Sitting of 2 March 1838

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. CRAWFORD, from London, Bangor, Carnarvon, and Barnstaple, for a reduction of the duty on Marine Insurances.—By Mr. WINNINGTON, from Bewdley, in favour of Vote by Ballot.—By Mr. HASTIE, from Paisley, for the repeal of the Corn-laws, and the reduction of the duty on Raw Cotton.—By Mr. E. R. RICE, from certain Magistrates of East Kent, complaining of the New Poor-law.—By Mr. CAYLEY, several from places in Wales, by Mr. PEASE, from Bath, and from Stockton-upon-Tees, by Mr. WINNINGTON, from Bewdley, by Lord EBRINGTON, from Okehampton, and from a Dissenting Congregation of Reading, by Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT, from Exeter, by Mr. J. PARKER, from Sheffield, and by Mr. BULLER, from Leek (Staffordshire), for the abolition of Negro Slavery.—By Sir R. BATESON, from a parish in Down, against Poor-laws for Ireland.—By Mr. R. FERGUSON, from Kirkaldy, praying that the Commercial Advertiser might be put upon the same footing as Lloyd's List.—By Mr. PACKE, from Leicestershire, against the New Poor-laws.—By Mr. LEADER, from London Shoemakers, for a Commutation of the sentence passed on the Glasgow Cot-
364
ton Spinners; from Tiverton, for a reform of the Reform Act—By Mr. PLUMPTRE, from Derby, against Pluralities in the Church.—By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, from his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, the Earl of Aberdeen, Sir M. Shee, and others, the Trustees of Sir J. Soane's Museum, against sending that Museum to the British Museum, and the National Gallery.—By Mr. DIVETT, from Exeter, for the equalization of the Land-tax.—By Mr. CAYLEY, from Abergavenny, against the Rating of Tenements Bill.—By Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN, from Beverley, for an improvement in the condition of the Negroes in the West India Islands; from the parish of Knockneady, in the county of Limerick, for Corporate Reform, the abolition of Tithes, and Vote by Ballot; and from Pallas Green, Limerick, in favour of Corporate Reform, Short Parliaments, and Vote by Ballot.—By Mr. GOULBURN, from the University of Cambridge, against the suppression of the Bishopric of Sodor and Man.—By Mr. HUME, from Brentford, in favour of the Ballot.—By Lord HENNIKER, from Leicester, for an Amendment in the system of levying County-rates.—By Mr. HODGES, from several Post-masters, praying for a duty on Steam Carriages; and from Chard, for the Vote by Ballot—By Mr. DIVETT, from Exeter, for the Equalization of the Land-tax.—By Mr. WALLACE, from Tyne-mouth, Oxford, Dawlish, Holt, and the Mechanics' and Apprentices' Library at Liverpool, for a reduction of Postage.—By Mr. Sergeant JACKSON, from different parts of Ireland, against a Poor-law for Ireland; and from Bandon Bridge, against the present Education system in Ireland.

SLAVE TRADE.—NAVAL OFFICERS.
Captain Pechellsaid, that this House had always extended its indulgence to hon. Members who desired to explain any circumstances or any observations which they might have made, and he had now to call for their indulgence. He had received a communication that morning from a noble and learned Lord in the other House, who complained of certain observations which he had made on the previous evening in that House with reference to a motion he had made on the subject of the capture of slave vessels. Reports of what he had said had appeared that morning in the newspapers, and he had seen The Times, and The Morning Chronicle; but in neither of them did he see any thing attributed to him which he did not utter, or anything with which he could at all find fault. The noble and learned Lord had sent to him the authentic copy of his speech delivered in the House of Lords on the 29th of January, which he had read, and he must say that he saw nothing which could induce him to retract. The defence of his brother officers had been founded on the speech of the noble Lord which had been published in the newspapers; and he must say that, if the noble and learned Lord had made that speech, all he had said was perfectly justifiable. He had not been bred to the law, and he was no special pleader, and in this instance he did not wish to employ any mental reservation; but if he had in the heat of debate used any ex-

365
pressions which ought to be withdrawn, he was most willing to abide by the decision of the Speaker or of the House on the subject: but he believed that he was not frequently led into the use of warm language, and he was, besides, quite sure that if he had said any thing improper he should have been at once called to order. The noble Lord had given notice of his intention to bring the matter before the House of Lords that evening; bnt he thought, nevertheless, that nothing had fallen from him which he ought to retract.
Sir E. Codringtonsaid, that he too had received a communication from the noble and learned Lord, together with a pamphlet, in which the expressions used were even stronger and more offensive than than those to which he had alluded last night. The pamphlet suggested the cases of officers of the navy looking for head-money to be similar to those of police constables who waited until a person had committed a crime before they attempted to take him, saying that he was "not heavy enough," when they might have prevented the offence, and that they must wait until he was "worth 40 l." He thought the pamphlet of the noble Lord confirmed all he had said, and he saw no necessity for him to withdraw or explain any thing that had fallen from him.

OATHS TAKEN OF CATHOLIC MEMBERS.
Mr. Langdalesaid, that he hoped the courtesy of the House would permit him to bring under their consideration a subject which principally related to himself. A report had appeared in the public press of what took place, he would not say where, in which his name had been mentioned—in which his conduct had been brought forward, and from which it would appear that he had attracted an amount of censure under which it was impossible that be should rest, without, at least, taking some notice of it. He trusted, under these circumstances, to the courtesy of the House to allow him to say a few words in his own defence and vindication, the more especially when the attack made upon him related to the regard he paid, or was supposed not to pay, to the solemn obligation of an oath. In the reported speech where the censure he referred to was pronounced against him, it was stated that the best criterion of the meaning and intention of the oath was to be collected from the animus with which the promoters
366
of the Catholic Relief Bill brought that measure forward. Now, as it appeared to him, that animus was to be ascertained, not from any views that might at present be taken of that subject by the noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen who were concerned in passing that bill, but from the sentiments expressed by them at the time. Let it be seen what the Ministers of that day said on the subject. If they saw what the bearings of the question were, then they could now come to some conclusion as to what were the views of the Parliament of that day respecting the sense in which the oaths of the Members of that House were to be taken. The first notice of this subject he found was to this effect—that the oath was not to be considered as applicable to the Catholic in his legislative capacity, as the Speaker said, "that other, better, and more favourable notion was formed by an hon. Gentleman (as by courtesy he was styled), the brother of a noble Lord, he meant the hon. Mr. Langdale." For his own part, he was willing that the oath should be interpreted according to one criterion—namely, the animus with which it was introduced. The right hon. Baronet, whom he was glad to see opposite, introduced the bill with certain observations. He said, that if the measure were to be adopted by the Catholics, it would be in the sense in which be proposed it to the House. He would read from "Hansard's Debates" that part of the hon. Baronet's speech which especially referred to the Roman Catholics being in Parliament. The right hon. Baronet alluded to a motion made by Mr. Wilmot Horton. He (Mr. Langdale) would mention that the right rev. Prelate must have been aware of this before he alluded to it, yet he said it did not apply to the matter. The House would see whether it did or not. The right hon. Baronet said—
"Another proposal has been made, by a right hon. Friend of mine (Mr. Wilmot Horton), made from the best motives, and supported with an ingenuity, ability, and research, worthy of the motives and of the character of its author. My right hon. Friend has proposed, with a view to calm the suspicions and fears of those who object to the admission of Roman Catholics to Parliament, that the Roman Catholic Member should be disqualified by law from voting on matters relating, directly or indirectly, to the interests of the Established Church. There appear to me numerous and cogent objections to this proposal. In the first place, it is dangerous to establish the precedent of limiting by law the discretion by which

367
the duties and functions of a Member of Parliament are to be exercised. In the second, it is difficult to define beforehand what, are the questions which affect the interests of the Church. A question which has no immediate apparent connexion with the Church, might have a practical bearing upon its welfare ten times more important than another question which might appear directly to concern it. Thirdly, by excluding the Roman Catholic from giving his individual vote, you do little to diminish his real influence, if you leave him the power of speaking, of biassing the judgments of others on the question on which he is not himself to vote; and if, by a jealous and distrusting, but ineffectual precaution, you tempt him to exercise to your prejudice the remaining power of which you cannot, or do not, propose to deprive him. I believe there is more of real security in confidence, than in avowed mistrust and suspicion, unaccompanied by effectual guards. For these reasons, I am unwilling to deprive the Roman Catholic Member of either House of Parliament of any privilege of free discussion, and free exercise of judgment, which belongs to other Members of the Legislature."*
Such was the language held by the right hon. Baronet, as the Minister of the Crown, in bringing forward the great measure of Catholic relief. Now, he (Mr. Langdale), would ask if language such as that were for the first time heard there, would not the natural and necessary inference be, that in taking the oath, he did so with the full power to exercise his discretion as to its interpretation? There was one other point to which he wished to draw the attention of the House, and it was one point only. It appeared by the reports of the debates that after the introduction of the bill, an argument had been raised in the Committee on the subject of the Roman Catholic's right to vote on a question of the entire subversion of the Church; and Sir C. Wetherell, in replying to this had given his opinion of the oath. Let the House see the opinion of Sir Charles Wetherell, delivered on the third reading of the bill.
The Speakerasked the hon. Member if it was his intention to submit a motion to the House? He had not yet mentioned any, and it was extremely inconvenient, as there was no motion before the House, to proceed with a subject which might lead to a protracted debate.
Mr. Langdalewould, then, conclude with a motion, but he thought it extremely hard and painful to a Member if he were
*Hansard (New Series), vol. xx, p. 758.
368
not allowed to justify himself when a direct charge was made against him. If a general charge were made as general charges had been, however painful it might be, he would not notice it; but when he was brought before the public by name—when his opinions were controverted, when they had not been fairly stated, it was a little hard that this attack should be circulated round the country, that he should not be allowed in his place in that House to vindicate himself. He would not detain the House for any length of time. He had been comprehended in a grand sweeping charge of perjury; and if even there were an occasion in which a Member should be allowed to justify himself against the charge, it was when the House had so recently recorded on its journals, that the charge of perjury was of so painful a nature, that the Speaker had been ordered to reprimand the person who made it. What was the opinion of Sir Charles Wetherell on this subject? He referred to some notice of motion of the hon. Members for Colchester and Montrose, for what was deemed the actual destruction of the Church, and what was his argument upon it? "Do you mean to tell me the Catholic would be acting against his Parliamentary oath if he sanctioned such a measure?" This was the recorded opinion of Sir Charles Wetherell. The second accusation in which his (Mr. Langdale's) name had been mentioned by the right rev. Prelate was in these words: "But there was another mode of construing the oath imposed by the Catholic Relief Act. It had been assimilated to the declaration made upon taking office, which was binding upon all Protestants. This, he believed, was also a notion of Mr. Langdale, who referred to the obligation which all Ministers were under upon taking office to declare that they would not exercise their influence to weaken the Established Church." Now, he did state this also, and he believed that it was a very statesmanlike view to take of the matter. It was only in the preceding year that the Dissenters' grievances had been redressed, and he (Mr. Langdale) thought that the right hon. Baronet had stated that the oath which was right for the Dissenters in one instance was to be recorded by the Catholic in the other. It was true that it was called an oath in one instance; but the words of the Dissenters' declaration were nearly similar; they were

369
—"I do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I will never exercise any authority or influence to injure the Church as established by law in England, or (and here the declaration went much further than the oath) to disturb the said Church, or the bishops or clergy under their charge, in the rights to which they may be entitled." Did the right rev. Prelate deny the right of voting on Irish Church matters to the Dissenters? He wondered whether the hon. Gentlemen opposite would support him in such a denial if he ventured to make it? But the right rev. Prelate would say, that they were only pledged to support the Church of England, and that the words did not extend to Ireland. The right rev. Prelate had said—"But Mr. Langdale did not advert to one particular, which was of great importance to his argument. It was this: that the declaration he referred to was expressly limited to England, and had no application whatever to Ireland. Their Lordships very well knew that the declaration, as far as it went, only bound the party making it to preserve the Church as it was now established in England. It did not bind the party making it to any peculiar tenderness towards the Church in Ireland." He (Mr. Langdale) would like to know whether it had not been represented, Session after Session, that what affected the Church of Ireland affected the Church of England also, and that what injured one injured the other also? And when the right rev. Prelate ended with preferring a charge of perjury against some of his fellow subjects, the rev. Prelate appeared to him to be endeavouring to get rid of the weight of the argument by a subterfuge which was unworthy the Established Church. It was admitted, then, that the declaration was binding as against alterations in the Church of England; but here he met the right rev. Prelate—if they were not to meddle with the Church of England they were in the same boat. Had there been nothing done to affect the Church Establishment in England? Had there been no alteration with respect to that church? There had been a diminution of bishoprics; there had been an alteration in the see of Chester. The suppression of some sees had been recommended by the heads of the Church itself, and the temporalities of the Church had been taken away; and all this had been done by men who, according
370
to the right rev. Prelate, were as much bound by their oaths with regard to England as was any Roman Catholic. Were these accusations, however, new to them? Was this the first time that they had heard any charges about being bound by oaths? What was the case during the reign of George 3rd. with regard to the coronation oath and the relief of the Roman Catholics? George 4th. did concede the Roman Catholic claims, and either did or did not violate that oath. If Catholic Members were bound, was not the King bound by his coronation oath? The King swore by that oath "to preserve to the Bishops and clergy of this realm"—let the House remark that the word realm generally, and not England only, was used—"and to the Church committed to their charge all such rights and privileges as shall appertain to them." The right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford had said in his place that it was a mockery to talk of Roman Catholics violating their oaths if the King could do this. It was so. On this point the right hon. Baronet was perfectly consistent when he maintained the same doctrine with regard to the Roman Catholics which he had held respecting the King. George 3rd would not sanction the claims; but George 4th did what a learned Member of the bar said he could not do without violating an oath. William 4th did the same; and an hon. Member had got up in the House and said that if he did it he would violate his oath. Were not hundreds accused of perjury under the same circumstances? The archbishop of Canterbury had sanctioned some of the changes referred to, and was he to be drawn before the public and to be at once charged with the violation of an oath? Was it not proper that each should be allowed to put his own individual interpretation on his oath, and to vote fairly according to what he in his conscience believed to be right? He (Mr. Langdale) would not detain the House longer. He hoped that he was not in the habit of using strong language towards any individual; if he were shown to have used an offensive word towards the highest or the lowest person, he would be the first to retract it; but he would be wanting in the feelings of a man if, when a question of this sort was brought forward—when he was publicly pointed at by name with having violated his oath, he did not refute it. He thought

371
that he was called upon, in justice to his own character—which was as dear to him as was the right rev. Prelate's and as well as to those whom he represented—for, if the accusation were true, he would be unworthy of the confidence of his constituents to make the observations which he had done; and he considered that he had not trespassed unnecessarily upon the attention of the House. He regretted that charges of this description had been made by the individual—by any individual; but when they came from a person whose sacred character ought to be a pattern of charity to all, he must say, that he thought it indeed derogatory to the dignity which he should sustain. He bore willing testimony to the zeal and to the high character of many of the Prelates presiding over the Established Church. He might, as he did, conscientiously differ from them on religious points; but knowing some of them in private life, he roust say, that there was nothing in their character generally which did not produce in him the greatest respect; but when he found a right rev. Prelate raking up accusations the most painful, he almost blushed to bring them before the House. The answer to the charge was, that the Roman Catholics had been for years and years, through their respect for an oath, excluded from Parliament. The right reverend Prelate denied this, by saying that there were certain oaths which a Roman Catholic did not dare to swear; he did not dare to swear his disbelief of transubstantiation, and that he dare not abjure his religion, but that, with respect to anything else, there was nothing to exclude him, and that the only merit of the special oath was, that it contained a disbelief of transubstantiation. But what he (Mr. Langdale) had said before, he repeated, that the Catholics were conscientious in refusing the oath, and bore grievous disabilities on account of their unanimous feelings. The accusation which had been made against him, was in effect, that he had been guilty of "treachery aggravated by perjury," and he must say, that, considering the charge, and considering the individual, he could designate it by no other title than as "a falsehood aggravated by duplicity."
The Speaker: I suppose the hon. Member imputes falsehood to the arguments.
Mr. Langdale: Of course. The hon. Member then moved that The Morning Post of the 2d March should be
372
laid on the table of the House. The word falsehood he had used to show his utter detestation of the charge of perjury brought against him and others, and he had not the slightest intention of applying it personally.
Sir E. B. Sugdenfelt bound to say a few words, in consequence of having been present when the right rev. Prelate made the observations alluded to. He could assure the hon. Member, from what he heard himself, that his impression was—that his own impression of the words was, that the expressions were used with marked and real courtesy towards the hon. Member. He must state that the hon. Gentleman had fallen—
The Speakerthought that there should be some substantive motion before the House. The hon. Member had thought it necessary to enter upon some explanation, which the House had consented to hear, but if the matter were to be prosecuted further, they ought to have some substantive motion before the House.
The Attorney-General: If it had not been for the observations which had fallen from the Chair, he would wish to have said something with respect to that part of the right rev. Prelate's speech in which he had been referred to.
Sir E. B. Sugdensaid, that he was in possession of the House, and wished to proceed.
The Speakersaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was undoubtedly in possession of the House, but that if it pleased the House to prosecute the inquiry some substantive motion should be made.
Sir E. B. Sugdensaid, that nevertheless he should withdraw all intention of saying another word on the subject then, reserving himself for another opportunity.
The Attorney-Generalbegged to be permitted to say, that the speech of his to which the right rev. Prelate, the Bishop of Exeter alluded, had been delivered upwards of twelve months ago; and that if the right rev. Gentleman had any explanation to demand or complaint to make respecting it, he should have done so at an earlier period. What the right rev. Prelate stated was to him a matter of little concern, for he felt that his honour required no vindication or defence against that right rev. Gentleman's attacks.
Mr. O'Connellwished to take notice of one statement made by the right rev. Prelate. It appeared from the paper alluded

373
to, that the right rev. Prelate had quoted four questions as having been put to him (Mr. O'Connell), and four lengthy answers attributed to him in reply, and that the right rev. Prelate stated that he had no other authority for them than that of the Earl of Winchilsea, who had quoted them on a former occasion. He did not mean any disrespect to that noble Lord in saying that this statement which he had endorsed over to the right rev. Prelate was not to be found in evidence. He would be glad to know where that noble Lord had discovered it, for it was totally without foundation.
Viscount Howick: He hoped he might be permitted to say one word. ["Hear," and "No."] He had a right to say, that in the same speech of the right rev. Prelate expressions had been attributed to him as having been used by him in that House which were totally unlike any thing he had ever heard. There was not the most remote or faint resemblance to them in any speech he had ever delivered.
The Morning Post was ordered to be laid on the table.

LAW OF PROPERTY.
Sir E. B. Sugdenbegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite a question relative to the Bills.
The Attorney-General: Is it relative to the Bishop of Exeter? [A laugh, followed by cries of "Order."]
Sir E. B. Sugdenreplied, that it related to the five bills which the hon. Gentleman had on the orders of that day, which were marked down for second reading, although they were not yet printed. He wanted to know why?
The Attorney-General said,he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had given him an opportunity of explaining. Before he asked for leave to bring in those bills they were drawn up; on obtaining leave he sent them to the printer, but from some circumstance or other, and to his very great surprise, for he had sent several times for them, they had not yet been received.
Sir E. B. Sugdensaid, it was a very inconvenient practice to have bills which were not yet printed set down for second reading. He would take that opportunity of telling the hon. Gentleman (the Attorney-General) that he would decline serving on any Committee of which he was the guardian, and of requesting the hon. and learned Gentleman, whenever he should
374
feel it his duty to address that House, or any Member of her Majesty's Government, on matters of public business, not to insult him by asking him across the table whether what he had to say related to the Bishop of Exeter or not. He desired that he would not take the liberty of mixing him (Sir E. B. Sugden) up with subjects which might press upon the hon. Gentleman's own mind, but which were totally foreign to that upon which he (Sir E. B. Sugden) rose to speak. He was referring to the property bills of the hon. Gentleman, when the hon. Gentleman asked him if his question related to the Bishop of Exeter, although the hon. Gentleman was aware it did not when he so interrogated him.
The Attorney-Generaldeclared he had not the most distant notion of what the right hon. Gentleman's question referred to at the time. He regretted exceedingly that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not consent to be a Member of the Committee; he hoped that when those bills should have received the consent of Queen, Lords, and Commons, the right hon. Gentleman would not on that account move that their operation be suspended for three months.
Subject dropped.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND).
The House went into Committee on the Poor Laws (Ireland) Bill. On Clause 47, empowering Commissioners to assist in the work of emigration, having been read,
Mr. J. Grattanrose to move its omission from the Bill. He was convinced it would injure rather than assist the operation of the Bill. Emigration ought not to be carried on, if it were advisable to carry it on, by unions, guardians, or commissioners. For his own part he was more inclined to leave the labouring population of the country where they were, and engage them in the cultivation of waste lands—a course which he was sure would do more towards the furtherance of the measure than conferring such a power as this clause contained on guardians and commissioners. It empowered them to select any number of persons for emigration they pleased, and, in addition to the poor-rates, to tax the unions for the furtherance of that object. To that power he objected. He would not agree to give to the majority of guardians a power by which they might—he did not say they would—but by which they might contrive

375
to relieve their own estates at the expense of the entire union. He had no objection to have his property taxed for the relief of casual destitution in workhouses, but he protested against this additional taxation at the discretion of the guardians in order to facilitate emigration. Let the noble Lord first bring the workhouse system into operation—let him perfect that system, and then, but not until then, let him see how far it would be advisable to carry on emigration, in conjunction, and after consulting, with the colonial Legislature. He thought the omission of this clause would tend very much to insure the success of the measure. The subject of emigration had better be altogether postponed until a general measure could be introduced with the consent of those authorities abroad, without whose assistance comprehensive beneficial results could not be expected.
Mr. Lynchsupported the clause. As a general proposition he altogether repudiated the doctrine that emigration was remedially applicable to Ireland. There was no doubt great want of employment, but was there not also an immense tract of waste land to be cultivated? The great evil was the undue competition for land, and that he contended would be materially diminished by the effect of this Bill acting as a stimulus to the landlords and furnishing, as it would, important facilities for the employment of the poor. Thus there would be no great need for emigration. Still urgent cases might occur, and with respect to such he was willing to vest in the Commissioners the powers they would exercise under this clause. At the same time he was anxious to know precisely how the expense was to be borne—whether by the unions alone or partly only by the unions, partly by the public, and partly by the landlords, whose surplus tenantry it might be necessary to remove?
Captain Jonesinquired whether the money to be raised under this clause by the boards of guardians, and which was to be applied, under the direction of the Commissioners, in conducting or assisting "the emigration of poor persons," was to be confined to particular unions or thrown into a general fund?
Viscount Morpethsaid, it would be applied to the poor resident in the particular unions; but it was perfectly discretionary with the guardians to avail themselves of the power of this clause or not, as they thought best. It was not proposed to
376
throw any special charge upon particular landlords. Treating of emigration generally, the best way of conducting it he thought would be by the unassisted efforts of private individuals, who knew what was good for their own estates, and who might safely be trusted with the clearing of them, if they thought it advantageous to do so. He was, therefore, opposed to those who would raise a general public fund for any wide and comprehensive scheme of emigration. The absence of a law of settlement must detract very much from the efficacy of this clause, and from the temptation which any particular locality might have to disembarrass itself of its surplus population. At the same time there might be a special case, such as an unusual degree of dearth or famine, a contagious disorder, or a great change in the mode of cultivation, which might lead a district or union to avail themselves of this clause. And after any general settled and consenting system had been established, tending on the whole to assimilate the burdens over the entire surface of Ireland, they might also combine to give effect to this clause by ridding themselves of a corresponding amount of their superfluous and chargeable population. The clause was merely permissive; it might do some good, and he did not see how it could produce any inconvenience.
Sir E. Sugdenthought the expression "poor of the union" as it stood in the clause extremely ambiguous, particularly as there was no law of settlement in Ireland. He very much doubted whether it would be found to work beneficially.
Mr. Lucasobserved, that objections had been taken to the clause, which had been in no wise answered by the Government. If emigrants could be sent to the Canadas for 5l. a-head, they could be brought back from thence to Ireland for the same money; and if, on arriving in Canada, they found their speculation likely to be unsuccessful, they could obtain 5l. by a month's labour. They would then come back to the same part of Ireland which they had left, and how were the guardians to get rid of those paupers a second time?
Mr. O'Connellopposed the clause, because he could not see what benefit they were likely to derive from such a system of emigration. It was calculated that the population of Ireland increased 50,000 every year; and even if they were to send out from it 50,000 emigrants annually,

377
they would only just leave the thing as it was at present, and would not relieve the country from one iota of the distress now existing. But was there any wisdom in such a plan? Had they considered what it would cost to send out 50,000 emigrants every year? It had been said, that this clause would only enable the Commissioners to send out labourers, but that was not so. But even supposing it to be so, if they persisted in sending out the labourers of Ireland, they would soon find that they were sending away from it its blood and its sinews, and were leaving the land without men to cultivate it. But did this clause enable the Commissioners to send out labourers only? Certainly not; it enabled them to send out the widow, the infirm, and the aged; and it would be easy to make them wish to leave the country by placing every kind of difficulty and hardship in the way of the relief afforded to them. The hon. and learned Member for Galway had contended that if they joined the workhouse system with the system of emigration, they would take away the competition for land now existing in Ireland? What likelihood was there of such a result being produced? According to one of the reports which had been laid on the table, the number of destitute persons in Ireland was 380,000, and of that number 365,000 were without a single acre of land. Out of this number, then, of 380,000, there were only 25,000 persons at any rate who could enter into any competition for land, the remainder did not enter into any competition for land, and therefore ought not to be described as competitors for it. To imagine that they could make the poor of Ireland rich by means of a Poor-law, and to pass this Bill as it then stood, appeared to him to be anything but wise policy. He implored the House, therefore, to get rid of this emigration system; for the power granted by this clause was a frightful power to put into the hands of any guardians of districts in Ireland, or into the hands of any single Commissioner in Dublin. It formed no part of the original plan of Poor-laws for Ireland, and was not even an amendment upon it. If they passed this clause, they must have a clause of settlement along with it. Last year the noble Lord (John Russell) had himself depicted in strong colours the difficulties which stood in the way of any system of emigra-
378
tion. Emigration had been going on for years steadily in Ireland. Had it benefited that country? Every man who knew anything of the state of Ireland knew that it had not. He concluded by repeating his declaration that he intended to vote against the clause.
Lord John Russelladmitted that, in stating his opinion of the Poor-law for Ireland introduced last year, he had not laid any great stress on the advantage which that country was likely to derive from a system of emigration. Indeed, he did not even now think that such an amount of emigration could be practically commanded as some hon. Members supposed was necessary for the regulation of the labour-market in Ireland. In defending the clause as it then stood, he did not intend to defend it on the ground that it would produce great emigration, and that that emigration would be of advantage to Ireland. He only meant to defend it on this ground, that in certain cases it might be useful, and to meet such a contingency it was fitting to give the means of assisting emigration to the board of guardians of the district, and to the commissioner combined. Indeed, he should be ready to alter the clause so as to limit the power of the commissioner to facilitate emigration to the cases of such poor persons only as were recommended by the guardians of districts, in which certain sums had been raised by the union for the express purpose of emigration. The noble Lord moved additional words to give effect to this opinion.
Sir R. Batesonopposed the clause on account of the frightful expenses by which this system of emigration would be attended, and also on account of the frightful power with which it invested the commissioner and the board of guardians.
Mr. Wyseexpressed himself strongly in favour of granting extensive encouragement to emigration. He could not see that any of the evils which some hon. Gentlemen seemed to dread were to be anticipated from such a measure. The apprehension that the vacuum caused by emigration in a particular district would be filled up by an influx of destitute persons from other parts of the country, or that the price of labour would be injuriously raised by it he regarded as groundless. He thought it would have the ultimate effect of improving and extending the cultivation of land, and that it would re-

379
lieve the country of a superabundant population, which prevented the development of its energies.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonthought the clause, as modified by the amendment of the noble Lord (J. Russell), would be most beneficial.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that as the bill stood, a premium was given to those persons who refused to act as guardians without being paid; in other words, the guardians under the bill would be all paid officers, and it was material to bear in mind, that if the bill passed as it stood, these paid guardians would have it in their power to select whom they pleased for emigration, and send them out at the expense of the union.
Mr. W. S. O'Brienobserved, that the Government had postponed the clause for the payment of the guardians with a very strong inclination, to all appearance, to alter that part of the bill agreeably to the opinions of the Irish Members.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, that when he was called upon to vote for this clause, he must declare, that he entertained very strong doubts as to the advantages to be derived from any system of emigration, and he was very doubtful whether they ought to adopt a measure of emigration at all in any bill for the relief of the poor in Ireland. He hoped the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, would consent to postpone this clause, as the bill would go to Ireland with a very great obstacle in the way of its popularity, if it should show that the House was desirous of deporting the best men in the country.
Viscount Morpethsaid, he would agree to the proposal of the noble Lord if it were not that he well knew that if the Government consented to withdraw the clause, the first thing they would hear from Ireland, would be, that they had withdrawn the only clause of the bill that was popular in that country.
After several verbal amendments had been made in the clause,
Mr. J. Grattansaid, he still retained his first opinion. He thought the total omission of the clause a matter of so much importance that he must persist in dividing the Committee upon it.
The Committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 71; Noes 26: Majority 45.
The clause as amended agreed to.
SIR E. Sugdenupon his legs, objected to
380
that part of the 49th clause which renders every married woman liable to maintain her child, and every child of her husband. It might admit of a question, whether there ought to be such a clause at all. But as the clause was introduced, it was manifestly most unjust, as far as it imposed new and fresh liabilities upon married women, without giving them any corresponding benefit or equivalent. In strict principle, he thought the whole of the clause should be rejected, but he would not divide the House with that object, although he would support any hon. Member who was so inclined. He thought it unfair, he considered it even iniquitous, to call upon a married woman, while she was married, to maintain, not only her own children, but all the children which her husband might have had by a previous marriage. If a man married a woman, he became the father of their joint children, while those children were in a state of infancy; but a woman ought not to be compelled to adopt her husband's children. She supposed, in marrying, that the husband would maintain her children and herself. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more unjust, than imposing a liability where, at the same time, they did not give a right to relief. Looking at the working of the Bill, too, the woman might be subject to a severe penalty. The husband might abscond, and then the poor wretched woman would have the whole support of the children thrown upon her. The imposing of such a liability, he thought was altogether alien to the principles of the British constitution. He should be sorry to see the Bill go to Ireland with such an unnecessarily harsh clause. There was a subsequent part of the clause upon which he should divide the House. He alluded to that part of the clause by which it was provided that every widow should be liable to maintain her child. To this he objected on the same principle that he objected to the preceding part—namely, that it created a new liability without conferring any corresponding benefit. He objected, also, to that part of the clause by which the mothers of bastard children are rendered liable to maintain them. He supposed the object was to assimilate the law of Ireland upon the subject to the law of this country. By the law of Ireland, as it at present stood, there was no obligation on the father of a bastard child to maintain it. When the clause was introduced into

381
the law of this country, where a totally different state of circumstances existed, and where such a degree of confidence was felt that intercourse was sometimes allowed under the expectation that a marriage would afterwards take place, it was found to work wonders, and to bring about a very great change in the habits of the people. That did not exist in Ireland. Why, then, he asked, was the woman now to be exclusively punished? If they were to give a premium to licentiousness on the part of the man, why should they not give the woman corresponding protection?
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that if he thought the clause would have the effect stated by his right hon. and learned Friend, he should certainly oppose it also, because, as the Bill did not entitle to relief, it ought not to impose obligations such as his right hon. and learned Friend had referred to. But his learned Friend would see that the 49th and 50th clauses, taken together, meant only that this obligation should exist for the purposes of the Bill—that is, that where the mother was actually unable to support her children, or the children of her husband by a former marriage, and that they were relieved, she should be considered as in the same situation as if she herself had sought relief, and should go into the workhouse. Now, this was only for the purposes of the Bill. The same rule would apply to the husband, but it was only for the purposes of the Bill. He would certainly recommend to his noble Friend (Lord Morpeth) to omit that part of the clause which made the wife liable to the support of the children of her husband by a former wife. With this omission, the two clauses, taken together, were, he conceived, quite reasonable for the purposes of the Act. By the next (the 50th clause) it was declared, that the relief given under the Act to a wife or child should be considered to be given to the person declared by the Act to be liable to maintain such wife or child, and the said person should thereupon be deemed chargeable to the union in which such relief should be given.
Mr. O'Connellwished, that Irish Gentlemen would understand the importance of the point which they were now discussing. The effect of the clause would be to prevent, as much as possible, the Irish labourer from coming over to England
382
and earning wages. That, he assured them, would be its practical effect. If, under this clause, a man's family were in a state of destitution, and he was unable to assist them, and if he came over to England, and his family went into the workhouse, the first deduction that would be made from his miserable wages, would be the sum expended upon his family in the workhouse when absent. Now, this might be very right, but still it was a great alteration in the present state of things as regarded the labouring population in Ireland. Under the present state of things it was certainly true, that when a poor man left his family to try and earn wages in England, his family were thrown upon the charity of the world; but then the husband and father who was absent from them stinted himself of every enjoyment; he slept in the fields or the ditches, and was happy if he could receive the shelter of a barn. He made his way back, after living most miserably; he returned without almost expending a farthing, and was then able to indulge himself with his little family for several months. By the present Bill, this was to be entirely changed, and they even held out by their law a temptation to the man not to come back. It would break what had always been the boast of the Irish peasanty—namely, the tie of affection. And this law of charity and benevolence to Ireland was to have this practical effect. He thought that this was a frightful clause, and he was sure it would not have been endured as it stood unless the Attorney-General had yielded to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
Sir E. B. Sugdensaid, it was his decided opinion that the clause, as it now stood, would make the parties liable to maintain their children, legitimate or illegitimate, and those of the wife. This was shown by the concluding words of the clause, which his hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, had read, for those words made the husband or mother of the wife or child relieved "thereupon chargeable to the union in which such relief shall be given." That might be very well if the law of settlement were allowed; but the Bill did not allow any settlement, and yet the clause made a man or woman chargeable to the union in which relief had been given to their child. This construction was further proved by the penalties enacted in the 53rd clause.
Lord John Russellsaid, it was intended to make important alterations in that clause with respect to the penalties.
Sir E. B. Sugdenwas glad to hear it, as it would improve it; but he contended that it would be a still greater improvement in the Bill to strike out the 49th and 50th clauses. They were not at all necessary to the working of the measure, and would prove injurious to it.
Mr. Woulfeadmitted, that there was no right of relief in the Bill, but relief de facto would be given, and he thought there should be a corresponding liability.
Sir E. B. Sugdenhad no objection to the liability of the father for relief given to the child, and if that were the only object of the clause he should withdraw his opposition.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman's object would be attained by the omission of the 53d clause, which the Government were prepared to allow.
Sir E. B. Sugden,under those circumstances, was not opposed to the substance of the clause.
Several amendments were made in the clause, which was, as amended, agreed to.
On clause 52,
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the only persons this clause would affect would be the thrifty, whose wages would be attachable in the hands of their employers. It would be introducing a new principle into Ireland never yet heard of, and would interfere with the diligent in favour of the unthrifty. In the bill of last year this clause was struck out. After all, too, it was not worth while for the Government to retain it. He thought it was calculated to do a great deal of mischief, and, therefore, the better way would be to leave it out of this Bill also.
Lord John Russellsaid, that last year this clause was, as he believed, not struck out, but only postponed for further consideration. He did not think that any great benefit would be derived from applying the clause to Ireland, although he was disposed to be favourable to the general principle it laid down, and therefore he was ready to postpone it for the present. He should certainly not think of pressing it, unless he found the general sense of the House was in its favour.
Clause postponed.
Clause 53, imposing penalties for desertion of families, was next proposed.
Sir E. B. Sugdenwished to call the attention of the noble Lord (J. Russell) to the wording of the first part of this clause, taken in connection with the 50th section. By that clause it was provided, that relief given to the wife or child should be considered as relief given to the husband or father. Now, the clause under discussion said, that if a person was relieved at the expense of any union, if he refused to be lodged, &c., he should be liable to be imprisoned for one calendar month. The noble Lord would see, therefore, that if a person were relieved in legal construction by relief being given to his wife or child, he would become liable to the penalties of this clause. He wanted, accordingly, to know whether it was the noble Lord's intention in every case to force a person into the workhouse, together with his wife and family. Suppose a labourer with his wife and three or four children, and one of them an incurable cripple. He did not see how, as the clause stood, the guardians could receive this child into the workhouse, without obliging the labourer also to come into the workhouse with his wife and the rest of his family.
Lord John Russellsaid, that as a general rule, it certainly was intended that parents should not obtain relief for their children without coming into the workhouse themselves, if the guardians required it, but he saw nothing in this clause which would prevent the guardians, in a case such as that mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, from exercising a discretionary power.
Mr. Lynchhoped the noble Lord would introduce a vagrancy law into Ireland, without which this Bill, which he considered as introducing a system of police, would be comparatively ineffectual.
Lord John Russellagreed with his hon. and learned Friend in thinking that there should be a law with respect to vagrancy in Ireland, and he had shown that such was his opinion by clauses which had been introduced into the present Bill; but he certainly considered that, whether such a law was passed now or at a future period, no good would result from it until the effects of the present Bill had been seen. He did not think that a vagrancy law would operate, unless the feelings of those who had to administer the law went along with it, and that was not likely to happen, until places were established where the really destitute might be provided for.
Mr. O'Connellthought there was some difficulty in saying what was the meaning of the word "abscond" in this clause. It appeared to him that it must be interpreted to mean "not being within the workhouse." Now, if this were the case, the 56th clause would operate very harshly, for if a person was suspected to have brought himself under the penalties of the 63d clause, now under consideration, any justice of the peace might issue his warrant to apprehend him and bring him before himself or any other justice of the peace, to be dealt with as directed by the Act. What he would suggest would be, to let the guardians have the power of taking in part of the family, if they thought fit, and to do away with the liability of the parent.
After a few words from Mr. J. Grattan, and Lord Clements,
Mr. O'Connellsuggested the words, "who shall have absconded out of such workhouse," which he thought, would be sufficiently specific to prevent any mistake as to the vagrants referred to. It was not perhaps generally known to hon. Gentlemen that Mr. Bolingbroke, in making an abstract of the Irish statutes, when he came to the word "vagabond," said, Vide Irish gentleman."
The clause, as amended, was agreed to. Clauses to the 59th were disposed of.
The House resumed.
The Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of RADNOR, from Carlow, for the Ballot.—By the Earl of DEVON, from the Board of Guardians of the North Devon Union,

345
for continuing the New Poor-law.—By Lord ASHBURTON, from Bristol, for Post-Office Reform.—By the Bishop of London, from Glocester, against any system of Education not conformable to the articles of the Church of England.—By Lord LYNDHURST, from Skinners and Glovers of Glasgow, against Combination.—By Lord REDESDALE, from Shafton, and Kirby Lonsdale, and Lord BROUGHAM, from Bath, Pontypool, a place in the county of Monmouth, Manchester, Basingstoke and its vicinity, from Falmouth, Carmarthen, and from a place in the North Riding of Yorkshire, for the abolition of Negro Slavery; from the Working Men's Association of Liverpool, and from the Western Division of Ladies' Shoemakers, for the mitigation of the sentence passed on the Glasgow Cotton Spinners; and from the prisoners confined for debt in the Gaol of St. Thomas the Apostle, Devon, in favour of the Bill for the abolition of Imprisonment for Debt; and from Evesham, in favour of a system of National Education.

THE SLAVE TRADE AND NAVAL OFFICERS.
Lord Broughamhaving presented several petitions for the abolition of slavery, said: It becomes now my painful duty to call your Lordships' attention to a topic intimately connected with the subject-matter of some of the petitions I have just presented, and I wish I could, by any means that appeared to me feasible, have been spared this painful necessity; because it is always painful to be obliged to charge any person filling a high situation, where equity and fairness ought to shine forth, and almost equally painful to charge others whose position is less eminent, with neglect of that duty which every man owes to his neighbour—I go no farther than that—but with respect to that duty which every man owes to his neighbour, namely, to ascertain the accuracy of the facts upon which any charge is founded before that charge be launched at the head of the individual to whom it is intended to apply. But if, in addition to a total want of the most ordinary attention for the purpose of ascertaining facts, it shall be found that these facts were not of a recent nature—that they were such as had passed before hundreds of this House—that the most universal circulation had been given to them through the medium of the newspapers, if, in addition to these ordinary means of information with respect to what passes here, which consists, first, of the presence of the Members of the other House; and, secondly, of the universal circulation given by the connivance of your Lordships to all that takes place here through the ordinary channels of information, the public newspapers—if, in addition to this, there have been very extraordinary means taken upon this important occasion with the view of preventing misconstruction—with the view
346
of avoiding misunderstanding—with the express and avowed purpose, for it was avowed expressly and distinctly at the time, that these extraordinary means were resorted to for the purpose of making it utterly impossible to misrepresent what had been said, then I think I have a right, not only to complain that the ordinary course of justice has been departed from, but that a very extraordinary course, even extraordinary in the history of injustice, has been dictated by the zeal—(I call it by no other name, for I will not imitate the example I condemn)—but I have a right, I think, to complain that a course extraordinary even in the history of injustice has been adopted towards me—that course, as I conceive, having been dictated by the over-zeal of political partisanship. But that that political partisanship should leave the floor of the other House of Parliament—that it should not merely be found with all monstrous, all crawling, all unutterable things which move upon the level of the earth's surface, but should emerge above that atmosphere and be found to taint what ought to be purer regions, I confess may well appear to be so astounding by its unexpected novelty as hardly to obtain credit when stated. I proceed to mention those facts which will enable your Lordships to tell whether I have already too highly charged the picture, or whether I may have been led away by the zeal with which I regard everything connected with this important question to misconstrue or exaggerate the accounts I have received. It is not a matter of individual concern—it is not even a matter that concerns the decorum of the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament; but it is a matter intimately connected with—twining itself, as it were, around the whole of that most important question involved in the subject of slavery and the African slave trade. For, if I had been guilty of exaggerations—as I once before demonstrated to your Lordships I had not, but was only chargeable with under statement—much more, if I had made my attack upon slave trading the vehicle of abuse unwarranted by fact, and, even if warranted by fact, the vehicle of exaggerated and exacerbated statements against the honourable and gallant men engaged in the naval service of this country—if I had done this, I should, as the advocate of the great cause of negro emancipation, as the person to whom the interests of that great

347
cause are now mainly confided, as the party in whose hands it is now very much left by the country, and I am sorry to say by the Government; and, as I hope for the present only, by a great body of both Houses of Parliament—as the advocate of that great cause, had I been guilty of misstatement or exaggeration, I should have greatly damnified and have placed in much peril the cause which I support, and in which I feel so deep and strong an interest. Therefore it is that I take the very earliest opportunity of repelling and of exposing, as I shall at once be enabled to do, the utter groundlessness of those charges which have been so thoughtlessly made. A gallant officer is reported in this day's paper—in the one at least which I have read—to have said in reference to a speech of mine, made in this House on the 20th of February last—the gallant officer is reported to have said, addressing the Chair in the other House of Parliament, and in speaking, of course, within the hearing of the Chairman, that a noble and learned person had very grossly misrepresented the conduct of the navy; and then the gallant officer is reported to have burst forth with this exclamation, "How did he dare to utter in the House of Lords such falsehoods?" That is what the gallant officer is reported to have said in so many words. I have read it this morning with my own eyes. I have represented it in a respectful note to the Speaker of the other House, who heard it. [Lord Lyndhurst: Had you any right to address the Speaker of the House of Commons?]—Have I no right to write a letter to a private gentleman? That, at least, is new in these days. Have I no right to write a letter? Had they a right, the one combining with the other, to charge me with an infamous offence? I say the one combining with the other—for he whose duty it was to stop such a charge upon the spot remained silent and quiescent. Have I, being so charged, no right to write a letter, because they belong to one House and I to another? I think, my Lords, I shall no longer hear that said either in this House or elsewhere. I wrote to the Speaker of the House of Commons—most respectfully I wrote to him—stating what it was that I understood had been uttered, namely, the words I have recited to your Lordships, and which I saw not only in the corner of the debate—not only in the columns of the newspaper which are de-
348
voted to the report of the debate, and in which I have no doubt they were set down word for word as they were uttered—but in other parts of the newspaper, where it was ostentatiously put forward that such a one had charged such a one with misrepresentation, and had employed towards him the two offensive words "dare" and "falsehood," which I have already recited to your Lordships in the passage of which I complain. Now the charge was—and upon this depends the accusation of falsehood which is brought against me—that I was said to have charged the navy with partaking of blood-money, according as blood-money is known to operate, and with having neglected and betrayed their duty as professional men, for the purpose of increasing their professional wages. What! if I never said anything of the kind? What! if all I said amounted to nothing even approaching it? What! if all I said was not only not like it—not even approaching to it—but had not one atom, one iota, one tittle of the charge which I am falsely represented has having made? What! if I said directly the reverse! What! if for the very purpose of preventing such foul misrepresentations I took the pains of stopping and twice over stating in terms that I did not accuse those hon. and gallant men of anything of the kind? What! if I said that it was the tendency alone of this head-money that I charged with being bad; stopping there, and distinctly and explicitly stating that I did not believe its evil tendency had operated upon the hon. and gallant men who were engaged to prevent the slave trade? But I do not stop here. What! if I took he pains to publish all this. What! if for the first time in my life my name is appended to that publication upon the slave trade? What! if I stated in the dedication of that publication to the Marquess Wellesley, that I then, for the first time, notwithstanding all the volumes I had written upon the subject of slavery and the slave trade, put my name to my work, and that I did so, in order the better to authenticate the words I used? What! if I did not stop there? What! if, the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty having said in the course of the debate that I had charged the officers of the navy with this offence, I immediately got up and said, "Not so; I do not charge them with it; I expressly, and in terms said, that I did not charge them, and that it was the

349
tendency only of the head-money, and not the effect of it, of which I complained as being most prejudicial to the interests of the cause I had at heart"? Perhaps those of your Lordships who have been into the country, or who have been prevented by indisposition from attending the proceedings of this House—perhaps, for instance, the noble and learned Lord (Plunket) near me, my much beloved and highly respected Friend, who has but very recently come over from the discharge of his duties at the head of the law in Ireland—perhaps he, not having been present to observe what has been passing here, may say, as he might very naturally say, "Oh! the whole matter is only of such recent occurrence that these parties, swift to condemn, but slow to inquire and unwilling to hear, have had no opportunity of reading the authenticated statement; the speech was made some time in February, and very probably it has only been published a few days, so that these persons have not had time to read it." What! if it has been published a month or more? The speech was made on the 29th of January. The whole month of February has elapsed, and I hold in my hand a copy of the speech, of which I believe, hundreds of thousands have been circulated in various forms over the whole country, and which being delivered on the 29th of January, was printed and published on the 2d of February. Then, upon the 1st of March, one calendar month afterwards, came the charge of my having said that of which I said the very reverse, and of which a month before I had taken the unusual pains of myself causing to be printed, an exact, accurate statement of the words I used. Does that printed speech contain anything offensive to the navy? I am not aware that I could speak more tenderly or more honourably of any class of men than I did in that speech of the officers of her Majesty's navy. I should have imagined that this must have been obvious to them all—to such of them at least as are by nature endowed with even the most moderate share et clear understanding—who have not a head bewildered and bepuzzled by the want of that common temper by which ordinary minds ever approach the discussion of questions of no extraordinary difficulty or complication. Except to such understandings as this it is difficult for me to conceive anything less offensive, anything less obnoxious than that which
350
I am about to read, and which was taken as the ground of the charge of which I complain:—"I will not say that he cruisers having visited and inspected her would suffer her to pass onwards. I will not impute to gallant and honourable men a breach of duty, by asserting that, knowing a ship to have a guilty purpose, and aware that they had the power of proving this, hey would voluntarily permit her to accomplish it." Is there anything in this language to justify the charge which is brought against me? Is there falsehood in this? But I proceed with the passage I have commenced:—"I will not even suggest that vessels are less closely watched m their route towards the coast than on their return from it. But I may at least affirm, without any fear of being contradicted, that the policy"—the policy—that was my argument, the tendency of the policy, not the effect of it—"that the policy which holds out a reward, not to the cruiser who stops such a ship and interrupts her on the way to the scene of her crimes, but to the cruiser who seizes her an her way back when full of slaves, gives and professes to give the cruiser an interest in letting her reach Africa, take in her cargo of slaves, and sail for America." I did not say that the officers engaged in the service yielded to the temptation thus held put to them—I merely observed that it gave them an interest in allowing the vessels employed in the slave trade to complete their cargoes before they were attacked and captured, and it was the giving of that interest that I condemned. How did I proceed?—"Moreover I may also affirm with perfect safety, that this policy is grounded upon the assumption that the cruiser will be influenced by the hope of the reward"—surely, a very rational argument—"in performing the service, else of what earthly use can it be to offer it? and, consequently, I am entitled to conclude that the offering this reward assumes"—assumes! by whom? not by me, but by those who offer the reward—"that the cruiser cares for the reward, and will let the slaver pass on unless she is laden with slaves. If this does not always happen, it is very certainly no fault of the policy which is framed upon such a preposterous principle. But I am not about to argue that any such consequences actually take place." I cannot conceive any thing more plain than that. Is there any ambiguity, any uncertainty, in the

351
terms in which that last sentence is expressed I confess it appears to me to be perfectly plain, perfectly intelligible." I am not about to argue that any such consequences actually took place. It may or may not be so in the result; but the "tendency"—your Lordships will perceive that I limited myself entirely to the "tendency," and made no reference to the "effect,"—"but the tendency of the system is plain." I then went on to speak of the analogy that in my mind existed between head-money and blood-money. The evil of blood-money is this—an evil which I particularly pointed as making it incomparably more odious—that it has a tendency to make innocent persons forfeit their lives by the act of those who want to get the blood-money. Speaking now in your Lordships' presence, who may have some recollection of what fell from me when I made the speech from which I am now quoting, it is hardly necessary for me to say, that I made no attempt whatever to attribute the desire for this odious blood-money to the officers of the British navy. Your Lordships may remember that I did the very contrary. In order to go on the outside of safety, and to prevent the possibility of any invidious remark being made upon me on the occasion, I went on to say, "That head-money produces all the effects of blood-money I certainly am not prepared to affirm; for the giving a reward to informers on capital conviction had the effect of engendering conspiracies to prosecute innocent men, as well as to prevent the guilty from being stopped in their career until their crimes had ripened into capital offences; and I have no conception that any attempt can be made to capture vessels not engaged in the trade; nor indeed could the head-money, from the nature of the thing, be obtained by any such means. I also upon that occasion declared to your Lordships the authority upon which I founded my statement, and said that it was Mr. Laird's excellent work upon Africa that had originated my statement, that had caused me to bring it before your Lordships, and which would induce me to abide steadfastly by it until I had obtained full and complete relief for Africa and the suffering negro, and an utter extinction of that execrable and now universally deprecated and condemned trade, which none but men of confused
*See Hansard, vol. xl., p. 601.
352
understanding, and perverted judgment, would seek to perpetuate in any degree of its original enormity. I am very far from holding that the men who have made these charges against me have the slightest fellow-feeling in the world with those who would for ever keep alive the African slave trade. It is for the sake of defending the commanders of her Majesty's cruisers that they have come forward upon this occasion; and for the sake of defending the Government who resisted my motion. But it does not always happen that the persons for whom a voluntary defence is made by others are in the end indebted in any very great amount of gratitude to the volunteers by whom their cause has been supported; and when the cause of these hon. and gallant men, the officers of the Queen's cruisers, has been taken up by volunteers of great judgment and remarkable for no great skill in the conduct of affairs, it may happen to them to say, "Spare us from our friends—spare us your defence—leave us rather to the mercy of a fair and candid accuser." I own if I were an officer in the navy I should not feel myself bowed down to the very earth by the depth of my gratitude towards those who had volunteered such a defence for me. I should not feel the load of gratitude insupportable; in fact, I should not much thank them for forcing their defence upon me. I should rather think that they had placed themselves upon the wrong side, and that I had a claim upon them in consequence of the defence which they had chosen so injudiciously to undertake. For they have begotten suspicions in my mind that all is not right when I see men so over-zealous for one another—when I see men lose their temper in defending themselves or their friends—when I see them so touchy that they cannot stop to inquire—so hasty that they must needs look over the facts—so vehement in urging their defence that they will not even tarry to ascertain whether they were ever attacked or not—when I see them in this mingled state of feeling, with this want of judgment, this incapacity of reasoning, this loss of memory, this almost total dimness of sight, bodily as well as mental—when I see them thus coming forward, not waiting till a charge is made, but at once entering the arena of controversy, putting forward mighty charges, and supporting them by a fury of arms and storm of blows that no

353
man may dare to encounter—when I see them carried off their legs by a too generous rivalry of over-zeal and want of judgment—over-zeal in an abundant degree, and want of judgment in an unnatural excess—when I see all this I cannot help surmising, I cannot shut my mind to the suspicion, that there is some sore place. When men wince so much—when they exhibit so many contortions and twistings at the bare idea of a charge, which charge has never been made against them—when they see phantoms of injuries, no injury having been committed upon them—when they have ghosts haunting them in their waking hours, and even in their senatorial position, where they are placed to discharge duties which some constituencies in some parts of the kingdom have been found to delegate to them from extraordinary confidence in their judgment, capacity, and skill—when I see all this I cannot help suspecting that perhaps after all there may be some ground of charge against them. To elucidate that point I shall conclude with a motion which, as I am informed, taking the best advice I could obtain upon the subject, will have the effect of proving whether the system of head-money has in fact produced the consequences which are to be apprehended from it. I am not the man to shrink or quail because hard words are applied to me—I am not the man to be put down when I have a duty to perform, because some persons, in the discharge of what, I suppose, they conceive to be their duty, foully and falsely charge me with saying that which I never uttered—I am not the man to be put down by any such management as that. Even if I find that the vehemence and rancour of the assault upon me have not been confined to the mists and exhalations which obfuscate the mind and clog the vision of ordinary men, but have reached that higher atmosphere where all should be serene—where all should be calm as Justice herself—where the equal scales of Justice should be held with an untremulous, fair, and determined hand (as in the other House there is a man appointed to hold those scales)—even if I find that higher and purer atmosphere defiled and tainted by the breath of a lower sphere, I will not be deterred. When I see the judgment so obscured—when I find the judgment so hopelessly bewildered that what passed eight-and-forty hours before has been as totally erased from the
354
troubled tablets of the brain as if it had never happened at all—when I find the scales not only tremble in the hand of him appointed to hold them, but one of them absolutely kicking the beam, and that one not the Government scale, but the scale in which the impugners of the Government happen to sit—when I find that it is no want of authority which has occasioned this silence, this non-interruption, this unobstructive mood in that high quarter—when, on the contrary, I find that if ever a functionary of that House existed who had interfered more with the usages of the House, who had put down many debating practices, who had reversed and altered the whole of the right of the people to debate upon petitions, by exercising which right I gained all the greatest battles that the people have won during the last twenty years against corruption and impolicy—when I find this, then, indeed, I am led to ask how it happened that that which took place in the debate on the Tuesday or the Monday, in which not one word was used nor one allusion made as to what had passed in another House, in which the allusions that were made were of a nature the most absolutely indifferent, amounting to nothing more than a mere technical flaw in the forms of debate—I say, when I find this, I am led to ask how it happened that that vague allusion, that that technical informality, called down an instant stoppage—produced an instant interruption from the high quarter to which I have referred; whereas, upon a subsequent occasion, no hint, no sign, not even one faint and solitary cry of "order" escaped from the same quarter, when words the most uncalled for, the most unjust, the most disorderly, the most indecorous that in the whole course of my experience I ever heard of, were uttered in the presence and in the hearing of him whose duty it is, to preserve the decorum of debate? When I find all this occurring, then truly I cannot help feeling that there is something, if not altogether wrong, at least extremely awkward in this case, and that the sooner it is set right by inquiry the better. For which purpose I am about to conclude by moving for papers for the purpose of showing whether I was not precipitate in precluding all idea of charging the officers of the navy with being influenced by headmoney—whether I did not go out of my way, not in the right direction, but in the

355
wrong, when I spoke only of the tendency, not of the effect, of head-money,—when I limited myself to a discussion of the impolicy of the system, and carefully abstained from attributing any selfish motive to those who acted under it—whether, in short, the fact may not be (the very reverse of that which I stated) that the effect as well as the tendency of this head-money has been to induce the officers of cruisers to allow the lading of slave-vessels to he completed before they commenced the work of capture. I have been in communication with a very experienced naval officer, who understands this question well, and who tells me, that the object I have in view will be obtained if I can procure from the Government—1st, the dates of all captures of slave-ships for the last ten years; 2d, extracts from the logs of the capturing ships on the days before and the day after each capture; 3d, a return of all the other ships on the coast of Africa on the same day with the British ships stationed in cruising there; and 4th, the number of ships stationed on the east coast of Africa during the last ten years, specifying the years and the names of the ships.
The Earl of Mintosaid, that feeling the grave and serious consequences which might result from discord existing between the two Houses of Parliament, he could have wished that the present discussion had not taken place. Placed, however, as he was, he trusted their Lordships would permit him to say a few words. He did not rise to defend the language of which the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down, had complained, because, in his opinion, such language towards a member of their Lordships' House, was not such as ought to have been used. At the same time, placed as he was at the head of the Admiralty, he felt it was due to those gentlemen belonging to the naval service, and who had been employed on the coast of Africa, to state, that when the noble and learned Lord made the able speech in question, he did understand the noble and learned Lord to bring a charge—not a direct charge for the language was guarded—against those officers who had been and were employed on the coast of Africa, in suppressing the trade in slaves. He admitted the noble and learned Lord had not made a direct charge against those officers; but if a charge was not
356
implied, then the noble and learned Lord's argument was no argument at all. If he had misunderstood the noble and learned Lord—if the noble and learned Lord said, that he had not intended to make any charge, then he would be bound to believe that he had attached a wrong meaning to the language the noble Lord had used. At the same time, however, he must say that his impression was, that the noble and learned Lord did object to head-money in consequence not only of the tendency which it had, but in consequence, also, of the effects which it had produced. He recollected one expression used by the noble and learned Lord which did strike him as inculpating the officers employed in the suppression of the slave trade, and which did, in his opinion, contain a grave and serious charge against those officers. The noble and learned Lord said, that while the slave ships were loading, her Majesty's cruisers, stationed on the coast to prevent the slave trade, carefully avoided going near the harbour or creek where the slavers were lying, and waiting till the cargo was got on board before attempting to make prize of the vessel, because unless the slaves were on board no head-money could be obtained. Such was his recollection of what the noble and learned Lord had said; but if the noble and learned Lord denied having used such language, then he should feel bound to acknowledge that his impression was wrong. If, however, he had stated correctly the words used by the noble and learned Lord, then he must say, that the expression which had been used, did convey a grave and serious charge against the officers of the navy, of neglect of duty. If the argument meant anything, it meant that those officers who were employed to prevent the traffic in slaves, grossly neglected that duty, and allowed that traffic to go on, to a certain extent, in order to secure some emolument in the shape of head-money. Certainly that was a charge to which no one could suppose those gallant men would patiently submit, and that such a charge was made by the noble and learned Lord was strongly impressed on his mind, more particularly as the noble and learned Lord had said, while speaking on the subject of head-money, that if no other expedient could be resorted to, the slave trade would never be put down. But let their Lordships look at the speech as printed under the authority of the noble and learned

357
Lord himself, and which the noble and learned Lord allowed contained the very language he had used. In that speech he found the following passage:—
"Let me remind you of the analogy which this head-money bears to what was, nearer home, called blood-money. That it produces all the effects of the latter I am certainly not prepared to affirm: for the giving reward to informers on capital conviction had the effect of engendering conspiracies to prosecute innocent men, as well as to prevent the guilty from being stopped in their career, until their crimes had ripened into capital offences, and I have no conception that any attempts can be made to capture vessels, not engaged in the trade, nor, indeed, could the head-money, from the nature of the thing, be obtained by any such means. But in the other part of the case the two things are precisely parallel, have the self-same tendency, and produce the same effects; for they both appeal to the same feelings and motives, putting in motion the same springs of human action. Under the old bounty system, no policeman had an interest in detecting and checking guilt until it reached a certain pitch of depravity; until the offences became capital, and their prosecutor could earn 40 l., they were not worth attending to. The cant expression, but the significant one, is well known. He (the criminal) is not yet weight enough—he does not weigh his 40 pounds '—was the saying of those who cruised for head-money at the Old Bailey. And thus, lesser crimes were connived at by some—encouraged, nurtured, fostered in their growth by others—that they might attain the maturity which the law had in its justice and wisdom, said they must reach before it should be worth any one's while to stop the course of guilt. Left to itself, wickedness could scarcely fail to shoot up and ripen. As soon as he saw that time come, the policeman pounced upon his appointed prey, made his victim pay the penalty of the crime he had suffered, if not encouraged him to commit, and himself obtained the reward provided by the state for the patrons of capital felony. Such within the tropics is the tendency, and such are the effects of the head-money system."
Now, he would ask if there was no charge conveyed in those expressions against the officers of her Majesty's navy—were they not charged with neglecting their duty in refusing to capture those slave ships until they had got their cargo of slaves on board? Such a charge the language certainly conveyed. But the noble and learned Lord went on to say:—
"The slave ship gains the African shores; she there remains, unmolested by the land authorities, and unvisited by the sea; the human cargo is prepared for her; the ties that
*Hansard. Vol. xl. 604
358
knit relatives together are forcibly severed; all the resources of force and of fraud, of sordid avarice and of savage intemperance, are exhausted to fill the human market; to prevent all this, nothing or next to nothing is attempted; the penalty has not as yet attached; the slaves are not on board; and head-money is not due; the vessel, to use the technical phrase, does not yet weigh enough; let her ride at anchor till she reach her due standard of 5l. a-slave, and then she will be pursued! Accordingly, the lading is completed, the cruiser keeps out of sight, and the pirate puts to sea. And now begin those horrors—those greater horrors—of which I am to speak, and which are the necessary consequences of the whole proceeding, considering with what kind of miscreants our cruisers have to deal."
Was there no charge then against the officers on the coast of Africa? It was possible he might be told, that he was too stupid to perceive the exact meaning of such language, that he was giving a colouring to the words of the noble and learned Lord, but he could put no construction on those expressions, except that the noble and learned Lord considered that but for the payment of head-money the officers of her Majesty's cruisers would have taken those slave vessels before they had got their cargo of slaves on board. The passages he had read were, in his opinion, calculated to wound the feelings of gallant and honourable men, and it was hardly to be supposed that they would allow such insinuations against their characters to pass without notice. He thought the noble and learned Lord had little cause to complain of overheated expressions or of warmth of feeling after the speech the noble and learned Lord had delivered—the speech which had been noticed in the other House, as that speech more than appeared to convey an insinuation that some of the officers employed on the African coast had neglected their duty for the sake of wretched gain. He was very far from saying that on the coast of Africa no officer had ever neglected his duty, but he was perfectly persuaded that if there had been mismanagement, that mismanagement had nothing to do with the question of head-money. He could further say—and he felt bound to state the fact—that ever since he had been at the head of the Admiralty he had been struck with the zeal and fidelity with which the officers on the coast of Africa, who were employed in a most fatiguing and disgusting service, discharged their duties; and while he had held his present office

359
not one single complaint had been made against any one officer employed on that coast.
Lord Broughamsaid, that if he were not aware that the noble Lord was perfectly incapable of anything of the kind he should have remarked that there were the strongest symptoms of a combination against him between those who had made the charge elsewhere and those who defended it there, because both parties fell into precisely the same mistake. The noble Lord had talked of his Parliamentary experience; it was not at any rate as great as his (Lord Brougham's). But the noble Lord upon that experience seemed to have come to the maxim. "Never mind a disclaimer." Now he contended that a disclaimer was always of the greatest possible weight and importance, because it showed precisely the object and intention of the person who employed it, and it was that which any fair and candid listener would take into account in weighing other parts of the speech, and would construe fairly and give full force to, when he came to any more strong, unguarded, and incautious expressions. When he had said, not in one, but in three or four sentences, that he did not charge the gallant officers in that service with any habitual violation of their duty—when afterwards he spoke of the tendency of the system—not of blood-money, which had been abolished, but of head-money—and then reasserted his disclaimers, could any man of candour or honesty say, that that disclaimer was not to be taken into account when he came to see what in some cases was the effect produced? The tendency of the system was general. It might be supposed that the effect would be general also. Had he ever said anything like that? No such thing. What he had said, was, that it might produce the effect. The tendency of the system was to produce the effect in every one case, and to prevent any one slave ship ever being taken until she "weighed enough," and the captor would be entitled to head-money. That was its tendency. No thanks to the system that any one ship was ever taken without the slaves being aboard. He had gone out of his way twice over—anxiously, elaborately, and even prolixly—to guard himself against being supposed to say that that tendency always produced the bad effect. But he had said, and he did say, that every now and then it might produce, and he entertained no manner of doubt
360
whatever that it did sometimes produce, the effect. Were men men? Were sailors no longer fallible creatures? Were they so far above the rest of the world that the worst possible motives being applied to them must be supposed incapable of producing in any single instance the worst possible effects? Why, the system itself was grounded upon the supposition that they would do more with head-money than without it. Did the navy mean to set itself up as a body exempt from all taint, and to sail on and run the rest of the world down with their infallibility flying at the mast head? He would venture to say that he entertained no such notion of their infallibility, and he did believe, that from time to time a few occasional instances did occur in which the evil effects of the system were seen, in violation of his duty by the officer employed in this service. Nothing, indeed, short of an absolute miracle could warrant the supposition that, the tendency being as he had stated, the effects were never produced. But this was no charge against the whole navy—this was no accusation of a general, sweeping, indiscriminate nature. This was no charge which ought to arouse the indignation of the whole service, from the most exalted officer who ever had a naval epaulette on his shoulder down to the youngest midshipman. It was a charge which any man might have made against the body to which he belonged without taking fire at it. It was merely saying, that the tendency of the system to evil might have produced evil in all cases; but, thanks to the conduct of their honourable and gallant officers, to whom the charge had been committed, it more frequently failed to produce than produced that evil. Now, if the noble Earl could not perceive the difference between a disclaimer which a speaker went out of his way to make and an observation made in the excitement of the moment, in the course of along speech—if, in fact, for it came to that, he could not see the difference between the rule and the exception; or if, having seen it, he still persisted that there were just grounds for the indignation of officers of the navy, although, as the noble Lord said, perhaps the expression "uttering a daring falsehood," as applied to a Member of that House, might be too violent, he displayed as little acuteness in his arguments and in the conduct of his case as those whose counsel he had made himself had exhibited in com-

361
mitting the offence. And let him remind their Lordships that "falsehood" meant not only that which was unfounded in fact, but that he had stated that which was not true, knowing it, whilst he stated it, to be untrue. That was the meaning of falsehood—and with that he was charged. He had, however, given his authority—he had mentioned the names of Captain Laird and Mr. Oldfield, and stated, that with one he was acquainted, but not with the other. He had pointed to their works. He rested his statement on their authority. He wished only to say one single word as to the time that had elapsed. Was it won derful—the noble Lord had asked—was it wonderful that those connected with the service should have felt great irritation under a charge of that nature, and should have rushed to the defence of the service, and even used somewhat strong and violent expressions? Not at all. But it was wonderful that, after having read that accusation on the 30th of January, and having then felt no irritation, and having lingered through the unruffled calm of one month, they should never have taken fire from that time until the 1st of March. Did the slow matches of the Admiralty burn so very tardily? Had they lighted the fusees? He had thought that stopwatches would have been necessary in order to count the seconds before it would be safe for any one to have ventured near the Admiralty after the fatal 29th of January. But, no; no such thing. The fusees had been lighted and had burnt for the whole of February. The light was applied to the train on the 29th of January; a month elapsed, and it only went off now, on the 1st of March and made that sort of phizzing, offensive explosion—not very clear—not very distinct, nor withal very terrific. Yes, the pot—he employed the technical term—had made that offensive explosion five weeks after the train had been lighted, and on the 1st of March resembling that month too by coming in like a lion, and resembling the other quadruped in its departure. He would see what was the result of his motion, and then he should be enabled to say whether he would withdraw his disclaimer or not. He had been guilty of no over-statements, but, on the contrary, had understated everything.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that as the noble and learned Lord had introduced the present subject, he felt himself compelled to address a few observations to
362
their Lordships respecting it. If, as the noble and learned Lord himself stated, the demonstration of extreme susceptibility, and the display of much vehemence, were proofs of something wrong, he could not help thinking that the noble and learned Lord had made himself liable to some suspicion of being in error on the present occasion. It was not his intention to enter at all into the discussion of the subject; but he could not help declaring that he partook in the opinion expressed by his noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty, that it was not surprising, considering, the speech which the noble and learned Lord had delivered, and the expressions which he had used, that the gallant officers of the naval service, who were animated by nice and quick feelings of honour, should think that their profession had been subjected to grave imputations. He knew very well that the noble and learned Lord, as well as the authority to which the noble and learned Lord referred, disclaimed casting any imputations on the naval profession; and he (Lord Melbourne) was willing to give to both full credit for that disclaimer. At the same time he must say, that disclaimer was a little inconsistent with the expressions they had used, and with the arguments they had employed; and that it left their arguments on the subject without much force. The noble and learned Lord had, on the present occasion, not only remarked on what had taken place in the other House of Parliament, but had animadverted on the whole conduct of business in that place, and had made some observations on the conduct of a Gentleman who filled the highest situation in that assembly, The noble and learned Lord had said, that prejudice and violence did not alone mantle on the floor of that House, but that they ascended to higher regions, and corrupted the purity and tarnished the impartiality which ought to prevail there. The noble and learned Lord expressed his surprise that the discussion to which he had alluded should have been allowed to pass off without one observation being made on the impropriety of alluding to that which had passed in another House of Parliament. But the noble and learned Lord seemed to forget that he had, by the printed pamphlet containing his speech, himself furnished full opportunity to any Member of the House of Commons of entering into the consideration of his statements without any

363
breach of privilege. He had not read the report of the proceedings in the other House to which the noble and learned Lord had alluded; but he had such confidence in the ability, justice, and impartiality of the individual who presided over that assembly, that he felt perfectly certain and assured that there could be no ground nor reason for the imputations cast on his conduct. He felt perfectly certain that the deliberations to which the noble and learned Lord had alluded must have been conducted according to the rules and forms of Parliament, and that the right hon. Gentleman who occupied the chair held the scales on that occasion with perfect exactness and just equipoise.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he wished to state what he believed to be a fact. In many instances the officers of her Majesty's navy, having captured a vessel, and the question having been carried into Court had been compelled to pay very considerable costs in consequence of failing to produce the requisite evidence to establish the illegality of the traffic carried on by the captured vessel. It was important that they should have some information of that description before them, and although he did not know exactly the form in which the motion should be framed, he would on Monday move for some account of that description of expenses.
The Earl of Mintosaid, that the information was important, and there could be no objection to producing it.
The returns moved for by Lord Brougham were then ordered.