Sitting of 23 July 1839

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a first time:—Bastardy.
Petitions presented. By Viscount Maid stone, from Halifax, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—By Mr. Strutt, from Derby, against the Factories Bill.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from the West Riding of Yorkshire, against granting additional powers to the Poor-law Commissioners; also against the Collection of Rates Bill; from Edinburgh, against the conduct of Government towards the people of Birmingham.—By the Attorney. General, from Edinburgh, for a Uniform Penny Postage; from the Scotch Burghs, for facilitating the admission of Freemen.—By Lord G. Somerset, from Newport, for the Repeal of the Beer Act.—By Sir Charles Knightley, from Northampton, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.

COUNTY MAGISTRATES ACTING IN BOROUGHS.
Mr. Humebegged to ask the right hon. the Attorney General how far

691
the authority of the Magistrates of Warwickshire extended into the borough of Birmingham, as some doubts appeared to be entertained on the subject.
The Attorney Generalregretted to say, that the reported opinion of the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench appeared to him not to be altogether correct. He thought the noble and learned Lord's attention had not been sufficiently drawn to the enactments on the subject. He (the Attorney General) was of opinion that the county magistrates had a jurisdiction within the new borough of Birmingham; unless there was a ne intromittent clause in the Act they could not be ousted from their jurisdiction within the borough. Now, in the Birmingham Charter there was no such clause, nor had there been any other circumstance to oust them from the jurisdiction which they originally had in the county, and all the towns within it; and with regard to the Municipal Corporation Act there was nothing in it to affect their authority. The 111th section enacted, that until the grant of a Quarter Session the magistrates are to have jurisdiction as such within the borough, and after that the power was to be what it had been previous to the passing of the Act.

BIRMINGHAM POLICE.
Lord John Russellmoved, pursuant to notice, that the Order of the Day for a Committee on the Birmingham Police, with a view to vote money, should be taken before the notices of motions.
Mr. Humeasked why the corporation could not raise the money on their own security, without applying to the Government. He did not object to the institution of a police, but he thought that corporations were the best judges of their own pecuniary affairs.
Lord John Russellsaid, that this corporation was not empowered by law to raise money on the security of the rates, and another reason was, that it was desirable this question should not be complicated with the consideration of other questions. At Manchester the town-council had issued orders to the churchwardens and overseers commanding them to assess a certain sum of money as a borough rate for the maintenance of a police force for that town. This had been resisted, and a question raised to try the validity of the charter. No question of this sort had been raised at Birmingham, and it was exceedingly desirable that such should not be
692
the case, which most probably would be the case if in the present state of excitement the Corporation were to attempt to impose a rate.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, the old fashioned manner of proceeding was, to consider of and redress grievances before granting money. Now, the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster related to a very great grievance. Why should not it have precedence? Again, why should they put their hands into the public purse, in order to support a police for Birmingham, the largest town in the kingdom, provided with a corporation for its own government. He predicted that it was only giving the money away; it would be like that loan of a million which was given to the Irish parsons. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had talked of the Order of the Day having precedence because houses were burning in Birmingham. The cause of all that was the conduct of that House. They might add 5,000 men to their army—they might increase the police force, but it would all be of no use so long as that House went on in its present course. On a subsequent occasion, his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, presented a petition from 1,200,000 persons. They asked the House to take it into consideration only, but not more than forty-eight Members could be found to vote in favour of their motion. Could they believe the people would be contented when they had added 5,000 men to the army, or that the police would be of use if that House persevered in such a course. He (Mr. D.) believed the country was in a dangerous state; he believed great discontent and distress prevailed, and a vote of the sort then proposed being passed before the country had any time to reflect upon it, would cause great consternation and dismay throughout the country. On the 22nd of July, within, in all probability, three weeks of the close of the Session, the noble Lord came down from the House and said the country was in such a state that he must increase the army to the extent of 5,000 men, and advance 10,000 l. to the corporation of Birmingham to keep the town quiet. He did not believe that would keep the town quiet. He believed the House would have to listen to and redress the grievances of the people, before the town of Birmingham or the country generally was quiet again. There was a grievance complained of in

693
the petition which his hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, had given notice of; but to which the Government wished to give the go by. If the noble Lord got his 10,000 l. first, then, as his hon. Colleague (Mr. Wakley) had said, all the Gentlemen would go to their dinners, and leave the people of England starving and in distress.
Mr. D'Israelithought, before the House agreed to any one of the projects of the noble Lord, they ought to inquire into the causes of the insurrectionary spirit, and whether the conduct of Government was concerned in that insurrectionary spirit. How could they tell, but that the cause of it might not be the country having to struggle with a weak Government?
Mr. Easthopesaid, it was the first duty of Parliament to do that which was best calculated to secure tranquillity. He should cordially give his support to the proposition of the noble Lord.
Mr. Leaderdid not see there was such very great urgency for the motion of the noble Lord. He believed the disturbances in Birmingham had been very much exaggerated. He would persevere in his objection to the irregularity on the part of the noble Lord, and would take the sense of the House upon it.
Lord John Russellobserved, it was said he was now proposing that an Order of the Day should take precedence of Notices of Motion. Now when that petition, signed by 1,200,000 persons came on for discussion, he had himself proposed, although the Order of the Day then took precedence, that the discussion on that petition should be taken first. He had not endeavoured to shirk the discussion, but had fairly met the reasons urged by the hon. Gentlemen who proposed and supported the motion. That motion was, therefore, disposed of in the most deliberate manner, and he had not by the course he then took precluded himself from doing that which he now proposed.
Sir Robert Peelfelt it to be his duty to support the noble Lord, and he thought what had been said about the danger of leaving that great manufacturing town in the possession of a mob—houses being set on fire and pillaged—and the whole being in a state of anarchy, did constitute a sufficient reason for proceeding at once to consider what steps should be taken to restore tranquillity. There was something so peculiar in the circumstances of the country, in the announcement that had
694
been made, and in the known facts of what had taken place at Birmingham, that he thought it would be of the greatest advantage they should take the earliest opportunity of providing a civil force, so that that portion of the civil force, now there might be removed from the town. He was confident, that the sooner they removed the metropolitan police from Birmingham, consistently with a determination to supply its place with another, the better. The House would be best performing its duty by taking effectual measures for maintaining the public tranquillity.
Mr. Fieldensaid, it was undoubtedly the duty of the House to secure the tranquillity of the country, but the question was, whether the mode proposed by the noble Lord was likely to attain that object. He thought the best mode of trying to conciliate the people was to endeavour to redress the grievances of which the people complained. The complaint was of the London police having been sent to Bimingham, and the general feeling was that the disturbances arose there from. The House ought to redress the sufferings of which the people complained instead of providing a force to put down their complaints, which most assuredly never could be put down by such means. He trusted the hon. Member for Westminster would take the sense of the House on the question.
The House divided: Ayes 144; Noes 3:—Majority 141.

List of the NOES.

D'Israeli, B.

TELLERS.

Fielden, J.

Leader, J. T.

Wakley, T.

Duncombe, T.

The Order of the Day for going into a Committee of the whole House upon an advance of money for the Birmingham police was accordingly read,
Lord John Russellsaid, in moving the resolution which I am now to propose, I think it my duty to state the circumstances which have made it necessary for me to propose this vote. It has been stated, that an assembly of persons lawfully met together, and conducting themselves peaceably, for the purpose of discussing public grievances, were interrupted by a sudden attack on the part of the metropolitan police; and an attempt has been made to refer what has since taken place, to this which is described as a wanton and unprovoked attack. I think it necessary to state

695
the representations made to me with respect to the state of Birmingham previous to the late occurrences. For some time there had been meetings held at which the most violent and inflammatory language was used. On one occasion certain persons were arrested and held to bail for using such language. But within the last month the practice of holding those meetings had very much increased, and it became the habit of a number of persons to march through certain parts of the town with banners, and by that means alarming the people. Representations were made to the authorities of Birmingham, that persons carrying on their lawful business in the thoroughfares through which the crowds passed was endangered and disturbed by these meetings. It was stated at the same time, that there was not an adequate civil force in the town for the arrest of the persons so conducting themselves. Now, it is a very great mistake, which may easily be fallen into, to suppose, that when there is no actual riot and breach of the peace, no actual damage to persons and property, that such meetings can be considered lawful. The authorities on the subject will show that this is not the case. I will quote one or two, because I think the opposite opinions likely to lead to great mischief, and innocent persons may be induced to mix themselves up with meetings of an unlawful character, from supposing that no injury can happen to them from such an indulgence of their curiosity. Now, at the especial commission of 1831, Mr. Justice Bosanquet described as unlawful
"All assemblies, not held by lawful authority, attended by great numbers of people, with such circumstances of terror as are calculated to excite alarm and to endanger the public peace."
On a very late occasion at Devizes, Mr. Justice Coleridge charging a jury, stated that
"Any assembly where people met together in great numbers, using arms, or using violent, seditious, or threatening language, or even strong gestures against persons concerned in the preservation of the peace, is by law considered an unlawful assembly. It is laid down in a common book of reference, in a late edition of 'Burns' Justice,' that a meeting of great numbers of persons with such circumstances of terror as may endanger the public peace, and raise fears of violence, seems properly to be called an unlawful assembly."
It is obvious that circumstances which create terror may be very different at particular times, Thus a mob meeting at night with
696
persons carrying torches and using threats against the property of the inhabitants of a district may be unlawful. At another time there may be persons armed, carrying weapons, firing them off, and thereby terrifying the peaceable inhabitants; or there may be a meeting of persons carrying bludgeons, using gestures and threats to the inhabitants in crowded streets, which may cause the meeting to be an unlawful assembly, and punishable by law. I have stated this, because it has happened within four or five months that I have been very frequently appealed to mention the particular circumstances which make a meeting an unlawful assembly. I could only refer those who made the enquiry to the books of authority, and to the charges delivered by judges. But there can be no doubt that these assemblies in Birmingham, consisting of three, four, and sometimes five thousand persons marching in the way I have described, and terrifying persons from resorting to their usual thoroughfares, did constitute unlawful assemblies, and were also a great grievance to the peaceable inhabitants of the town of Birmingham. The magistrates of that town finding that the civil force in their hands was not sufficient for the purpose of arresting persons concerned in such meetings: and unwilling, in the absence of any actual riot, to call in the military, asked me to grant them assistance by enabling them to swear in as special constables a number of the metropolitan police, for when the metropolitan police are sent to a place in the country, they act there as individuals sworn in by the magistrates as special constables. An act of Parliament passed three years ago, by which persons able and willing to serve may be sworn in as special constables, though not belonging to the neighbourhood, and may be paid as such. In that way the magistrates of Birmingham asked the aid of the metropolitan police. I need not tell the House what has since occurred, both in the arrest of several persons concerned in these unlawful assemblies, and likewise the riots which occurred on Monday the 15th, when some houses were destroyed, and other houses and property plundered by a riotous mob. But I think the Committee will agree that although the magistrates might be justified in taking the measure which they did for the preservation of the peace of that town, yet they ought to form as soon as possible a regular police force which might constantly preserve the peace. There are difficulties in the way of

697
an immediate organization of such a force, both from the excited state of Birmingham and from the question raised in Manchester with respect to the corporation, and which might cause some doubt of the power of the corporation of Birmingham to levy a borough rate for the organization of a police force. I propose, therefore, as the object is a most desirable one, and one which concerns the general state of the country as well as Birmingham, that the State should so far interpose as to advance a sum of money, to be afterwards repaid by the town. I propose that this should not be a vote of supply, but a vote forming the foundation of a bill, which bill should provide for the recovery of the money by means of a rate on the borough; that rate to be imposed by Act of Parliament, and therefore totally irrespective of the question of the authoritity of the corporation. There is one circumstance which I wish to explain concerning the state of Birmingham, because a letter addressed to me concerning the late events has appeared in print, the parties who sent it having thought proper to publish it. It had been stated, that it was desirable that inquiry should take place, and I required that any allegations to the effect that the magistrates of Birmingham had information of the riots about to take place, and had neglected to take measures for preventing them, should be distinctly stated, with the authority on which they rested. It seems to be supposed that I thought proper to cast censure on those who asked for enquiry. I do not think that the course which I took at all implied censure on those parties. There seems to be some ignorance on the subject of that letter, and some impression that I refused that any inquiry should take place into the conduct of those magistrates. It is certainly a custom—not a custom established by me, but long established by Secretaries of State—when complaints are made against official persons, to furnish them with full information on the subject, and to ask them what they have to alledge in answer to the statements that have been made. On the occasion of the election of 1837 complaints were made against the officer commanding the cavalry. On that occasion there was a disposition to riot shown, and the police and military were called out. It appeared to the magistrates that the military had conducted themselves so well on all occasions, and that they had acted with so much decision, and at the same time with such temper and forbear-
698
ance, that I was asked by the magistrates to approve of the conduct of the commander-in-chief, and I accordingly expressed to him the thanks of his late Majesty for the conduct of the troops on those several occasions. Among the troops so employed, were the troops that acted at Birmingham, and Sir Maxwell Morrice was the officer employed. After this complaints were made of the conduct of Sir Maxwell Morrice, and, after hearing every thing that could be said, it appeared to me that that gallant officer had acted in a manner that was highly creditable to him; that placed as he was in most difficult circumstances, he might have committed a trifling error of judgment in part of his conduct, but that, upon the whole, he had acted in a way most likely to preserve the peace of the town. Upon my expressing that opinion to those who asked for inquiry, I added, that I did not think it right, entertaining as I did such an opinion, that this military officer, who had conducted himself in what I thought a proper manner, should be subjected to a formal inquiry, implying, as it might be thought to imply, something of censure. That is the matter to which reference is made in the letter lately published. I shall take care that the letter I wrote upon that occasion shall be produced, and although the circumstances may not now excite much attention, yet it will explain what seems to require explanation. I will now only move, "that the Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury be authorised to direct that the sum of 10,000 l. be advanced out of the consolidated fund of the United Kingdom, for the purpose of establishing a police force in Birmingham, the same to be charged upon, and repaid out of, the rates to be levied on the said town." If this resolution be agreed to and reported, I shall then ask for leave to bring in a bill founded upon it; and I shall take care that the bill shall provide that the advance be repaid out of the rates so raised.
Mr. Humeunderstood they were called upon to make this advance, in consequence of the corporation having no power under the charter to borrow money for the purpose to which this advance was to be applied. If that was applicable to Birmingham, was not every other corporation under the same circumstances? Ought not every one to have the means of establishing a proper effective police? Scarcely one of the old boroughs maintained a proper and adequate police. He had no objection to the resolution; but he did object to the

699
grounds on which the noble Lord supported this vote, and to the authority of Justice Bosanquet and Justice Coleridge. He was disposed from what he knew of the Constitution to deny altogether the grounds of their opinion. If the fact of a meeting being numerous was to be a ground of its being unlawful, he knew of no great public meeting that was legal. When the Six Acts were passing, and when the present Lord Plunkett and Lord Melbourne defended those Six Acts, he was very much mistaken if the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) did not produce better and more valuable authority for authorising the people to meet. Mr. Justice Bosanquet's opinion was, that every meeting not called by legal authority was unlawful. It appeared to him that this was a most dangerous doctrine. In 1831 and 1832, when meetings took place connected with the Reform Bill and the state of the country, he was sure that if the definition by those two judges, as given by the noble Lord, had been applied to those meetings, very few of those who took part in those meetings on those occasions would stand clear of having violated the law. If Mr. Justice Bosanquet's opinion were law, he had no hesitation in saying, that every one who joined in those meetings, numerous as they were, and containing as they did many of those who had formed part of the Administration since, had been guilty of illegal conduct. Protesting as he did against that doctrine, he admitted the propriety of a police force being established in every town; and, as he saw no means of immediately accomplishing that but by an advance from the public purse, he would make no objection to the loan. He wished they would not look merely at Birmingham, but to Manchester, Newcastle, Carlisle, and other places where disorder was spreading over the whole manufacturing population. They would do well to see whether this bill could not be made general, and whether those who had the peace of large towns to maintain ought not to be provided with an adequate and proper police. He must, in conclusion, protest against a doctrine which would make almost every meeting of the people illegal; and he did not think that there was any occasion to introduce it, unless the noble Lord was prepared to lay it down, and to found upon it a gagging Act similar to that of 1819.
Sir E. Wilmotsaid, it should be recollected that Birmingham was, in point of fact, an overgrown village, and the only
700
officers there were the high and low bailiffs and the constables. There was another body, called the street commissioners, who had hitherto exercised the power of appointing policemen or watchmen. Since the charter of incorporation was granted, these commissioners and policemen had ceased to act.
Mr. Scholefieldsaid, that the reason why the new corporation had not appointed police was, that they could not raise the necessary funds according to the present charter. The mayor and corporation, accordingly, anticipating a disturbance, applied to the noble Secretary of the Home Department for assistance, and that noble Lord had very properly sent down a body of police. He thought it was quite clear, that the riot would have broken out whether the London police had been sent or not.
Mr. W. Williamssaid, that if the people of Birmingham had not the power to raise money to establish a police, a bill ought to be passed at once to give them that power. A bill ought to be brought in, to give power to all towns where a corporation was established to raise money to establish a local police; for he believed, that a local police would be much more efficient for the preservation of peace than a London police. He thought, that the late excitement in Birmingham had been caused by the most unjust, most unwarranted, and most gross treatment of Messrs. Lovett and Collins. But for that treatment he thought that no disturbance would have occurred. He did not approve of the principle of making this advance, and he thought, that the best course would be to bring in a bill to give power to Birmingham to levy a rate for the purpose of establishing a police force.
Mr. Warburtonwould support this vote on the ground stated by the hon. Member for Kilkenny.
Sir R. Peelwished to know if he was correct in understanding, that this bill would contain an express provision, that the present advance should be repaid by local assessment, to be levied upon the property of the inhabitants of Birmingham?
Lord John Russellsaid, that the right hon. Baronet had understood him correctly. It was proposed, that the sum advanced should be repaid by assessment upon the town, leaving altogether aside the question of the validity of the charter.
Sir R. Peelunderstood, that it would be difficult, without the intervention of Parliament, at present to raise a rate, and that

701
the same bill would provide for the advance of this money, and for an assessment upon the property that would be subject to a borough rate, supposing there was no doubt about the legal power of the corporation to impose one. He did not understand whether this was to be a temporary arrangement, or whether it was to be the foundation of a police force which was hereafter to be subject to the local magistracy. Did the noble Lord propose to establish this police upon a footing analogous to that of the metropolitan police, namely to appoint stipendiary magistrates, salaried commissioners, like Colonel Rowan and Mr. Mayne, who superintended the metropolitan police; or did the noble Lord propose to leave the selection and control of the police to the local magistracy [Lord John Russell proposed to leave it entirely to the local authorities.] If the police were to be selected by the local magistracy, and controlled by them, be very much doubted whether it would be necessary for Parliament to interfere, and whether it would not have been a better arrangement to have taken a temporary power until the question of the corporation charter was satisfactorily settled, and that Government should appoint a magistrate having, as the metropolitan magistrates had, entire control over the police. He very much doubted whether this would not be a very much more satisfactory course. However he certainly, without reference to matters of detail, was prepared to support the noble Lord, for what answer could they give to Mr. Leggett, and the other peaceable and unoffending inhabitants whose properties were destroyed, unless they took some effectual security for the maintenance of peace and order? This was not a question of oppression or tyranny; it was simply a question of providing that protection which was due to those who were ready to give their allegiance to their Sovereign, and who had, therefore, a right to demand protection. And he must say, that people might talk of arbitrary power and despotism, but no despotism was half so oppressive, so unendurable, as that of a dominant physical force, without power on the part of the law to protect the lives and property of the peaceable citizens; and he would venture to say, that no tyranny of a single despot was half so bad as that home, domestic, daily searching force of that kind of tyranny. He thought, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny was quite wrong in attributing the disturbance that had taken place in Birmingham to the London police.
702
Under the circumstances of the case it might have been necessary to employ that force; it might have been the least of a choice of evils; and although he did not attribute the outbreak to the employment of that force, he thought it was most unwise so to employ it. He would not say, that there was any other alternative that could have been resorted to, but he thought it furnished a strong argument in favour of a local police. He had no hesitation in saying, that the sudden arrival of fifty or sixty men—persons totally unknown, and called into action immediately on their arrival—had a tendency to produce a feeling which was not excited when disorder was redressed by the military, or by a local police, whose special duty it was to maintain the peace, whom the inhabitants would recognise and know as persons who were performing the duties to which they were appointed, and from whom therefore they would tolerate what they would not tolerate from a foreign force. Although he did not blame the course that had been pursued—yet, he earnestly hoped that the noble Lord would take some step that would avert the necessity of employing the metropolitan police for this purpose. He knew how very difficult it was, when an outbreak took place or a murder was committed, not to send an active and intelligent policeman 200 miles into the country. Again, when the labourers on a railway, or such like undertaking, happened to be in a state of riot and disorder, it might be found useful to send down three or four policemen. He knew how difficult it was to lay down a precise principle that should be rigorously adhered to; but he hoped the noble Lord would not encourage the practice of sending detachments of 50 or 60 men to maintain the public peace in remote districts. They knew what the consequences would be. These persons thinking that they were sent on a special service, would also think that they must distinguish themselves, and they would resort to measures of activity and severity which a local police, knowing the persons with whom they had to deal, would not resort to. They might depend upon it also that, if the metropolitan police conducted themselves here with the utmost forbearance, and relying on their strength and the known support which they would receive, were moderate and unassuming in the exercise of their proper powers, they might depend upon it that if they got into the habit of sending these persons without the controul of their superior officers (Co-

703
lonel Rowan and Mr. Mayne)—if they sent them in detachments of fifty or sixty under subordinate officers—they might depend upon it that they would run great risk, of not merely involving that particular detachment in danger, but also of impairing the efficacy and character of the metropolitan police in that particular district. He hoped that that force would be reserved for those proper duties for which they were intended, and that, by the establishment of an effective local police in different parts of the country, it might not in future be necessary to resort to the alternative of the metropolitan police. He would not say that the employment of the police was the cause of the disorders of Birmingham. They all knew that those disorders were attributable to other causes. It was impossible for that town to have been kept in a state of excitement for years, listening to inflammatory harangues, that there should be political unions, and meetings and marchings, and large demonstrations of physical force—it was utterly impossible that all this should have taken place for years without exciting on the part of the population a spirit which those who encouraged it in the first instance would regret. Then stepped forward the men with other intentions and bolder designs to supplant the former leaders, who became objects of execration to those who supposed that, having first excited this spirit, and having led other parties to a certain point, had abandoned and deserted them. That was the history of all popular excitements. Those who commenced them, instead of retaining the favour of the people, became special objects of popular execration, when bolder men stepped forward, who in their turn were supplanted by others who went a step further. He must say that he deeply regretted that a measure of this nature should be brought forward at so late a period of the Session. The Government, however, were the best judges whether it was absolutely necessary for the public tranquillity, as they had access to information which others had not; but still he could not help thinking that there were such manifestations of the state of affairs as would have enabled them to have called the attention of Parliament to this subject at a period when it would have been possible to give a more deliberate consideration to it. He must complain, too, of being called upon at that period of the Session to consider a measure of such immense importance as the establishment of a rural
704
police, without knowing what control it was to be placed under. He felt at the same time, for the sake of the people themselves, for the sake of those who lived by industry, and who would feel most the consequences of any interruptions of the public peace, that paramount considerations of this kind prevented him from refusing his assent to some measure that was necessary for securing that protection to life and property which was the main object of all civilised society, and which if they did not give it to peaceable, unoffending, and loyal subjects, they abdicated one of the first functions and duties they were called upon to perform. He deeply regretted the necessity at this period of considering this important measure, but whether it were to be of a temporary character or not, they would have a better opportunity of judging when the specific enactments were brought forward. He would only add that he thought, from the many intimations that had been given of the state of affairs, Government might have called the attention of Parliament to this subject at a much earlier period.
Mr. Wardtrusted, that the unanimity with which this vote would be passed, would be productive of the best effects. He hoped that the present measure was only the commencement of the establishment of a permanent system of police in all large towns, under the control of the local authorities. As to the introduction of the London police at Birmingham being the cause, or the principal cause, of what had taken place there, he could only say, that the man who indulged in such a belief must close his eyes and ears to what was passing around him. It might have occurred a few days later or sooner; but from the preparations that had been made, and the organization that existed, the introduction of the police, when it became absolutely necessary for the magistrates to exercise some authority, acted only as a spark to fire the train which had existed a long time previously. He trusted that the vote would be agreed to without a division, and that they would thus convince those who were treading on the systematic violation of the law, that they were determined to afford full protection to life and property.
Lord John Russellsaid, that with regard to the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Baronet opposite, that there should be a magistrate much in the capacity of the police commissioners of London, that

705
was a point upon which, in the present state of the country, he did not wish to pronounce an opinion, either for or against it. With regard to stipendiary magistrates, he thought that both parties, those who were in favour of the Charter, and those who were against it, believed that such appointments would be highly desirable. For his own part, he was persuaded that a permanent stipendiary magistracy, such as now existed in Liverpool, and by Act of Parliament in Manchester, also would be of essential service to the town of Birmingham. He was also of opinion, that a local police in many large towns, which were either now incorporated, or might become so, would be very desirable, and that could be obtained, in a great degree, by the bill which, on a future occasion, he would ask for leave to bring in, and upon which, therefore, he should not say more at present. But when the right hon. Gentleman expressed his regret that a measure of this kind should be introduced at the present period of the Session, he (Lord John Russell) begged to observe, that until very lately there existed no occasion for it. It was true he had heard from time to time of threatened resistance and insubordination getting up in many parts of the country; but these manifestations had very shortly afterwards subsided; and he always thought it very questionable whether these threatened mischiefs might not eventually be got rid of, without resorting to any extraordinary measure. At length, however, he had been brought to believe, that, in the present state of affairs, and in the probability of Parliament being before long prorogued, it would not be prudent to separate without adopting some measures of the kind. There was another topic to which he wished to allude before he sat down. It seemed to be supposed that the whole of this discontent and agitation was set on foot by persons who advocated what was called the Charter, and who called for annual parliaments, universal suffrage, vote by ballot, and other measures of that character. But he begged to to say, that during the last summer and autumn, there was manifested, in various parts of the country, a species of agitation set on foot by persons, setting up pretensions to an exclusive regard for the poor, and who used very inflammatory language against the measure relating to the relief of the poor, and the laws regulating labour; and he thought that this agitation, set on foot, and carried on by Mr. Oastler and others, had led, in a very material degree,
706
to the present circumstances. This agitation was of a nature very difficult to meet by any execution of the laws of the country; for it was not applied to any purposes for the overturning of the institutions or the laws of the country or any particular political purpose; but pretended solely to an exclusive regard for the interests of the poorer classes, and whatever could be done for their benefit.
Mr. Wakleythought that the town of Birmingham, whether subject to riots and anarchy or not, should have a local police. He cordially concurred in all that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet opposite respecting the advantages of municipal institutions; but at the same time be thought it extraordinary that he should speak in favour of municipal corporations for England, and should have spoken for their abolition in Ireland. He thought the present measure of the noble Lord a very unobjectionable one; but if it had been proposed, as had been suggested by the right hon. Baronet, that the police of Birmingham should be placed under a commission in the control of Government, he should have given it his uncompromising opposition, and he was sure it would have met with universal opposition.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that as the hon. Member had challenged him upon the subject of he Irish Corporations, he begged to ask the bon Member whether he was aware that the police of Ireland was placed under the control of the Government, and that the Irish Municipal Bill, so far from placing the local police under the new corporations, expressly excluded those bodies from any control whatever over that force.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the alteration in the police of Dublin, assimilating it to that of London, had been adopted at the particular recommendation of the local authorities, and had worked to the satisfaction of all parties. He thought that the agitation against the London police was likely to prove very unfounded, and their conduct should be inquired into most minutely before they were condemned. When they were accused of fomenting the riots, by their interference in the Bull-ring, it should be recollected that the Bull-ring was the situation in which the principal shops of the town were situated, and that, for nights before the police made their appearance, this part of the town had been the scene of continual riot and disturbance, so that many of the shopkeepers were obliged to close their shops and abstain

707
from business altogether. This was a state of things which he thought the Government were bound to put a stop to, and how was that to be done? If they had called in the military, popular as he acknowledged that force was in Ireland, yet bloodshed might have ensued, and he thought it much better, under the circumtances, that the Government had called in a body of men not armed with deadly weapons, as they had done.
Mr. T. Attwoodsaid, that there were at present three bodies, which had the power of levying a police force in Birmingham—namely, the commissioners of the streets, the court leet, and, more recently, the new corporation; and he was surprised that if the latter found that the police revenues of the town were weak, they did not proceed at once to levy a rate of their own accord for all necessary purposes. He (Mr. T. Attwood) deprecated the proposition for a rural police throughout England. It was a proposition which must rankle deeply in the hearts of the people. Our fathers were governed by constables chosen in every parish; and we, he thought, were ready to be governed in the same way. The idea of a rural police was as odious as the New Poor-law itself; and of all the periods of history, he thought the present was the very last in which any new attempt should be made against the liberties of the people. If this matter were to be confined to Birmingham, he had not any objection to it; but if it were to be attempted to be used to strengthen the idea of a Briareus, with ten thousand arms stretching out into every village in the land, he thought the House would have cause to regret the part they were taking in it.
Mr. Fieldensaid, with regard to what had fallen from the noble Lord, respecting the agitation against the Poor-laws, that no agitation on that subject had occurred in Birmingham, where this increase of force was now called for. The fact was, the poor were taxed deeply in the necessities of life by the Corn-laws and the Malt-tax, and had not the means of paying their taxes, nor of feeding their families. This House might disregard their complaints for a time, but if they did, they would one day have bitter cause to regret it.
Resolution agreed to. The House resumed.
Bill brought in and read a first time.

RAILWAY COMMUNICATION, (IRELAND).
Mr. Frenchrose to move, "that an hum-
708
ble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct such measures to be taken as will secure to the different provinces in Ireland the advantages of railway communication." The hon. Member said, it was difficult, almost impossible to present any question to the House to which under present circumstances the colour of party would not be given, and that now before them had to encounter much hostility, much misrepresentation. Yet if ever a Parliamentary question was free from the complexion of party in itself, it was that of railways in Ireland, for this reason, that it bore upon the interests of the whole community of the United Kingdom of all classes, and he might say, of all individuals of that community, with the most entire and perfect impartiality. The great rivers with which nature had intersected the bosom of the land did not dispense their benefits as means of transport more impartially than would these proposed results of art and capital. The case of Ireland had been in various places ignorantly by some, intentionally by others, misrepresented. From the English Parliament they asked no favour, the demanded justice both in words and deeds, in neither of which had it hitherto been rendered to them. His object would be, first, to endeavour to show that the system under which the great leading lines of communication or highways in the country had been managed had proved a decided failure; secondly, that the construction of railways by the State was more conducive to the interests of the public than by private enterprise; and, thirdly, that the security offered in this case was more than sufficient for the advance that might be required for the works. The making and repairing of highways (and railways were about to be the highways of the kingdom) had always been considered the special duty and care of the State. By our ancient laws no man was exempt from the burden of keeping them in good and sufficient repair. It was part of the "necessitas trinoda," mentioned by Blackstone, to which every man's estate was subject, and was conformable to the Roman law, "for the construction and repair of roads and bridges." He alluded to the Roman law, because on it the law of England relating to highways was founded. An ancient author stated, "that the Romans paved the ways throughout the world, in order to make the roads straight, and keep the multitude out of idleness." Both these

709
objects were as necessary and as desirable to accomplish at the present day as they were at any former period. The Roman law distinguished the high roads between the principal towns from those between small towns and villages. The former, viœ publicœ, were made and maintained at the expense of the State; the latter, viœ vicinales, at the expense of the towns or villages they connected together, the magistrates of which were empowered to levy on the inhabitants the sums required for that purpose, and those who were not able to contribute in money were obliged to contribute their personal labour. That part of these laws which related to the viœ vicinales was alone retained by our Saxon ancestors, being more congenial to their feudal institutions, and was by them applied to public as well as private roads. At a later period the judges, who had a charge to enquire "of common highways destroyed, and who bound to repair or mend them," "declared, that the counties were bound at common law to make good the reparations of a highway." By the statute of Philip and Mary the parishes were compelled to repair the highways, and surveyors were appointed to superintend and enforce such repairs Following the example of this misapplication of Roman law this statute provided that the funds for this purpose should be raised in each parish, either by composition or personal labour. A number of statutes were passed subsequent to this, all based on the same principle, a wrong one. He contended that the occupiers of each parish were bound to keep the highways in repair, for the use of the public, and were only productive of great discontent and much litigation. At length the greater proportion of the roads in England were placed under the management of trustees, who were empowered to erect turnpikes, and take toll in aid of statute labour. This expedient had also proved unsuccessful. The trusts were encumbered with a heavy amount of debt, and the time appeared to have arrived when a change of system was indispensable. According to a paper in the appendix attached to the report on turnpike trusts in 1833 the expenditure of the trusts for a distance of 20,000 miles exceeded their annual income by 44,726 l., and there was a debt of 7,785,178 l. The report just made stated the debt to be now upwards of 9,000,000 l. More than 2,000,000 l. of this debt was for Parliamentary expenses alone. The committee reported, that
710
"They had not failed to observe from the evidence adduced the great benefits which had arisen from the consolidation of trusts round the metropolis; that all the witnesses, sixteen in number, that had been examined, concurred in recommending a system of general control for the management of the roads of the kingdom, to introduce one general economical course of management as the only means of reducing the enormous amount of debt, releasing the country from the burden of statute labour, and the high rate of toll now levied on every district."
And the committee recommended the immediate adoption of measures calculated to carry that object into effect. It appeared, then, that the principles recommended for Ireland by the Railway Commissioners must soon be adopted even in England, namely, that the great, leading lines of communication should be made and maintained by the State. The transition which the peasantry of Ireland were at present undergoing from unemployed and pauper landholders to, he trusted, that of employed and remunerated labourers, was necessarily attended with much suffering, and it was only by an extensive system of public works that suffering could be alleviated, and that they could reconcile the ultimate and lasting benefit of the country with the least possible amount of present misery to its inhabitants. The political grievances of the Irish people might be subjects of dispute; there could be no question as to their wretchedness and destitution, and much credit was, he contended, due to her Majesty's Government for their adoption of the principles laid down by the Railway Commissioners for their endeavours to grapple with a question hitherto neglected, but one of vital importance to the future interests of the empire, as to how the unemployed peasantry of Ireland was to be set to work in a manner beneficial to themselves and advantageous to the State. An unmixed plan of Government construction was, in his opinion, the most likely to realize the advantages anticipated from the introduction of railways in Ireland. No private capitalists whose object must be personal emolument, would venture to compete with the State under such fearful odds as existed against him. Government could obtain money at from 2½ to 3 per cent., whilst private individuals could not obtain it on the security of their works, if indeed they could obtain it at all, in the market under 5 per cent. A bill to enable Government to construct railways would be carried through both Houses without expense, whilst an enormous charge would be

711
entailed on private undertakers by a Parliamentary investigation, which could not be denied where private interests were affected by works to be undertaken by commercial speculators for their private emolument. It was well known to the House that the money expended in this way on the Brighton-Railway would have completed a very considerable portion of the line, and all this when the works were finished the public would have to pay in the shape of high fares. In the case of companies too the large sums demanded by landed proprietors for the ground required for the works, which, for reasons not then necessary to specify, must be paid in the first instance, and afterwards levied on the public. These sums had exceeded the estimates in a most extraordinary way—on the London and Birmingham more than one half; on the Grand Junction the estimate was 120,000 l., the sum paid was 240,000 l.; on the Great Western it was 70 per cent. over the estimate; on the Southampton the estimate was 90,000 l., the sum paid was 260,000 l. In the case of Government making the railway, land could be obtained for its fair value. During the discussions on railway bills in this country, in the struggle between rival lines, hostile engineers and grasping landowners, the interests of the community were completely overlooked. Had the principles which ought to have regulated so great a change in the means of communication been attended to, vested rights of a perpetual nature would hardly have been conceded to any of those companies nor would the Legislature be driven as it now was to the dangerous expedient of ex post facto legislation to secure for the public those advantages which ought to have formed the original conditions on such bills were allowed to pass. It appeared to him that the adoption of the private enterprise principle had been a serious legislative error. The public had a right to expect that the Government should secure to them all the advantages of economy and of speed which this mode of conveyance was susceptible. It was notorious, from the causes he had already explained, that there had not been a mile of railway constructed in England which had not cost much more, in many instances 10,000 l. and 20,000 l. a mile more than, it could have been constructed for under a different system. But that was not all the: proprietors had, in many instances, the unlimited right of fixing the charges for conveyance and passengers in respect of a mode
712
of conveyance which, of necessity, drove all others off the roads, which admitted of no rivalry, and of which they were the undisputed masters. They might now declare, and petitions presented to that House spewed they had declared, what persons should, and what persons should not, send goods by their railway, as there was no limit in charges for passengers and goods, save the endurance of the public. So it was with respect to speed, which being expensive, would be reduced to the lowest point in the scale which marked the superiority of the railway over the conveyances it had superseded. Rival railroads were not to be hoped for, and competition with all the advantages it afforded to the public was at an end for ever. In 1833 the French Chamber, following the example of the American government nine years before, directed surveys to be made at the public expence of the lines of railway most likely to prove beneficial undertakings, and after a protracted delay, the government, in 1837, brought forward a project for the execution of six lines of railway, by means of private companies, to whom the public assistance was to be given in proportion as it was supposed the State might profit by the work. This view was opposed both by those members who considered the government should itself undertake the works, and by those who were in favour of leaving them exclusively to private enterprise. The bills were lost. In 1838, a new project was submitted by ministers to the Chambers, embracing nine great trading lines, four of which the government proposed to execute at the public expense, at a cost of 14,000,000 l. sterling; but under this plan so long a time must elapse before France could obtain the benefits of railways, government proposing to take a vote but for the twenty-fourth part of the sum required for the works. A well-founded opposition was raised in the Chamber of Deputies, which, after several interesting discussions, was referred to a select committee, which sat for two months, and produced a long report, the substance of which was, that notwithstanding the great interest the nation had in the execution of such works, government should not undertake them, except in cases where private enterprise had declined to do so, on account of the inadequacy or uncertainty of the profits; they also proposed a series of guarantees which should be required from private companies before the power of constructing railways was intrusted to them. The government

713
contended, that public works which were likely to prove advantageous to the nation were uniformly neglected by private enterprise in France, where the cost was considerable, and that if railways were not constructed by the State, they were not likely to be constructed at all the measure was, however, lost. The result had proved the government to have been right; nothing had been done, or nothing appeared likely to be done, in that country worthy of notice. On the other hand, look to Belgium, where by the adoption of a system such as was proposed by her Majesty's Government, in less than six years the advantages of railway communication had been given to the entire of the population at one-third of the price paid in England, and it was important that that country afforded facts for their guidance, that in place of urging on the House a thing to be adopted, they were enabled to point out an example to be followed. He would read a most important document from one whose intelligence and ability, joined to his intimate knowledge of the working of the railway system in this country, entitled his opinions to great consideration —he meant Captain Moorsom, who for eight years was the manager of the London and Birmingham railway. It was a letter addressed to Mr. Pim, a director of the Dublin and Kingstown Railroad. The hon. Member accordingly read the the letter which advocated, in strong terms, and at some length, the principle of Government taking into its own hands the construction and management of railways, which it could effect cheaper and better than any company. It was his conviction, the hon. Member continued, from what he had observed in England, and from what he knew in Ireland, and he had considered the matter with some care, that if railways there were left to private enterprise, vast works would be begun on a vast scale, funds would be exhausted, individuals would be ruined, and the works would come to a full stop. They would have incipient railways here, and nascent embankments there, to survive as monuments of the vast distance between the scantiness of their means and the magnificence of their ideas; Mr. Pim had made a calculation, that had the railways from this to Liverpool had executed under the different system, the fares for the first class carriages, which were now 2l. 11 s. 6d., would be amply remunerative at 1l., and for the second class, now 1l. 17 s., 10 s. Was it not the duty of Government to prevent the useless waste of the national wealth,
714
particularly when by so doing they would add so much to the comfort and convenience of the middle classes? One class of persons, the economists, opposed the advance of money for the construction of railways in Ireland professedly on the point of security being doubtful. Before, by their expressions or by their votes they gave currency to a statement so unfounded as this, it was their duty diligently to inquire, and accurately to inform themselves, which they could do by means of official documents, if the opinion they had so long indulged in were correct or otherwise, and it might probably startle them to hear that the boasted liberality of England towards Ireland was but ideal, that in her pecuniary transactions with us she had ever demanded and always obtained a pecuniary advantage, and that her generosity has been confined to borrowing money on the credit of both countries at two-and-a-half per cent., and lending it to us at five. In one instance the money advanced has not been repaid—640,000 l. out of the million fund. The Irish Members at the time told the House it was not years afterwards declaring it a loan, claiming and enforcing its repayment. He would not detain them by showing how England acted towards foreign countries. According to a. Parliamentary paper of 1822, No. 293, she paid to them in loans and subsidies, from 1793 to 1816, not one shilling of which had been repaid—77,751,944 l. Nor should he say anything of their expenditure in Canada or elsewhere; but to come more home to the question, how had they used the national credit for their own purposes at an eventful crisis? They came forward in favour of their own landed proprietors. They enabled the Bank of England to lend them large sums of money at a low rate of interest, and saved their estates from being

715
forced into the market. Since 1817, 6,250,000 l. borrowed on the credit of the United Kingdom, had been used for your separate local purposes, for railways, for roads, for canals. On what principle of justice, he would ask, was Ireland to be refused a similar privilege? They tendered security superior to that on which your Exchequer Commissioners here sanctioned loans for England to the extent of upwards of 12,000,000 l. sterling. They offered security equal to any in your power to give, if you pledged the entire property of England for it. They proposed to you as collateral security, a rental of millions to pro vide against the possibility of a deficiency on a sum which at four per cent. would amount but to 92,500 l. annually. They asked, in return, the completion of a plan which would raise a portion of this empire from comparative poverty to wealth, which would throw open an extensive and every day extending market for your manufactures, and which would annually increase your revenue by millions. The declaration of the commissioners could not be too often impressed on you, that by raising the Irish to the level of the English an enormous increase would take place in your revenue, under one head alone they calculate, that of excise, to the extent of 6,000,000 l. a year. It was safe, it was more than safe, it was profitable for the State to lend its credit for the construction of railways in Ireland, and for the sake of the community it was, he contended, bound to do so. The measure of her Majesty's Government was, as a recent writer remarked, one of work for the unemployed, and food for the hungry—a measure of humanity, a measure of protection, a measure of security for the peace of society—one promoting the interest of all classes. Both Houses of Parliament had recorded their solemn pledge to advance the interests of Ireland, and how could either of them, with anything like consistency, reject this the first measure proposed for that purpose? He could not sit down without assuring his noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland that the Irish people would long remember with deep gratitude his effort to improve their physical and moral condition, and to record his conviction that hereafter should he be successful in it he would derive more gratification from this work than from any other event in his official career, even should that career be as long as the friends of Ireland could wish, and as useful as his own anticipated. He would conclude by moving an humble Ad-
716
dress to her Majesty in the words of his notice.
Viscount Morpethsaid, he should not be tempted to offer any answer to the speech of his hon. Friend, because his hon. Friend had made an eloquent and a convincing speech in favour and on behalf of the measure which the Government had proposed, and the principles which he had asked the House to adopt at an early period of the present Session. At that time he stated a plan which he had been reluctantly compelled to abandon, as far as this Session was concerned, and if next Session it should be found that private enterprise was insufficient and incompetent to complete these works, which it was admitted would be beneficial to Ireland, it would then be the duty of the Government to consider whether they ought not to lend their assistance. He did not suppose his hon. Friend intended to press his motion; for both her Majesty and the Government had done all they could in the matter at present, and the carrying into effect the objects his hon. Friend had in view must depend on the concurrence of Parliament. Neither did he presume his hon. Friend called for any formal pledge from the Government, and therefore he could only repeat, that if private enterprise failed to complete these works, the duty would devolve on the Government to propose that which they thought would be most conducive to the interests of Ireland.
Mr. Wyserejoiced that the motion had been submitted to the House by his hon. Friend, because it had elicited from the noble Lord (Morpeth) a more satisfactory explanation than he had before given. After the debate which had taken place on a former occasion, it was supposed by the Irish people that the matter would be left entirely to private enterprise; but the declaration of the noble Lord showed, that so far from giving up his views, he only wanted a fitting opportunity to carry out his beneficent intentions with respect to Ireland.
House counted out.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Inland Warehousing; Unlawful Oaths (Ireland).—Read a second time:—Sheriff's Exemption; Assessed Taxes Composition; Prisoners Trial; Timber Ships; Lower Canada Government.—Read a third time;—Supreme Courts (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By the Duke of Richmond, from the Paper Manufacturers of Dublin, for protection under the new Postage regulation; from Derby, for a Uniform Penny Postage; from Edinburgh, against the existing system of Church Patronage.—By Lord Fitzgerald and Vesci, from the town of Galway, against part of the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill.

HILL COOLIES.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he wished to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary for the Colonies a question concerning the importation of Hill Coolies into the British colonies. He had seen the report of certain commissioners, called negro commissioners, presented to the Court of Policy in Demerara, who gave a somewhat favourable account of the condition of the negroes in that colony, but not of the Hill Coolies. It appeared that on an estate called Bellevue out of eighty Hill Coolies imported within a few months twenty had died, and twenty-nine were in a state too horrid to be described. It was stated, also, that the manager of the estate himself was seriously ill with a fever, which he had caught in visiting the pest-house which contained them, for he could call it nothing else, but which went under the name of an hospital. He wished to know whether the noble Marquess was in possession of that report?
The Marquess of Normanbywas not in possession of the report to which the noble Baron had alluded. But a report of one particular estate had arrived, from which it appeared that enquiry had been pursued to a considerable extent, and much evidence on the subject had been collected, which he had read with great care. Immediate attention should be paid to the subject.
Lord Ellenboroughmust say this, those who advised the emigration or importation of these Hill Coolies, under the order in Council for that purpose, were deeply responsible for the consequences.
Lord Broughamwas painfully reminded of the warning which he gave their Lordships when the subject of these Hill Coolies was under discussion last year, and when unhappily they refused to attend to his warning. He never foresaw anything but the worst possible consequences from that detestable traffic in slaves. It was now being renewed after all the attempts which had been made to get rid of it—extended into Asia, after the mischiefs it had done to Africa. It appeared that five out of every eight of those wretched beings on one es-
658
tate had perished. Out of eighty there had actually died twenty, in the course of a few months, and twenty-nine others were in such a state that the sufferings of death, it might be said, would be a relief from their wretchedness, and therefore comparatively a mercy as well as a certainty. And all these circumstances were to be contemplated with this most painful aggravation, that they were added to the murders which had been committed on the passage of these wretched persons on board ship; they had survived the horrors of carrying them over the seas from their native home to the charnel-houses of Demerara, for only a very short period. He knew that a great amount of blood-guiltiness must hang over the heads of those who were concerned in this traffic, and who if not here, must hereafter be answerable for the murders committed in that passage; because be knew the papers which were upon the Table of their Lordships' House contained the astounding fact, that twenty per cent. in one vessel had perished miserably in a voyage of five weeks, between Asia and Demerara, and thirty per cent. in another; thus exceeding by far the mortality and massacre of the African middle passage itself. He hoped, therefore, that he should now receive an answer to the question which he had formerly put, because, coupled with what had been stated by the noble Baron that evening, the case became aggravated and called for immediate explanation. It was said, that two or three slave vessels had been seized on the Brazilian coast, their cargoes—such was the term applied to their contents—their human cargoes, consisting of 1,400 wretched beings; and under the pretence of their being liberated, it was stated that they had been apprenticed at 5l. per head. And where? In foreign slave countries, where there was no security that they would be treated even so well as they were in Guiana, and he wished to know whether it was the practice for our cruisers to apprentice these unfortunate men in those countries where slavery still existed instead of carrying them to our own colonies. He hoped he should receive an answer denying the statements which had been made in respect to this subject.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad communicated with the late Colonial Secretary respecting the letter to which he supposed the noble and learned Lord alluded, and

659
the subject to which it related still engaged his attention.
Conversation dropped.

SPAIN.
The Marquess of Londonderryrose to put some questions to the Government relative to the correspondence which had been laid upon the table in regard to the affairs of Spain. He had moved for those papers at an early period of last Session, but the delay which had taken place in their production had, he feared, prevented those who were less interested in the affairs of Spain than he was from wandering through these documents. They fully proved the bad effects of the course of policy which had been pursued by the Government, and he was persuaded, that if they had not departed from the line of policy which had been recommended by his noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington), if they had not put forward the Auxiliary Legion, and if they had adhered to a neutral line of policy, they would, in such a case, have been heard with respect and deference by both parties engaged in the Spanish contest, and it would have been unnecessary to call for the interference of the great Powers of Europe to put an end to those atrocities which disgraced the war in Spain. But they had departed from a neutral line of policy, they had taken a side in the war, and they were now disregarded by both parties. And what was the result of that departure from the only line of policy which was consistent with the honour and dignity of a great nation? After the Legion had returned, disgraced, and when nothing had been accomplished, they were obliged, at the eleventh hour, to go to the great Powers, and to demand the exercise of their moral influence to put an end to the atrocities which had marked the war in Spain, and to enter into a convention to secure that desirable object. If that course had been adopted five years ago—if it had been adopted when it was recommended by his noble Friend, these massacres would never have disgraced civilized Europe. He ventured to say, that the truth of that assertion was fully borne out by the papers which bad been laid upon the Table, and for himself, he desired no other means for the condemnation of the conduct of the Government, than the correspondence which the Government had itself produced. He thought, however, that there was much
660
ground for complaint as to the manner in which the correspondence had been laid before their Lordships. The papers had been produced in a manner so unsatisfactory, that it appeared to him as if a disposition had existed to evade the order which the House had made upon the subject. On the first page there was an extraordinary statement, to which he wished to call their Lordships' attention. He had last year moved for these papers, in order to snow what aid had been furnished by the Government either in money, arms, or stores, to Muniagorri, a new chief who had been favoured by the Government, and he was anxious to know the nature of his correspondence with Lord John Hay, and what stores had been furnished to this chief. At the bottom of the first page of the correspondence, however, there was a memorandum, stating—"There is nothing to show that any articles were specifically furnished to Muniagorri, the Spanish chief:" but if they turned to the end, they would find it stated, that no communication on this subject had been received at the Foreign-office from Lord John Hay, while it was certain that arms and ammunition had been sent. But if no communication had been received, and if stores had been sent to Muniagorri, why had not the Foreign-office called upon Lord John Hay to furnish a specific return? The agents of the British Government seemed to him to have taken the truth of whatever communications were made to them for granted, without examination and without any proof of their accuracy. He found it stated in one of the letters, that a great number of prisoners had been murdered by General Cabrera since the 1st of October, 1838, and these returns had been forwarded by Colonel Lacy, a British officer, but there was no means of knowing, nor was there any evidence to show, that these statements were correct. In fact, if they looked through the correspondence they would find that Cabrera denied the truth of the charges which had been made against him by Colonel Lacy, and he should like to know, whether the official despatches of the Spanish General were not as much to be relied upon as the communication of this British officer. In a letter, also, which had appeared in all the newspapers, from Cabrera, he stated distinctly, that the statement of Colonel Lacy was not true when he said that he had given no quar-

661
ter—that the charge was wholly false: and he showed, further, in that letter that 3,000 prisoners had been spared. Government, therefore, had founded their representations to the great Powers on statements which did not rest upon facts, and it manifested great partiality on the part of Ministers, thus to lay the blame of these atrocities on the Carlists alone, when it was well known that the Christinos were at least equally guilty. Yet it was upon this one-sided evidence that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs called upon the Ministers of the great Powers to exercise their influence to put an end to such disgraceful proceedings. But, in fact, the whole of the statements contained in the correspondence seemed to have been made from taking a false view. If these charges against Cabrera were false, in the representations which had been made by the Foreign Secretary to the foreign Courts, it was clear that the whole blame ought not to have been thrown on one party exclusively; and if Cabrera was denounced as a monster, the noble Lord should have considered whether there were not monsters also on the other side. These partial representations had been sent to the Ministers of the great Powers, and Lord William Russell had written a letter in consequence, in which Cabrera was denounced as a monster. That was a term which ought not to have been applied, and such language in the mouth of a Minister was certainly highly improper. Ministers had been obliged to ask the aid of other powers, to put an end to the atrocities which had marked the Spanish contest, and when that aid had been obtained, they then turned round upon those powers, and tried to induce them to withhold their support from a cause which they considered just. That, he must say, was most unbecoming a great nation, and it was not the direct and manly course of policy which England ought to pursue. But what were the principles upon which this convention had been formed? It clearly seemed, that when the efforts of the present Government failed, and that when they had an object to carry, they were obliged to resort to the great principles which had been acted on by the noble Duke near him. Ministers had, for eight years, tried to settle the affairs of Belgium and Holland, and in the end they had been obliged to apply for the assistance of the great Powers, They had long tried to
662
settle the contest in Spain, and yet, in the end, they had been obliged to ask the aid of the great Powers to accomplish an arrangement for an exchange of prisoners. He had, therefore, on looking for any final arrangement, had his attention directed to the great treaty to which he had alluded, and what did he find the terms of that treaty were? It was stated, that the great objects, and the leading principles of that treaty were, to maintain the peace of Europe, and that in the attainment of that object, the general policy of Europe should be consulted. Russia had asked, when the consent of that power had been obtained, to aid in terminating the atrocities of the Spanish contest, whether there were not good grounds for putting an end to the war altogether? And what had followed? The Foreign Secretary wrote to Lord Clanricarde to ascertain what the views of Russia were, and whether that power would consent to measures for terminating the war in Spain. Now, that was certainly a most extraordinary course. It was certainly an extraordinary course for the Goverment to call on one individual power to express its views on this subject, and the Foreign Secretary must have been young indeed in his office, if he expected that Russia would consent to explain itself in answer to such a proposition. The noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department had stated, that there were particular circumstances which placed this country and France in a different position from that occupied by other great Powers. Now, what were the different circumstances which affected our position in what regarded the pacification of Spain? What grounds were there for for supposing that when a general measure was proposed, which was consonant with humanity, the quadruple treaty placed us in a different position from other powers? He did not argue that the attempt must necessarily succeed, but he did argue that it was very probable, as one party was too powerful to allow the other to put it down, and both parties had been reduced to a state of comparative inaction. He believed that the people of Spain were now generally brought to the belief, that it would be wise and expedient to terminate the war, and he did not see why the great Powers should not bring about an arrangement. An armistice might be proclaimed pending the negotiations, which would of itself tend to allay the animosities which had been

663
excited. But the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department, had stated two reasons for declining to act upon the suggestion of Count Nesselrode. One was, that this country and France had different obligations imposed upon them from the other great powers; the second was, that the proposition having been made by Russia, and declared by England to be inadmissible, if it contemplated measures not in accordance with the quadruple treaty, the matter had dropped on the part of Russia. But this was not the case, for the very last letter which Lord Clanricarde wrote, stated distinctly, that Count Nesselrode proposed, that the five plenipotentiaries should meet, professing himself unable to state precisely what were his ideas upon the subject, but urging the propriety of coming to some arrangement. He said, then, that if Russia had stated this, it was surely becoming in us to meet them on the other side. There was, on the other side of the House, a noble Lord, who had lately returned from his embassy in Spain, who would, perhaps, be able to give their Lordships some information on the subject. Another point on which he wished to ask a question of the noble Viscount, related to the conduct of the Spanish Government towards the British Auxiliary Legion. He had urged their claims upon the noble Viscount on a former evening, but he was sorry to see that the Government were powerless, and that they could do nothing either at home or abroad. Let the commission act in a little more generous way, by allowing them interest upon the sums on the race of the certificate. When he brought this subject before the House the other day, he showed that the document had neither date nor interest. That very day Colonel Ellice, who was left by Colonel de Lacy Evans in charge of the rear-guard, and who, he believed, was the very last man to leave Spain, had called on him, and produced a certificate, from which it appeared that no less a sum than 850 l. was due to this individual. Colonel Ellice said, that he had a wife and children dependent upon him, but that he could not get any money from the Spanish Government. He entreated the noble Viscount to see if he could not do justice to the British officers and soldiers by calling on the Spanish Government to allow them interest upon these certificates. There was another point to, which he wished to call the attention of
664
the noble Viscount, which related to the Eliot Convention. The excuse which had been offered for not extending the provisions of that treaty to all parts of Spain, was, that a number of marauders and robbers might get the benefit of the Convention, and get themselves exchanged as prisoners of war. Now, surely, this was complete subterfuge. He wished to ask the noble Viscount, in the first place, whether there were any engagements in the opinion of her Majesty's Government, under the treaty of the Quadruple Alliance, which would prevent Great Britain from entering into negotiations with the other great Powers for the avowed purpose of bringing about the pacification of Spain? Secondly, he wished to know why, if England and France did not stand in the same position as the other great powers, overtures were made on the 27th of November; and whether it were understood that England and France were to monopolize the affairs of Spain? Thirdly, he would ask, whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to forego the extension of the benefits of the Eliot Convention to the whole of Spain? And, lastly, whether the Government intended to take more decisive measures, in order to induce the Spanish Government to liquidate the claims of the British Legion, or at least to grant certificates bearing a date, and bearing interest.
The Earl of Clarendon: My Lords; I am sensible that much apology is due on my part to your Lordships for venturing at this moment to claim your Lordships' attention for a short time, and to the noble Marquess (Londonderry) who has just sat down, I feel that particular apology is due for being about to adopt a course which is, I fear, irregular, and not waiting to address your Lordships till my noble Friend on the left had replied to the questions of the noble Marquess; but, my Lords, as the noble Marquess has so pointedly adverted to me, and as I have no doubt that the answer of my noble Friend will be satisfactory to the noble Marquess, and that your Lordships will, consequently, be unwilling to prolong this discussion, I am anxious first to offer a few remarks upon the speech of the noble Marquess, and I trust that that indulgence, which I have never yet seen solicited in vain from your Lordships, will be extended to me, connected as my name is with the correspondence on your Lordships' table, which

665
has given rise to the questions of the noble Marquess, and having had the honour to be the Minister of this country in Spain since the commencement of the civil war in 1833. My Lords, the noble Marquess has informed your Lordships of the grounds upon which he has thought it his duty to call the attention of your Lordships to the correspondence now on the table, but as the object sought by her Majesty's Government in mitigating the horrors of the war appears by the papers themselves to have been fully achieved, and as the answer to the question he has put to her Majesty's Government is to be found in the correspondence itself, and that several weeks have now elapsed since these papers were presented to the House, without the noble Marquess' sense of duty having moved him to make them a subject of discussion, I am rather inclined to believe that some other motive than that which the noble Marquess has avowed, must have led to the course he has now taken, and that he considers the cause he has so long protected in Spain stands at this moment in peculiar need of his assistance—that the noble Marquess, therefore, has come to the rescue less out of desire to see a termination put to the horrors of a civil war, which afflict a portion of the Peninsula, than from the fear he may entertain that if the mediation which he is so anxious to bring about be too long deferred it may arrive too late. My Lords, I know that the subject of Spanish affairs is one which must be irksome to your Lordships, and that few among your Lordships can be inclined to read what is connected with them in the public papers. I shall, therefore, take the liberty of informing your Lordships, that in the newspapers there has lately been published, by the authority of the Spanish government, some intercepted correspondence between Don Carlos, and Cabrera, and the exiled ministers of that Prince, by which it appears that Don Carlos is carrying on an intrigue against his General, Maroto, in whom he pretends to confide, but whom in his heart he detests. My Lords, as it probably will not be in your Lordship's memory, how that General came to occupy his present post, I shall briefly state the facts as they are illustrative of the position in which Don Carlos must now find himself. Maroto shot—without trial, or the form even of accusation or condemnation, six of his brother Generals, whom he looked upon as personal rivals, for which he was proclaimed to be
666
a traitor by Don Carlos. Maroto (in order, probably, to prove that he was neither), then marched Ms army against his king, and Don Carlos, upon his approach, issued another proclamation, recalling the first, and ordering it to be burnt in every town and village (and when a noxious document is ordered to be burned in Spain, it is so by the common hangman), and Don Carlos further expressed his anxious hope that this would be received as a satisfaction by his faithful subject Maroto, whose loyalty nothing but the calumnies of perfidious advisers could for a moment have induced him to doubt. Maroto accepted the apology, which for ever degraded Don Carlos, and made himself supreme. He banished all the confidential advisers of Don Carlos, appointed his own ministers, and has since that time virtually been sovereign in that part of the country. Since that time, however, Don Carlos, in order to recover his lost power, has not ceased to intrigue against him; and, as the intercepted correspondence goes on to show, there is now so much disunion amongst the Carlists, the want of means is so great, and the discontent so general, that the cause never was considered to be in so disastrous a plight. I know this to be the opinion of some of the most influential Carlists both in and out of Spain; and as their fears have, in all probability, been caught by the noble Marquess, he may have thought, by the course he has this day adopted, to throw his shield over Don Carlos, and to hide his protege's distress by placing him on the same footing with the Queen of Spain, and invoking the mediation of the great Powers of Europe, as if the belligerent parties were on terms of equality. By the papers on your Lordships' table, your Lordships will see that her Majesty's Government, complying with the request of the Spanish government, addressed itself to the three Northern Courts, and asked their intervention with Don Carlos, to cause a stop to be put to the revolting atrocities, committed by his Generals, which rendered retaliation on the part of the Queen's Generals a matter of melancholy, but unavoidable, necessity. The courts of Russia, Prussia, and Austria responded to the invitation thus made to them in a manner which did them infinite honour; and Count Nesselrode, going still further, suggested in his dispatch to Count Pozzo di Borgo, and his note to Lord Clanricarde, that some means should be adopted for putting an end

667
to the war. The noble Viscount at the head of the Foreign Department, was, I know, ready and most anxious to avail himself of the indication, for I can call it nothing else, of the Russian Minister, but it was necessary for him first to ascertain upon what basis Russia and the other Powers would join with England and France in any negociations, as it was clear that England and France, having recognised the Queen of Spain, and being bound to her by the Quadruple Treaty, would not secede from the obligations that those acts imposed: and I will ask the noble Marquess, and ask it fearlessly, would he, if he had at that time been conducting the foreign affairs of this country—would he have acted differently? Would he have disregarded the solemn compact by which this country is bound to the Queen of Spain? Would he have admitted Don Carlos, whatever may be his opinion of that Prince's rights, or respect for his character, to treat upon terms with the Queen? Would he have considered the Government of England to be in the same position as that of Russia, which had recognised neither the Queen nor Don Carlos? I feel sure he would not. I feel sure that he must know too well the value of a treaty to have acted differently from the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs—and that, like him, he would have felt no further steps could be taken in the matter, while Count Nesselrede, replying to his enquiries, said, that for his part he had no suggestions to make. I will also ask the noble Marquess if he is aware of the existence of a protocol, agreed to by the principal Powers of Europe, and signed at Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818, by which it is specifically agreed that if in future the interference of these Powers should become desirable for the arrangement of the internal affairs of any other nation, such interference should never take place except at the express desire of that nation whose representative should always assist at the deliberations of the Congress, which might in consequence be assembled. How then, my Lords, in the teeth of this most just and politic compact between the Sovereigns of Europe, could a Congress have been assembled for the settlement of the affairs of Spain, unasked for by Spain? and what representative of Spain could have attended such a Congress? It is clear that England and France must have insisted that a Plenipotentiary of the Queen should attend, and only the Queen's Plenipotentiary, because, having acknowledged the
668
Queen's rights, they could not have permitted the claims of a pretender to the throne to be represented at the Congress. But would the Northern Powers have been satisfied with having Spain so represented, as they have not acknowledged the Queen? and would they have had any right to insist upon the presence of an agent from Don Carlos, when they have not recognised either? But the noble Marquess now appears to think, or rather he says, that future steps ought to have been taken, and that if the three Powers had been agreed the Spaniards must have yielded. But here let me remark, that in this question of agreement lies the whole difficulty, and prevents the case of Belgium from being a parallel case. All the Powers were agreed upon the recognition of Belgium; and that, and that alone, rendered their joint co-operation possible. Would it have been possible, if England and France had recognized the independence of Belgium, as they were bound to do, and that the Northern Powers had asserted the right of the King of Holland to the throne of Belgium—would a Congress, meeting upon such a basis, have led to any good result? And in the same way could England and France have consented to a Congress at which the claims of Don Carlos to the throne of Spain were to be supported; and if such claims were not brought forward, and the rights of the Queen recognized, the Congress would be unnecessary; for were the Northern Powers to withdraw their support and aid from Don Carlos, the war would soon be at an end. But let me ask the noble Marquess upon what grounds he says the Spaniards would have yielded? Does he draw his deductions upon that point from history, or experience, or his knowledge of Spanish character? He must have strangely confused them if he thinks what he says; for I can tell him that neither threats nor protocols of Foreign Powers would have any more influence upon Spaniards than they would upon Englishmen, and their only result would be to unite all classes of Spaniards in one bond of resistence to the Powers by which their nationality was menaced. True it is that the combined armies of Europe might march into Spain, and establish there any system of Government that a Congress of Sovereigns might think fit to decree; but is the noble Marquess prepared to resort to such an expedient—or if he were, does he think the Powers of Europe would be prepared to march with him—or if they were, does he think that

669
the Government they had set up in Spain would endure one hour after the last foreign soldier had recrossed the frontier? I have some experience of that country, and the noble Marquess may take my word, that the unsolicited intervention of foreigners in the political institutions of Spaniards, will al ways be a miserable failure; and so it ought to be, and greatly it redounds to the honour of Spaniards that it should be so. The noble Marquess will, I trust, see therefore all the circumstances which rendered unpopular, the accomplishment of what he desired, and which would, if practicable, have, I am convinced, been allowed by her Majesty's Government with as much readiness and satisfaction as the noble Marquess himself would have displayed. I believe, however, the noble Marquess will admit that the papers on your Lordship's table prove that British agency was well directed and productive of good results, as regards the mitigation of the civil war in Lower Arragon, and that through our means much human suffering was diminished and many lives were spared; and thus, through the intervention of her Majesty's Government, a state of things has been brought about, quite as important and quite as much called for as that which the Eliot Convention established. The noble Marquess blames my noble Friend at the head of foreign affairs, because the Eliot treaty was not made to extend throughout the whole of Spain. My Lords it was impossible. I wish to heaven it had been; but those who talk on the subject, as the noble Marquess has done, are really not aware of the facts. At all times of political disturbance in Spain there are never wanting bands of robbers and malefactors, who start up in every quarter, and raise a standard of revolt in their own particular district for the mere purposes of crime, and to have made the Eliot Convention appliccable to such men would have been sufficient of itself to have quadrupled, aye, and far more than quadrupled, their numbers, by offering beforehand impunity for their offences. It would have led to every class of bad consequences, and never would have been carried into effect but in the Basque Provinces, where two armies were in the presence of each other, depots of prisoners and a regular cartel for their exchange would be established. The treaty was practicable—it proved a real blessing, added another item to the immense debt of gratitude which the Spanish nation owes to the noble Duke opposite, a debt which I must say is always
670
cheerfully and cordially acknowledged. Much praise is likewise due to my noble Friend Lord Eliot who displayed great ability and tact in negotiating the treaty; but I am also in justice bound to say that the Spanish government met the proposal of the noble Duke in precisely the same spirit in which it was made to them as on every other occasion the Government and Generals of the Queen manifested a desire (of which they have omitted no occasion to prove the sincerity) that the war should be carried on according to the usages of civilized nations and here, my Lords, I must beg to say in answer to the unwarrantable remarks of the noble Marquess, and with reference to the evidence to be found in the papers now on your Lordships' table, that when officers such as Colonel Wylde, and Colonel Lacy, and Colonel Alderson, men of high and unimpeachable honour, who are bound by honour, as well as duty, carefully to collect and faithfully to report to her Majesty's Government every thing that occurs in the different corps to which they are attached; when such men bear evidence to the humane conduct of the Queen's Generals, and to their unceasing efforts to secure the war being carried on with humanity; and when I myself declare upon my honour that I have found the same feelings to exist in all the different Ministers and Generals with whom I have been in official relation, and who have invariably acted upon every suggestion of mine that had for its object the mitigation of the war, I say, my Lords, it is most hard, it is most unjust, to confound such men, and their intentions, and their acts, with the hordes of banditti who spring up on all sides, and are invested with authority, by Don Carlos, in order to carry devastation through the country, to pillage the inhabitants, and to strike terror among the loyal subjects of the Queen—conduct which is only natural, after all, for these men spring from the dregs of the people, and their existence and power depend upon their atrocities—it is shameful, my Lords, to confound such men with the Ministers and Generals of the Queen, men of education and enlightenment, and humanity. The outrage is deeply felt by them, and they cannot but be indignant that such opinions should be current in England, and more particularly among Foreign Powers, and their Represtatives at the different Courts of Europe, who have doubtless their own particular purposes to serve in representing the two parties now contending in Spain as not only equal in

671
power but rivals in barbarity. And, my Lords, while talking of Foreign Powers and their Representatives, I may be permitted to advert to the scheme which is, I know, most in vogue with them, and which they are constantly urging as the only means of arranging the affairs of Spain, but which, if it were not absolutely impracticable, would be of all others the most disastrous, namely, the marriage of Don Carlos' son with the Queen. My Lords, upon this I have, in the first place, to observe that it would be the surrender of rights on both sides, which it is utterly hopeless to expect, for all who know any thing about that Prince, or the fanatical party in whose hands he is a mere puppet, are aware that nothing short of his being absolute, despotic King of Spain will satisfy him; he, therefore, never would consent to abdicate his claims in favour of his son. Then, as to the Queen Regent, even supposing she would disregard every political consideration, and abandon the party by which she has hitherto been supported, can any one expect that she, a mother as well as a Regent, should devote her daughter to the life of misery that such a marriage would render inevitable, and permit to be enacted over again in Spain the farce that was attempted in Portugal by the marriage of Don Miguel with Donna Maria, which proved, as might have been foreseen, a miserable failure. But even were all difficulties of this kind overcome, a plan for placing the representatives of two antagonist principles upon the same throne, and for ensuring the co-existence of two rival and exasperated parties incapable of compromising their difficulties, can only be considered a plan for sowing the seeds of eternal civil war. My Lords, it is only the fear of wearying your Lordships prevents my pointing out the countless evils to which this project for tranquilizing Spain must give rise. My Lords, in my opinion, the Spanish question has not been rightly understood in England, either in its general character or in its details. Nor is this to be wondered at, for Spain differs in many essential points from every European country? and as the Spanish question is generally viewed and argued upon according to our experience, and by the analogies drawn from the history and character of other countries, the question becomes embarrassed rather than illustrated by discussion. I am far from regretting, however, that such difficulties have not
672
deterred the noble Marquess from constantly bringing the affairs of Spain under the consideration of your Lordships; indeed, I think, that any Member of Parliament who promotes discussion upon foreign affairs does a great public good, for it is astonishing, and at the same time lamentable, how great an apathy exists in England with regard to our relations with foreign countries, and how much indifference there is as to whether our interests in every part of the world are properly protected—whether the reciprocal obligations of treaties are properly observed—whether every thing that is good in the laws, institutions, and practices of a foreign country, is carefully collected and sent home—and, above all, whether every opportunity is turned to account for extending our commercial relations; for these, my Lords, I apprehend in the present times are the real duties of diplomacy. It is always, therefore, with satisfaction that I see any subject connected with our foreign relations discussed in Parliament, in order that the country may have an opportunity of learning its true position with regard to other nations. I would certainly have wished that the noble Marquess had been somewhat more accurate in his statements with reference to Spain, and I hope your Lordships will so far extend your indulgence to me as to allow of my making a few remarks upon the last speech of the noble Marquess upon this subject; for he has in that so much misrepresented the real state of things in Spain, unintentionally I am quite sure, that he has laboured under the difficulty which all more or less experience, in arriving at accurate information upon Spain; but from his speech this evening, I see no reason to think that his opinions have undergone any variation. My Lords, in that speech of the noble Marquess, delivered I think on the 18th of June last year, the noble Marquess was pleased to speak of me in terms of a very unflattering description. I shall now only reply by admitting his or any other persons complete right to canvass the public conduct of a public servant, and to assure the noble Marquess that as I differ with him upon every point connected with Spain, I cannot say that I expected to merit his approbation, neither, indeed, can I say that I was ambitious of it. I shall not think it necessary to allude to the noble Marquess's reflections and predictions on the steady increase of Don Carlos' force, further than to beg your Lordships to re-

673
member that the whole of Gallicia, the Asturias, Leon, Estremadura, Andalusia, Upper Arragon, and the two Castiles, are as peaceable as they ever were at any period of Spanish history, and as completely attached to their lawful sovereign; and that the civil war only exists, where it has so long been confined, in the Basque Provinces, in a portion of Lower Arragon and Valencia, and in a small district of Catalonia, the whole of which is mountainous and of most difficult access. And I will then ask your Lordships what is to be thought of the increasing power of Don Carlos, and whether it is best, or politic, or likely to serve any practical object, to place him upon a footing of equality with the Queen? In the parts of the country I have just named, the war still exists, and may continue to do so for some time, and while it lasts the Government must be feeble, and the whole country must suffer for the portion of it which is so afflicted. That peace has not been restored there can only be accounted for by the fact, that Spaniards make war now in precisely the same manner that they used to do—in the manner which must be familiar to us all through the despatches of the noble Duke opposite. My Lords, upon those despatches, which have, if it be possible, placed the noble Duke's fame upon a still more imperishable basis than it stood before, I feel it is next akin to presumption in me to offer even the humblest tribute of admiration. My only excuse is, the six years I have passed in Spain, during the whole of which time the country has been in war; and, my Lords, it requires to have lived in Spain, under such circumstances, to appreciate those despatches at their full worth—to understand the enormous difficulties with which the noble Duke had to contend, and his unrivalled merit in overcoming them. My Lords, there is hardly one of those despatches in which a man having a thorough knowledge of Spain and Spaniards would not fill up some hiatus and supply omissions which would redound to the glory of the noble Duke, and prove the unassuming character of true greatness. My Lords, I feel I ought to apologize to your Lordships, and especially to the noble Duke, for having thus yielded to the temptation of expressing the feelings I have entertained ever since I had the satisfaction of reading those despatches, and I shall now only offer a few remarks upon that portion of the noble Marquess' speech last year, in which he casts a great and
674
undeserved slur upon Spaniards, by assuming that they feel disgust at the free institutions endeavoured to be forced upon them. The noble Marquess, from the whole tenor of his speech, means to convey the idea—the absolutely erroneous idea—that the attempt to force these institutions upon Spaniards was made by her Majesty's Government, and as so much has been said respecting Spain, and so little that is really accurate is known, it may be matter of interest, if not of importance, to the people of this country to know what these institutions were likely to effect for Spaniards, what their feeling is towards them, and what interest England has in the success of the Queen's cause. My Lords, there is no greater error than to suppose that Spaniards are unfit for freedom or averse to a liberal form of Government; their own municipal institutions are the freest and most popular in the world; they existed in Spain when the feudal system obtained in the rest of Europe; although we have heard much lately in this House respecting municipal institutions—and certainly they are not here spoken of with much veneration—I consider them as the best trainers for freedom, and the system which renders men the most fit to be entrusted with liberty. It is certainly true, that Spain has for centuries been under the double yoke of a kingly and a priestly despotism, with all the train of degradation and corruption that they bring with them; but it is true that she has seized the first opportunity of emancipating herself, and the sacrifices to which that nation now submits, and all the horrors of civil war which Spaniards now endure, are proofs of their conviction that the objects which they have in view more than outweigh the difficulties with which their attainment is surrounded; but the contest they are engaged in is not sterile, they have already gained, and gained much; they have made such despotism as they before endured, in future impossible. Were Don Carlos on the throne he could not restore it. He would try. The bloody and fanatical party in whose hands he must always be a blind and wretched, though not unwilling instrument, would try it; they would confiscate, and banish, and gibbet, but they would fail, and I am convinced, that if Don Carlos were upon the throne he would, in the course of one twelvemonths, do more to injure the monarchical system, and to render monarchy abominable than all the revolutions and constitutions that can be

675
conceived would effect in a century. It is true I am convinced that the northern Powers of Europe would perceive their error in having supported a cause without being fully acquainted with its objects, and a man who must render order and good government in Spain impossible, and I am sure that order and good government, by whatever means established, is all that those Powers in reality desire; they can have no other object and no other interest; but Spaniards of the present day have rendered any return to the despotism of former times impossible, and I say that in thus setting aside all feelings of philanthropy, we have cause for satisfaction, and that it is for our interest that events should take the turn they are now doing in Spain. Let any man compare the system—the brutal, barbarous system which existed under Ferdinand, when the priests exercised their tyranny and their vengeance without control—when correspondence with a relation exiled for his political opinion was punishable by death—when every domestic tie was loosened by the vilest system of espionage—when knowledge was criminal, and the universities were closed, and colleges for bull-fighters opened—let any one compare such a system with the one which prevails now, imperfect as it is in many points. But it has produced popular representation, free discussion, and a free press. They have produced what was impossible before—public opinion; and that has in a great measure corrected what was inevitable under the government of Ferdinand—corruption. The consequences of these are, that life and property (except in those parts afflicted by the civil war) are more secure, that the revenues of Spain are more than one half greater than they were ever known to be before—that an enormous class of proprietors has been created by the sale of national property—that capital flows into more wholesale and useful channels—that education makes rapid advances, and agriculture is advancing—and, notwithstanding all the horrors of war, Spain is at this moment laying a foundation for future prosperity incalculably more solid than at the time when, for her misfortune, she discovered America, and lost all stimulus to future exertion. My Lords, I am aware that this account may appear to be exaggerated, but I say nothing but what I know, and I say it under all the responsibility that should attach to any statement deliberately made to your Lordships. Such is the state of
676
things now in Spain, and I think it requires no extraordinary degree of intelligence to discover how that state is likely to become advantageous to us, and whether it is not probable we shall gain more from Spain liberalised than under the absolute government of Ferdinand. The noble Marquess in his speech to which I have alluded, inquires what commercial advantages we have gained in return for our alliance? My Lords, it is the first time I have ever heard the alliance of Great Britain treated as a marketable commodity, and I think that the feeling of this country is of too noble and generous a character to wish to turn the temporary distress of an ally to a selfish account, however desirable it may be to establish commercial relations with them upon a more liberal footing. And it would be but a short-sighted policy, for every commercial arrangement, in order to be permanent, should be based upon reciprocal commercial advantage; and if Spaniards involved in war are a little slow to comprehend the benefits of free trade, and have not yet perceived the necessity of an unrestricted interchange of productions with England (although the question is daily making progress), let us, my Lords, remark, that Spain is an agricultural country—that agricultural produce is all she has to give in exchange for our manufactures. Let us remember our own Corn-laws, and the debates which not later than this year have taken place upon them in Parliament, and I think that even the noble Marquess himself will he inclined to give the Spaniards a little further time for distinguishing more clearly the point at which monopoly and private interest should yield before the general good. Before we talk lightly of other nations, to measure them by our own standard is but just towards them, and it may afterwards be useful to ourselves. Liberty in Spain is, to be sure, but in its dawn, and struggling for existence, while ours, thank God, is upon an imperishable basis; but, my Lords, before we look down with contempt upon Spaniards, from the height to which we have gloriously, but not without labour, ascended since our own civil wars, let us see in what manner they have hitherto used the liberty they have gained. I have already adverted to the good effects which the creation of public opinion have produced, and I can aasure your Lordships that both the people and their representatives have already given abundant proof that they understand and value a constitutional form of Government. The elections

677
excite the greatest interest—every class of opinion is fairly represented in the Cortes, and the debates are conducted in the Chambers in a manner, and with a decorum, my Lords, which are not unworthy even of our own consideration. I have been in the constant habit of attending the debates in the Cortes, and I can assure your Lordships that I never saw more than one deputy or senator speaking at the same time, nor did I ever see the Chamber justly exposed to being charged by its own members with habitual disorder in its proceedings. I have heard from Catholic Prelates in those Chambers, sentiments breathing as pure a spirit of Christian piety and religious toleration as those which emanate from the right rev. Prelates in this House. I have never failed to see the Government in those Chambers meet with the vigorous and constitutional opposition which every Government under a representative system ought to meet with, but I have also seen that opposition, whenever danger was imminent, lay aside all party spirit, and so far from endeavouring factiously to embarrass the Government, rally round it and be united as one man against the common danger by which the country was threatened. I say then, my Lords, that Spaniards know how to appreciate the value and to enter into the spirit of representative Government. Then in Spain the press is as free and unshackled as in England—the conduct of the Government and of every public functionary is canvassed with the utmost severity and juries are as unwilling to check the liberty or it may be the licentiousness, of the press in Spain as they are in England; and, my Lords, I may here be permitted to advert to a most remarkable fact as connected with the press. In Spain there is a Queen, and during her minority the Government is administered by the Queen Regent, and with regard to that august personage, I have never known any other language used by the press than that of respect and devotion. In times of trouble, and excitement, and civil war, the passions of Spaniards have never hurried them into expressions of disrespect towards their sovereign. All the good that befell the nation was attributed to her, and the blame of every ill was laid upon her Ministers, and I only remember one instance of a foul libel upon the Queen Regent having been published, and I shall not easily forget the burst of public indignation with which it was received by all classes of Spaniards at Madrid. A jury was not then found wanting to do its duty, and
678
the author of the libel was condemned to the greatest punishment which the law permitted. There was not a man who did not appear to think that an attempt to lower the dignity of the Crown was a national insult—an insult replete with evil and danger; and that publicly to calumniate a woman, and that woman the Queen was a national degradation. I say then, my Lards, that if such is the use that Spaniards make of their new institutions—and I repeat that the fairest mode of trying their merit in so doing, is by comparison with ourselves—the noble Marquess is no more justified in saying that Spaniards have a disgust for their institutions, than he has to charge her Majesty's Ministers with having promoted political changes in that country, or to say that our policy in Spain led to the Canadian revolt, and the occupation of Algiers by the French, fur such are the some what startling assertions to be found in the noble Marquess' speech of last year. My Lords, I opine that we have never, directly or indirectly, interfered with the political changes that have taken place in Spain; but I do say that it is natural that our sympathies and good wishes should be enlisted on the side of a country struggling to rescue itself from oppression and degradation, and to recover its lost place among the nations of Europe. It is not only our sympathies, however, that should be enlisted in behalf of Spain, for I believe that a nation ought not to have sympathies, but should be guided by its interests; and I say we have an enormous interest in the triumph of the Queen's cause—first, because it is by that triumph alone that the Peninsula can ever be tranquil, and enjoy and impart the blessings that tranquility brings into it; next, because it is to Spain, under liberal institutions, and not under an absolute form of Government, that we must look for a useful ally—that we may expect to find a wealthy customer for our productions, and new markets for our manufactures, and a friend instead of an enemy in our political relations with the rest of Europe; and in the present state of these relations neither friends nor enemies are to be despised. My Lords, I have not the presumption to expect that I can in any way influence the opinions of the noble Marquess respecting Spain; but I cannot conceive that those opinions are held in common with many of your Lordships, for I am sure that whoever has read the history of Europe rightly, as connected with Spain, and more especially for the last 150 years, must ackowledge

679
that their power, prosperity, and above all, in the independence of Spain we are deeply interested. Her Majesty's Government having taken this view, this, in my opinion, most just and proper view of the interests of Great Britain have, during the last six years, rendered very important services to Spain, for which that country, whatever the noble Marquess may think to the contrary, is profoundly grateful, and for my own part I only regret that that debt of gratitude should not be greater, and that circumstances should have prevented her Majesty's Government from more effectually assisting the Queen of Spain. I regret that the restoration of Spain to that rank among nations which she is beyond all question destined again to occupy, should not have been more exclusively owing to the aid which in her hour of difficulty she received from this country. My Lords, I have only now to thank your Lordships sincerely for the attention with which you have been pleased to listen to me, and again to apologize for having obtruded myself upon your notice; but, my Lords, connected as I have been with Spain, and knowing as I do how sensitively alive Spaniards are to the good opinion of Englishmen, and how deeply mortified they have been at the misrepresentations which have been current respecting them in England, I was anxious to avail myself of the only opportunity that can occur during the present Session of Parliament to record (although I may have done it in a feeble and ineffectual manner) the opinion which, by close observation, I have conscientiously formed of that brave and generous, (but in this country), much misrepresented people.
Viscount Melbourne: After the speech made by his noble Friend who had just sat down, who was so much better acquainted with the subject than he was, and who had been so much engaged in the transactions of that country to which the questions of the noble Marquess related, would confine himself exclusively to answering those questions. At the same time, he must say, that considering the general nature of the observations of the noble Marquess, and the very wide manner in which he had entered into the whole question of Spain, it was extremely natural that his noble Friend should have stated his opinion on a subject of so much importance. The noble Marquess had asked, whether, in the opinion of her Majesty's Government, there was any engagement under the treaty of Quadruple Al-
680
liance, which prevented Great Britain from entering into a negotiation with other powers for the avowed purpose of the pacification of Spain. There certainly was no engagement in the treaty of Quadruple Alliance which prevented England from entering into negotiations with the other powers for the pacification of Spain; but when the noble Marquess asked why communications should be made with the Northern Powers asking for their assistance in putting down the atrocities in Spain, without stating the engagements her Majesty's Government were under by the treaty of Quadruple Alliance, he must say, that the Quadruple Alliance was perfectly well known to all the powers of Europe: it had been published, communicated to them, and laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. At the same time, although there was nothing in it which should prevent her Majesty's Government from concurring with other powers in settling the affairs of Spain, yet the terms of that treaty, as had been stated in another place by his noble Friend, the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, placed us in a different position with respect to Spain and those powers; and, having acknowledged the Queen of Spain, it was natural, when we were asked, whether we could enter into an alliance of that kind, that we should wish to know what were the general grounds on which we were to enter into that negociation; but he entirely denied that the overtures which had been made by Count Nesselrode to her Majesty's Government were not met in the fairest spirit, and with the most anxious desire, to embrace every opportunity for bringing the unfortunate state of affairs in Spain to a favourable termination. His noble Friend had alluded to time fact of the conference at Aix-la-Chapelle; and, unquestionably, it was very natural, if not necessary, that the Government should know, before they gave their assent to that proposition, what were the precise grounds and means by which it was proposed to bring about that end which they all desired. The noble Marquess had referred to the case of Belgium; but that was begun by the three powers interested, and terminated by them with the concurrence of the other powers of Europe. The noble Lord had asked him, whether Great Britain and France did not stand now in exactly the same situation as to Spain in which

681
the three other powers were placed in regard to Belgium. The question of the noble Lord was, why, if Great Britain and France did not stand in the same position as the other powers, the overtures of the 27th of November had been made, and whether it were understood that England and France were to monopolize the affairs of Spain; and to this he could say that France and England stood in no other different relation as to this question, except so far as the treaty of Quadruple Alliance was concerned, by the provisions of which they had been placed in a different position with respect to Spain, from that in which the other powers of Europe were placed who had not been parties to that treaty, and who had not recognized the Government of the Queen of Spain. The next question was, "did her Majesty's Government intend to forego their efforts for extending the benefit of the Eliot convention to the whole of Spain?" It was not his intention to enter into the question as to the atrocities that had been committed in Spain during this war, but he hoped that under the last convention between General Maroto and General Cabrera there would be an entire cessation of such atrocities. He was sorry to say, that by accounts which had been recently received, that although with regard to the main armies that convention had been observed, yet in other parts of the provinces where the parties were small there had been much violence displayed; but he thought, after reading the papers to which the noble Marquess had referred, after reading the testimony of Colonel Wylde, it was impossible to doubt with which party had begun and been carried on those atrocities and cruelties, and with whom in fact rested the crimes that had been committed. That, however, was a question on which it was unnecessary to say anything more; but he earnestly hoped that such might be the effect of this arrangement between the commanding officers of both armies, that those atrocities might be put an end to. The reason why the Eliot convention had not been extended was, that at the time when it was proposed Don Carlos had no forces in the other parts of Spain. The other question of the noble Marquess was, "whether the Government intended to take any decisive measures to induce the Government of Spain to liquidate the claims of the Auxliary Legion, or to cause certificates to
682
bear date and also to bear interest." Every one knew the great debt under which the Spanish Government was labouring, but he earnestly hoped that the engagements undertaken by this commission might be fulfilled, and no exertions on the part of her Majesty's Government should be wanting to induce the Spanish Government to do justice. The noble Lord had made a most violent attack on her Majesty's Government in introducing this subject, as he said without the least expectation of doing any good, but merely for the purpose of showing that there were individuals who thought rightly and justly on this subject. Whether those statements were entitled to any weight or influence it was for others to decide.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas happy to be able to congratulate their Lordships that at last they had reason to hope, from the statements of these papers, that there would be an end put to this disastrous and disgraceful system of warfare; and he should have here ended what he had to say to their Lordships on this subject, if his transactions and his name had not been referred to; and as he thought that some erroneous opinions were entertained, and had been stated by her Majesty's Government, and by the noble Earl opposite, who had made a most able speech on some points, he thought it his duty to notice them. He had frequently stated to their Lordships, in discussing this subject, that the attitude which it was essential that this country should assume in order to be able to attain the object which it appeared from these papers had been at last attained, was its neutral attitude, under the quadruple treaty, and not the character of a belligerent. He had always said, that if her Majesty's Government had assumed the position in which she really stood by the quadruple treaty, that of an ally of the Queen of Spain, if their Lordships pleased—that of a power who had acknowledged the rights of the Queen of Spain to the throne, if they chose—that of a power bound by a certain treaty to give specified assistance, and giving that assistance, but at the same time doing no more, and being strictly neutral in all matters for carrying on the war, except under the circumstances specified in the treaty—he did say, and he had said so all along, that her Majesty's Government must have had influence enough to be able to put an end to the

683
system of warfare which had so long shocked all mankind. The truth and justice of this opinion was founded on a due knowledge of the nature of the war, and of the two powers by whom it was carried on; and if at the very first suggestion that there should be a strict neutrality between those two powers, her Majesty's Government had made a proposition of that kind to the Austrian Government, that object would have been attained which had remained to be done; and they had to do nothing more than to carry into execution all the details of that treaty as early as they could. He said that when the Government in 1834 took upon themselves the real position which belonged to them, and when their interference produced what was called the Eliot treaty, the operation of that treaty would have continued, and the influence of this Government in the contests between the belligerents in Spain would have continued in the same beneficial course, if the same line of policy and conduct had been pursued from the commencement. It was impossible to say what, at this period, would have been the consequence with respect to the relations between the two belligerents at the present moment of such course of conduct, and he certainly hoped that it might have been attended by the best of all consequences—the pacification of Spain, and the establishment of Government, and the enjoyment of peace and happiness by all the worthy, for he must call them worthy, inhabitants of that country. He now came to another part of the subject which, in his opinion, was entirely mis-stated by the noble Lord opposite, and also by the noble Viscount, and not understood by her Majesty's Government, and that was the situation in which they stood in respect to the great alliances of Europe in consequence of the quadruple treaty. The noble Earl said, "Oh, we could not enter into a treaty with the great Powers, because we were parties to the quadruple treaty." The noble Earl said so, and the noble Viscount repeated the idea. That was not fact; the fact was this—they could not enter into a conference with the other three allies, because Great Britain was belligerent; the other three allies not only did not acknowledge the Queen, he believed they bad not formally recognised her, although they might be disposed to do so, but they were neutral in the con-
684
test; but England stood in another position, that of belligerent. Why, it was obvious that there could be no concert between the parties. He admitted that that would have been impossible, not on account of the quadruple treaty, but of the belligerent position which this Government had thought proper to take under the quadruple treaty. If they had confined themselves to the quadruple treaty, they might have entered into conferences with the other powers for the pacification of Spain. It would not have succeeded, perhaps, and he should hope it never would on the basis alluded to by the noble Earl. But there were other means by which a conference might be successful, or by which our mediation might have been used, and which would have been infinitely more valuable than the aid of a few companies of marines. The moral influence of this country might have been used with great advantage for the pacification of Spain, and it would have been far more effectual than any they had used. That was the course which he had always contended should have been taken. He did not ask them to break any treaty. On the contrary, he thought they ought to walk in it to the very letter in support of the queen of Spain, but not to put themselves in the position of belligerents, and still less of belligerents carrying on a little war. He had inculcated this course over and over again on her Majesty's Ministers, and the papers now on their Lordships' table showed that from the beginning he was right. After all the blood that had been shed in this barbarous warfare, the Government now called a neutral power to aid them in the pacification of that interesting country, and the papers on the table would show that it was not otherwise in their power to produce those effects so eloquently described by the noble Earl. He was glad, however, that recourse had at last been had to negotiation, and he hoped the Government would now persevere in that course, which was likely to be so beneficial in Spain.
Lord Broughamsaid, he had heard with great satisfaction the statements made by his noble Friend the noble Earl (Clarendon), and he concurred with him in regretting that so little attention was paid in this country to the state of our foreign relations. It was not his intention to enter into any discussion as to the affairs of Spain, he would say that he had

685
very great doubts not only of the expediency, but also of the lawfulness of this country allowing its subjects to engage in the wars carried on by other countries. He did not say that cases might not arise in which, without the commands of the civil magistrate, the subjects of one state might take a part in the wars of another, or in a war carried on between two states to neither of which he belonged; but he thought it required a very strong case to make out a justification of that course. He thought that we could not without deep regret, and with any feeling but that of satisfaction, look at the number of our countrymen who had been engaged in a contest which in its progress had exhibited scenes of horrid murders and assassinations on a large scale, not in the heat of battle, but sometimes in cold blood, after battle, or where no battle had taken place, but where parties had been taken by surprise, and sometimes—and this was the most hideous shape which those murders could assume—under the forms of courts of justice, where all the substance of justice was abandoned. He grieved to say that Englishmen had, he would not say been guilty of those murders, but had continued afterwards associated in arms with those parties by whom they were perpetrated—nay, that some Englishmen had sat as members of courts for the trial of Englishmen, and where the trials were followed by sentence and immediate execution. He thought that such conduct on the part of subjects of another state, having no necessary connexion with the parties at war, was unlawful, and was directly at variance with the doctrine of Christianity. If anything could make war lawful, it must be defensive, and then only by the command of the civil magistrate. It was therefore unlawful to engage in a war carried on between two powers, of neither of which the party aiding was a subject; but the act was still worse when the aid was given to one of two parties engaged in civil war. He mentioned this because he had on a former occasion spoken of the force going from this country to aid the cause of Donna Maria, and on that occasion he wished those parties success in their undertaking. He then spoke in the warmth of debate, and much more had been made of his remarks than the thing warranted. He would not retract those remarks, but he would admit that he had then spoken without sufficient qualifica-
686
tion. If any one had any doubts on the subject of the inexpediency and the unlawfulness of joining in civil contests such as those of Spain by parties not subjects of that country, his eyes would be unsealed by the revolting, disgusting, and abominable atrocities which had been perpetrated on both sides.
Subject dropped.

COUNTY MAGISTRATES ACTING IN BOROUGHS.
The Duke of Richmondwished to put the question to his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, he wished to know whether magistrates of counties, in which the new boroughs were situtated, had authority to act as magistrates in those towns. In the course of a discussion which took place in that House a few evenings back, it was stated by a noble and learned lord (Denman) that magistrates of counties had not any authority to act as magistrates in new boroughs. Since then a question had been put on the subject, in another place, to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who stated that, in his opinion, county magistrates had the power to act in those new boroughs. He certainly concurred in the answer given by the noble Lord the Home Secretary, but as a difference of opinion existed on the subject, he thought it was of importance that the question should be set at rest. It was of importance to Lords-lieutentant of counties to know with certainty what the law was on the matter. For instance, if a county magistrate had been present at the late riots at Birmigham, and if he refused to act in suppressing the riot or committing prisoners, he would (if he had authority to act) be liable to prosecution for refusing; but, on the other hand, he would be liable to prosecution if he acted without authority. He would therefore, beg to ask his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack whether he was prepared to answer the question now, or if not, if he would read the act and give his opinion on a future evening?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he should feel no hesitation in answering the question put by hit noble Friend; but, as a difference of opinion existed on the point, he would look over the Act, and would endeavour to obtain the grounds of the opinions held on it.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that magistrates should not pay attention to opinions

687
on points of law pronounced in the course of debate in that House.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the opinion to which his noble Friend the noble Duke referred was not given hastily in the course of debate. In was the opinion of the noble and learned Lord the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, and was supported by that of a noble and learned Lord who had filled the office of Lord Chancellor. The opinion was given at the close of the debate for the information of their Lordships as to the law on the point.
The Duke of Richmondagreed in the old remark, that an opinion without a fee was not worth much, but he did hope that this important question would be set at rest without delay.
Subject dropped.

PENNY POSTAGE.
The Duke of Richmondpresented a petition signed by the mayor and upwards of 12,500 of the merchants of the city of London, and which he understood, had been signed in twelve hours. The petitioners prayed, that no assumed temporary deficiency in the revenue should delay the introduction of so important a measure as a uniform penny postage. Some years since, he had stated they ought to reduce the rates of postage; that the postages were too heavy, and acted as an unequal tax; and if the postage had been then reduced the revenue would not have suffered. The consequence was that a great number of petitions had been presented to that House on the subject, and he understood that a bill relating to this matter had been introduced into the other House of Parliament. He did not think there would be any difficulty in working the alteration as proposed; but the difficulty which many men felt on the question was, that it would cause a great loss of revenue, and that was the real difficulty in the question. He concluded that before the bill on this subject had been introduced into the other House of Parliament it had been well considered; and he wished to ask whether her Majesty's Government had any estimate of what they believed the number of letters would be. He thought that this measure must be passed into a law; he thought it would be impossible now that they should prevent it; but at the same time he thought that such precautions ought to be taken in the bill before parliament as that the revenue should
688
suffer as little as possible. He thought they ought to have a clause in that bill to prevent the railroad companies charging more for letters than they charged for the luggage of a passenger. But if these companies were to continue to charge the same as they did now, with four or five times more letters, the charge would be much increased and very heavy. He understood that now the letters by the railroad from London to Birmigham cost more than they had done by the mail-coaches, When the bill should come into that House, being a money bill, there would be great difficulty in making any alterations in it; and he would now state that he was much surprised to find that the Lords of the Treasury had all the control under the new bill. Formerly the Postmaster-General had all the control, doing things with the approbation of the Lords of the Treasury, but the Postmaster-General was the responsible party. Broad shoulders the lords of the Treasury had, and if their measures were not good, they would only be able to abuse them en masse, instead of making the Postmaster-General responsible. He trusted also that a regulation would be made with regard to letters sent abroad by vessels. At present they might send letters by any ship without passing through the Post-office, and it was said that one ship left Liverpool with only eight or ten letters from the Post-office, and with many thousand letters from individuals, If they gave a great boon to the commercial and manufacturing interests whose business led them to write more than the agricultural interests, if the Government conceded one uniform rate of postage, not charged as heretofore for any supposed service by way of carriage, charging the same for 3,000 miles as for 100, they ought to force all parties to assist as far as possible the revenue, as well for home letters as to the colonies. With such regulations, and with a penny stamp, he felt that in a few years the revenue would recover itself to a considerable extent.
Viscount Duncannonsaid, that the noble Duke had asked him to state, whether, previously to undertaking this measure, her Majesty's Government had used any exertions to ascertain what would be the loss to the revenue? He was afraid that he could not give the noble Duke a very satisfactory answer. The measure had been much taken into consideration, and there were many opinions on the one

689
side and on the other. For himself, he was persuaded, that with great exertions on the part of those who should carry the act into execution, there would not ultimately be any loss. The present bill was continued only for one year, and it certainly gave great powers to the Lords of the Treasury, which appeared to him to be necessary, because in case of a deficiency to any great extent some things must be provided for by the Treasury on of other sources. Some of the hereditary revenues of the Crown, and certain pensions, were settled on the post-office revenue. Great powers were, therefore, necessary for the Lords of the Treasury to make regulations on those subjects. As to the calculation of the amount of letters at present, and the amount hereafter carried, the only calculations which he was aware of were made by the person under whose name the plan went, Mr. Rowland Hill, and the examinations before the Committee of the House of Commons. Mr. Hill's calculations were as fairly borne out as they could be by the examinations; from them it appeared, that the average amount received for letters at present was 6½d., and that the average amount to be received if Mr. Rowland Hill's plan were taken to its full extent, was 1¼d., the consequence was, that if they took the present number of letters at 80,000,000, the number of letters necessary to make up the deficiency would be 400,000,000. He believed, that it might be fairly anticipated, that ultimately such an amount of letters might be depended on, but there must be very great exertions on the part of those who were to carry the act into execution, and also, that such regulations should be made as should enable the post-office to detect the frauds which were at present committed on the revenue, particularly in the large packets sent abroad and to the colonies, and, he believed, to an almost equal extent by stage-coaches. The best exertions must be made to prevent fraud, in order to have the plan carried into effect with the greatest advantage to the public, and with the least loss of revenue. It was certainly unfortunate, that something had not been done when the railroad bills were before the House to make suitable arrangements for the conveyance of the mails, but he did not think, that there was the large additional amount of charge for the conveyance of the mails to which the
690
noble Duke had referred. The former expense for the conveyance of the mails from London to Dublin was about 9,000 l. a year, it now amounted to between 33,000 l. and 34,000 l., but it was hardly fair to charge this on the railroads, for if they took the additional expense, they must also take into consideration the great advantage the public derived from the railroads. At present there were two distinct ports between London and Dublin, and besides, almost all the London and Edinburgh letters went by the railroads, therefore, if the expenses were quadrupled the advantages were also quadrupled. In conceding this reduction, Ministers were but acceding to the general wish of the country, and having acceded to this wish, the Government had a right to call upon those to whom they had given the boon to assist them to prevent frauds on the revenue, and that every exertion should be made to benefit the public.
Lord Ashburtonthought, that it was very inconsistent to discuss a measure which was not before the House. Great advantage was certainly derived from the greater rapidity of the railroads, but the passengers by railroads did not pay more than by common roads, and went at the increased rate. Therefore no greater charge ought to be put upon letters carried by railroad than by the present mode of conveyance. He thought, that the sum to be received from the post-office under the new plan would not probably exceed 2,600,000 l., and that was a large sum to be collected in pennies.
Petition to lie on the table.