directly the reverse of that adopted at the Penitentiary, that they allowed the children to associate together, they indulged them in all the amusements of childhood, that they treated them with great kindness, and that the effects that that system produced were perfectly maryellous. One child,
766
who had experienced the benefits of that system, had expressed his gratitude in these natural terms:—"You have changed me entirely, and I love you all." Why had he called the attention of their Lordships and of the Government to these subjects? For the purpose of inducing the noble Marquess to tell them what system it was intended to adopt in the prison regulated by this Bill. He called on the noble Marquess to give that explanation, for, if it were intended to adopt the separate system, he desired to enter his protest against it; but, if, on the contrary, the noble Marquess meant to say that the more benevolent and wiser system acted upon by the Children's Friends' Society were that which he proposed to introduce, he would heartily join with him in pressing forward this measure, which only proposed to do that which ought to have been done much earlier. Whatever that explanation might be, he had merely done his duty in calling the attention of their Lordships to the subject. The noble and learned Lord then moved the insertion of certain clauses providing for the appointment of visiting magistrates, who were to inspect the prison three times every quarter, and to report on its state from time to time.
The Marquess of Lansdownewas glad of the opportunity of giving an explanation on the points to which the noble and learned Lord had alluded, and first he would notice the statement made by the noble and learned Lord in reference to his explanation of the returns from Manchester which he had cited on a former occasion; he had given the explanation nearly in the terms of the noble and learned Lord himself. He had said that which was confirmed by the noble and learned Lord, viz. that a great proportion of the children included in that return, had been reclaimed by their parents, but he had no authority to go to the extent of saying that there was scarcely any exception. But now he again reverted to that statement as bearing out his argument, that in great cities there must constantly be a vast number of children freed from the care and control of parents, and that that was the class which supplied the materials out of which arose that tremendous increase of crime amongst children, which it was their Lordships' province to check. The noble and learned Lord had proceeded to express doubts as to the character of the remedy which was to be applied, and he had rather

767
unnecessarily argued before their Lordships that which was admitted by the Government and all persons who had attended to the subject—that a new system was necessary to be introduced. It was surely unneccessary for the noble and learned Lord to use so much of his eloquence to prove that common prisons were not the places in which either male or female children should be confined. The noble and learned Lord had referred to an inquiry into the cases of certain children in the Penitentiary, and he had told them that the result was that even in the opinion of the best officers connected with the administration of that prison, they were not proper places for juvenile offenders. The noble and learned Lord might have added, in the particular instances inquired into, such was the care, the vigilance, the attention paid to those children, that though they were necessarily restricted to obey the peculiar rules of discipline established there, they stated themselves to be without complaint, and to be comparatively happy; and especially with regard to the particular case of Matilda Seymour. By the care and attention which had been paid to her she had been placed in a situation to earn her own livelihood; she had received various kinds of instruction, and had been rescued from a woman from whom she would have learnt nothing but depravity. It was nothing new to condemn the system of prisons, as inapplicable to the cases of children, and that was the very groundwork of the present bill. The noble and learned Lord had referred to a society of which he had been a member for several years; he had presided at its meetings, and he had observed the operation of its system to be most beneficial; but the noble and learned Lord should have stated that these establishments were confined to children wandering about, not having actually committed any crime, because the society had no authority to receive children convicted of any offence. It would be, therefore, rather unfair and illogical to suppose that precisely the same results should attend the operation of that system in the case of children already in some degree hardened in crime. The noble and learned Lord had asked him whether a system different from that adopted in the Penitentiary were to be introduced. Why the whole object of the measure was that it should be different. But did he state that for the first time?
768
As almost doubted whether the noble and learned Lord had attended to him; because he had formerly stated that the object of the Bill was to introduce a system totally different, and he had adverted to a document in explanation of that new system, which, if the noble and learned Lord had read, it would have given him complete satisfaction. The first thing he found in that document was, that a system of separation was not applicable to children; the commissioners said that they did not advocate the application of the separate system generally to young children, though for very short periods that species of disciple might be necessary. That was the document to which he had referred a fortnight ago as forming the basis of this bill. As to air and exercise for this particular prison, no less than eighty acres of land were to be provided for the purpose. Most beneficial results had been produced by the Society of the Refuge for the Destitute, of which he was chairman, which afforded a better example than the Children's Friends' Society, inasmuch as they would receive convicted children. It might be interesting to their Lordships to know that at this moment there was a considerable tradesman in a neighbouring town who was an arrant thief when ten years old, and had been taken into the Refuge for the Destitute, and there taught the trade which he now followed, he had nine apprentices, some of whom came from the Refuge for the Destitute. He objected to the clauses proposed by the noble and learned Lord, because they introduced the authority of the local justices of the county in which this prison happened to be situated, though the prison itself had nothing to do with the country. It was a national prison, subject to the inspectors of prisons, who were under the control of Parliament; and it was placed he believed, on the same footing with the Penitentiary, and all similar national establishments, independent of the local authorities. All that he wished was, that whatever authority the noble and learned Lord proposed to establish, it should be an authority of a central nature, that it should report to the Government or to Parliament should it be preferred, and that it should be under the control of the Government as well as of the Parliament. The other amendment provided, that a child escaping from confinement should be liable to punishment. Now, he had no

769
doubt that when a child so circumstanced was brought back to the place of confinement the original punishment to which he was liable would revert, and consequently there was no reason to introduce that clause. There were various degrees of offence and penalty, and he thought it would be more uniform if the original punishment should revert in the case of such parties than that they should all be subject to one particular punishment for having escaped, and that this punishment should be fixed without reference to their various grades and degrees of guilt.
The Earl of Chichesterlooked upon the bill which was now before their Lordships as a most important, wise, and salutary measure; and he had always considered it to be the fulfilment of a promise made two Sessions ago by the noble Marquess who had just sat down, in reply to some questions put to him by the noble Duke (Wellington) with reference to some children tried and convicted at quarter sessions. He had fully considered the subject of the noble and learned Lord's amendments; and it was his conviction that these prisons could not be subjected to that constant and vigilant superintendence which was so necessary to their well being, if they were left merely to the inspectors of prisons. He had recommended to the committee which sat upon the subject of prison discipline to appoint a board expressly for the purpose of inspecting and superintending these prisons, with inspectors acting under their authority, and representing to them correctly the state of the different prisons. At the same time he would not interfere with the authority of the visiting justices, whose advantageous local influence he should be most sorry to dispense with. It was, at the same time, however, most important, that the prisons should be visited by regular official inspectors; he certainly did not think that this was a matter to be left to the Secretary of State, who had so many other important matters to attend to. He would suggest, that a certain number of persons should be appointed at Quarter Sessions to the duties of this inspection of which they should report the result to the Secretary of State, sending also a copy of the report to be laid before the next Court of Quarter Sessions. He could not help thinking, that the publicity given to these reports would be productive
770
of the utmost advantage. He would move, that the existing prisons for juvenile offenders, and any others which might be hereafter erected for the same purpose, should be referred to this board, of which he had spoken. He was most anxious that this experiment should succeed, and he hoped, that it would be extended, in that case, to other classes of criminals. From all that he had seen, he was more and more convinced of the unsatisfactory character of the secondary punishments now inflicted. He earnestly hoped that some system of penitentiary discipline might be adopted; and he hoped that his noble Friend the noble Marquess might before long propose to their Lordships some measure of this kind. The noble Earl concluded by proposing an amendment to the first clause, to the effect that two or more visiting justices be appointed, who should personally visit and inspect the prisons at least three times in each quarter of a-year, and should make a report once in each quarter of a-year to the Secretary of State; and that a copy of such report should be sent to the clerk of the peace; provided always, that such visiting justices should be empowered, at all reasonable hours, to visit and inspect the prisons, and to make a report upon any abuse to the Secretary of State whenever they deemed it necessary.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that if the noble Marquess would assent to this amendment, he was willing to withdraw his own, in order that the noble Earl might propose his. He only wanted some proper and independent persons to inspect the prisons, and report thereon to the Secretary of State.
The Marquess of Lansdownewould not object to the appointment of persons by the Privy Council for that purpose; nor did he object to any species of observation emanating from the public generally, and not from the particular county.
Lord Portmanwanted independent persons to be appointed. At the same time he thought that any justice ought to have the power of inspecting these prisons, and he should therefore submit to his noble Friend's consideration an amendment to the effect that any justice of the peace, acting for any county in England, should be allowed to enter into and examine such prisons as often as he thought fit, and if he discovered any abuses therein, he should be required to report them to the Secretary of State. He thought that this

771
would secure that additional inspection which the noble and learned Lord and his noble Friend the noble Earl seemed to have agreed upon, and he thought it expedient that every justice should have the right of inspection. He hoped, that their Lordships would study the third report of the inspectors of prisons, than which no more valuable document had been laid on the table of that House for many years. He hoped the noble Marquess would turn his attention to the establishment of some general prison, where persons incarcerated for a long term of imprisonment might be removed, and where some corrective system might be applied. He would put his amendment in the hands of his noble Friend the noble Marquess, and would beg him to consider it.
Lord Broughamobjected to the practice of making material amendments in a measure after the third reading of the bill. He thought it would be better to postpone the debate on this subject to a future day.
Debate adjourned till Thursday.

RECOVERY OF TENEMENTS.
Lord Hatherton, in moving the second reading of the Recovery of Tenements Bill, said that it was extremely probable that most of their Lordships were not aware of the difficulty of obtaining the recovery of small tenements, though such Members of that House as were acquainted with the manufacturing districts might be apprised of it. He was himself a trustee of property on which there were more than 3,000 cottages, and in that capacity not a month passed but he had experience of the extreme inconvenience of the present state of the law. He believed, that the poor themselves were the greatest sufferers by this state of things. The object of the bill was, not to give the owner any additional remedy for the recovery of rent, but more certainty in recovering the possession of the premises. The mode proposed of operating a change in the law, was by enabling the owners of tenements, after due notice to the party, holding over, to apply for a magistrate's warrant to take possession, notice of not less than seven days having been given to the tenant holding over; and if the magistrates in petty sessions should be satisfied as to the ownership of the property by the applicant, they might issue their warrant at once to take possession, but at least twenty-one days' notice was to be given to the opposite
772
party. Then, the bill provided, that if the party obtaining this warrant had not the right of possession, such warrant was to be a trespass, and the party holding over having given his own bond and that of two sureties to prosecute the action, if he obtained a verdict, was to be entitled to at least double costs. He thought, therefore, that under this bill the rich man would not be likely to avail himself of any unfair advantage. If, however, the defendant obtained a verdict, he would recover his costs from the party holding over, or from the sureties joined with him. He trusted this bill would not meet with any opposition. He believed, that under the present law persons were frequently obliged to spend more than the value of the property in an attempt to recover it from a tenant. The bill had been three years in the House of Commons, and had never been opposed by a larger minority than seven, and so far was that House from thinking the measure unpopular, that they raised the value of the tenements to which the bill applied from 10 l. to 20 l. He therefore moved, that the bill be now read a second time.
Lord Broughamremarked, that there might be a termor and a title, and if so, this plan amounted to trying an ejectment in a summary manner.
Lord Hathertonsaid, that the question of title would be tried at the Assizes. When the party holding over entered into a bond to prosecute the action, he would retain possession of the property till the question was decided at the Assizes.
Lord Broughamsaid, that this removed much of his objection to the bill.
Bill read a second time.

CUSTODY OF INFANTS.
Lord Lyndhurstonmore than one occasion had had the good fortune to submit to their Lordships' consideration questions connected with the great principles of humanity and justice, and many alterations of the law founded upon those principles—alterations which had met with the entire approbation of their Lordships; but he had never yet submitted to the House a question which he felt more deeply, or which he considered of more importance than that which was embodied in the bill the second reading of which he was about to move—the Custody of Infants Bill. The measure had been introduced into the other House of Parliament by an hon. and learned

773
Friend of his (Lord Lyndhurst's), a Gentleman of great eloquence and high attainments; it had been most actively and most vigorously opposed by another hon. and learned Friend, who was distinguished for his great legal knowledge, and for the extraordinary acumen of his mind; and notwithstanding that active and legal opposition in every stage of the bill in the other House of Parliament, still the promoters of the measure succeeded in carrying it by very large majorities. It was under the sanction of the other House of Parliament, that he submitted the second reading of the bill to their Lordships' consideration. He had always felt it to be incumbent upon a Member of their Lordships' House, when he, proposed any alteration in the existing law of the land, to state most distinctly what the existing law was, what were the evils arising from that state of the law, and what was the remedy he proposed; and feeling that duty to be incumbent on him as a legislator, and as a Member of their Lordships' House, he should, as shortly and distinctly as was possible, state the law as it at present stood, the evils arising from it, and the remedy which by this bill he proposed. He was satisfied the House would go with him in thinking, that the evils were great, and he believed the only point on which a difference of opinion would arise would be as to the adequacy of the remedy. As the law now stood, the father of a chilld born in lawful wedlock was entitled to the entire and absolute control and custody of that child, and to exclude from any share in that control and custody the mother of that child. The mother might be the most virtuous woman that ever lived, amiable in her manners, fond and attached to her children; the father, on the other hand, might be profligate in character, brutal in manner, living in adultery, and yet would have the right under the existing law to the custody of the children of his marriage, to the exclusion of even access to them of his wife, their mother. Further than this, if the father availed himself of the law as it now stood, he might apply it to personal pecuniary objects, to the extortion of unjust concessions from the mother, and still have the right to bar her from all access to her children. Such was the state of the law as far as it related to legitimate children; the law in reference to illegitimate children was however wholly different. Now, in order that he might
774
not be supposed to misstate the law in these respects, he conceived it to be his duty to call the attention of the House to some of the cases which had been quoted in the other House of Parliament by the hon. and learned Gentleman to whom he had already referred; these cases involved no point of a technical character, and being most interesting in their facts, he trusted they would be listened to with indulgence and patience. The first case to which he would refer was that of Mrs. Emanuel. That lady had married a French emigrant. She was before her marriage in possession of about 700 l. a year, which on the marriage was settled to her own use, with certain contingencies. The husband received 2,000 l., but not being satisfied with this settlement of the property, he persecuted his wife to make her will in his favour. She had the firmness to refuse. He then threatened to take her out of the kingdom, but this was barred by a covenant of the settlement. He next threatened to take her child, an infant scarcely five or six months old, out of the kingdom, and he succeeded in tearing the child away from its mother, and placing it in the custody and care of a hireling nurse. Application was made to the court on behalf of the wife for access to the child, and though the Court admitted that nothing could be more infamous or base than the motives by which the father had been actuated, still, as the mother had no right to interfere, as the father had hired a nurse as a substitute for the mother, and as the child was not suffering in health, the court could not interfere and afford the redress sought. The next case was that of Mrs. Skinner. In that case the husband and wife were separated in consequence of the barbarous usage of the husband, who was then living in adultery with a woman of the name of Delaval. The child, only six years of age, had previously been left, and properly left, with the mother; the husband, however, got possession of the child, and on the question being agitated in court (the child having in the mean time been delivered to the mistress of its father, who was then confined in Horseman ger-lane Gaol, where the child was carried to him day by day) the court said, that it had no power to interfere, and thus the child was wholly separated from its mother. That mother was of irreproachable character; her

775
conduct had received no stigma of any kind; she was fondly attached to her child, and he (Lord Lyndhurst) left it to the House to conceive what must have been her sufferings, and to say whether, in contrasting her character and conduct with that of the husband, the law in that case was not harsh, cruel, unjust, and severe. But there was a third case—that of Mrs. M'Lellan. These parties were also separated. The cause of their separation did not appear. The child had been left with the mother, but possession was taken of it by the father, who sent it to school. The child was attacked with a scrofulous complaint, a disease of which two other children had died, and by persuasion of the governess the mother obtained possession of the child, in order to take care of and watch over it as only a mother could. On the application of the father to the court for the child, the court said they had no power to interfere, as the father had a full right to debar the mother from all access to the child. He, however, wished to refer to the language used by the learned judge (Mr. Justice Patteson) on that occasion. He said, "It did not appear that the child had been ill treated." What was the answer of the learned judge? He remarked that "there was a wide difference between the absence of all intentional cruelty and the devoted watchfulness and care of a mother, especially in a case like this, where, from the circumstance of her former children having suffered from the same complaint, the mother may be supposed to have earned the experience of what was best to be done." Such was the feeling of that wise, humane, and charitable judge, and still he was bound by law to restore the child to the person whom the father had named to receive it. Then came the case of "Ball v. Ball," which was a still more recent decision. In that case the father was living in adultery with another woman; the child, however, though left with the mother, was in the habit of visiting its father, and on one of those visits he took possession of it, and sent it to school without any notice to the mother what he had done with it. After a length of time the mother discovered where the child was placed, and made application to the court for its restoration, urging, that the terms of the separation had been, that she should have the custody of the child. That application was unsuccessful, and a second
776
was made to the court in the alternative, that if the law did not permit the restoration of the child, the mother might, at least, have access to it. In answer to that application, what had been the language of the court? The Vice-Chancellor said, "I do not know that I have any authority to interfere. I do not know of any case similar to this, which would authorize my making the order sought in either alternative. If any can be found, I would most gladly adopt it; for, in a moral point of view, I know of no act more harsh or cruel than depriving a mother of proper intercourse with her child." It was clear that the learned judge in that case regretted that he could not accede to one of the two alternatives. Another and more recent case was that of Mrs. Greenhill, and that case was of this description:—She had three daughters, the eldest about six, and the youngest about two years of age. She was living with her children at Weymouth for the benefit of her health, when she received information that her husband was, and had been living in adultery with a female of the name of Graham for upwards of a year; she was astonished at the intelligence, and on consultation with her mother, and her friends, she was advised by them to apply to the Ecclesiastical Court for a divorce. What had then been the conduct of the husband? He sent his attorney to her and threatened that if she went on with the ecclesiastical suit, he would take the children from her. Mrs. Greenhill erroneously supposed that she had a right to retain possession of her children, and went on with her suit for a divorce. Subsequently, proceedings had taken place in the courts of Chancery and King's Bench, and it was there ultimately decided that the wife must not only deliver up the children, but that the husband had a right to debar the wife of all access to them. The judgment of the court was in these terms:—The Vice-Chancellor said, "That however bad and immoral Mr. Greenhill's conduct might he, unless that conduct was brought so under the notice of the children as to render it probable that their minds would be contaminated, the Court of Chancery had no authority to interfere with the common law right of the father, and that he had not the power to order that Mrs. Greenhill should even see her children as a matter of right." Here again was there a complete exclusion of the mother from all access to

777
her offspring, with a manifest expression of regret by the court that it had not power otherwise to act in the matter. He had stated these cases for the purpose of proving the evils of the existing law. Had he succeeded in doing so? Did they not prove that a father, however immoral, profligate, and dissolute, had not only the exclusive right to the custody and possession of his children, but also the right to debar his wife, a woman of virtue and of irreproachable character, from even access to her children? If, then, he had made out a case of cruelty and oppression under the existing law, would their Lordships say, that some mitigation of the law in these respects was not necessary—that some change ought not to follow in order to mitigate its harshness, cruelty, and, he must add, injustice? It was not for him to describe the situation of a woman ardently and devotedly attached to her offspring under such circumstances as those the cases he had cited divulged; it was not for him to point out the harshness and cruelty of the law, which enabled a husband to make use of those very affections as a means of torture, to enable him to extort unjust concessions from his wife. Was the House prepared then, under these circumstances, to say that no alteration of the law in these respects ought to take place? The harshness and severity of the law were increased by the fact, that with the mother of an illegitimate child no person, not even the father, could interfere with her possession of her offspring; and yet the mother of legitimate offspring, the woman of irreproachable conduct and character, was by the law stripped of all control, and even access to her child. That being so, what was the alteration proposed by this bill; He had already said, that he thought the only valid objection to the bill would be, that it did not provide a remedy equal to the evils which existed. The bill did not ask that the child should be handed over to the mother, it did not encroach upon the rights of the father to the possession of the child, it did not interfere with his claims, but all the bill said was, that the father should not be judge in his own case; it did not entirely exclude the mother, but it said, let some judge of the superior courts decide whether or not the mother should be entitled to have access to her child—to what extent, to what degree, and under what circumstances and limits that access should be
778
permitted. The bill, in fact, took the matter out of the hands of the father, and placed it in the hands of the independent judges of the highest tribunals of the country. He understood his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham), whose powers of eloquence he viewed with, respect, intended to oppose this bill, but for what reason he was at a loss to know. He should therefore wait to hear his noble and learned Friend's arguments, as he was at a loss, he confessed, to guess what arguments could be urged with success against the measure. He knew it might be said, that cases of the description he had stated were but few, but even so, he maintained they were such as to call for the interposition of the Legislature. But how was it known that such cases were few in number? for though but few might come before the tribunals of the country, because the law was so clear, so distinct, and so well understood, that every woman would be told by her legal adviser, that it would be useless to apply to the court, for no court had power to relieve, and yet no one could tell how many women there were who now suffered in silence under the oppressions of this harsh and unjust law. Then he had been told, that this bill might lead to litigation; but that was no reason why the House should not interpose for the prevention of cruelty and oppression such as he had pointed out. He had heard and read (because there had been publications on this subject) that the measure would lead to much perjury. Doubtless, in every, case of conflicting rights, the courts were liable to witness the commission of the crime of perjury, but, he contended, that they would not be more so under this bill than by the law as it now stood. It had been said also, that this bill would encourage separation, because the wife was not now inclined to separate, because she might thereby lose the chance of protecting her child; but let the other side of the question be looked at, and then let it be remembered, to what tyranny and oppression, on the part of the husband, the existing law led. But it was idle for him to anticipate the arguments which might be urged against the bill. He had stated the evils, harsh, oppressive, and cruel, as they existed, and he had stated the remedy, the mildest remedy that could by possibility, be applied to evils of that description, By this bill he did not seek an interference with the rights of parties,

779
but he wished for some rightminded, impartial man, to say to what extent a virtuous mother might be allowed to have intercourse with her children when separated from her husband. However scanty the remedy, provided by the bill for existing evils might be thought, still he hoped it would be thought a wise, humane, and necessary measure, He therefore moved their Lordships to agree to the second reading of this bill.
Lord Broughamsaid, that a more painful task could not have fallen to him than that which his sense of duty now urged him to perform—namely, to oppose this bill. He did not say, it was a painful task, because it might be the most unpopular course he could take, for that consideration had never influenced him in the discharge of what he felt to be his duty; nor because the second reading had been proposed by his noble and learned Friend, however much he might approve of the motives and principles upon which he had brought forward the measure; sun because it had been so strongly recommended by one of his high station, who had filled the most eminent place in the law, that therefore he might be supposed to regard everything his noble and learned Friend, said, would deter him from taking an opposite line of conduct; but because of the subject itself, and because he felt the very great difficulty of shutting the ear to such pathetic topics as his noble and learned Friend had urged, and of steeling the bosom to the best and most natural feelings of mankind. He was ready to admit, with his noble and learned Friend, that the law was harsh and cruel in its operation on those cases which had been stated by him, and also, that their small number was no guarantee that many more did not exist which had never seen the light. Another difficulty which he had to contend with, was the prejudice which would naturally arise in route minds against the man who would seem to interfere with the generous purposes of his noble and learned Friend, for whoever did so, would be liable not only to be charged with hardness of heart, but unwillingness of mind to remove the defects and harshness of the existing law. He trusted, however, that he should clear himself from the justice of any such charge as applied to him. He admitted that the bill was passed through the other House with almost unexampled rapidity,
780
and with wonderful majorities in its favour, but at the same time, there was very little legal authority in its support. The bill never had the advantage, which it was natural to expect it would have, of the support of the learned and experienced law officers of the Crown; he did not find that they bore any part in the debates on the bill; but, if they had any objection to it, they ought to have stated it, or if they approved of it, they should have said so. If, then, he could avoid opposing this bill, he had the strongest possible reasons for doing so, apart from the objectionable nature of the bill itself, which, while it professed to remove the existing evils of the law, would not meet them; it would apply itself only to a part of those evils, and it would open the door to such frightful changes in the whole of this country, and in the whole of the principles on which the law of husband and wife was founded—ay, and such innovations on those laws which had been hitherto regarded as the safeguard of families, and as securing the virtuousness of principle on which the education of children should be conducted, that he owned that he would not support it, if, by affording a remedy in instances of rare occurrence, a channel was to be opened through which the floods of immorality would be sure to overflow the character of the institution of marriage. His noble Friend had stated the evils of the present state of the law; he had shown how unjust the law with regard to the treatment and the custody of the offspring of the wife by the husband; he had shown how it had operated harshly on the wife; and he had pointed out instances in which that law might have entailed evil on the children, and then he contended that his bill must be accepted as a ready, because it would be a less evil than the evils pointed out. But there were many evils which the bill did not profess to remedy. Could anything be more harsh or cruel than that the wife's goods and chattels should be at the mercy of the husband, and that she might work and labour, and toil for an nit-kind father to support his family and children, while the husband repaid her with harshness and brutality, he all the time rioting and revelling in extravagance and dissipation, and squandering in the company of guilty paramours the produce of her industry? The law was silent to

781
the complaints of such a woman, or if not silent, all it said was, that in the sweat of her brew she should eat her bread and not only so, but that in the sweat of her brow her husband should eat his bread, and spend the produce of her industry in insulting her by lavishing her property on his paramours. He had colourings and materials enough to make out a very strong case in illustration of the cruelty of the law, if he had the ability and genius of his noble and learned friend to pencill it and fill in the shadows. He knew that there were anomalies and a thousand contradictions in the marriage law; but the existence of those anomalies and contradictions should operate as so many warnings against the introduction of new anomalies and changes in that manage law; for being driven on the shoals of anomaly by the gales of their feelings and the tide of prejudice, they would be in danger of making shipwreck on the rock on which their, predecessors in legislation had split. Adultery was as much a crime in man as in woman; it was denounced by the laws of God in both, and equally reprobated by the laws of the land in principle, though not equally punished. If the wife made a slip and forfeited the allegiance to her husband which she swore when she took her marriage vow, an action for damages against her paramour might be instantly brought, and in that action the character of the woman was at immediate issue, although she was not prosecuted. The consequence not unfrequently was, that the character of a woman was sworn away; instances were known in which, by collusion between the husband and a pretended paramour, the character of the wife had been destroyed. All this could take place, and yet the wife had no defence; she was excluded from Westminster-hall, and, behind her back, by the principles of our jurisprudence her character was tried between the husband and the man called her paramour. But what was the case when the man was the guilty party? What legislation was there in favour of the wife? Did, the Woman feel no pang when she knew, that her husband committed adultery? Was not her pride, supposing her to have no feeling of a higher character, grievously touched? That feeling, he ventured to say, raged more furiously, if he might so speak, than all the pride which raged in the male sex, and made more havoc than
782
among men, ay; a thousand times more than all the sentiments of honour, that ever could grate on man's heart. Was it then just, that in her sufferings she should have no remedy, no sufficient remedy but rather be left to the mockery and insult of her husband? The husband might pursue his course; he might refuse to live with his wife, unless she went to Doctors-commons and demanded a restitution of conjugal rights, which no woman of delicacy could well do. Again, if she wished for separation, she might get a divorce a mensâ et thoro, but she could not marry again. The husband, if he got a verdict in his favour, in the Ecclesiastical Court, would obtain almost as a matter of course a divorce from that House, which enabled him to marry again. Was the wife so treated? A wife had the greatest difficulty to obtain a separation in the case of adultery. There had been two eases only before that House in which shell relief had been granted, the one being a case in which incest had been proved, the present state of the law was such as to bring out a passive resistance on the part of the sex, which felt, that they were not properly represented in the Legislature. Upon the whole it was safer and better for society and the marriage state for the comforts of the parties, and; above all, for their issue, that the father should have uncontrolled care of that issue, than that control should be shared as a matter of right with the mother. Having shown, that the law was not more oppressive to the wife in this than in other cases, he now came to consider whether the remedy proposed for the alleged evil was appropriate, and whether, while calculated only to mitigate that evil in a slight degree, it was not, at the same time, calculated to introduce infinitely greater evils than those which were complained of. In the first place he contended, that the bill under consideration did not apply a remedy to the evil which was complained of. His noble and learned Friend had said, that as the law stood at present, a husband living in adultery, and of the most profligate habits, was entitled to the exclusive possession of, and dominion over, his children; Very well; but did the bill provide any remedy for such a state of things? Nothing of the sort. The bill said, let the husband have undivided dominion over the children, let him take them where he willed, let him contaminate them, by

783
placing them in the society of the worst of persons, taken from the stews or from prisons—welcome to do all this, said the bill; only let the wife, by means of a judge's order, see the children occasionally. But that was no remedy for the evil which was alleged, for the argument of his noble and learned Friend that the children were contaminated by the profligacy of one of the parents, while the other had no means of counteracting the mischief. The bill provided no remedy for that; it provided no remedy for nine-tenths of the evils of the case, and for the remaining tenth they were to have a change in the law which would inevitably lead to the most extensive alterations in the relations of the married state. His noble and learned Friend had not stated quite correctly what the law of the Court of Chancery was in cases of this description, for when that court had the guardianship of children, if there was profligacy on the part of the father, the judge would take care, that the mother should have sufficient opportunities of seeing them. He thought the Chancellor, in the case which had been quoted by his noble and learned Friend, had been misreported, for he was made to say, that unless the child knew of the profligacy of its parent there could be no remedy for the evil which was complained of. But the Chancellor could have said no such thing, for the case of "Branford and Wellesley" and the case of "Westbrook and Shelley" were opposed to such a doctrine. That, however, was immaterial, and the worst part of the evil was untouched by this bill. In passing to the evils to which this bill was calculated to give rise, he felt bound to say a few words on the title of the measure, and anything more fraudulent than that title was, he could not conceive. The bill was entitled, "an act for providing for the more easy access of parents to their children." Their Lordships would observe, that the word used was "parents" not "parent"; but for what reason was the plural used? The father had already free and full access to his children at all times, and the title ought to have been "an act for enabling the wife when living separate from the husband, to have access to her children," for the husband was not considered by the bill. Now keeping in view the fact, that the law in all cases was favourable to the rights of the husband, let their Lordships look what was pro-
784
vided by the bill. It provided, in the first place, that all cases of dispute in regard to children should come, not exclusively before the three equity judges, but that they should also be tried before any of the other fifteen judges.
Lord Lyndhurstproposed to confine the jurisdiction in cases arising under this bill to the three equity judges.
Lord Broughamsaid, that such a limitation took away one of the great objections to the measure. The judges when they were asked their opinions of the bill held up their thirty hands in deprecation of this part of the plan, and certainly the limitation which his noble and learned Friend proposed to make would remove one ground of complaint against the provisions of the measure. But what could their Lordships now think of the authority which his noble and learned Friend had given them in favour of the bill? The noble and learned Lord had stated, that it had gone through all its stages in the other House, with large majorities in its favour, and there had been as great majorities in favour of the jurisdiction of the whole eighteen judges as there had been in favour of any other part of the plan; yet his noble and learned Friend now gave up that portion of the bill as utterly untenable, and proposed to limit the number of judges to the three equity judges. Now, high as his respect was for the authority of the House of Commons, yet, when he found his noble and learned Friend giving up an important part of the measure which that House had sanctioned, he could not but feel that such a proceeding tended to weaken the confidence which he was willing to place in that assembly. Was this a trifling change which his noble and learned Friend proposed to make in the bill? Why, it was a change of the most sweeping description; for his noble and learned Friend proposed to diminish the number of judges before whom cases arising under the provisions of this bill were to be tried from eighteen to three. But what would be the effect of that change? By giving up fifteen judges, and leaving the whole causes to be tried by the leaving equity judges, his noble and learned Friend would introduce a great anomaly into the law, and create an evil of the most serious description. In the first place the three equity judges would have such an addition to their business, that they would be overloaded, and of all

785
causes those relating to family quarrels regarding the custody of children were the longest and most complicated and most violently contested, because it was not money, but feelings that were concerned. Yet all those complicated causes were to be thrown upon the three equity judges. Then again, how did it happen that his noble and learned Friend confined his feelings to London and Westminster? Why did he not go into the provinces? This bill was confined to the mothers in the metropolis, and no consideration was given to Northumberland or to Cornwall, and to other distant parts of the Kingdom, for the alteration proposed would not allow causes relating to children to be tried at the assizes. It was only those mothers who were able to come up to Chancery who were to have a remedy for the evils which they complained of, in being separated from their children, and therefore there ought to have been another change in the title of the bill, and it ought to have been entitled an Act for enabling such wives only to apply to any of the three equity judges for permission to see their children. Again the bill would only allow the wife toties quoties to see her children, for she would have to go before the judge every time she wished to visit her offspring. Now, had their Lordships any idea of the nature of those causes which were tried in relation to the custody of children? They were of the most complicated and difficult kind, and ninety affidavits might be filed before an order was obtained. How was this to work? Could such a plan fail to increase the bitterness which existed, and would not each fresh application to the judge, while it gave rise to vast expense, tend only to embitter the feelings of the parents; But the carelessness with which the bill was framed, was truly remarkable. As it originally stood, a woman living in adultery would have had as easy access to her children as the most virtuous individual. That provision of the bill, however, had been altered, and a clause had been inserted, the provisions of which were not less mischievous, for, as the bill still stood, a woman caught in adultery could claim a right of access to her children; for cases of such a nature might happen, but which might, notwithstanding, be incapable of proof; and if not proved, then the bill would enable her to visit and associate with her children. He knew many cases where the act of adultery was certain, but
786
where legal proof could not be given o the guilt of the wife, yet such a woman was to have a right to see her children by an application to one of the three judges appointed by the bill to take cognizance of cases relating to the custody of children. But what was the nature of the causes which would come before the three equity judges under the provisions of this bill? They were the most complicated and most difficult possible. The judge would have to go into all the previous history of the husband and wife. He would have to listen to all the statements which might be made by both parties; and to read the numerous affidavits which in causes of this description were usually filed, and in this manner go on a long and slippery way before he could arrive at any determination. But even when he had made up his mind on the merits of the case, he would then have to consider how often, at what time, and what place, and under what circumstances, the visits of the mother were to be made. What was to be the security, that the wife would not run away with the children? Would his noble and learned Friend send an officer of the court to be present at the interviews? No, his noble and learned Friend would not do so, because it would be said, that the presence of such an officer would prevent that familiar intercourse which might take place between the mother and child. But if there was to be no person, how would they prevent the mother from alienating the affections of the child from the father, from making representations tending to injure the father in the estimation of the child, and thus sowing the seeds of dissension and misery in the family? But all this complicated form of trial was to be gone through for one interview, and the same long and difficult process was to take place every month perhaps, or at least at every time the mother wished to visit her children. It might be said, however, that a general order should be issued, but that was hardly possible, for the circumstances might change in the interval, and the wife might no longer have a right to visit her children. The bill assumed that the husband wanted exclusive possession of the children, and the consequences of such an assumption would be to create a feeling of exasperation on his part, and they might depend that, on every fresh application, he would resist the application and thus

787
Widen the breach betwixt the parties. The last and most important objection of all which he had to the bill was the inevitable mischiefs it would create, destructive of the comforts, and dangerous to the purity, of marriage life. If there was any one thing which more than another tended to protect the sanctity of the marriage vow, it was the love and affection which women bore to their children; and the question which in reality was raised by the present bill was, whether the mutual consent of both parties, husband and wire, ought to be a valid ground for divorce. It was from the knowledge which those parties had, that they could not easily get rid of each other, that many trifling inconveniences were passed over, which would otherwise assume the shape of the most tormenting evils. What could have a more powerful tendency to make a wife faithful than the knowledge that infidelity on her part would sever her connexion with her offspring? And he knew, that this knowledge did, even in cases where the wife was criminal, operate to postpone her elopement with her paramour. But would not this salutary influence against criminality be removed if the wife should be told, that by the shortsighted and one-sided humanity of their Lordships she might, when living apart from her husband, obtain access to her children? He knew there was a proviso in the bill, which in the case of the wife's elopement with a paramour, and the passing of a verdict against her, would debar her from the privilege of visiting her children; but might she not, without eloping, so conduct herself as to render her husband's life miserable, and thereby make him ready to consent to a separation? It, therefore, became their Lordships' serious duty to consider how far, by passing such a measure as the present, they would be giving encouragement to separations, a state dangerous to the virtue of married women, and how far they would be rendering reconciliations less probable than they were under the present state of the law. If a bill on the subject was to be passed at all, he would rather see a measure which would at once apply the axe to the root of the evil, and be safe from all those evils which he had pointed out as likely to follow from the present bill. Suppose it were enacted, that when the husband was separated from the wife on account of cruelty or adultery by verdict of a court
788
of law, regulation should be made for the proper custody of the children; but, in such a case, he would have no divisum imperium, but he would take the custody of the children entirely from the guilty father, and transfer them to the care of the mother, or to such other person as, under the circumstances of the case, it might seem proper to name for that purpose. It might be matter for consideration whether such a provision should not be enacted. He repeated, that he was really concerned to be unable to meet his noble and learned Friend's complaint of the state of the law as it now stood with some remedy which should be adequate and safe, but he implored their Lordships not to be led away by the natural and laudable feelings to which his noble and learned Friend had appealed, but to consider how dangerous it would be to tamper with one of the most delicate and important principles of our law in one particular part, and with one particular limited and contracted view, without at the same time carrying their regards over the whole portion of their jurisprudence which related to the subject of marriage. Entertaining these objections to the bill, he felt bound to move, that it be read a second time that day three months.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it was for their Lordships to consider whether or not the bill, with the alteration which the noble and learned Lord had signified his readiness to make, might not be shaped into a measure which would guard against the abuse of the power which as the law now stood the husband possessed, without at the same time interfering with the relative obligations of husband and wife, or weakening that influence which the love of her offspring had on the conduct of a woman. All that they could give was occasional access to the children under the directions of the court, and with such guards as were necessary to be introduced in order to prevent it from being abused. That would be a great object for a mother to obtain. They were, however, not to consider alone the gratification which it was likely to afford her. They should also consider whether, looking at the course of life she was likely to lead, they were doing her a kindness it, permitting her to see her children. He thought it extremely doubtful. He thought if the husband were to feel that there was a power of control residing somewhere, he

789
would not compel the wife to have recourse to an application for its exercise in her behalf. By the advice of friends and interference of relatives, amicable arrangements would, no doubt, be made, and the influence which love of the children begets would not be diminished. In order, however, to effect this object the power should be sparingly and cautiously exercised. It should not be exercised in cases where there was misconduct upon the part of the wife, but only where she was irreproachable, and where the husband severely and cruelly exercised the power given him by the law. All the cases put forward by his noble and learned Friend were upon one side. Their Lordships should look at the other side—at the case of a wife without reproach, and a brutal husband. Under such circumstances, was it a wholesome state of the law to allow the husband to put his wife in this predicament—either to submit to his brutal cruelty, or for ever to be separated from her husband? To meet such cases, he thought there ought to be a power of control lodged somewhere. It ought, however, as he said before, to be sparingly exercised. Under due restrictions, the exercise of the power would have a beneficial effect upon the husband, and would not interfere with the ordinary relation of husband and wife. It was upon these grounds, but not without great doubt and difficulty, that he had brought himself to support the bill. As he was sure that the power might be given to the judges of the Courts of Equity without incurring the risk of varying practice and conflicting orders, he thought their Lordships might safely allow the bill to be read a second time, having made in it the alteration proposed by his noble and learned Friend.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that his noble and learned Friend, in introducing this measure to their Lordships, had never considered the hardship which it would inflict upon husbands, or the ruin which it would entail upon families. He had contented himself with pointing out the hardships upon the wife. The duty which was cast by law upon the husband of taking care of the children and attending to their education he never could perform if the present bill were allowed to pass into a law, ruining half the families in the kingdom, and corrupting the morals of the young generation. How was it possible for the husband to perform the duty cast
790
upon him, if his efforts were neutralized and counteracted by the influence of the wife? The bill, too, afforded something like an encouragement to adultery. For, in cases where the adultery had not been followed up by conviction, either by a verdict for damages in a court of law, or a judgment in Doctors' Commons, which took place in some of the worst cases of adultery which he (Lord Wynford) had ever known, the wife was empowered by the bill to appeal from judge to judge, and to bring forward charges upon charges, until, ultimately, perhaps, she succeeded in gaining access to her children. By the bill the judges would have a burden thrown upon them which their other duties rendered them wholly unable to bear. The husband, besides, would be kept in a constant state of litigation from one end of the year to the other, the wife contending upon each successive application that the case has assumed a different shape, and that a new state of circumstances had arisen. Where, he (Lord Wynford) would ask, was all the expense to come from? Surely it could not come from the wife, who had no property, but must come ultimately out of the estate of the children. The bill contained no provision on the subject, which was another objection to it. By constant litigation, and the bringing forward of a series of fresh charges, the expenses would wholly swallow up the property, and the children, for whom so much affection was pretended, would be irretrievably ruined. Let the House look at the appeals which the bill gave from judge to judge, and, also, to their Lordships' House. For when their Lordships allowed appeals in matters of 20 l. value, they would not refuse it in such important cases as the custody of children. As all the swearing was to be upon paper, and not face to face, he was sure, that there would be hardly a single case in which perjury would not be committed. There were cases in which the greatest injustice would be done to husbands by the bill. Adultery might be committed in many cases in which the husband would be the only witness, and, therefore, could neither obtain a verdict for damages in a court of law, nor a judgment in Doctors' Commons. Their Lordships would, probably, recollect a case which occurred in Hampshire, in which the husband caught his wife in the arms of a servant. He, of course, could have no remedy, and yet

791
this chaste and virtuous lady, under the provisions of the present bill, would be entitled to make application to a judge for access to her children. He should vote for the amendment, considering the bill to be most imperfect, for he thought it would do a great deal of evil, and, in his opinion, was capable of producing no good.
The House divided: Content 9; Not content 11: Majority 2.
Bill thrown out.
The following protest was entered against the rejection of the Infants' Custody Bill:—
"Dissentient,
"First—Because nature and reason point out the mother as the proper guardian of her infant child, and to enable a profligate, tyrannical, or irritated husband to deny her, at his sole and uncontrolled caprice, all access to her children, seems to me contrary to justice, revolting to humanity, and destructive of those maternal and filial affections which are among the best and surest cements of society.
"Secondly—Because, although it may be true, as alleged in debate, that women are by the governing principle of the law of England subjected in various other matters affecting their property, character, and happiness, to great and unequal hardships, such consideration furnishes, in my judgment, very inconclusive grounds for refusing them relief from a wrong, which the sound discretion of a judge might, without injury to any one, equitably and promptly redress.
"Thirdly—Because, whatever was exceptionable in the time, form, or mode of relief proposed in the bill, might have been corrected in the committee, and I was unwilling, before such correction of supposed anomalies and defects in the details had been attempted, to forego on account of them an object so just, important, and salutary, as the protection of that intercourse which Nature herself seems to enjoin between a parent and her child from all capricious and vindictive interruption.
(Signed) "VASSALL HOLLAND.
"LYNDHURST.
"July 30,1338. "SUTHERLAND."