Sitting of 12 March 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Prison Discipline (Scotland); Bankrupts' Estates (Scotland); and Bankruptcy (Scotland).—Read a second time:—Dissenters Declaration.

FISHGUARD HARBOUR.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonmoved the second reading of the Fishguard Harbour Bill. As it was quite a new proceeding for a person in his situation to bring in a private Bill at the expense of the Government, he would state the grounds on which he, acting on behalf of the trade of the country, and on behalf of the Government, had introduced this measure. With the circumstances relating to Fishguard Harbour the House was already acquainted. A Bill for the improvement of the harbour of Fishguard had passed the Legislature last Session. Late in the autumn his attention had been called to its provisions by the shipowners of the country, and certainly a more extraordinary Bill he had never read. There was a clause in the Bill by which the limits of the harbour were pointed out, and those limits were described to be certain points on the coast of Wales on the one hand, and the Irish coast, extending to the port of Wexford on the other. By one of the schedules annexed to the Act it was provided that every foreign vessel passing within those limits should pay a toll of 3d. per ton, and every British vessel 2d.; so that it was clear, that every vessel passing up the Irish Channel would be subject to this tax. There was another schedule to the Act, which subjected all goods, of whatever description, landed within the limits of the harbour, to the payment of a certain harbour duty; and he was informed that under the operation of this part of the Act all goods which were landed on any part of the Welsh coast, or on any part of the Irish coast within the limits assigned to the harbour by the Act, even within the port of Wexford itself, would have to pay a duty. He must remark, that no blame could attach to the Government for permitting such a Bill as this to pass, as Government had no opportunity of examining all the details of private Bills. In justice, however, to the promoters of that measure, he must repeat their statement, that early in the Session a copy of the Bill was forwarded to the Admiralty, another to the Custom-house, and another to the Trinity-house. They stated also that the Admiralty had made an amendment in one of the clauses, and the Trinity-house two amendments in the Bill. But he would observe that the Admiralty made amendments in bills solely with a reference to their own jurisdiction, the Trinity-house solely with reference to lights, and the Custom-house to the question of duties. No copy of the Bill had, however, been
760
sent to the department over which he presided, although that department was most affected by its operation, and although, if the attention of that department had been particularly called to the Bill, it would at once have taken it into consideration. But even if a copy of the Bill had been sent to his department, it would not alter the case, and he was surprised that the parties, knowing as they must have known the objections entertained by the House against a passing-toll—knowing also that he had declared that the Government would never sanction such a charge—he was surprised, he repeated, that the Gentlemen who had the conduct of the Bill had not thought it right to call his attention or the attention of the Government to it. He considered their conduct the more strange, as two of the directors of the company were Members of Parliament. He owned, therefore, that he did not think that the case was one in which the House was called upon to exercise any peculiar forbearance, and he had, in consequence, brought in the present Bill to repeal the clause relating to these tolls simply and entirely. If the parties chose to prosecute their Bill, and make it appear to a Committee that they ought to have a right to levy some toll, let them do so, but he thought that in the meanwhile it was only right to save the trade of the country from the heaven burden to which it would be subjected if the clause to which he objected were allowed to remain law. One word as to the allegation that the company having incurred a great expenditure, ought to be protected. The Bill received the Royal assent on the 15th of July last, and on the 7th of September following an advertisement appeared, stating that the arrangements of the company under the Act of Parliament were now completed, and calling on the shareholders for the first instalment of 1l. per share. This warranted him in saying that the company could not have incurred any great expense. Upon the grounds he had stated, therefore, he now moved the second reading of the Fishguard Harbour Bill.
Sir R. Philippsconsidered that it would not be fair to the parties who had embarked their capital in this undertaking to repeal this clause, and he therefore moved that the Bill be read that day six months.
Sir J. Owen, in seconding the amendment, observed, that it would be a most extraordinary course to pass an Act one Session and repeal it the next. A considerable sum of money, notwithstanding

761
what the right hon. Gentleman had said, had been invested by the Company on the faith of this Act of Parliament, and it would be most unjust to take away their property by means of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman had now introduced. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, that parties interested in private bills were bound to submit a copy to the consideration of his department. He, on the contrary, would say, that right hon. Gentlemen who held office, and as he presumed received compensation for their labours in the public service ought to look into those Bills themselves. In former times and under former Governments, a law officer of the Crown, who was called the Attorney-General's devil, inspected all Bills that passed through the House. [Mr. P. Thomson: All public Bills—not private Bills.] Well, but surely this had the effect of a public Bill, and therefore ought to have been examined by the Government. He would ask the House, admitting that a toll was levied, whether there were no advantages gained in return? Was not this a great harbour of refuge, and ought not the shipping of the country to pay for protection afforded to them at a great outlay? He need not press this point further, and he should only say, that he cordially supported the amendment.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that if the Bill which passed last Session were now under discussion, he should be as much opposed to a passing-toll as any Member in the House. He thought, however, that the course which had been taken was somewhat unprecedented. For the first time in his life he found himself opposed to a Cabinet Minister, backed by the whole weight and influence of the Government, fighting on a private Bill. The Bill which received the sanction of the Legislature last Session was one which passed through all the ordinary forms by which their proceedings were guarded, and yet, after creating a corporate body, and endowing them with all the rights and privileges of a corporation, the House was now called upon to rescind the contract to which they had set their seal, and to revoke the authority which had been delegated to them by Parliament. Every proper notice had been given by the parties to the public departments, and, independent of the alterations made by the Admiralty and the Trinity House, it was evident that the
762
Treasury had made an admendment in the Bill, as there was a clause by which a power was given to the Commissioners of the Treasury to reduce the passing-toll with reference to foreign ships, and an agent of the Commissioners was authorised to see that the work was properly executed. He was informed also that the Bill was sent also to the Board of Trade, and that a copy of the Bill was now in that House, with annotations marked upon it which had been made by the Board of Trade. The Bill was sent up to the other House in the month of May; and having been carefully examined there, it received several amendments, which rendered it necessary that it should be brought down to the House of Commons again. It was accordingly brought down in July. The Bill, he would observe, had, during the course of last Session, received the sanction and support of the Irish Members of that House, Fishguard being only at a distance of forty-five miles from the Irish coast, and in the preamble of the Bill it was declared to be a "harbour of great importance, and well adapted for a harbour of refuge." The importance of the undertaking being thus established, he called on the House to consider the gross injustice of this procedure. The directors had a local interest in the progress of the work—an interest much greater than the amount of their instalments; and a majority of these directors were empowered by law to compel all the remaining subscribers to pay up the amount of their subscriptions, the generality of those subscribers being, he would observe, the great capitalists of London. And, although this compulsory power on the part of the directors remain untouched, the House was proceeding, by Act of Parliament, to withdraw from the subscribers all possible chance of remuneration. A more gross act of injustice he had never heard of. He was authorised to state, on the part of a number of subscribers, that if the Bill were withdrawn for the present, they were quite ready to enter into an amicable consideration of this question—to modify, if so required, to the utmost extent that was reasonable, the Bill of last Session, to retrench from it all that was extravagant in its provisions, and subject the whole matter to a sufficient control on the part of Government. The only thing which

763
the subscribers desired was, that they might be secured a fair and moderate amount of remuneration for the amount of capital employed by them in this undertaking. For his part, he would say, that he had never heard of anything more unjust than the absolute and unconditional repeal of the passing-toll clause, by which the subscribers would be deprived of all chance of remuneration.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonhoped the House would not adopt the recommendation of the right hon. Baronet. He had said that great injustice would be done to those capitalists who had embarked their money in this undertaking. In looking into the Bill he found that a second call could not be made in less than six months after the preceding one; consequently, had all the company obeyed the call, but 1l. per share could have been subscribed, and the probability was, after the notice given by the President of the Board of Trade, that the powers given to this corporation by the Act of last Session were inexpedient and unjust, that these parties would not have proceeded to expend the money already paid. The Bill had passed the House through inadvertence; because, after two Bills of a similar nature relating to Scarborough and Bridlington had been rejected, could it be supposed that if the attention of the House had been directed to this Bill it would have been passed? It had been stated by the hon. Member for Carnarvon that Fishguard was a harbour. That he denied, for it was only a roadstead; and if the House permitted this Bill to remain on the statute-book it would form a precedent for every insignificant fishing town in the principality of Wales establishing a harbour, and on this principle, that the parties should not be accountable as to the mode in which the monies collected should be expended. There was no provision for the reduction of tolls. The question for the consideration of the House was whether the parties had made out a case to justify the House in allowing them to tax every ship passing up St. George's Channel, and to declare that the port of Wexford formed part and parcel of Fishguard harbour He admitted that the precedent might be inconvenient, but it was quite impossible for them to allow such an Act to remain on the statute book. As an individual representing a large shipping community he felt himself much
764
indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for coming forward with the present measure.
Sir G. Stricklandobserved, that the principle was against passing-tolls, and therefore, he would support the Bill. He contended that the right hon. Gentleman was fully justified in bringing it forward, as the Bill was not a private one, but one of a public nature, which materially affected the interests of a large class of her Majesty's subjects.
Mr. H. Hindeobserved, that the only argument of the right hon. Baronet (the Member for Pembroke) against the Bill was, that it was unprecedented. Now he (Mr. Hinde) would instance the case of the Glasgow Lottery Bill, by which extravagant powers were conferred upon a company, and which was subsequently repealed. That would show, that the present course was not without precedent.
Mr. A. Chapmanconsidered the Act that had passed during the last session so atrocious that the House ought not to hesitate a moment to pass the right hon. Gentleman's Bill for the repeal of the passing-toll clause.
Mr. O'Connellcould assure the right hon. Baronet opposite that he had been misled with respect to the statement made at a meeting of Irish Members relative to the Bill. There had been a meeting with respect to a railroad to join the harbour, at which there had been mention made of the harbour, but if they had known that tolls were to be inflicted upon ships they would have risen in a moment, and thrown overboard railroad, harbour, and all.
Viscount Sandonwould give the Bill his warmest support. It was impossible that Parliament knowingly could give its sanction to a Bill imposing such a heavy tax upon the shipping interests without there being the slightest prospect of any benefit to be derived by that interest from the harbour in question. He thought, however, that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the amount of money which had been expended upon the faith of the clause in question, in order to that being repaid out of the public funds.
Sir F. Trenchcordially supported the Bill. He considered the former Bill, which this was intended to repeal, as one of the most unjust and extravagant jobs which had ever come before the House, and he took blame to himself for not being aware of the unjust provisions of the Bill

765
when it was before the House, and called hon. Members' attention to it.
Lord G. Somersetwished to know from the right hon. Gentleman something more of the real merits of the case. He should like to know whether the Government would give its sanction to a case of compensation to those parties being brought before the House, because they had advanced sums of money on the faith of that Act of Parliament being passed? Upon the answer which he might receive would depend his vote, because he thought justice ought to be done to those parties.
Mr. P. Thomsondid not think, that the parties to the Bill had done their duty when they neglected to send a copy of the Bill to the Board of Trade. He was willing, however, to admit, that there appeared to be some degree of hardship in the case, and if there was any question of compensation, that might be discussed in the Committee, but he thought it would be very difficult to make out a case which would warrant the House to grant money.
The House divided on the original Motion—Ayes 181: Noes 20; Majority 161.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, Major

Campbell, Sir J.

Alsager, Captain

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Castlereagh, Visct.

Archbold, R.

Cayley, E. S.

Bagge, W.

Chapman, A.

Baines, E.

Clay, W.

Ball, N.

Collins, W.

Bannerman, A.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Baring, hon. F.

Courtenay, P.

Barnard, E. G.

Crawford, W.

Barry, G. S.

Dalmeny, Lord

Bateson, Sir R.

Denistoun, W. J.

Bell, M.

Divett, E.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Bethell, R.

Duff, J.

Bewes, T.

Duke, Sir J.

Blackburne, I.

Dunbar, G.

Blennerhassett, A.

Duncombe, T.

Blunt, Sir C.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Bradshaw, J.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Broadley, H.

Ebrington, Viscount

Brocklehurst, J.

Ellice, E.

Brodie, W. B.

Euston, Earl of

Brotherton, J.

Evans, G.

Browne, R. D.

Evans, W.

Brownrigg, S.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Burr, H.

Fielden, J.

Burroughes, H. N.

Fellowes, E.

Busfield, W.

Fergusson, Sir R.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Byng, G.

Ferguson, R.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Filmer, Sir E.

Callaghan, D.

Finch, F.

766

Fitzalan, Lord

Parrott, J.

Fleetwood, P. H.

Patten, J. W.

Fort, J.

Pease, J.

French, F.

Philpotts, I.

Freshfield, J. W.

Pigot, R.

Gordon, R.

Planta, right hon. J.

Gore, O. W.

Price, Sir R.

Greene, T.

Price, R.

Grey, Sir C. E.

Redington, T. N.

Grimsditch, T.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Halford, H.

Rich, H.

Hastie, A.

Roche, E. B.

Hayes, Sir E.

Rolleston, L.

Hilsborough, Earl of

Salwey, Colonel

Hinde, J. H.

Sandon, Viscount

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Sanford, E. A.

Hodges, T. L.

Scholefield, J.

Hodgson, F.

Seale, Colonel

Holmes, hon. W. A. C.

Seymour, Lord

Horsman, E.

Sharpe, General

Houldsworth, T.

Slaney, R. A.

Howick, Viscount

Smith, hon. R.

Hughes, W. B.

Smyth, Sir. G. H.

Hume, J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Irton, S.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Irving, J.

Speirs, A.

James, W.

Spencer, hon. F.

James, Sir W. C.

Standish, C.

Jones, T.

Stanley, E. J.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Stanley, E.

Lambton, H.

Stanley, Lord

Langdale, hon. C.

Stanley, W. O.

Langton, W. G.

Stuart, R.

Leader, J. T.

Stewart, J.

Lefevre, C. S.

Strickland, Sir G.

Lennox, Lord G.

Sturt, H. C.

Lennox, Lord A.

Style, Sir C.

Lister, E. C.

Tancred, H. W.

Lushington, C.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Lynch, A. H.

Thornley, T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Trench, Sir F.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Wakley, T.

Marsland, T.

Wallace, R.

Marton, G.

Wemyss, J. E.

Master, T. W. C.

White, A.

Maunsell, T. P.

White, S.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Whitmore, T. C.

Miles, W.

Wilberforce, W.

Miles, P. W. S.

Wilbraham, G.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Wilshere, W.

Nicholl, J.

Winnington, T. E.

O'Brien, C.

Winnington, H. J.

O'Connell, D.

Wood, G. W.

O'Connell, M. J.

Wrightson, W, B.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Yates, J. A.

Ord, W.

Palmer, G.

TELLERS.

Parker, J.

Thompson, Alderman

Parker, R. T.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

List of the NOES.

Calcraft, J. H.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Chandos, Marquess

Holmes, W.

Darby, G.

Knatchbull, hn. Sir E.

Dowdeswell, W.

Litton, E.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Mackenzie, T.

Forbes, W.

Mahon, Vicount

767

Maxwell, H.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Pakington, J. S.

Williams, W.

Powell, Colonel

Round, C. G.

TELLERS.

Round, J.

Jones, J.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Philips, Sir R.

EDINBURGH POST-OFFICE—MR. PRIMROSE.
Lord John Russellmoved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Hume, in bringing forward the motion of which he had given notice relative to the appointment of Mr. Primrose as an amendment to the motion of the noble Lord, said, it appeared that a portion of the revenues of the Post-Office were applied to the payment of its officers, and that the House knew nothing of the appointments and salaries of these persons. The House would be surprised to hear that there was deducted from the revenue not less than 7,000,000 l. a-year, of which no account was rendered to the House, and which, in fact, never was paid into the Exchequer. He need scarcely observe, that as well with respect to the Post-Office as to other departments of the public service, it was most important that all persons engaged in them should entertain a well-founded expectation of rising according to merit and seniority—that all public officers should be secured the advantages naturally and regularly arising from promotion within that establishment, as an encouragement to attention, and a recompense for faithful services. From the returns that morning placed in the hands of Members, it appeared that the appointment of Mr. Primrose took place under the authority of the Postmaster-General. Now, he conceived, that this course was exceedingly objectionable, and a gross violation of the regulations instituted by the Postmaster-General for the management of that establishment. According to the return to which he had just been calling the attention of the House, it appeared that the first clerk in the Edinburgh Post-office had been twenty-six years in the public service, and the second clerk had been fifteen years and a half—the third clerk had a salary of only 70 l. a-year. Mr. Primrose had been appointed to the office of cashier, with a salary of 400 l. a-year, without his having ever served a year in the establishment. He found that his clerk, Mr. George Young, who had served seven years, had only 120 l.per annum;
768
and Mr. Mason, the accountant, after thirty years' service, had only 200 l. per annum. Certain regulations had been adopted by the Government in 1831 for the improvement of this department, and the report on the subject was signed by his Grace the Duke of Richmond, then Postmaster-General. That report established what was thought to be a fixed scale of promotion as to the officers of the establishment. But it stated, that the principal feature in the new establishment was the appointment of an office for the receipt of the public money, which had become necessary in consequence of the abolition of the office of Deputy Postmaster-General, who was also cashier; the salary was to be 400 l. a-year, and he was to be allowed an assistant, with a salary sufficient to secure the services of a respectable person. It was due to his Grace the Duke of Richmond to say, that he steadily adhered to the regulations which he had laid down. In another part of his evidence, taken on the first of March, the noble Duke stated, that he had made arrangements by which the office of deputy in the country, when it became vacant, should not be filled out of the office; but that those persons only should be appointed to it who had been a long time in the department, or who were entitled to compensation. The object of this arrangement was to insure, not only economy in the public expenditure, but increased efficiency in the department. The noble Duke stated in his evidence, and no doubt very truly, that he had frequently refused friends and relatives of his own, who made application to him for situations as they became vacant in the Post-office, always strictly adhering to the rule which he had laid down, that no one should be introduced to the service of the Post-Office, otherwise than in the junior departments. On these grounds, then, he did not scruple to arraign the conduct of the present Postmaster-General, in reference to the appointment of Mr. Primrose, as a gross violation of the rules laid down for his guidance by his predecessor. With respect to the office of accountant-general, it appeared that the person who held that office, Mr. Young, had been compelled to retire from ill health, and that his nephew, Mr. G. Young, had performed the entire duty of the office for three years. He contended, that to appoint a person like Mr. Primrose, who had never been in the

769
Post-office, or in fact in any public office over the head of the individual who had acted as deputy for such a length of time was a violation of the regulations of the Post-office, and rendered the situation of clerk uncertain as to promotion, which according to the Duke of Richmond', regulations, would have gone according to seniority. He objected to the conduct of Lord Lichfield, because it was extremely improper in him to appoint so near a relative, and the second son of at Earl, to so paltry a situation, where he superseded so many clerks, who had for many years served their country with honour and fidelity. He objected likewise to the appointment, because in no previous instance had a stranger been appointed to the office of cashier. The Duke of Richmond, when he recommended, that the salary should be fixed at a high amount, did by no means intend that it should form a source of patronage for the benefit of the junior members of noble families, but that it should be looked up to by the humble officer, as a reward for long and laborious services. There were no less than seven or eight meritorious public servants in the department, any one of whom it would have been but justice to have appointed to this office, in preference to Mr. Primrose. Upon the grounds he had stated, on the evidence of the Duke of Richmond, and the circumstances connected with the Edinburgh Post-office, he called upon the House to affirm the resolution with which he should conclude—"That the appointment of the hon. Mr. Primrose to the office of Cashier and Receiver-General of the Post-Office Revenues in Scotland, being a person no previously employed in the Post-Office department, is contrary to the regulations of the Post-Office, as established by the Duke of Richmond, the Postmaster-General, in 1831, injurious to the public service, and prejudicial to the interests o the established clerks and officers in the Post-Office department."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrejoiced, that this matter had at length been brought forward, and in such a manner by the hon. Gentleman who had borne such favourable testimony to the admirable administration of the Post-Office under his noble Friend, the Duke of Richmond. The hon. Gentleman was entirely under misconception with respect to the main facts on which he rested his argument. It
770
was admitted the office to which Mr. Primrose had been appointed was no sinecure. Security was required to the extent of 5,000 l., and the cashier was obliged to be ill attendance from ten o'clock until three or four. The office was created under a letter written by the Duke of Richmond to the Treasury in 1831, on the abolition of another office—the Deputy Postmaster-General of Scotland—almost a sinecure of 800 l. a-year. The office of cashier could not be dispensed with; it was then made efficient for the public service. There was the authority of the Duke of Richmond, therefore, both for the creation of the office itself and for the amount of salary paid. The hon. Gentleman had raised no objection to the appointment of Mr. Primrose on the score of propriety or competency, but rested his case solely on the Duke of Richmond's regulation, which had been violated, and on the prejudice which he thought would result to the interests of the established clerks and officers in the Post-office. But no direct regulation had ever been entered into by the Duke of Richmond on this subject his intentions, however, were to be collected from the evidence which the hon. Gentleman had read, and more especially from the acts of the noble Duke himself. But the evidence cited by the hon. Member was wholly inapplicable to the present case; indeed, the conduct of the noble Duke in an analogous appointment distinctly showed, that evidence would not bear out the argument of his hon. Friend. While the Duke of Richmond was at the Post-office there were several vacancies in the offices to which the evidence referred, and to which deserving clerks were to be appointed. The offices of Bath, Bristol, Norwich, Warrington, and Nottingham, were filled up in that way. Even in the town of Brighton, when a vacancy had occurred, and when it might have been expected he would have followed another line, so far from making an appointment in favour of his own friends, the noble Duke appointed on the principle laid down in his evidence. No man ever showed more self-denial in the exercise of his patronage than the Duke of Richmond; his sole object, in all cases, was to select individuals from the department who were most deserving of reward and best calculated for the duty. But that rule did not apply to this appointment; and he would show by the Duke of Richmond's own

771
conduct in an analogous case that the rule was not intended to apply. There were three situations in the United Kingdom—in England the Receiver-General; in Ireland the Receiver-General; and in Scotland the Cashier; the holders of which were to act as a check on the department. In 1831 a vacancy occurred in the office of Receiver-General in Ireland, and if the principle contained in the evidence of the noble Duke had applied to such a case, it must have been filled up by the clerk next in seniority. But it was not filled up from the department, because it was necessary to have a check officer; and upon the suggestion of Lord Althorp, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and at the recommendation of the Irish Government of Lord Anglesey, Mr. Worthington, a complete stranger to the office, was appointed. Such was the construction which the noble Duke himself had put upon his evidence—strictly adhering to his regulation in all cases to which it was applicable, but departing from it where check officers were to be appointed. In like manner, when the office of Receiver-General in England had become vacant, it was not filled up by promotion from the Post-office, but by the appointment of a Mr. Young, wholly unconnected with the Post-office. In the present instance Lord Lichfield, finding the office had been declined by Mr. Mason, the next in succession, had appointed Mr. Primrose. Of the other officers in the establishment one had been so long in the public office that he was applying for a superannuation, and another received 500 l. a-year, to whom, therefore, it would have been preposterous to have offered such an appointment. It was not in all cases that the Government attended to the principle of promotion; sometimes it was obliged to adopt the principle of selection. He showed that this had been the case by the selection of Colonel Stuart in the War-office, of Mr. Backhouse in the Foreign-office, of Mr. Stephen in the Colonial-offices, and of other gentlemen in the Treasury and in the Excise. In all these departments, the officers, who had to exercise a check over the accounts, were not taken from the ordinary clerks belonging to the offices, but were selected from persons unconnected with them, distinguished for their talent, integrity, and high character. The present arrangement was not only economical, but also the most convenient for the public
772
service, and that it was therefore impossible he thought for the House to take the step recommended by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He likewise hoped that he had satisfied the hon. Member that his noble Friend, Lord Lichfield, had not grasped, as he was pleased to call it, at this piece of patronage. With respect to different systems of conveying remittances, all he could say was, that the subject had undergone inquiry, and the result was, that Lord Lichfield found any alteration would cost more than the present system, and, besides that, no other plan would be so convenient or practicable. On the whole, he trusted that the House would go with him in thinking that there were some offices of which the possession should not be obtained by seniority; for if all offices were to be so obtained, the Crown would be deprived of the opportunity of disposing of its patronage for the public advantage.
Mr. Wallacedissented from almost all that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and could not assent to much of what his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, had stated. He must say, he thought the office in question had not been properly bestowed. At the time the Duke of Richmond gave the evidence alluded to, he had but recently entered office, and, therefore, could not have a sufficient knowledge of the business of the department over which he presided. He, therefore, laid very little stress on the testimony which the noble Duke gave. It could not he denied that the office of Postmaster General was a job, and for his own part he did not hesitate to say, that this appointment of cashier was a still greater job. If such an office ought to exist, were there not plenty of men in the department not only fully equal to the performance of the duty, but as well deserving of the situation as Mr. Primrose. It was, he thought, clear, that the Duke of Richmond meant to act on the principle of promoting well deserving officers to the vacancies as they occurred in the department, and any one who read his evidence attentively could arrive at no other conclusion. There was at present an accountant in the Post-office in Scotland. That was a check officer, and therefore if the appointment were to be made at all he was the party to whom it should have been given. He asserted that if the

773
Postmaster-General had discharged his duty properly he would have looked through the department generally, whether in England, Ireland, or Scotland, to see if he could not find some fit and proper person for the office, rather than nominate a stranger to it. With respect to what the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said as to the economy of remitting money under the present system, what was it that the right hon. Gentleman wished the House to believe? Why, neither more nor less than that it was cheaper to forward remittances by a circuitous than a direct route. Both the Excise and the Customs forwarded their remittances direct to London, and for his part he could see no good reason why their example should not be followed in the Post-office. When the office of cashier was first created, the Duke of Richmond had but just been inducted into office. It had been said, that these appointments were never made without consultation with the Treasury; but if that were so, how did it happen that neither the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor any other Minister connected with the Treasury was acquainted with this appointment? Mr. Young had filled the office at a salary of 400 l. and the party who had done the duty since his illness received only 120 l.; and yet, when the country were crying aloud for a reduced rate of postage, an increase in the expenditure of 400 l. was made. Now was this commonly fair? This was an appointment which was to continue for life, and the gentleman who had been appointed was at present only twenty-four years of age. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in case in the course of a few years this office should be found to be of no use, the individual holding it would on the office being abolished have a compensation allowance? He had been informed that this office had been filled by deputy for a considerable time, with a view to keep the appointment open for this individual, and, notwithstanding all the reliance that had been placed on the authority of the Duke of Richmond, even when that noble Duke was in office he appointed his own brother (Lord Sussex Lennox) to be Postmaster-general of Jamaica. He would support the motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, in reply to the question of the hon. Mem-
774
ber for Greenock, that if the office was abolished, this gentleman would not be entitled to compensation. He would not be entitled to a retiring allowance until he had been for at least ten years in the service.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that if the hon. Member for Kilkenny divided the House, he should feel bound to support his motion. The hon. Member had said, that he would prefer having the management of the Post-office placed in Commission, but to that he (Colonel Sibthorp) was opposed, because he agreed in the opinion that a Commission would only open the door to an increase of jobbing. The right hon. Gentleman who had addressed the House on the part of the Government had given no satisfactory explanation. Their whole system was one of jobbing, and they applied the patronage of the Crown with a view to the increase of their own power. The clerkship of the Ordnance had been kept open, waiting for the highest bidder; waiting for whoever would give the most service in return. The whole system was one which any man ought to be ashamed to defend. He hoped the hon. Member would take the sense of the House upon the present motion.
Colonel Ansonwas afraid that those who brought forward this motion were as much influenced by personal as by political feelings. The hon. Member for Kilkenny was guilty of many mistakes with respect to this appointment. He was quite mistaken in stating the place to be a sinecure; but though the hon. Member in one part of his speech did state it to be a sinecure, in another, he gave a description of the duties to be performed. The hon. Member for Greenock had made a statement, to which he was surprised how he could have given credit, namely, that this situation had been filled by a deputy to keep it open for its present occupant. This was a statement too ridiculous to merit reflection and he was surprised how any one could be imposed on by it. However, he could say, that it was totally unfounded. Though this situation was described as of no importance, such was by no means the fact, and he would direct the attention of the House upon that point to what was stated in the report of the Commissioners of revenue inquiry, and which had already been referred to. The Duke of Richmond thought the situation so important

775
that in 1834 he separated the duties, and made this a distinct office. He did not deny but that a junior officer in a public department might naturally look forward to promotion to higher offices, but it could not be disputed but that circumstances might often arise which would make it more beneficial to the service that this rule should not be adhered to. He claimed for the head of every department the right of appointing those individuals whom he thought to be most fit and best able to perform its duties. There were receivers-general appointed in England and in Ireland, and if either of those offices became vacant, the Postmaster-General would not be consulted as to the filling them up; for these offices would be filled up by the Government without the interference of the Postmaster-General. He thought that Lord Lichfield was perfectly justified in the appointment he had made. He had hitherto spoken of the principle of the appointment; he would have spoken of the individual appointed. But, with respect to this appointment, before it was made, Lord Lichfield offered the situation to Mr. Mole and to Mr. Mason, of the General Post-office. Mr. Mole would not accept it because he was in the receipt of 500 l. salary, and because it was necessary that he should give security, to the amount of 5,000 l. Mr. Mason refused it because he enjoyed a salary of 300 l., and he did not think it worth while to go to the trouble of getting security to the amount required. There were only two others who had applied for the situation—one a postmaster, who certainly possessed considerable claims, and the other a junior clerk, who had been only appointed a year before, and whose ambition suggested to him that if he could get the appointment he might ultimately become one of the Commissioners for the management of the Post-office itself. Undoubtedly he thought that this was a situation which should be filled by a person for whose integrity the public had sufficient guarantee, and who was of some rank in life, and on whom dependence could be placed. He was surprised at the personal objection made to Mr. Primrose. He was a young man who had been bred up to the law, and who was likely to have a sufficient knowledge of business to enable him to fill the situation with advantage. In his mind, if anything could be said with respect to the payment
776
of the situation, it was rather underpaid than overpaid. But if a different course had been pursued, and Mr. Mole or Mr. Mason appointed, there would still have been objections: they would hear it said that appointing this individual was keeping up the old official system, and that instead of promoting these old officials fresh matter ought to be infused. He thought neither with respect to the principle nor the individual was the appointment objectionable.
Sir J. Grahamhad come down to the House with no determination to take part in the discussion; but he could not agree with the hon. Member who had just sat down in his censure of the hon. Member for Kilkenny for having brought forward his motion. The hon. Member for Stafford had said, that personal feeling was mixed up with this question. If it was his misfortune to be opposed to this appointment he supposed he should be accused of personal malignity. The noble Lord, the Postmaster-General, was an old friend of his, with whom be was intimately acquainted, and the noble Lord the father of the gentleman appointed to the situation in question was also a friend of his; but, notwithstanding, if a sense of duty obliged him to condemn the appointment, he would not shrink from doing so. He had come down to the House doubtful as to the question, thinking that there was something that required to be cleared up, and having listened to the discussion he found it his duty not to concur in the motion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, for he could not honestly affirm its statements. The resolution stated that the appointment had been made contrary to the regulations of the public service. Now he knew no such regulations which could have effect unless they received the sanction of the Crown. New appointments had been alluded to as having been made by his noble Friend, the Duke of Richmond. The first appointment was that of Receiver-general in Ireland, and the next that of Postmaster-general in Jamaica. Now, with respect to the first appointment, when a vacancy occurred the right to fill the vacancy was generally exercised by the Irish Government. With respect to the Post-office of Jamaica, the situation of Postmaster-General having become vacant, it was offered by the Duke of Richmond to four or five individuals, but those individuals

777
not being able to procure the necessary security of 10,000 l., the situation was given, with the consent of the Treasury, to the brother of the noble Duke, Lord Sussex Lennox, on his finding the necessary security. He was not about to pronounce any encomium on the Duke of Richmond, but he believed it would be admitted on all hands that his noble Friend had discharged the duties of his high office with fidelity, zeal, and honour, and with the utmost regard to the interests of the public service. With respect to the appointment in question he did not think it came within the rule laid down by the Duke of Richmond. Lord Althorp had said, that the first measure of the Duke of Richmond's was, when country post offices of sufficient value became vacant they should be given to retired officers of the Post-office, in lieu of superannuation allowances. However, that limitation was confined to country post offices. Motions, like the present, calculated to wound personal feeling, were not the best means of bringing under the notice of the house of Commons any violation of the proper dispensation of the patronage of the Crown. He felt, that the natural tendency of growing power was to augment itself wherever an opportunity offered. Let the question be brought forward in a general manner. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted somewhat boldly in referring to cases of a similar nature. If he mistook not, he believed it to be a fact that Mr. Hay had been compelled to retire from the Colonial-office upon a compensation allowance, in order to make way for Mr. Stephen, and that a vacancy was created at the Board of Trade to which Mr. Le Marchant was appointed. He thought the hon. Member for Kilkenny was usefully employed in applying his attention to subjects of this nature. And if, instead of attempting high flights upon questions of colonial policy, he would be content to skim along the mud of official proceedings he would, in calling the attention to such subjects, be usefully employed. Let the hon. Member for Kilkenny give the House an opportunity to ascertain how far her Majesty's Government had carried into effect the promise of Lord Althorp that the reign of patronage was at an end. If the hon. Member afforded that opportunity he trusted he would be able to show that there never was a Government in England
778
which exercised the patronage of the Crown with a more direct and exclusive view to the augmentation of their own political power than the right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Mr. F. Baring: The right hon. Baronet had dealt so fairly with the general question that it was not his intention to trouble the House, but the right hon. Baronet could not sit down without an attack on those valued friends of his of whom he had spoken so kindly. To the attack which the right hon. Baronet had threatened he could only say, that whenever he brought the question before the House he would be ready to meet him, and to rest the defence of the Government either on their own conduct or on a comparison with the conduct of other Governments, whichever way the right hon. Baronet chose to take it. He hoped, however, the right hon. Baronet would be more accurate in his facts than he was with respect to the cases the right hon. Baronet had alluded to. With respect to Mr. Hay, that case had already been discussed in the House, and the right hon. Baronet appeared to forget that the superannuation granted was in the nature of a pension, granted by the Government which had preceded the Ministers in office. He thought the right hon. Baronet had been long enough in office to know, that a gentleman of the name of Lack had, at the termination of fifty years' service, applied for the retired allowance, and that Mr. Le Marchant had been appointed to succeed him.
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, that as he was responsible for the appointment alluded to, he begged leave to explain how it was that Mr. Le Marchant came to the Board of Trade. Mr. Stephens had received a salary of 500 l. a year as counsel to the Board; and when Mr. Lack, after fifty years' service, applied for superannuation, it occurred to him (Mr. Thomson) that the salary received by Mr. Stephens might be saved by appointing a member of the legal profession Under-Secretary to the Board. It was for this reason that Mr. Le Marchant was appointed.
Mr. Hume, in reply, begged to disclaim any motives of a personal nature, but he should certainly divide the House on his motion.
The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 202; Noes 29: Majority 173.

List of the AYES.

Acheson, Viscount

Filmer, Sir E.

Acland, T. D.

Finch, F.

Adam, Admiral

Fitzsimon, N.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Fort, J.

Archbold, R.

Freshfield, J. W.

Bailey, J., jun.

Gibson, T.

Baines, E.

Gordon, R.

Ball, N.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Baring, F. T.

Grattan, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Grattan, H.

Barron, H. W.

Grey, Sir C. E.

Barry, G. S.

Grey, Sir G.

Beamish, F. B.

Hall, B.

Bellew, R. M.

Hawkins, J. H.

Benett, J.

Hayter, W. G.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Bentinck, Lord W.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Bernal, R.

Hodges, T. L.

Bewes, T.

Hoskins, K.

Blair, J.

Houldsworth, T.

Blennerhassett, A.

Houstoun, G.

Blewitt, R. J.

Howard, F. J.

Bolling, W.

Howard, P. H.

Briscoe, J. I.

Howick, Viscount

Broadwood, H.

Hughes, W. B.

Brocklehurst, J.

Hurt, F.

Brotherton, J.

Hutton, R.

Brownrigg, S.

James, W.

Bryan, G.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Buller, C.

Johnstone, H.

Buller, E.

Jones, I.

Burroughes, H. N.

Kemble, H.

Busfield, W.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Kirk, P.

Byng, G.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Byng, right hon. G. S.

Lambton, H.

Callaghan, D.

Langdale, hon. C.

Campbell, Sir J.

Lefevre, C. S.

Canning, rt. hon. Sir S.

Lennox, Lord A.

Carnac, Sir J. R.

Leveson, Lord

Cavendish, hon. C.

Loch, J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Lockhart, A. M.

Chapman, A.

Logan, H.

Chute, W. L. W.

Lushington, Dr.

Collier, J.

Macnamara, Major

Conolly, E.

Marshall, W.

Courtenay, P.

Maule, hon. F.

Craig, W. G.

Melgund, Viscount

Curry, W.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

De Horsey, S. H.

Morpeth, Viscount

Divett, E.

Morris, D.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Duckworth, S.

Nagle, Sir R.

Duff, J.

Nicholl, J.

Duncombe, T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Dundas, C. W. D.

O'Connell, M.

Dundas, F.

O'Conor Don

Dunlop, J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Eliot, Hon. J.

Paget, Lord A.

Evans, W.

Pakington, J. S.

Feilden, W.

Palmerston, Viscount

Fellowes, E.

Parker, J.

Fenton, J.

Parker, R. T.

Ferguson, R.

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.

Parrott, J. J.

780

Pease, J.

Speirs, A.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Stanley, Lord

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Stanley, W. O.

Philips, Sir R.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Philips, M.

Stuart, Lord J.

Philips, G. R.

Stuart, V.

Pinney, W.

Strickland, Sir G.

Plumptre, J. P.

Strutt, E.

Poulter, J. S.

Style, Sir C.

Power, J.

Surrey, Earl of

Power, J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Price, Sir R.

Talbot, J. H.

Protheroe, E.

Thomson, rt. hon. C. P.

Pusey, P.

Tollemache, F. J.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Rich, H.

Verney, Sir H.

Richards, R.

Vivian, Major C.

Roche, W.

Vivian, J. H.

Roche, D.

Vivian, J. E.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Vivian, rt. hon. Sir H.

Rolleston, L.

Walker, R.

Round, C. G.

Westenra, hon. J. C.

Rundle, J.

White, A.

Russell, Lord J.

White, S.

Salwey, Colonel

Wilbraham, G.

Sanford, E. A.

Williams, W. A.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Wilshere, W.

Seymour, Lord

Winnington, T. E.

Sharpe, General

Wood, C.

Sheil, R. L.

Wood, G. W.

Shelburne, Earl of

Wood, T.

Sheppard, T.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Shirley, E. J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Yates, J.

Smith, J. A.

TELLERS.

Smith, R. V.

Steuart, R.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, Major

Hotham, Lord

Bagge, W.

Knightley, Sir C.

Blackstone, W. S.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Marsland, H.

Chandos, Marquess of

Maunsell, T. P.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Round, J.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Dick, Q.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Duncombe, hon. A.

Stanley, E.

Fielden, J.

Wakley, T.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Warburton, H.

Grimsditch, T.

White, L

Grote, G.

Williams, W.

Hale, R. B.

TELLERS.

Hinde, J. H.

Hume, J.

Hodgson, R.

Wallace, R.

POLICIES OF ASSURANCE.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the chair,
Colonel Sibthorprose to move as an amendment for the reduction of the duty on Policies of Assurance. He hoped that he would not be opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the miserable pretext that the finances of the country would not

781
bear any diminution of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman should have been the person to make this motion, but he (Colonel Sibthorp) was sorry to say, that Government had, on all occasions, shown a disposition to resist it. He was happy to say, that this was so little of a party question that he could confidently look for the support of Gentlemen opposite, as even the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, and the right hon. the Secretary for the Board of Trade, had presented petitions for the remission of the tax. Government had remitted a great many taxes not near so oppressive as the one now under discussion. On looking over the paper he found that the duty on rhubarb, on human hair, on anchovies, and French wines, on balsam of copaiba, and jalap had been reduced, although these were all articles of luxury, and deserved to be taxed. He also found a reduction in the duty on playing cards. To be sure these might be an article of necessity to many hon. Members, but while these taxes on mere luxuries were remitted by wholesale the tax on Policies of Assurance, one which affected a very large portion of the community, remained as high as at any period during the war. He thought it absurd that, while the premium on fire assurance was only 1s. 6d. per cent. the duty should be 3s.—a duty which deterred many, in spite of the frequent lamentable accidents, from insuring. The effect of the present high rate of duty was to transfer a great deal of the business to foreign offices—indeed he had heard a report, for the accuracy of which be could not vouch, that previous to the late fire in the Temple, the law gentlemen residing there had met for the purpose of considering whether it would be advisable to insure that building in a French-office. [The Attorney-General: No, no.] The report might be incorrect, but a great many buildings were insured in foreign offices; this would be prevented by a reduction of the duty, which reduction would not ultimately prove any loss to the revenue. There was a strong feeling amongst the public on the subject, and it was high time that the matter should be taken into consideration. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving as a resolution, that it is the opinion of the House that the duty now chargeable on all insurances against fire at the rate of 3s. per cent. on each policy, shall cease, and shall henceforth be at the
782
rate of 1s. 6d. in lieu thereof on all such policies, being a reduction of one half of the former amount.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not complain of the hon. and gallant Colonel's motion, nor of the manner in which it had been brought forward, but the hon. and gallant Colonel had himself anticipated the answer which he felt bound to give to the motion. He could not be expected to defend this tax or any other tax as being other than evils, although necessary evils. Undoubtedly with respect to the charge upon insurances, whether marine, fire, or life insurances, it was one which pressed heavily upon persons in all stations of life, but he was not quite sure that he entirely concurred with the hon. and gallant Colonel in thinking that the charge upon fire insurances was entitled to the very first consideration. He would state one single fact, which he hoped would be sufficient to induce the House to suspend its decision on this subject. The financial year was not yet at an end, and he had had no opportunity of laying before the House the condition of the finances of the country. In January last, however, a statement was published in the Gazette of the condition the finances were in at the last period of striking a balance. According to the balance-sheet published in January it appeared that, so far from having a surplus to dispose of, the country was in a state of deficiency. There was a deficiency of 655,000 l. on the balance of the year. He could assure the gallant Colonel that if he chose to raise the question on a fitting occasion, he would show to the gallant Colonel and the country, speaking of mercantile men and men conversant with the working of the crisis like that from which we had just escaped, that no man would be bold enough to say, that any financial measure that had been done, or that had been omitted to be done, would have prevented that commercial crisis which, taking its rise in America, and acting on this country, had reacted on the general trade, and consequently on the revenues of this country. The hon. and gallant Colonel had asked him to try the proposed reduction as an experiment. He did not think, that he would be justified in trying an experiment, the result of which was very doubtful, at a time, when in point of fact, there was no surplus revenue to give away. If he had a surplus revenue he should be prepared to meet the hon.

783
and gallant Colonel on this subject, but he must decline doing so unless the gallant Colonel accompanied his proposition with the information that he was prepared to substitute some other tax for the one he proposed to repeal. He did not think that the House or the country would say, that they were acting as reasonable or honest men if they parted with a considerable amount of revenue when there was a deficiency of income. He must also remind the House that this was an increasing and not a diminishing tax. For the three years preceding the present, the amount had been for the first 809,000 l., for the second 844,000 l. and for the year before the present 872,000 l. It had, therefore, in a period of three years, increased by 63,000 l. Under these circumstances he hoped the House would not entertain the proposition of the hon. and gallant Colonel, and would not take this opportunity of diminishing a tax which stood pledged for the maintenance of the public credit, and which was necessary in order to enable the Ministers to carry on the Government of the country.
Sir George Sinclairentreated his hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw his motion, and not take the sense of the House; because, if he did so, after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should feel himself under the disagreeable necessity of voting against the motion.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had asked him how he would supply the supposed deficiency that would arise if this reduction were effected. In answer to the challenge, he begged to inform the right hon. Gentleman that he hoped shortly to submit to the House his motion for the reduction of official salaries; and he hoped further, that the saving thus effected, would supply the deficiency that would be caused if the present proposition were agreed to. He had discharged his duty, and he was determined to take the sense of the House.
Sir E. Knatchbullwas one of those who thought very highly of the merits of the motion of the hon. and gallant Colonel; but he hoped that the hon. and gallant Colonel would not press it to a division, the only effect of which, in the present state of the House, would be to damage the question in the eyes of the country. While he was on his legs, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Chan-
784
cellor of the Exchequer, when he intended to bring forward his financial statement? He was desirous of having a distinct answer, because in the last Session the right hon. Gentleman had been repeatedly pressed on this subject, and was very unwilling to give any answer. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that when the proper time came he would give ample and satisfactory reasons for the delay that had occurred. He (Sir E. Knatchbull) was present when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement, but he had vainly sought for the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman promised to give for the delay that had taken place.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould confine himself to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, and would give it a distinct reply. The financial year would conclude on the 5th of April, and as soon as the year's accounts were made up, and put into the hands of Ministers, so as to make his statement intelligible, and this in all probability would be in the course of the month of April, he hoped to be prepared to make his financial statement.
Mr. Humesaid, that it was impossible to inquire into the subject before the House without being satisfied that many properties were uninsured in consequence of the high rate of duty. He was satisfied that if a reduction were made the revenue would not suffer, and millions would be covered with insurances which were now lost. Feeling this, he was anxious that this question should be fairly discussed, and not brought forward incidentally. Examples of former reductions might be brought forward to show that taxation had been reduced with great benefit to the people at large, and without injury to the revenue. He hoped the hon. and gallant Colonel would not press the matter to a division now, but when the proper time came to discuss this question, he would vote with the hon. and gallant Colonel, and support him by all the means in his power.
Lord Mahonsaid, that under different circumstances, and at another period, he would have been happy to vote for the motion of the hon. and gallant Colonel, but if now pressed to a division he must vote against it.
The House divided on the original motion—Ayes 95; Noes 20: Majority 75.

List of the AYES.

Acheson, Viscount

Marshall, W.

Acland, T. D.

Masters, T. W. C.

Baring, F. T.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Barry, G. S.

Miles, P. W. S.

Beamish, F. B.

Morris, D.

Benett, J.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Berkeley, hon. H.

O'Brien, W. S.

Bernal, R.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Blunt, Sir C.

Palmer, C. F.

Briscoe, J. I.

Palmerston, Viscount

Bryan, G.

Parker, J.

Buller, E.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Busfield, W.

Parrott, J.

Campbell, Sir H.

Pease, J.

Campbell, Sir J.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Philips, G. R.

Childers, J. W.

Poulter, J. S.

Chute, W. L. W.

Protheroe, E.

Clay, W.

Pusey, P.

Conolly, E.

Rice, rt. hn. T. S.

Craig, W. G.

Rich, H.

Curry, W.

Roche, D.

Darby, G.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Divett, E.

Rushout, G.

Duff, J.

Russell, Lord John

Dunlop, J.

Salwey, Col.

Easthope, J.

Sharpe, General

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Fergusson, rt. hon. C.

Stanley, E. J.

Finch, F.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

French, F.

Strutt, E.

Grattan, J.

Style, Sir C.

Guest, J. J.

Thornley, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hodges, T. L.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hodgson, R.

Verney, Sir H.

Howard, P. H.

Vivian, Major C.

Howick, Viscount

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.

Hughes, W. B.

White, L.

Hurt, F.

White, S.

Hutton, R.

Williams, W. A.

Johnstone, H.

Winnington, T. E.

Kemble, H.

Wood, C.

Langdale, hon. C.

Wood, T.

Lennox, Lord G.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Lockhart, A. M.

Wyse, T.

Mackenzie, T.

TELLERS.

Macleod, R.

Maule, hon. F.

Mahon, Viscount

Grey, Sir G.

List of the NOES.

Baring, H. B.

Parker, R. T.

Brotherton, J.

Perceval, Colonel

Collier, J.

Round, J.

Ellis, J.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Fielden, J.

Walker, R.

Gibson, T.

Warburton, H.

Hume, J.

Williams, W.

Jones, J.

Wood, G. W.

Kirk, P.

Logan, H.

TELLERS.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Marsland, H.

Forester, hon. G.

The House resolved itself into Committee of Supply.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
Viscount Howicksaid, that in rising to bring forward the army estimates for the current year, he thought he should best consult the convenience of the Committee by adverting as briefly as the case would admit of, to those points in which they differed from those of last year. He would first call the attention of the Committee to the vote respecting the number of men which it was proposed to grant. The Committee would perceive in this vote an apparent increase of 8,000 men, but he need not inform those Gentlemen who had paid attention to this subject that this increase was only apparent and not real, the actual increase being much less than the figures implied. It had been the practice for some years past to keep up all the regiments in the estimates to the full extent of their establishments, though in actual practice they kept a certain number of men short. For the last two or three years this actual reduction had been made to the extent of eight men in each company of infantry, and five men in each troop of cavalry. It was not proposed that the whole of these reductions should for the present be supplied; all that had hitherto been directed was, that the number of the cavalry should be completed, which would cause an actual increase of 580 men as compared with the estimates of last year; and that all the infantry regiments likewise which furnished the military force in the North American provinces, or which were ordered out on that station, should be recruited up to the full complement of their respective establishments. In other words they had deducted a smaller number of non-effective men this year than on previous occasions; so that whereas the deductions last year were equivalent to a diminution of expenditure to the extent of 181,000 l., at the present year they were only to the extent of 110,000 l., thereby giving an actual increase of 71,000 l. There was also an increase of rather more than 9,000 l. on account of officers who had been sent out to Canada on the first breaking out of the revolt, in order to assist the volunteer corps of those provinces. These additions had in part been met in the present estimates by a saving in respect to 2,500 l. on account of the staff corps, which had been transferred from the army to the ordnance estimates, in accordance with an Act of Parliament passed last year.

787
The result of this deduction was, that the net regimental charges of the present year showed an increased expenditure of 77,322 l. over that of last year. Of this sum 48,000 l. was on account of provisions, forage, &c. This was only the third year in which this charge had been included in the army estimates; they were formerly voted in what was termed the army extra-ordinaries, but in 1835 an arrangement was made by which these charges should be included in the regular estimates of the army. The expenses of the staff would likewise incur an increase, notwithstanding the apparent diminution by reason of the transfer of 2,500 l. from the army to the ordnance estimates. This increase in the expenditure of the staff was caused in a great measure by the increased demands of our colonial service, particularly Canada, where two new major-generals had been added, and in New South Wales, where a major-general had been appointed, in order to relieve the governor from his military duties, which, in connexion with his civil functions, were found to be too onerous a charge in that important and extensive colony. On the other hand, there was a diminution in the yeomanry corps to the extent of 25,127 l. The civil department and the military asylum were subject to no change. The total increase in the estimates for the effective service, after deducting an increased charge of 5,500 l. defrayed by the East India Company, was 144,996 l., which sum, however, was further reduced by an increase of 31,364 l. of appropriations in aid—being an actual increase to be voted of 113,632 l. There would be, however, a reduction in the estimates for the non-effective service, of 10,000 l. of the army, pay of general officers, 20,000 l. of half-pay and military allowance, 15,000 l. on account of pensioners of Chelsea and Kilmainham, and other items, amounting in the whole to 65,599 l, which would leave a total increase of amount to be provided on account of these estimates, as compared with those of last year, of 48,833 l. There was also the supplemental estimate voted for some years for auxiliary forces at the Cape of Good Hope for the repression of the Caffres, which was this year reduced by 30,000 l., being only 10,000 l.; and he had every reason to hope that by next year this estimate might altogether be included in the regular amount. This reduction of 30,000 l. however, again re-
788
duced the increase on these estimates to 18,000 l. only. At the same time, however, whilst he stated these facts, he felt it to be his duty to caution the House that although it had been found possible by the present arrangement to send a very considerable force to North America without interfering with the regulations relative to the reliefs of forces on foreign stations, yet, if this increased force had to be kept up for any lengthened period, this could not be accomplished without a very much larger increase in the military establishments of the country. As the case stood at present, he believed, that the existing force was perfectly adequate to the necessities of the public service; and he hoped before long to be able again to bring clown the number of troops in the Canadas. If, however, he should be disappointed in this expectation, there would he no course left to him but to appeal to the liberality of the House for an increased vote in order to afford those reliefs to the troops on foreign stations which they were so fairly entitled to expect. It was proper that he should state, also, that in these estimates no allowance had been made for the (he feared it would be found) large increase which had been incurred in the expenses of the service in Canada in putting down the revolt in that province. Although the Government had as yet received no data as to these expenses, or any calculations of what the circumstances required, he had no doubt that, from the number of volunteers who were taken into pay on that occasion, a very considerable further demand would be required. Whenever the necessary information on this subject was received from the colonial authorities, he should be prepared to lay a supplemental vote before the House, as had been the case in respect to auxiliary troops at the Cape of Good Hope. Having stated the e few particulars, the noble Lord concluded by stating that he should not trouble the House with further observations, but move the first resolution for raising 89,305 men for the services of her Majesty's land forces.
Mr. Humehad expected, after what had been stated on a former occasion by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, that these estimates would have exhibited a very considerable reduction from those of last year. The noble Lord last year stated that the state of Ireland was such that he expected that

789
two or three regiments might be recalled without any inconvenience or danger to the public. If such had been the case, what had been done with these regiments? where were they gone? It was quite evident that there was no other part of the world to which they could have gone but to Canada; and yet the noble Lord, the Secretary at War had stated the particulars of the number of troops which he proposed sending thither. This increase of troops was made by the Government with the greatest alacrity, although they proclaimed that the insurrection of the Canadas was of such a very trifling nature that, at the time they were sending over resolutions enough to drive the people to madness, there was no occasion to accompany them with a single additional troop. If that was the case at the outbreak of the revolt, what was the case now? The provinces were reported to be perfectly quiet. Then where was now the occasion for a reinforcement of troops? The present vote was very similar to that of last year, but the House would recollect, that, at the time, he warned the noble Lord that the amount was much heavier than was necessary; and he still thought that the noble Lord had not made out his case for the amount of the estimate of last year, much less for the increase which he now proposed. He lamented to see that the Government were every year increasing the army of the country. We had 20,000 men more than when the Duke of Wellington was in power. He attempted last year to obtain a reduction of 3,000 men, but the House, which always liked to encourage Ministers in any proposition of extravagance, was against him; and he really believed that if the Government were to propose an increase of 150,000 men, it would be granted them. On the present occasion, however, he should certainly propose a reduction of 10,000 men, which if the Government were consistent and correct in all they had said about the peaceful situation of Ireland, could easily be taken from that country. He admitted, that if, by any cause, a great number of workmen were thrown out of employment in this country, there might be some danger of disturbance; but if the noble Lord were to look at the causes which were stated year after year as the grounds for demanding former estimates, he would find, that not one of them existed at the present moment. Our navy was the largest ever maintained, and our military
790
forces were also increased. When there was nothing of disturbance or confusion either at home or abroad, upon what ground was this increase asked? He would recommend the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, to consult the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who, in his evidence before the Finance Committee in 1817, recommended, that large corps should be appointed, consisting of 900 men. By such a change the noble Lord urged, that there would be a large saving as to the staff, and that the same force could be sustained fo 200,000 l. which it formerly took 300,000 l. to maintain. Why, then, did not the noble Lord, the Secretary of War, now propose the reduction of twelve regiments, keeping up, if he thought fit, the same number of men, but effecting a reduction in the staff? No man could say that there was not a larger proportion of officers to men in our service than in any other. He trusted, that the Commission which had been appointed would prove, that it was impossible to do justice without reviewing the whole establishment, and apply to every regiment an uniform rule. If it were not for the expense of the Guards, he should have no objection to allow the aristocracy to use this corps as a means of obtaining a station, the chief use of which appeared to be for the purposes of ornament and amusement; but it was, in his opinion, extremely hard that a body unaccustomed to the toils of war should be favoured to an extent far beyond those regiments which served in all our colonies. If they looked to Austria, they would find, that the Guards there took their turn on active service. Being persuaded that the army expenses could only be reduced by cutting down the number of men, and reducing the officers and staff, it only remained for him to inquire upon what pretence such a large military force was kept up in England and Ireland? He left the colonies out of the question, though he did not believe that in those where any thing like good government prevailed, there was any necessity for keeping up the large force which was asked. If they meant to keep the colonies as conquered provinces, let them say so; but if they intended to secure the allegiance of the people by their affections, then he was convinced that a very small force would be sufficient to prevent hostile aggressions on their territory, because the people of those colonies were willing and

791
able to keep the peace, provided they were (as they had a right to be) treated in the same manner as the inhabitants of this country. Troops should be no longer placed in these colonies to overawe the people, and to prevent those reforms and improvements which they demanded. When the people were pressed down by heavy taxes of the most galling character, it was incumbent on those who wished to lighten their burden to effect a reduction in the outlay of our present establishments, particularly when they recollected that, in addition to our large military force, there were 34,000 men required for the navy, and between 8,000 and 9,000 more for the artillery. Then again there was a force which partook of a military character in Ireland, where 16,000 policemen, rank and file, were stationed. Could they, then, tell him that the country was at peace, or that the people were satisfied, when such a formidable military array was deemed essential to the preservation of tranquillity? Up to the French war in 1792 there were never more than 8,000 or 9,000 men required in Ireland. It appeared to him that their present establishment argued a distrust of the people of Ireland, or a disbelief that peace and contentment existed in that country. He should propose that 10,000 men should be taken from the number which was proposed. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that 79,305 men be the number for the ensuing year.
Captain Woodmaintained that the Sovereign must be surrounded by some troops; and it was far better to have a corps of guards, than to make a selection from regiments, which must lead to favouritism. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had asked, where were troops necessary? He should answer by telling him that if 2,000 men had been stationed in Canada at the proper time, we should not now be under the necessity of sending out 10,000 men.
Lord John Russellsaid, that with regard to the re-inforcement which it was proposed to send to Canada, he did not wish to revive the debates which had already taken place in connection with that subject. He did not hear in the course of those debates any objection strongly urged to the proposition for sending out a considerable force to Canada. Indeed, that re olution stood on such obvious grounds of policy, that he did not think it necessary to refer to it at any greater length. The hon. Member for
792
Kilkenny had said, that he (Lord John Russell) had last year stated, that two regiments of infantry and one of cavalry might be safely removed from Ireland. The hon. Member's allegation was quite correct, and he believed, that the removal of troops from Ireland would be found to be far greater than he had anticipated. He thought if he were to say, that there were 5,000 men less in Ireland than were hitherto stationed there he should be understating the reality. He would only say on this point, that if there had unfortunately prevailed in that country such disaffection as to call for an increase rather than a diminution of men, the vote which his noble Friend would have had to propose would be much larger than that now submitted. The hon. Gentleman had asked where were troops required? Why there were frequently demands for troops in various parts of the country; and when, last year, troops were required in Scotland, he did not think it proper to take troops from the north of England for the purpose of putting down the disturbance in the former country, but considered it right to supply them from other stations. The hon. Gentleman had asserted that they had gone on increasing the army from year to year, and that the present establishment was larger by 20,000 men than when the Duke of Wellington was in office. This was a representation at which he should not have been much surprised if it had been made on some vague rumours out of doors, but coming from an hon. Gentleman who continually attended to the estimates, and made them his peculiar study, it did seem to him to be a singular assertion. The fact was, that the year the Duke of Wellington quitted office, a considerable reduction was made in the army to the amount of 7,684 men. This was replaced by Lord Grey in 1831, but in 1834 a reduction was made exactly to the same amount as in the former year, although now an increase was made not to the standard of 1831, because it fell under 7,000 men, and of course considerably below the statement of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman proposed various modes of reduction, one of which was to abolish ten or twelve regiments. He did not think such a change wise, or justified by the exigencies of the present time. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the number of cavalry regiments. He could inform him that in consequence of

793
the necessity of sending troops to Canada, it was necessary to make a large increase to our military force, and by enlarging the number of men to each regiment, this was done in a much less expensive manner than by adding five regiments of cavalry. The hon. Member had complained that the Guards were kept in personal service on the Sovereign, and had undue favour shown them. He did not think, that the history of the Guards and the services which they had rendered warranted this reproach. And if ever there was a time when it was most inopportune it was now, when a portion of this corps was about to sail for Canada, and were ready to be employed in the service of their country like any other regiment of the line. With regard to the proposal by the Government for the expenses of the army, he should not now enter into that subject, but he certainly did not think the vote proposed at all extravagant.
Mr. Gillonobserved, that he was in Lanarkshire when the disturbance referred to by the noble Lord had taken place. It was caused by a strike of the colliers, and one regiment of infantry was sufficient to put it down. When a party vote such as that for the reprimand of the hon. and learned Member was to be decided, the benches were crowded, and some came down to that House who seemed scarcely able to crawl; but when six millions of the people's money were voted, the House was comparatively thin.
Sir H. Verneycontended, that the absence of Members might be easily accounted for, on the ground that this subject had been debated over and over again, and from the general impression that if they wished to retain their colonial possessions it was necessary to keep up a large military force no diminution could be expected. The service of no other army was so severe as that of the British. At all events he thought it would be good policy to send a large force to Canada during the period of the suspension of the constitution.
Viscount Howickfelt called upon to trouble the Committee with one or two observations in answer to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Kilkenny. The hon. Member had asked why they should not reduce the number of regiments, and had then gone on to assert that a large number of those regiments was kept up for the mere purpose of patronage and
794
promotion, and further, that there was a larger proportion of officers in the British service than in any other. He had not before him any returns showing what the proportion in other services might be, but he firmly believed, that the hon. Member was mistaken in the fact. But compared to the year 1792—that year which the hon. Member so continually referred to, as the fitting standard in all matters of army financial policy—compared to 1792, how stood the case? He had before him a table showing the proportion of officers to men in the army in the year 1792, and he found that that proportion was as one to twelve, while in the present year it was rather more than as one to eighteen and a half. With respect to the proposition of the hon. Member, he should only say, that he thought the House would act most unwisely in sanctioning it. Before the Committee of 1833, the hon. Member had made the same proposition, and it had then been clearly demonstrated, indeed, as well as he recollected, the hon. Member himself had expressed himself satisfied with the statement, that reduction, if made in the manner he proposed, would lead to a very great increase of expenditure. The present system had the especial recommendation that, with very little trouble and at very little expense, it could be reduced or increased as the urgency of the case required. The experience of 1821–22, when a reduction of 21,000 men was suddenly made, ought to render the House cautious how it assented to the proposition of the hon. Member.
Sir E. Knatchbullmeant to vote in support of the motion of the noble Viscount. He rose solely in consequence of a remark of the noble Viscount to the effect that it might be necessary to submit to Parliament a supplementary vote with reference to the recent events in Canada. He (Sir E. Knatchbull) should much regret the realization of such a necessity. Should such a vote be proposed, Parliament would find itself placed in a somewhat novel situation—that of being called upon to pass a vote for services rendered, and respecting which they could exercise no sort of control whatever. This was a line of proceeding which he thought could not be too strongly condemned; nor was this to be the only instance of such a practice. In the early part of the evening the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Horne Department, had informed the

795
House that no estimate of the expense of Lord Durham's mission to Canada was to be made before his departure from this country, and in fact that that personage was to be unlimited in regard to expense. Here, again, the House would be called on to vote for services previously rendered, and for expenses over which they would have no control. He thought her Majesty's Government would act most unwisely were they to give Lord Durham a carte blanche in regard to his expenditure, and that before he left the country some kind of restraint should be laid on him.
Lord J. Russelldid not anticipate that the mission of Lord Durham would prove more expensive, if so much so, than any other mission of a similar nature in past times. Lord Durham was going out as a special envoy, and the sums now paid to the governors of the two provinces of Canada would go a great way towards the expense of his mission. The Government in deciding, that no estimate of the expense should be made out, and that Lord Durham should proceed to fulfil the duties of his important office unlimited on this head, had but followed the precedents of Lord Cowley's special mission to Spain during the war, and Lord Stuart de Rothesay's to Lisbon about the same period.
Sir G. Sinclairthought, that all who had supported her Majesty's Government during the progress of the Canada bill, were bound to vote in favour of the present proposition.
Mr. Hume, in allusion to the statement just made by the noble Viscount (Lord Howick) as to the proportion of officers to men in the army in 1792, begged to observe that if a comparison were made of the army expenditure in the year 1792 and 1833, that of the latter year would be found the greater.
Viscount Palmerstonbegged to trouble the Committee with one word before they proceeded to a division. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had stated, that in his (Lord Palmerston's) examination before the Committee in 1828, he had endeavoured to show, that it would be a more economical arrangement to convert the then and now existing battalions of 740 to battalions of 1,000 strong. Not wishing to trust to his memory, he had referred to the minutes of his evidence upon the occasion alluded to. He found there, as indeed he had, from the moment he heard the hon. Member's assertion, anticipated he would find,
796
that so far from having made the statement attributed to him, his evidence was, that to convert eighty-three battalions of 740 men to sixty-one battalions of 1,000 men, instead of being a saving, would add 8,720 l. a-year to the army expenditure, and cost the country, during the first year, an additional sum of 81,000 l. So much for the accuracy of the hon. Member's statement.
The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 11; Noes 121:—Majority 110.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, Major

Rundle, J.

Blewitt, R. J.

Wakley, T.

Brotherton, J.

Warburton, H.

Dennistoun, J.

Williams, W.

Fielden, J.

TELLERS.

Grote, G.

Hume, J.

Marsland, H.

Gillon, W. D.

List of the NOES.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Hayes, Sir E.

Archbold, R.

Hayter, W. G.

Baring, F. T.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Barry, G. S.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Beamish, F. B.

Hodges, T. L.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Hodgson, R.

Bewes, T.

Hotham, Lord

Blackburne, I.

Howick, Viscount

Blair, J.

Hurt, F.

Briscoe, J. I.

Hutton, R.

Brodie, W. B.

James, W.

Busfield, W.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Chalmers, P.

Kemble, H.

Childers, J. W.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Codrington, C. W.

Knatchbull, hon. Sir E.

Compton, H. C.

Lefevre, C. S.

Conolly, E.

Lennox, Lord G.

Courtenay, P.

Lister, E. C.

Craig, W. G.

Lushington, C.

Cripps, J.

Lygon, hon. General

Curry, W.

Lynch, A. H.

Damer, hon. D.

Macleod, R.

Darby, G.

Master, T. W. C.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Maule, hon. F.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Dunlop, J.

Miles, P. W. S.

Egerton, W. T.

Morpeth, Viscount

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Ellice, R.

O'Brien, C.

Evans, W.

O'Brien, W. S.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Fergusson, rt. hon. C.

Paget, Lord A.

Filmer, Sir E.

Paget, F.

Fitzsimon, N.

Palmer, C. F.

Fleetwood, P. H.

Palmer, G.

Forester, hon. G.

Palmerston, Viscount

Fremantle, Sir T.

Parker, J.

Gibson, T.

Parker, R. T.

Grattan, J.

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Grey, Sir G.

Perceval, Colonel

Grimsditch, T.

Plumptre, J. P.

797

Ponsonby, C. F. A. C.

Stuart, V.

Power, J.

Style, Sir C.

Rice, E. R.

Tancred, H. W.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Teignmouth, Lord

Rich, H.

Thomson, rt. hon. C. P.

Richards, R.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Bickford, W.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Roche, W.

Verney, Sir H.

Roche, D.

Vivian, rt. hon. Sir H.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

White, A.

Round, C. G.

White, S.

Rushout, G.

Wilbraham, G.

Russell, Lord J.

Williams, W. A.

Salwey, Colonel

Wilshere, W.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Winnington, T. E.

Seymour, Lord

Wood, C.

Sharpe, General

Wood, G. W.

Shirley, E. J.

Wood, T.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Spencer, Hon. F.

TELLERS.

Stanley, E. J.

Dalmeny, Lord

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Steuart, R.

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Waterman's.
Petitions presented. By Earl STANHOPE, from a place in Lancashire, for the immediate and total repeal of the New Poor-law.—By Lord BROUGHAM, from Great Yarmouth, Asford, near Leeds, Horsley, the Society of Friends Meeting at Macclesfield, Laugharne, Ebenezer Chapel (Dewsbury), Pudstone, parishes in Dorsetshire and Northumberland, and various other places, praying for the abolition of Negro Slavery; from Jedburgh, Kilmarnock, the Relief Church, Hutchinson's-town, Glasgow, the Relief Church, Regent's-place, Glasgow, the Congregation Meeting at Nicholson-street, Glasgow, Stewarton, and its neighbourhood, the Relief Church in Paisley, Haddington, and its neighbourhood, United Secession Congregation of Edinburgh, Seceders of Dumbartonshire, and various other bodies; that no further Endowments be granted to the Church of Scotland; from the Working Classes of Preston, to protect the right of associating for the protection of labour, and to obtain mercy for the Glasgow Cotton Spinners.—By Lord POLTIMORE, from Edinburgh, for a reduction of the rate of Postage—By the Earl of DEVON, from a Prisoner in Whitecross-street, for the abolition of Imprisonment for Debt.—By the Marquess of SLIGO, from Armagh and other places, for the abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, horn Yarmouth, to adopt Mr. Hill's plan with respect to Postage.

POOR-LAW—DUDLEY DIETARIES.
The Bishop of Exeterhad to present to their Lordships a petition on a very important subject, to which he requested their Lordships' particular attention, not only on account of its importance, but also because it was of a very delicate nature, and might therefore, perhaps, create some excitement in the House. He should deal with the subject in a very temperate manner, and he must say, that the petitioners had conducted themselves with much moderation. The petitioners were the guardians of the poor of the Dudley Union, and they prayed their Lordships to protect them against the extraordinary powers which were intrusted to the Poor-law Commissioners under the new act, and prayed that there might be given to them, and to all other boards of guardians, the liberty to provide for their poor in such a manner as they in their discretion might think fit. The events out of which the
742
petition arose were these:—Some time ago a dietary table was agreed to for the Dudley Union, which from the first gave great dissatisfaction to many of the petitioners, they being perfectly aware that, from the nature of the employment around Dudley, it was impossible that those who were temporarily compelled to resort to the workhouse, in consequence of a cessation of employment, would be able to resume their severe labour after having been dieted according to the proposed table. They felt, indeed, that the diet prescribed by the Commissioners was not sufficient adequately to sustain human beings. It happened, that, a short time afterwards, the guardians became acquainted with the dietary of the city of London union; and they found that dietary so much more considerable than the dietary prescribed for the Dudley Union, that they, without hesitation adopted it. They announced their resolution to the Commissioners, who, in consequence checked and rebuked them for having adopted that diet table without having communicated with them in the first instance before they took such a step; telling them, at the same time, that the London table had only been allowed for a short period, and under particular circumstances. The guardians, however, still persisted in adhering to the alteration, declaring that they would endeavour to secure to the poor a more fitting diet than that proposed by the Commissioners. Being aware, from their local knowledge, that the diet table sanctioned by the Commissioners did not afford a proper support for the inmates of their workhouse, they persevered in giving to their paupers the diet allowed in the city of London union. In answer, the Commissioners told them that the master and matron of the workhouse had no right to act in disobedience to their positive orders, even though they had the sanction of the board of guardians, and that if they persisted, such measures would be adopted as would show them, that even though the master and matron pleaded the orders of the guardians, it would not protect them, and they should be made to answer for their disobedience. That naturally called forth some strong observations on the part of the guardians. They stated, that so far from the fact being that there were circumstances in the London district which required a more liberal dietary there

743
—the fact was, that the inmates of the workhouse at Dudley were persons who had been from their youth inured to hard labour at the forge or in the mine, and accustomed to that substantial diet which was necessary to keep up their strength for such employment. The guardians, therefore, considered it to be their duty to God and to their fellow-men not to relax in their exertions, but to endeavour, by every means in their power, to ensure for their poor and unfortunate neighbours, who were obliged, from want of work, to seek refuge in the poorhouse, a sufficient allowance of food. When the present petition was drawn up, no answer had been received from the Commissioners, but since that, an Assistant-Commissioner had been sent down to Dudley, and something had been done, but not satisfactory to the guardians. Their Lordships were now called on to consider the fitness of the diet table of the Dudley union to keep up and preserve the strength of men who, when in employment, were obliged to labour at the forge. The right rev. Prelate then read as follows:—
DUDLEY UNION DIET TABLE FOR ABLE-BODIED MALE PAUPERS.
"On three days of every week—21oz. of bread, 3½oz. cheese, and 1½ pint of gruel, per diem.
"On one other day—20oz. of bread, 1½oz. of cheese, 1½ pint of soup, and 1½ pint of gruel.
"On two other days—5oz. of cooked meat, 1lb. of potatoes or other vegetables, 14oz. of bread, 1½oz. of cheese, and 1½ pint of gruel.
"On one other day—4oz. of bacon, 1lb. of potatoes or other vegetables, 14oz. of bread, 1½oz. of cheese, and 1½ pint of gruel."
Let their Lordships contrast this with
"THE CITY OF LONDON UNION DIET TABLE FOR MALE ADULTS.
"On three days in the week, daily 7oz. of cooked meat, beef or mutton, ¾lb. of vegetables, 1lb. of bread, 2oz. of cheese, ½ pint of milk porridge, a pint of beer at dinner and a pint at supper.
"On three other days (instead of meat), 1½ pint of soup (made on a good allowance of materials), and a single pint of beer. Other articles (except vegetables) the same as on the three former.
"On remaining day, instead of meat or soup, 1lb. of suet pudding; or boiled rice, with milk and sugar; a pint of beer at dinner and a pint at supper. Other articles the same as the last mentioned three days."
Now he would ask, was the allowance apportioned in the former dietary sufficient
744
to support and sustain the vigour of men who were called upon to perform the most laborious and toilsome work? He conceived it to be his duty, before he mentioned this case, to give full notice of his intentions to the Commissioners, and also to consult one of the most eminent physicians in the country, who had been accustomed to attend the largest hospitals and institutions intended for the benefit of the poor, and he, said the right rev. Prelate, on my communicating to him the two diet tables, tells me, that, in his judgment, the one prescribed for the Dudley union is not sufficient to preserve able-bodied paupers in health, or to prevent them from falling into actual disease, much less to keep them in a condition to resume their ordinary work. He particularly thinks, that the entire exclusion of beer from the diet of this class of persons is highly objectionable. The London union diet table appears to him sufficient, but not too great. [Lord Brougham: Name.] He did not suppose that the physician would object to his name being mentioned; but, for the present, he would, on his own responsibility, forbear to bring that gentleman's name forward. Now he would lay the convalescent dietary of the St. George's Hospital before their Lordships, and they could contrast it with the two former:—
"DIET TABLE.—ST. GEORGE'S HOSPITAL. ORDINARY DIET.
"Breakfast, 1 pint of tea, ¼ of a pint of milk.
"Dinner, 6 ounces of meat roasted (weighed with the bone before it is dressed), and ½lb. of potatoes. (This is only half the meat allowed for extra diet.)
"Supper 1 pint of gruel, and ¼ of a pint of milk.
"12 ounces of bread, and 1 pint of beer daily."
Under these circumstances, the Guardians of the Dudley Union prayed their Lordships to make such an alteration in the law as would enable them to do what they thought their duty to God and their duty to man required, in giving to the inmates of their workhouse a wholesome and sufficient dietary. They say—
"Your petitioners, therefore, consider themselves imperatively called upon, in discharge of their duty to those of whose interests they are the lawfully appointed guardians, to petition your right honourable House; and they do implore your right honourable House to make such alteration

745
in the present law as may enable them to fulfil the trust which is reposed in them in a way satisfactory to their consciences, and agreeable to the dictates of religion and humanity; and so to abrogate or abridge the extraordinary powers vested in the Poor-law Commissioners as to give to the different boards of guardians throughout the kingdom, who, living amongst the people, are unquestionably the best judges of their wants, liberty to provide for the poor of their respective districts in such manner as they may consider in their discretion to be fit and proper."
The petition was signed by twenty-eight guardians. The names of three ex officio guardians were appended to it; but the names of two, appointed by the Commissioners, did not appear.
Lord Broughamwould not enter upon this question at any length at that moment; but as one who had introduced the Bill into that House, and had recommended it to their Lordships, he thought it necessary to say a few words. He had no right to complain either of the wording of the petition or of the manner in which it had been brought forward. The right rev. Prelate had most accurately stated, that he brought it forward in as temperate a manner as he could, consistently with his desire of doing his duty to the subject. He would then neither enter into the right rev. Prelate's statement nor into the prayer of the petition; but he would be most ready to meet the right rev. Prelate when the discussion came regularly before the House, if he should then entertain the same opinions which he now held, or the noble Earl opposite if he should also retain his opinions ["Hear, hear!" from Earl Stanhope.] The noble Earl was quite right in that cheer. The opinions which he now held on that subject he was likely to retain till the fit time for discussion, when he should be both ready and anxious to enter upon this great question, for the more inquiry and discussion took place the more satisfactory would be the result to the friends and supporters of the Act. He now only entered his protest against the measure being condemned upon such statements as the present, but he could not sit down without stating his total dissent from what had been assumed and only assumed, because it had never been argued, and still less proved, that extraordinary and unprecedented powers were given to the Central Board of Commissioners or to the Guardians. He denied that any one power or any one authority
746
had been conferred on any of the newly-constituted authorities which were not in existence under the old law, since the time of Elizabeth, with this material difference only, that previously these powers existed and were exercised irresponsibly, unsatisfactorily, irregularly, and in the dark.
Viscount Melbournebore witness to the temperate manner in which the right rev. Prelate had brought forward this subject, and he did hope and trust that, considering the nature of the subject—considering the feelings of the classes of persons most interested—and considering, also, the excitement which unfortunately existed, the same temperate manner would be followed in any future discussions. He understood that, with regard to the complaints of the Dudley Board of Guardians, the dietary table was accepted by the guardians out of two or three submitted to them by the Poor-law Commissioners, and which had been collected from those parishes which appeared, before the passing of the Poor-law Act, to have paid the greatest attention to the subject. That dietary was acted upon till the Board of Guardians read in The Times newspaper the dietary used in the city of London Union, when they desired to adopt it. To this the Poor-law Commissioners, as he thought justly, objected; they stated that the London dietary was only temporary, that it had not been sanctioned by them, and that it was only adopted under the particular circumstances of the London Union. The paupers in London were not yet collected into union workhouses; they were provided for by contractors, and the Commissioners had not yet assumed the guidance of the workhouses; the Commissioners did not approve of the dietary table in use; it was only temporarily in force; it was not intended to be permanent; and being thought by the Commissioners to be too large, it had not received their support or approbation. This was the simple case. With respect to the Dudley dietary table itself, he would not then enter into a discussion on its sufficiency or insufficiency; but he must say that he did not think that the opinions of medical men on this subject were always the best which could be attended to, for this was a dietary for persons in health, and medical men were more conversant with that for persons who were sick; even in that case, however, he knew that the

747
opinions of medical men varied exceedingly. The best test, undoubtedly, was the test of experience—the experience which had shown how different classes and large bodies of men in the navy and other services had been found to have been kept in full health and strength. He had only to state, in conclusion, that as a full opportunity would occur of discussing the subject, he hoped that noble Lords would not form a premature opinion upon it.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that as he had supported the measure for the amendment of the Poor-laws, he hoped to be permitted to make a very few observations on this incidental conversation. Having attended very closely to the operation of the law since it had come into force, he must say, that he held it to be most decidedly advisable that the regulations of the union workhouses should be wholly under the control of the Boards of Guardians themselves. Those boards must necessarily be more conversant with the wants and the habits of those of their neighbours who by their distresses were compelled to take refuge in these workhouses, and he thought from experience that it would be most advisable to leave the diet and other regulations to those boards without the exercise of any control by the Poor-law Commissioners. He was also of opinion that some decided alteration must take place in the present law with respect to out-door relief. It had been laid down by several boards of guardians that no person should be entitled to relief except he came into the workhouse. He thought the object of the new law was to draw a distinction between the honest and the industrious, and the idle, the dissolute, and the profligate, and to the former class he had understood out-door relief was to be afforded in cases of urgent necessity. During the late severe frost in the winter a great portion of the labouring population in Kent, many of them with large families, were thrown out of employment, and having only their labour to support them, were compelled to seek for parochial relief; and it did seem to him to be a hard case to tell an honest hard-working man, who, without any fault of his own, but owing to the state of the weather, or other causes, had fallen into temporary distress, that he must sell off his goods and come into the workhouse, "because," say the guardians, "we have no power to grant you out-door relief." It was a case of
748
urgent necessity when by a frost such as had not been seen in Kent for the last ten or fifteen years, men were deprived of employment and the means of support for themselves and their families, and such a case should receive temporary relief. He knew it might be answered that such a man could be assisted by a temporary loan, but a man to whom a loan was offered had replied, "It is of no use to grant me a loan, for in the very best employment I can only earn sufficient to pay my way before me, and therefore I never can repay it." Upon these and one or two other points he should, on a fitting occasion, offer his opinion on the law as requiring alteration. With respect to the dietary, he repeated that it ought to be left to the guardians alone, and, in his judgment, they ought also to have power to grant out-door relief in cases of urgent necessity.
The Earl of Radnordiffered altogether from his noble Friend who had just sat down, both on the subject of out-door relief and of the dietary. As to the outdoor relief, he should not occupy any portion of their Lordships' time, because it was a point not brought under consideration by this petition; but with respect to the dietary, he would observe that the prayer of this petition was totally inconsistent with the object of the Poor-law Amendment Act. That object was to produce uniformity throughout the country, and where would be the uniformity if every board of guardians were to be allowed to choose the dietary of their own workhouses? It was worthy of observation, as being somewhat curious, that though the guardians complained of the dietary table, the paupers themselves made no complaint, and if he were not misinformed, the paupers in the workhouse, when asked the question, had, with one exception only, all expressed themselves perfectly satisfied with it. If that was so, then, of what did this board of guardians at Dudley complain? They had not stated any inconvenience or mischief that had arisen from the dietary table; the right rev. Prelate had himself suggested no illness as having arisen from this dietary; but the petitioners in a speculative mood said, that the diet was not sufficient, and applied to Parliament that the dietary of the city of London might be applied to Dudley. There was, however, a great difference between the two cases. In the

749
country, as everybody knew, the paupers were supplied with the best food, supplied by contract under special provisions, while in London the paupers were farmed out, as it was called, and there was not the same security that the best materials were there provided; and again, in matters of weight, in the one case the turn of the scale would be given in favour of the farmer, while on the other hand the turn of the scale with the best materials would be in favour of the paupers. The circumstances of the two cases, therefore, were totally and essentially different. But the right rev. Prelate who had presented this petition had rested his claims for a change upon the circumstance that the labourers in Dudley, when employed, were engaged at very hard work, and that therefore it was necessary to keep up their strength when out of employ, and that for this purpose the dietary tables sent by the Commissioners were insufficient. Now, the best way to arrive at an opinion on that subject would be to compare the food which an able-bodied labourer there got when in employ, and worked upon, with that furnished to him when in the workhouse. On that head he had received some information. He had a calculation of the expense of maintaining, not, certainly, a single able-bodied labourer, but of such a man and his family out of the workhouse. From that calculation it appeared that the family of an agricultural labourer in Berkshire would subsist on 114 ounces of solid food per week, while a similar family in the workhouse at Dudley would get 137 ounces of solid food per week, being an addition of nearly twenty-six ounces. From another statement he had of the allowance for an agricultural labourer, his wife, and six children, out of the house, he found the difference between him and a labouring man and his family in the Dudley workhouse was an increase of allowance in the workhouse of 31lb. 11½oz. of solid food per week. It was true that in the matter of bread in the dietary table at Dudley there was a decrease of 4lb. 7oz.; of bacon a decrease of 7oz.; but in beef there was an increase of 5lb., and of potatoes 24lb. per week; and on the whole the difference was an increase in favour of the persons in the Dudley workhouse of 31lb. 11½oz. per week. It was not surprising, then, though these guardians complained of the dietary table, that the paupers themselves
750
did not complain. The right rev. Prelate spoke of the dietary table as if the Commissioners had drawn them up, and had adopted the smallest quantity of food that was necessary to keep body and soul together. The manner, however, in which he understood the Poor-law Commissioners had adopted this dietary table was this—they took three or four workhouses which had been subsisting previous to the passing of the Poor-law Amendment Act, where the management had been most correct, and the health of the inmates the most perfect; from those workhouses they selected as many dietary tables, and sent them round to the different unions, leaving it to the guardians of those unions to choose out of those three or four schemes, the one which they most preferred. These dietary tables were not, then, a fanciful project drawn up by the Commissioners to starve the poor, but had been all sanctioned by experience, and more than that, this very Dudley dietary table had been adopted by the Assistant-Commissioner from the dietary of the workhouse of Sedgley, within a short distance from Dudley with an addition of a certain quantity of meat. Under these circumstances it did certainly seem to him that the complaint was utterly groundless. But the right rev. Prelate had observed, that the labour of the population of Dudley was of a peculiar kind, and that it was essential to keep them in health. He certainly had not the means at present of comparing the diet of a man in the workhouse with the diet of a man employed in full labour at Dudley, but he was prepared with a comparison between the diet a man received in the Dudley workhouse and that of certain persons who had been the subjects of severe trials of uncommon labour, and who had undergone sufferings of no ordinary kind. He alluded to Captain Parry and his crew when at the North Pole. They received and consumed a less amount of solid food each man by twenty-three ounces, besides four pounds of potatoes, than these paupers were receiving and consuming in the Dudley workhouse; nay, according to the dietary table there, the female paupers each received twenty per cent. more solid food than had been sufficient for Captain Parry and his men on the expedition to the North Pole. On the whole he submitted that this complaint against the dietary tables at Dudley was wholly and entirely groundless.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, that in all his communications with the Poor-law Commissioners he had found a perfect readiness on the part of those gentlemen to attend to any representations, and he had ever found them ready, when a satisfactory case for a relaxation of their rules was presented to them, to concur in that relaxation. He had had numerous communications with the Commissioners, and had always found, in them the greatest disposition to soften all those asperities which were incident to a new system of law. In consequence of a statement made by a noble friend on a former evening, he had informed himself as to whether any applications had been made to the Commissioners for a relaxation of their rules with reference to out-door relief, and he had ascertained that from the county of Kent seven such applications had been made to the Poor-law Commissioners in consequence of the distress which the continuance of the late extraordinary weather had created, and that in every one of those seven instances the relaxation had been granted. Under such circumstances he thought it would be better to leave the power of relaxation in the hands of the Board of Commissioners, who were responsible to the public, than to place the control in the hands of the guardians, and he believed he was borne out in that opinion by the sentiments which pervaded the boards of guardians generally throughout the kingdom—namely, that they would rather fall back upon the Commissioners than have the responsibility of disturbing the whole system placed in their hands.
The Earl of Winchilsea, notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble Marquess, was still of opinion that the guardians should have power to grant relief in such cases of urgent necessity as he had alluded to, without having to come to the board of Commissioners in London to be enabled to do so.
The Marquess of Salisburythought, the boards of guardians would be grossly negligent in their duties if in cases of urgent necessity they did not take upon themselves to relieve paupers suffering under such circumstances, and to apply afterwards to the Commissioners for their sanction to such a relaxation of their rules.
Earl Stanhope, on the present occasion, would confine his remarks to one or two of the points urged in the petition pre-
752
sented by the right rev. Prelate. But first he would allude to what had fallen from a noble Lord a few evenings back with reference to the discussions on this question in the country. Did his noble Friend mean to say that no appeal should be made on behalf of the oppressed and injured people of England—not to rouse them to resistance of the law, or to acts of violence and outrage, but did the noble Lord think that in speaking of the system of flagrant injustice, of the most intolerable oppression which ever yet afflicted any country on the face of the earth, the very mention of which would make their ancestors turn with horror and indignation in their graves, the sentiments and language ought not to be commensurate with the extent of the evils which that system had generated? The noble and learned Lord, who he regretted had now left the House, had said that the powers conferred by the Poor-law Amendment Act upon the three Commissioners did not vary from the powers existing in other bodies under the former law. Now, it would be very inconvenient to anticipate the motion which he proposed to submit on Thursday next, or to enter then into the powers vested in the three Commissioners—the three despots established at Somerset-house under an Act of Parliament. He wished to confine the discussion on Thursday simply to the operation of this bill, and to make the legality of those persons form the subject of a separate motion as soon as possible after the Easter recess; but he defied the noble and learned Lord to state any other instance in the history of the country in which any man, or body of men were empowered by law to frame rules, orders, and regulations, having the force and effect of an Act of Parliament. The Commissioners were not responsible to the Parliament or the Government; their rules had never been brought under the sanction of the Government or Parliament, they having acted in such a way as to evade the necessity of bringing their rules under the inspection of Parliament. The Act stated that any rules applied to more than one union were to be general, and to be submitted by the Secretary of State to Parliament for its approbation; but they had not made their rules in such a manner as to bring them within the Act. Notwithstanding the eulogistic manner in which the noble Earl had spoken of

753
the diet of the union workhouses, which were, in fact, so many prisons, and prisons of the worst description, he must repeat that the diet was inferior in all respects to that of any common gaol in the kingdom. The noble Earl opposite seemed to know nothing—[a laugh]—he should be allowed, he hoped, to finish the sentence—the noble Earl seemed to know nothing of that monstrous instance of cruelty and oppression which had been developed in the Bridgewater Union. He did not think the noble Earl had made himself acquainted with the case as developed by that mass of evidence produced by Mr. John Bowen. [The Earl of Radnor: I know something about it.] By that evidence it was proved to the satisfaction of any reasonable and impartial man that the inmates of that workhouse had perished of disease brought on by being drenched with water gruel. Those poor persons, who had been made the victims of a cruel system, had committed no offence, but they were guilty of poverty, and therefore they were put on a water gruel diet which killed them. The noble Earl had talked about the practical working of this measure, and then he quoted in a triumphant manner the case of Captain Parry and his crew at the North Pole. That was an extreme case indeed. Captain Parry knew that he had a limited stock of provisions, and therefore, that unless he diminished the allowance to his crew in time, having no prospect of an increase, and not knowing when a fresh supply might be obtained, they were likely to be reduced to all the horrors of actual starvation. As to the notion of the noble Earl that these complaints were unfounded, because the paupers themselves had not complained, he should like to know what channel for complaint was open to them? He wished to know whether they were not under that state of oppression and coercion that they would be punished for being disorderly and insubordinate if they complained? If the paupers were not afraid of being punished, he was sure that innumerable complaints would have been heard by this time. He had conversed with some of the unfortunate inmates of union workhouses, and they had told him—to use their own words—they were "near being starved to death." It was mentioned by him incidentally, but it was not a minor point, that the strength of the labourers was much reduced by the diet in the
754
union workhouses. That was an important fact, considering the labourers themselves and the public at large. But there was something still worse, that these poor people should be treated recklessly by those who were called guardians, but who were, in fact, mere tools and instruments in the hands of the three Commissioners in London, having no power voluntarily to redress their wrongs or to mitigate their sufferings. He was in no way prepared for this discussion, not having been apprised of the intention of the right rev. Prelate, otherwise he should have brought evidence to prove to the noble Earl that he was quite mistaken as to what he had stated with regard to the dietary table. What the noble Earl had stated, however, did not prove that the pauper in the workhouse was too well fed, but that the labourer out of the workhouse was too ill fed. The observations of the noble Earl were well-answered, too, by the declarations of the Commissioners themselves, who said, that the pauper in the workhouse should not be better fed than the labourer out of it.
The Duke of Richmondwould not have risen on the present occasion if the noble Earl who had just sat down had not stated that paupers in workhouses were not permitted to make complaints to the guardians. [Earl Stanhope: Such is the case generally speaking.] Did the noble Earl know where that was the case? Had he, since the House last met, visited any union workhouse and inquired if any person had ever been punished for making any complaint? He conceived that his noble Friend cast a gross libel, if he would permit him to use that word, but not offensively to him, upon the guardians, when he said that they did anything so unconstitutional and so illegal. Did he know who the guardians were?—that they were persons elected by a majority of their fellow parishioners, in many instances from the middle classes of, the people of this country? Did he, then, wish to charge them with punishing a man for making a complaint? He (the Duke of Richmond) had visited several workhouses, and was in the habit, when in the country, of visiting one workhouse in an union where he was a guardian, twice a-week, and he always asked every individual whether he had any complaint to make. Did his noble Friend mean to say that a man would be punished for making a

755
complaint after this? If the guardians wished to punish him, how could they do it? They had not the power to do it. When a complaint was made, the whole board listened to it, and investigated it. His noble Friend, he believed, did not wish to exaggerate; for his noble Friend thought he had a very good case, though that was not his opinion. Let his noble Friend, then, put his case without straining it further than justice and propriety would warrant. He would ask the noble Earl and those persons with whom he was now connected, who were paid to go about the country to distribute handbills calling on the labourers and the people generally not o obey this law—he would ask those numerous travelling agents, whether they knew any instance of a man being punished for making a complaint to a board of guardians? As there would be a sufficient opportunity hereafter to discuss other points which had been touched upon, he would pass on to remark, that he was certainly of opinion that the workhouse relief ought not to be better than the sustenance and living which men could get by their labour out of the workhouse; and he thought it would be much better if wages could be raised to an amount which would enable the labourer to live and bring up his family in a better way than in some cases it was possible at present. But he did not know what Legislative enactments could be passed to produce that effect. He supposed his noble Friend was not prepared to propose a new rate of wages; he supposed that was a matter which he would leave to the employers of the labourers. He knew that in many parts of the country wages had got up as much as could be expected, and as much as they would get up. [Earl Stanhope.—They are lower.] His noble Friend might say they were lower, but he was quite certain that his noble Friend would have much difficulty in proving that in some instances. When, however, the noble Earl brought the whole case before the House, that would be the time to discuss it at length. He only hoped the noble Earl would not overstate the question so much as to say that paupers dare not make a complaint. That was a proof that his noble Friend had never acted as a guardian, because every one who had filled that office knew that paupers did bring complaints under their consideration.
Earl Stanhopehad not attended the
756
meetings of guardians. Heaven forbid that he should! He would not by his presence recognise the illegal and unconstitutional power of the Poor-law Commissioners. He would be no party to their proceedings. As to what the noble Duke had said with regard to complaints, he begged to inform him that one of the most respectable and humane guardians of that union in which he (Earl Stanhope) resided, was so disgusted with the conduct of the other guardians, and with the cruelty and inhumanity of the law, that he refused any longer to act. He would on a future occasion furnish the noble Duke and the House with more facts, but he would just mention the case of a family who from the refusal of any relief in addition to the scanty earnings of a labouring man were now perishing by disease, produced, as an eminent physician well known to the noble Lord had assured him, by cold and hunger. Such facts must speak trumpet-tongued to the people of this country. With respect to what the noble Duke had said about his being in correspondence with persons who were calling on the people to resist the Poor-law Amendment Act, he would say that he had the happiness and honour to be in frequent and almost daily communication with a great number of persons who were engaged zealously and patriotically in resisting or opposing, but by legal and constitutional means, that most diabolical statute; but he denied, and he believed it could not have taken place without coming to his knowledge, that any handbills had been carried about calling on the people, or any portion of the people, of this country, to a violent and forcible resistance to the law. No man felt, or could feel, a greater detestation of that law than he did, but he had often solemnly conjured the people of this country, in letters, in publications, and in speeches, to persevere as long as they could in a legal and constitutional mode of proceeding to procure the alteration of this illegal and unconstitutional measure.
The Bishop of Exeterwished to make a few observations, and he would strictly confine them to what had fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Radnor) who had thought fit to say, what he believed no other person in that House would say—that the complaint on the part of the petitioners was groundless. What the noble Earl had said with regard to him was a matter of perfect indifference; but

757
he was bound to say for the guardians from whom the petition came, that if ever there was a case which less than another deserved such a censure, it was that which they had brought forward. They stated that the diet table which they had put aside for the adoption of the London table was not sufficient for the due sustenance of the very laborious persons for whom it was intended. He would call to the recollection of their Lordships one point, that those persons, who were exposed to the heat of forges, and who underwent labour and fatigue of necessity much greater than any endured by agricultural labourers, were to be allowed by that diet table for half the week 1¼lb. of bread, less than a quarter of a pound of cheese, and one pint and a half of gruel per day. Would the noble Earl, or any human being, say in the face of that statement, that those honourable men, the guardians of the Dudley Union, had made a groundless and frivolous complaint, because they thought that such a dietary was unequal to the proper sustenance of the poor committed to their charge? What! was that the scale of living to be laid down for those persons, and were they then to be told by the noble Earl, who was revelling in wealth, well employed, he sincerely believed—who enjoyed great riches, dispensed to those about him, he sincerely believed, with much kindness and liberality, and who was possessed of one of those noble fortunes which had descended from one of the ancient aristocracy of England—were they to be told by such a man, forsooth, that this was a groundless complaint? Were they to be told, that labouring men, who were accustomed to earn their bread by the sweat of their brow, in more than the ordinary sense, working and toiling as they did, before heat issuing from iron furnaces, a task which none of their Lordships, not even the strongest of them, would be able to endure for a single hour, ought only to have such a sustenance given to them as would neither support them when in health, nor preserve their health until the season of employment returned, and that to complain that no better sustenance was afforded to them was a groundless complaint? Was it to be said that less than a quarter of a pound of cheese per day was sufficient to keep up the strength of labouring men such as he had described? The noble Earl had en-
758
deavoured to show that the complaint was groundless, because the guardians had taken the means of redress into their own hands, and adopted the diet table permitted to be used in the city of London. The noble Earl had also referred to the dietary in the neighbouring workhouse of Sedgley, but that place was occupied, he believed, only by the aged and the infirm; and in that case he could well understand that a spare diet might have been sufficient. But he ventured to say, that it was impossible in the other case that human existence could be sustained in a robust and healthy condition by such a diet, and he appealed to common sense, whether the petitioners who condemned the diet table were wrong or not; and he asked, whether it were not a dietary inconsistent with the health and strength which, in the present case, ought to be kept up? The petition had been put into his hands because he was rather peculiarly connected with the district whence the petition came, having the honour to be a trustee of the greatest property in that neighbourhood, on which the greatest number of workmen were employed; and he was proud to have the confidence of the petitioners, who had called upon him to bring this complaint forward. The labour of the coal miners was not greater than that performed by the people spoken of in the petition. Any noble Lord who was acquainted with Durham must know that nothing could enable the men to go through their labour in the coal mines, except the very generous diet upon which they lived, feeding as they did, and were obliged to feed, upon the very hest meat and food that the markets could procure.
The Earl of Radnoradmitted, that the men in question might require a generous diet while at work, but he submitted to any man of common sense whether when they were not at work such a diet would be necessary, and whether it were not likely to produce illness, and fevers, and totally to disqualify them from labour.
Petition laid on the table.