Sitting of 3 June 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Deanery of Exeter.—Read a second time:—Metropolitan Police; Metropolitan Police Courts; Summary Jurisdiction.
Petitions presented. By Messrs. GROTE, P. HOWARD, COLQUHOUN, PEASE, Sir G. STRICKLAND, Sir W. BRABATON, and Sir DE LACY EVANS, from a great number of places, for a uniform Penny Postage.—By Messrs. LUCAS, T. EGERTON, ESTCOURT, PLUMPTRE, COLQUHOUN, HUGHES, M. PARKER, Sir R. INGLIS, Sir E. KNATCHBULL, Lords TEIGNMOUTH, and MAHON, from a great many places, against the Government plan of National Education.—By Mr. CHRISTOPHER, from Sir David Brewster, and others, to make the Scotch Universities responsible for the continuance of the purity of the Bible Texts.—By Mr. BLACKETT, from an Agricultural District in Northumberland, for the Immediate Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. LIDDELL, and Mr. PEASE, from two places, for the Repeal of the Bastardy Clauses in the New Poor-law Act.—By Mr. PEASE, from a place in Scotland, for the Total Abolition of the Punishment of Death.—By Mr. W. EVANS, from Derby, and Shoreland, against the Mails running on Sundays.—By Sir W. BRABAZON, from Mayo, and Mr. LUCAS, from one place, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Sir R. INGLIS, from Aylsham, against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill; from one place, in favour of Church Extension in the Colonies; and from Torquay, against encouraging Idolatry in India.—By Mr. M. PARKER, from one place, against the Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill.

SLAVE TRADE.
Sir R. Inglisrose to put the question, of which he had given notice, with respect to the Foreign Slave-trade. The House would recollect, that the noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, had pledged himself and the Government to use every means in their power for the suppression of the foreign slave-trade. All the accounts, however, both public and private, which reached him, induced him to believe, that that inhuman trade was carried on to a greater extent, and with more horror than was ever previously known. He trusted that the noble Lord would now state to the House what mea-
1254
sures the Government bad adopted, or intended to adopt, to suppress this great curse and crime.
Viscount Palmerstonhad stated some time ago, that it was the intention of Government to propose to Parliament a bill to give additional powers with regard to that part of the foreign slave-trade which was carried on under the Portuguese flag. He should already have moved for leave to introduce such a bill, but he wished beforehand to submit to Parliament the correspondence which had taken place between the British and Portuguese Governments upon the subject. That correspondence had been some time in the hands of the printer, but owing to some accidental circumstances, it had not been delivered. He believed, however, that it would be ready in a few days, and as soon as it was produced, he would give notice of the day on which he would move for leave to introduce the bill.
Sir Robert Inglistrusted, that the noble Lord, in consideration of the human suffering which this trade daily occasioned, would not lose one hour in taking the necessary steps to prevent it.

CANADA.
The Order of the day for taking into consideration the Queen's message with respect to the Canadas having been read,
Lord John Russellsaid: It is now my duty, as a Minister of the Crown, to call upon Parliament to lay the foundation of a permanent settlement of the affairs of Canada. I think, upon general grounds, there are sufficient reasons why Parliament should at present be asked to take some step which may indicate the policy that Parliament will, in future, pursue with regard to those complicated and disturbed affairs. We have had various commissions of inquiry—we have had reports from those commissions laid upon the Table of the House; and the abrupt termination of the mission of Lord Durham made it, in our opinion, inexpedient to appoint any other person with similar authority to report again with regard to the facts of the case, or to state the views which he might take of the best manner of meeting its difficulties. But there are other and special reasons why, in my opinion, Parliament should be ready now to declare its opinion with regard to the principle upon which the legislation of Canada is ill future, to be guided. When Parliament last year passed an act, which

1255
was agreed to by very large majorities in both Houses, to provide for the temporary government of Canada, it was supposed, that the powers granted by the act were so extensive that they partook—as its opponents represented—so much of an arbitrary and despotic nature, that it would not be necessary for the person exercising the authority of the Crown in Canada to apply to the home Government for any further powers as the means of preserving peace in those provinces. But at the end of the last Session of Parliament, in consequence of an ordinance passed by Lord Durham, new views, as I think, were stated with respect to the powers conferred by that act of Parliament. Very learned authorities supported a view, not merely questioning that particular ordinance of Lord Durham of which it is not necessary for me to speak; but disputing and doubting altogether the extensive nature of the powers which, in the opinion of the Government, fortified by that of the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-general, had been conferred upon the Governor-general of Canada. The consequence of that interference of Parliament—I am not now speaking of whether it were a necessary or politic interference—but the consequence in point of fact of that interference was, that a tribunal in Lower Canada, expressed on one particular occasion, strong doubts as to the validity of the act to enable the Governor-general of Canada to detain persons suspected of high treason. Two of the judges concurred in an opinion that a person who had been so detained was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. The Governor, by the exercise of an authority very sudden and very arbitrary, but as I am disposed to say, extremely necessary, refused to allow this writ to be executed. He justified the officer who refused to produce the body of the prisoner, and he suspended the judges who had given an opinion contrary to the effect of his ordinances. I say, that in the circumstances in which Canada was then placed, with an impending rebellion—with resistance already begun in some portions of those provinces, if the Governor had acted otherwise, his hesitation would probably have been the cause of great bloodshed and a very protracted struggle, even if he had not risked the safety of the provinces altogether. But, at the same time, I say that an Act of Parliament should not be left in such a state that the Governor should be obliged to resort
1256
to such extreme measures as the suspension of judges, who, no doubt, had acted conscientiously, taking into their view, (I understood, indeed, that that was the main ground of their proceedings) the opinions given in this country by learned individuals who had filled high offices in the State, and thereby induced to give a decision in court which tended to make the powers of the Government inoperative, and to place the safety of the province in danger. It may be said, that the simple and the single remedy for such a state of things would be, to call for fresh powers—to explain in more definite terms those powers which were conferred by the Act of last year, and to take care that that Act should be sufficient to arm Sir John Colborne, or whoever the Governor of the province may be, with legal and undoubted powers to preserve its peace and tranquillity. But, viewing the state of the province with regard to inquiries generally—looking at the information which is before the Government and before Parliament with regard to this subject, I do not think the Government would be justified in coming down to Parliament and asking for further and more definite powers, unless they, at the same time, asked, that some principle should be established by which a future government, and, I should say, a future free government, of the Canadas could be secured when these temporary powers shall cease to be in force. These, therefore, are the grounds upon which I say that the time is come when Parliament should be called upon for an opinion as to the principle, at least, of the future settlement of the affairs of the Canadas. I will now recal to the attention of the House the Act which, by her Majesty's message, it is proposed in its chief enactments to renew, to the series of transactions which took place in consequence of that act, and to the representations which have been made by Lord Durham as her Majesty's high Commissioner. The Act of 1791, which provided for the separation of the two provinces, appears to be, from all that I have read of the speeches delivered by Mr. Pitt in this House, and by Lord Grenville in the other; and from all I have heard from persons who were acquainted with the general transactions of that period, the grounds upon which that Act was founded appear to me to have been principally two. The one was, that there being

1257
an influx of British emigrants into Canada, and with them an increase of British industry, British habits, and fondness for British institutions, it seems to have been conceived—I will not detain the House by quoting passages from the speeches of the time—but it appears to be very clearly shown, that it was conceived by Mr. Pitt and Lord Grenville that by dividing the province into two, the French population might remain in that portion thenceforth to be called Lower Canada, whilst British emigrants would have free scope for their industry, and free power to establish their own institutions, and to abide by their own customs, in the other portion of the province, which was to be called Upper Canada. Another reason upon which I conceive the bill was founded, though that certainly is not so clear—but it seems to me to follow from the state of the times and the views taken by the Government of that period—another reason was, that it was thought advisable that the French inhabitants being at once very loyal to the Crown, of very simple habits, and possessing institutions to which they were very much attached, should have preserved to them the means of maintaining those institutions. By this plan, then, it was intended to reward them for their previous loyal conduct, and to give them a security for the future stability of their institutions. Speaking with great respect of those who introduced the constitutional Act of 1791, and readily allowing, that there might have been at the time reasons of which we cannot properly judge—for we have no right to make use of our own experience in affording a reason for condemning the authority of that measure—readily allowing this, I do think, that upon both the grounds to which I have alluded, that Act was a mistaken act of policy. It appears to me to be quite impossible that you could so contrive a division of the two races as to keep the British in Upper Canada distinct from the French in the Lower Province. And even if that took place, the consequence was sure to follow, that the French in Lower Canada would seek to deprive the English of the Upper Province of those natural advantages, which a free communication with the sea by the river St. Lawrence, would necessarily confer. In the next place, I do not think that there was any thing in the old French institutions, or in the habits of the French people, which at all deserved to be retained, or that the
1258
government should take means to preserve. I think that the policy should rather have been to give the greatest power to the emigrants from this country, to have amalgamated the institutions of the two provinces, and to have brought them as near as possible to those of England. But whatever may be the judgment of the House with respect to the bill, as it was then introduced, we have had an opportunity of seeing the very serious, and I think the very dangerous consequences which have flowed as certainly from that act as any effects can ever be said to flow from any cause. For many years, indeed, the people of Lower Canada being chiefly French, and little curious of inquiring into the powers which they had acquired by the Act of 1731, made no opposition to the Government at home; but, as was perfectly natural, there grew up in a little time in Lower Canada a considerable population of British race, British habits, and possessing to the full the British love of enterprise, bringing with them great commercial capital, and anxious to push to the utmost the advantages which were to he derived front the rich soil and the opportunities of trade which the position of Lower Canada afforded. The result was, that strong opposition was made by the House of Assembly of Lower Canada to the views of the Crown in England, and for some years it appears to have been the practice of the Crown—a practice justly reprehended by the committee of 1828—to make an appropriation of the supplies of Lower Canada, which supplies were never voted by the House of Assembly. A method, indeed, was adopted in order to prevent the governor and the servants of the Crown in that province from being completely overwhelmed by the opposition of the House of Assembly, of composing the Legislative Council almost exclusively of persons of British origin. I think, that that also was not a politic course of proceeding. The effect of it was to produce in the Legislative Council a great majority of persons of British, race, of different views, and totally different opinions from the majority of the House of Assembly. There thus grew up a constant opposition, a constant source of irritation between the members of the House of Assembly chosen by the inhabitants of Lower Canada, and the British majority in the Legislative Council, placed there by the Crown. It was found, that that mode of proceeding tended ultimately so much to dissension and disunion—that

1259
the business of the province could not be carried on, and that the governor was obliged, year after year, to report the failure of his attempts to induce the House of Assembly to adopt those measures which had been recommended from the Home Government. At length a committee was appointed in 1828, which committee made various propositions of amendment—propositions which I stated to the House last year in detail, and to which it is of course unnecessary that I should again refer. These propositions, it must be said, were fairly admitted by the Government of this country as soon as they were made; but by the time that the Government had determined to grant everything that could in fairness and justice be demanded by the House of Assembly, that body, elated by what they conceived to be a triumph over the Mother Country, made demands totally incompatible with the relations between the parent state and a colony—demands which would deprive the British population of the province of all power, and the representatives of the Crown of all control—demands which in fact would, if granted, have established, under the name of a British province, an independent French colony in Lower Canada, Great Britain having only the burden of contributing her fleet and armies to support and sustain the colony, or rather the public, against any enemy that might chance to assail it. In consequence of these proceedings in the year 1837, I proposed certain resolutions to the House, and which resolutions, after long and repeated debates, were adopted by a very great majority. Those resolutions negatived the proposal of the Assembly of Lower Canada, and declared that it was the resolution of this House not to agree to the demands which the House of Assembly had said were the sine quâ non for granting the supplies. The resolutions went on further to declare, that the House of Commons would, by authority of Parliament, provide for the payment of those servants of the Crown in Canada, whom the Assembly had for more than three years left without any pay. The consequence of that proceeding on the part of this House was increased discontent and irritation among the French leaders, and those who followed them in Lower Canada; a feeling of irritation, which went to such an extent, and was so dangerous in the eyes of Lord Gosford, who was then the governor of that province, that after procuring the best information he could obtain, he thought
1260
it necessary to issue a warrant for the apprehension, on the charge of high treason, of many members of the House of Assembly, which members, with few exceptions, immediately left the country, and then the rebellion took place on which was founded the act of last year. It was in consequence of that act, and under the powers of that act, that Lord Durham was sent to Canada. He was there for no very long period, and I think considering the difficulty of the details of the administration, and the immense amount of business necessarily before him, that the attention he paid to the general state of the province shows, that if he had been able to remain for the whole time originally contemplated, we should have received from him a very detailed and satisfactory account of measures by which the evils of Canada could have been remedied. As the matter stands, the report of Lord Durham contains at great length, and in very forcible language, a picture of the evils of Lower Canada, a description of the sources from which those evils have been derived, and a very strong, and I hope a somewhat too strongly, coloured picture of the animosities existing between the two races of the French and British in that colony. I come then to the question of the remedy which is to be proposed for these evils. But, before I state the proposition for the re-union of the two provinces, I beg again to place before the House the fact, that the chief evils with which we have had to contend, appear to have been derived almost directly from the act of separation of the colony. It is at all events difficult to deny, that those evils have flowed from that cause. One great evil is the entire predominance of the French party in the House of Assembly, that party refusing that any French habits, French laws, or French tenures should be altered, and declining to give their assent or approbation to any law by which British enterprise could be encouraged. That was the result of the French people having received by the constitution of 1791, a decided majority in the representation. However incompatible the proceedings of the Assembly may have been to the general interests of the province, and however ill they may have used their power, it appears to me to have been the necessary consequence of their position, and the direct result, that might have been expected from the powers they possessed, knowing, as we must, their inclinations and dispositions. Another very serious matter

1261
is, that the people of the Upper Province have been unable to carry on trade in that unrestricted manner in which they feel themselves entitled to do, for want of having immediate communication with the sea. In the address from the Constitutional Association of Montreal to the inhabitants of British America, they say, "Upper Canada, repulsed in her endeavours to open a direct channel of communication to the sea, has been driven to cultivate commercial relations with the United States, whose policy is more congenial with her own." They say again, Upper Canada is honourably distinguished for works completed and in progress, remarkable for their magnitude, and for the extensiveness of their destined utility. The St. Lawrence Canal, at this moment in active progress, will complete an uninterrupted navigation for vessels of considerable burden from the upper lakes to the line dividing that province from Lower Canada; but at that point the spirit of British enterprise encounters the influence of French domination; the vast design of rendering the remotest of the inland seas accessible to vessels from the ocean, is there frustrated by the anti-commercial policy of the French leaders. We look in vain to their proceedings for any manifestation of a desire to cooperate in the great work of public improvement which animates, as with one spirit, the entire North American population of British descent; nor is their adverse disposition less visible in their opposition to other important designs; they either refuse to grant charters to carry into effect works of acknowledged public utility, or when, after repeated and earnest applications, charters are obtained, they are clogged with restrictions of an unusual character, in the hope of rendering them inoperative." Thus it is, that whether with regard to political interests, or whether with regard to material interests, we find that the act which separated the provinces, is the act which has been the cause of the political dissensions in Lower Canada and the cause also of arresting all enterprises of great public utility, and of promoting the means of commerce in the Upper Province. It would seem, therefore, if we were to look no further than to the evils and their cause, that the proper remedy of them would be, to unite those provinces whose separation has been the evident cause of them. But, before I state any further reasons in support of that plan, or of the mode by which I think it may be carried
1262
into effect, I wish to state another plan that might be proposed, and the objections which I think are conclusive against it. One plan might be, the continuance of what I should call the constitutional power now existing in Lower Canada, the continuance of the power of the Governor and Special Council to dispose of the whole of the taxes, and to make laws for that province. I think any very long continuance of such powers, without a prospect of some change, and of returning to a free Government, would be repugnant to the feelings of any people who have been once governed by constitutional principles; but, above all, repugnant to the feelings of a large proportion of the inhabitants of the continent of America. We now see that, with regard to no part of the continent of America, either in the north or in the south, is there a despotic power vested in any one head, or in any small or oligarchical body. Even those provinces which formerly belonged to Spain and Portugal, however ill they may have carried it into effect, have acknowledged the representative principle of Government. If, then, you were to have in Lower Canada a large population—a population of not less than 150,000 of British descent, with a state of the law by which their wishes were not at all consulted, by which an arbitrary power was enabled to rule, and of the termination of which there was no speedy prospect, I think you would soon find that there would grow up a feeling of discontent on the part of both races—both of the British races who have been accustomed to freedom and the practices of freedom—and of the French race, who would remember that they had not long ago enjoyed very great power in the choice of the Assembly. If, then, this plan would not be sufficient, let us consider next the plan which I find to have been suggested by Sir Francis Head, Lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada, namely, that the district of Montreal should be added to Upper Canada, and that Lower Canada should be differently governed. That would apparently provide for some of the wants of Upper Canada, but I do not think it would do so in effect; because, if you still have a French Assembly in Lower Canada, although the interruption to trade might not affect the same parts, there would be the same spirit prevailing, and the same obstacles to that free enjoyment of trade which the people of Upper Canada had a fair right to expect would exist. But there is

1263
this further consideration. This plan seems, to be adopted solely for the benefit of the province of Upper Canada, without the interests of the inhabitants of Lower Canada being at all consulted. Now, as affecting Lower Canada, if such a plan were made permanent, you would necessarily reject that which I just now spoke of—namely, that of having a Governor and Special Council, and you would be obliged again to resort to an assembly with an overwhelming majority of members of French origin. I think, after what has happened, after the declarations made by the Assembly of Lower Canada—after their refusal to legislate unless powers were given to them which had been already shown to be incompatible with the political condition of the province, and destructive of British interests there, if you were to have the British population of Lower Canada again subjected to the revived predominance of a French assembly, it would excite the greatest degree of discontent, and I am prepared to say of just discontent on the part of that population, as well as on the part of the Imperial Parliament. Then, Sir, I know not, taking the matter in this view, and considering what the remedy ought to be, if you can neither establish an arbitrary government in Lower Canada consistently1 with your general principles, and with the consent of the province, and if you cannot re-establish a separate Assembly, I know not what plan you can resort to, unless it is by an union of the two provinces to give to the British population of Upper Canada, and to the British population and French population of Lower Canada, equal and free institutions, by which a representative constitution may be carried into effect, and all the means of promoting the prosperity of both provinces may be fully obtained. Thus, then, I arrive at these general conclusions in balancing these propositions. I say, first, if you look at the history of what has occurred since the enactment of 1791—if you look at the difficulties of administration, at the insurrections, at the want of good laws in Lower Canada, you are led to the conclusion that those evils have flowed from the separation of the provinces. If, again, you look to the remedies that can be applied—if seeing what you must see, that the present state of things being only temporary, it is necessary to lay down a foundation for some permanent settlement of the colonies—then you must feel that any foundation must fail of producing the desired effect, unless it be a
1264
proposition for the union of the two provinces. From a consideration both of the evils and of the remedy, I am irresistibly led to this conclusion. There is another scheme which I have not mentioned—although of a far more extensive nature—because I believe it has been at present abandoned by its proposers: I mean the scheme for the confederation of all the North American provinces—each province having a separate Assembly, and, at the same time as it were, one supreme Assembly over all. Upon that subject, more than a year and a half ago, I consulted a person, whose opinion is always deserving of great weight in reference to this particular question, and to all matters referring to Canadian affairs, I mean Sir James Kemp. I asked him his views, and he told me that he was convinced, from the state of the provinces, and of the communications between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and Upper and Lower Canada, that such an union would not be practicable; that it would lead to the greatest inconvenience on the part of the representation of the interest of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia; and that he would strongly dissuade the Government from entertaining such a proposal. That was the opinion of Sir James Kemp before Lord Durham went out to Canada. Lord Durham went out, after considering every plan, very much disposed to favour the plan for a general union of the provinces; but the result of all the communications he had had with persons there and in this country, interested in the welfare of Upper Canada, and of the British population in Lower Canada, had led him to the conclusion that he could not, consistently with his duty to the Crown, recommend such a union. Having thus stated the general reasons which weighed with us in favour of the legislative union of the two provinces, I think it only necessary to state shortly, at present, the principles upon which we think a legislative union ought to be founded. One main consideration evidently is, in what manner the representation is to be formed?—whether it is to be a representation, giving to each province a certain number of members, or whether it is a representation giving a certain number of members in proportion to the population, or what other scheme? Upon considering these various matters, and discussing each proposition, it is our opinion generally, that you ought not to lay down any precise number of representatives for Lower Canada and for Upper

1265
Canada, and that likewise you ought not to lay down as a principle, that the population alone should be considered. It seemed to us, that it would be necessary, in forming the union, and before that legislative union could be properly completed, to have taken into consideration all the matters relating as well to the population as to the territories upon which a good representative system may hereafter be founded, Whatever may be the case with regard to old countries, yet in providing a representation for a country which twenty years ago had hardly any inhabitants, but which has now become very populous, it is necessary to keep in view that the same increase of population may go on, not only by births, but by immigration; and that, therefore, it would be proper to combine the consideration of territory with population, and to lay down, as a general basis, that you will combine those two principles, and give a representation which may not be actually suitable to the amount of the population at present, but which several years hence would more correctly be a representation of the people, than if they were to lay down for their guidance the present state of the population. In taking this principle, it appears to me a reasonable one. One great advantage and effect of that principle would be, to give greater weight to the British inhabitants of Lower Canada, because many of the evils of Canada have flown from the extreme jealousy of the French inhabitants and the introduction of new laws, new enterprise, and new trade into their province. I think the true policy of this country, not only with regard to England and the Imperial Parliament, but as regards the future interests of Upper Canada, is to give a British character to the whole province, to allow British laws and British legislation to have a thorough scope;—to take care, by all means, that the French population shall not be oppressed, that they shall not suffer from any injustice, but at the same time not to allow their jealousies and their attachments to their own customs to stand in the way of that great progression which I trust Canada is destined to make, and which alone can make either a province or a state prosperous and happy. Such, therefore, would be the general principle of that united legislature which we recommend; but it is a general principle which it must be perceived by the House cannot be carried into effect by any bill at present to be introduced. It is a plan which will require
1266
previous inquiry on the spot from persons who have an intimate knowledge of the state and circumstances of Canada. There is one portion of Lord Durham's report to which I will immediately advert in connection with this subject. He proposes that there should be power given to the Governor to suspend by proclamation the writs for any electoral districts in which any disturbances may have taken place, stating specifically the grounds for such suspension. This does appear to us a very objectionable power to be given to the Governor. The Governor might, indeed, state the grounds of his determination fairly, but it would always be suspected that the real grounds were in order to give an advantage to one party over another. It therefore seemed to us better to adopt some general principle, such as I have already mentioned, and better to delay carrying into effect those principles for some considerable time, rather than run the danger on the one hand of appearing to introduce the representative principle, at the same time introducing it with such large and objectionable exceptions; or, on the other, of giving representatives to a district almost universally engaged in insurrection, and whose presence in the assembly could really lead to nothing but dissension and mutual accusation; it appears to us, therefore, both on the one ground and on the other, that it is better to postpone to a future period the calling together of any assembly for legislative purposes. We accordingly propose that no assembly should be called together for the two united provinces till the year 1842. It follows, as a necessary consequence, that we should propose to continue all the temporary powers now granted to the Governor and Special Council till that period. I will now advert to some of the proposals contained in the report of Lord Durham, which I greatly regret have not been more developed than they have been, I do not think, that blame is attributable to Lord Durham for their want of greater development; because to whomsoever blame may attach, from the abrupt termination of his Government, he had not the means of sufficiently discussing the particulars and details of each of his propositions in a manner which might have entitled them to the confidence of Parliament and of the Crown. He proposes, that there should be local elective bodies in the provinces subordinate to the general legislative body. In that proposition we are disposed to agree. We

1267
think there should be elective bodies in the nature of municipal bodies, with power to levy local taxes for the formation of roads, bridges, and all other necessary local purposes. He also proposes, that there should be a supreme court of appeal for all the North American colonies. That is a question, however, which must be reserved for a separate measure. With regard to the constitution of the Legislative Council, the report of Lord Durham does not contain any very different proposal from the resolution of this House, which declared, that it was not expedient to give the Legislative Council an elective character, but that it was expedient to give it greater weight, with a view of inspiring greater confidence in its proceedings. It appears to us, that the best mode by which that could be effected, without adopting the principle of election, and which would seem to give it some conformity with the character of a representative council, would be, to make it necessary, that the persons appointed to the Legislative Council, should either have been members of some popular assembly to which they had been elected by the people, or have been placed in some office by the Crown which might serve as a proof, that they were persons to whom the public or the Crown had thought fit to intrust important duties. Of the management of the Crown lands, which is a very extensive subject, it is not necessary for me to say anything. We shall propose, with regard to the Crown revenues, that the Assembly shall have the power of applying them when a provision shall have first been made by that Assembly for an adequate civil list. It is very evident, that the disputes which have arisen between the Crown and the popular Assembly, on the subject of the appropriation of the public money can only be stepped, if stopped at all, by complete confidence existing both on one side and on the other. If you give to the Assembly, power over the greater part of the revenue, and at the same time withhold a part, and refuse to them the administration of that part, that body will entertain the same feeling of jealousy with regard to that part so withheld, which they have done with regard to the whole. If, on the other hand, the House of Assembly should refuse to make a permanent provision for the salaries of the public officers, and for the necessary administration of the Government, and of justice, in the colony, they would completely paralyze the Government, and on their side could not, therefore, expect,
1268
the Government of the colony to be carried on in a manner to their own satisfaction. Them is another question upon which I am now going to state an opinion, which question I think is of the very greatest importance, and upon which Lord Durham has expressed an opinion contrary to that entertained by this House—I mean the question with respect to the responsibility of the individual holding the office of Governor in the province. Lord Durham has stated, that an analogy existed between the representative of the Crown in the colony and the constitutional responsibility of the Ministers in this country. He states, that as soon as the Ministers of the Crown have lost the confidence of the House of Commons in this country they ceased to be Ministers, and that they could not go on with the Government with a constant minority. He adds, that it is certainly a most unusual case for a Ministry to go on for several months in a minority—and he then attempts to apply that principle to the local Government of Canada. Now, the resolution of the House on this subject was in these terms:—"Resolved, That while it is expedient to improve the composition of the Executive Council of Lower Canada, it is unadvisable to subject it to that responsibility demanded by the House of Assembly of that province." This House upon my motion came to that resolution, and I must own, that there is nothing in this report which has at all in my mind shaken the argument by which at the time I supported that resolution. It does not appear to me, that you can subject the Executive Council of Canada to the responsibility which is fairly demanded of the Ministers of the executive power in this country. In the first place, there is an obvious difference in matter of form with regard to the instructions under which the Governor of a colony acts. The Sovereign in this country receives the advice of the Ministers, and acts by the advice of those Ministers, and indeed there is no important act of the Crown, for which there is not some individual Minister responsible. There responsibility begins, and there it ends. But the Governor of Canada is acting, not in that high and unassailable position in which the Sovereign of this country is placed. He is a Governor receiving instructions from the Crown on the responsibility of a Secretary of State. Here then at once is an obvious and complete difference between the executive of this country, and the executive of a colony. The Governor might ask the Executive

1269
Council to propose a certain measure. They might say, they could not propose it, unless the Members of the House of Assembly would adopt it, but the Governor might reply, that he had received instructions from home commanding him to propose that measure. How, in that case, is he to proceed? Either one power or the other must be set aside. Either the Governor or the House of Assembly, or else the Governor must become a mere cipher in the hands of the Assembly, and not attempt to carry into effect the measures commanded by the home Government. But, if we endeavour to carry out this analogy, there is one case that all the world allows is a case in which it could not be applied—I mean the case of foreign affairs. If the Assembly of New Brunswick in the late collision carried on a dispute with the North American States. [Interruption. Cries of "Order!"] The subject (continued the noble Lord) is certainly a very important one, and although I may express myself in very inadequate terms, yet I do conceive, that, as it is in my opinion, one of the most important points contained in Lord Durham's report, and one on which I differ with him, I ought to state the grounds of that difference. I say, if the Assembly of New Brunswick had been disposed to carry the point in dispute with the North American States hostilely, and the Executive Council had been disposed to aid them, in my opinion, the Governor must have said, that his duty to the Crown of this country, and the general instructions which he had received from the minister of the Crown, did not permit him to take that course, and, therefore, he could not agree with the Executive Council to carry into effect the wish of the majority of the Assembly. That is allowed. Does not then this very exception destroy the analogy you wish to draw, when, upon so important a point as that of foreign affairs, it cannot be sustained? Again, neither could this analogy be maintained with regard to trade between Canada and the mother country, or Canada and any foreign country; how then can you adopt a principle from which such large exceptions are to be made? If you were to do so, you would be continually on the borders of dispute and conflict; the Assembly and the Executive, on the one hand, requiring a certain course to be pursued, while the Governor, on the other hand, would be as constantly de-
1270
claring, that it was a course he could not adopt; so that, instead of furnishing matter of content and harmony in these provinces, you would be affording new matter for dispute and discontent, if you were to act upon this supposed analogy. But, supposing you could lay down this broad principle, and say that all external matters should be subject to the home Government, and all internal affairs should be governed according to the majority of the Assembly, could you carry that principle into effect? I say, we cannot abandon the responsibility which is cast upon us as Ministers of the Executive of this great empire. I will put a case, one merely of internal concern that occurred only the other day. Let us suppose that an officer of militia in Upper Canada, after an action, was to order that the persons taken in that action should be put to death on the field. I can conceive it possible, in a state of exasperation and conflict with the people of the neighbouring state, that the Assembly might applaud that conduct, and might require that it should be the rule, and not the exception, that all invaders of their territory should be treated in that manner, and that the parties should be put to death without trial. Supposing that to be the case, could the Government of this country adopt such a rule? Could the Secretary of State for the Colonies sanction such a rule, and not decide as his hon. Friend, the Under-secretary had done, that such a practice would meet with his decided reprehension? It was quite impossible to allow it to be laid down as a general principle, that any part of the government of this country, conducted by Ministers having the sanction of this House, shall be overruled by a colony, and that such colony shall not be subject to the general superintending authority of the Crown of these realms. I can conceive, Sir—and I think that it would be the part of wisdom and of justice to say—that there are matters affecting the internal affairs of these provinces, that there are matters in which neither the Imperial Parliament nor the general Government need interfere, and on which they should be anxious to consult the feelings of the people of the colonies. It seems to me, Sir, as much a rule of sense as of generosity, that there are some questions on which it would not be desirable, that on the opinion of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the opinion of the

1271
House of Assembly should be put on one side. I know no reason why the Legislative Assembly, whether of each, separately, or of both provinces united, should not be listened to with deference; but I am not prepared to lay down a principle, a new principle, for the future government of the colonies, that we ought to subject the executive there to the same restrictions as prevail in this country. Adopting the general view sanctioned by the report, it has been necessary for me to mark the differences which I feel respecting some of its suggestions. It is stated in the report, that the past provision in the Act respecting the clergy reserves, as a security for the existing endowments of the Catholic clergy, should be guaranteed by a public Act. I think, Sir, that this is one of the subjects which may be left to the consideration of the Legislature of the province, for there has been a great anxiety in both provinces to administer religious instruction, though there has been great objection to the application of particular funds, more especially of the clergy reserves, to that object. But, Sir, whatever the opinion of the local Legislature may be, I would rather have that opinion pronounced before the opinion of the Imperial Parliament shall be taken on this subject. It remains only that I should state what appears to have been the opinion entertained in Canada generally as to the proposition of an union of the two provinces. It seems that in Lower Canada there has been for a very long time a strong party anxious for an union, and declaring, that it is the only means by which the true interests of the country can be provided for. This is distinctly stated in several of the addresses agreed to by different associations; it was especially stated in the address of one association at Montreal, presented to Lord Durham, and it had been stated previously by the British inhabitants of Lower Canada, that they looked for security to the proposal of re-uniting the two provinces. This year, the Legislature of Upper Canada have decided in favour of a general adherence to the proposal for union, but, at the same time, insist upon conditions and terms which cannot, in my opinion, be reasonably or fairly granted: They say
"Resolved, That the experience of the past year confirms the House in the opinions then expressed, and they are still of opinion that a united legislature for the Canadas, on the
1272
terms then proposed is indispensable, and that further delay must prove ruinous to the best interests of the Canadas; and it was resolved also, that as a measure deeply affecting the future interests of this province is now pending before the Imperial Parliament, it is of the utmost importance that one or more authorised agents, deputed by this House, should proceed forthwith to England to represent the true interests and opinions of her Majesty's faithful subjects in Upper Canada."
This resolution was adopted by a considerable majority of the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Council, however, after a long discussion of the proposal for an union, rejected it by a majority of ten to eight, being only a majority of two. Further accounts, Sir, have been received to-day with respect to the manner in which the Legislative Council and the Assembly have proceeded on receiving the report of Lord Durham. It appears, that both the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council thought themselves unjustly assailed by the report, and they had deemed it necessary to appoint a committee, who had drawn up a long report of the transactions in Canada, and the Legislative Council came to a resolution which seems to have been acquiesced in by the Legislative Assembly, not to send the two agents to England to represent their views. They had, however, sent an address to her Majesty, in which they refer to the report of their committee of the 30th of April, 1839. In this report, they came to a decision upon two points, which were important. They say that the proposal of the legislative union of the two provinces, and of the responsibility of the officers of the Government to the Legislature had undergone an investigation, and the deliberate judgment of the House. To the first they assented, and the second they pronounced to be inconsistent with the dependence of the colonies on the mother country. With regard to those two propositions, I have stated that what I propose is, in principle, the same as that to which they have assented; and it can hardly be expected that we here should take a view of their interests so confined to the province of Upper Canada, as have the Assembly of that province; and as to the disagreement with some of the recommendations of the report, I have already stated my own dissent from the same recommendations. Alluding to this report, in their address to the Queen, they make his request;—

1273
"In this report (Lord Durham's) your Majesty's faithful subjects find many statements deeply affecting the social and political relations and conditions of Upper and Lower Canada, and recommendations of several important changes in the form and practice of the constitution. It is with much concern your Majesty's faithful subjects find that your Majesty's High Commissioner has strongly urged the adoption of these changes by your Majesty in the Imperial Parliament, without waiting for the opinion which may be formed of them by the people the most deeply and immediately affected by them. Under these circumstances, we have caused a report to be drawn up by a select committee of the House of Representatives, which contains matter referring to this subject, as well as to our relations with the people of the United States, which we respectfully submit for your Majesty's consideration, and, in the fullest confidence in your Majesty and the Imperial Parliament, we commit ourselves to that superintending power to which, as loyal people, we owe implicit obedience."
Now, with that opinion before us, and with that address on the part of the Assembly of Upper Canada, it appears to me that we may well proceed to adopt this principle as to the future government of the two Canadas, and consider it as settled. I do not think, that with this address, with this prayer coming from a loyal people, coming from a people attached to the Crown of this country, and attached also to the institutions of this country, that we should be justified in proceeding to enact the details of the plan without consulting the people of Upper Canada, and without knowing their objections to the particular details of the plan. I shall, Sir, introduce a bill, if these resolutions are adopted; but, I say, with the information at present before us, and in the present state of public affairs, that 1 do not think that we should come to a satisfactory settlement of this great question, if we were to press the House to go into committee on a bill containing enactments of details, without further concert and information. I wish that the ties which unite this country with the Canadas may be drawn closer, and may not be relaxed, that nothing may be adopted to weaken the sympathies of subjects so devotedly loyal; therefore, having the same object with them, I wish to found a measure on the same principles as they have formed their proposition, and shall be content to confirm that principle now, and to subject the details to their examina-
1274
tion and their consideration; and I hope that this may be done in such a manner as to conduce, in the end, to the freedom and the happiness of those colonies. I feel, Sir, that this is a question which deeply affects this country, as a question of power; but I feel that it affects still more deeply the future happiness, the future welfare, and the future freedom of two millions of the Queen's subjects on the other side of the Atlantic. And, Sir, anything that affects Canada, though it may not directly touch Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, will necessarily have an influence on those two colonies. But, with regard to all her Majesty's subjects, I believe that I am proposing a course of proceeding which will tend to the happiness and the welfare of the whole. In that spirit I hope that the question will be discussed; and in that spirit I ask the House to assent to these resolutions, And, Sir, I am glad to repeat what I stated at the end of the last Session of Parliament, that in all the discussions on Canada, though there may be some difference of opinion as to some points, and though there may have been considerable deliberation upon others, yet that finally a large majority of this House agreed to one course, and that there did not appear, with reference to any point that any other than a great national object was looked to, and there was no other wish than to consult the permanent general interests of the country. And it is with the confidence I have acquired from referring to that statement that I now propose the present resolutions to the House. They embody the opinion which her Majesty's Government have, after much anxious deliberation, decided upon; it may occur to others to take a different course, which may be better; but I own, that, weighing all the difficulties of the case, I cannot see any course which will tend to promote the great object of securing freedom to her Majesty's subjects in North America so well as this, and I submit these resolutions to the House, in the full confidence that they will be fairly considered and dispassionately discussed. I propose, after the question has been put, that the discussion shall be adjourned till Monday next, and, in the mean time, I will not ask for any opinion of this House.
The noble Lord concluded by moving the following resolutions:—

1275

1. That it is the opinion of this House that it is expedient to form a legislative union of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, on the principles of a free and representative government, in such manner as may most conduce to the prosperity and contentment of the people of the United Province.

2. That it is expedient to continue till 1842 the powers vested in the Governor and Special Council of Lower Canada by an Act of last Session, with such alterations of those powers as may be deemed advisable.

Mr. Humecontended, that the course proposed by the noble Lord, was one of much unfairness. If no discussion were to take place at that time, it would go forth to the public that the House of Commons assented to the opinions which the noble Lord had expressed. He could only say, that he had heard the statement of the noble Lord with deep regret. The plan which had been proposed would, if adopted, do nothing more nor less than continue the system which had been pursued for the last twenty years, and against which the Canadian people had so loudly and so justly complained. The noble Lord, as he understood him, proposed to give the British population a preponderating influence, by means of some territorial arrangement, and yet the noble Lord talked of impartiality and justice. He was very sorry the noble Lord had not profited from the lesson which the passing of the resolutions which had been agreed to in a former Session, might have taught him. He could not recollect ever having heard of the people of Lower Canada complaining of the separation of the colonies. What they complained of was, the constitution of the Legislative Council, which was the cause of all the evils which had arisen, as, from its construction, it was impossible for that body even to act in harmony with the Legislative Assembly. And what did the noble Lord now propose with respect to that body? Why, that it should be composed entirely of placemen, and that there should be nothing like representation. The noble Lord proposed no legislative measure with a view to effect an immediate settlement of all or of any of the questions in dispute, but postponed all legislation till 1882, he meant 1842, The noble Lord also proposed to continue and to increase the powers of the Governor, who had already suspended the Habeas Corpus Act, and, in fact, established a perfect despotism. In protesting against the plan of the noble Lord, he must also tell the noble Lord, that the course which he proposed was not the way to secure
1276
peace, or to promote the happiness and prosperity of the colony. In order to attain those objects, they must give the Canadian people the means of self-government. They must give them a fair and impartial representation, and not render one class dependent on the other. The noble Lord had alluded to a government carried on by a minority. He would ask, whether her Majesty had not stated to a noble Duke, upon a recent occasion, that she was perfectly satisfied with her present Ministers, lout that, as they had resigned on account of not possessing the confidence of Parliament, she felt herself obliged to call for new advisers? Was then the Governor of Canada to be placed in a situation superior to the Queen? He would tell the noble Lord, that if the Legislative Council was not made elective, there was no other way in which to secure the peace and welfare of the colony. He was clearly of opinion, that some law for the settlement of the disputes was necessary, and if the passing of that law was put off much longer, the effect would be ruinous. He would, therefore, entreat the noble Lord to reconsider his determination. He had no objection to the first resolution, but he did not object to any principle of representation not founded upon the basis of population, and which was proposed with the view of giving the British population a preponderating influence. He could not but regret to see a people so amiable as the French Canadians treated with so little justice or consideration. They were the most amiable people in Europe or America. Let any man look to their condition during the last twenty years, and then say whether a continuance of the same system of government could be productive of peace. He, therefore, felt bound to protest against the plan of the noble Lord, which he considered as nothing more than a continuance of the same system.
Mr. Goulburn,in order to secure for himself and those on his side of the House an opportunity of expressing their sentiments upon the proposition of the noble Lord, both now and on the resumption of the debate, begged to move, that the further consideration of the resolutions be postponed till Monday next, which the noble Lord had omitted.
Sir Robert Peelspoke on the question of adjournment. Had he addressed the House before that question was put, he would, he conceived, have deprived himself of the power of again offering his sentiments on

1277
the resumption of the debate on Monday next. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had already spoken upon the resolutions which had been proposed by the noble Lord, and had thereby, according to the rules of the House, rendered himself incapable of speaking in the discussion which was to follow. Had he followed the example of the hon. Member, he should therefore have been placed in the same position; but he now spoke on the question of adjournment. In regard to what had fallen from the noble Lord, he must say, that this was the first time that he had heard that it was not the intention of her Majesty's Government to propose any legislative measure in the present Session having reference to Canada. Up to the present moment he had been impressed with the opinion, that they were in the present Session to proceed to actual legislation on some, at least, of the many important questions which had reference to Canada, and which called so strongly for immediate consideration. He had, till the present time, considered that they were to proceed to legislation, either on the basis of a resolution affirming the principle of a legislative union of the two provinces, or, in case that plan should have been abandoned, on some other principle—on some other basis more calculated to effect the settlement of the great and important questions which were at issue, and more likely to secure the connexion of the two countries, and the welfare and happiness of the Canadian people. He now, however, understood from the noble Lord, and for the first time, that it was the intention of Government to abstain from legislation in the present Session, at least upon the main question, although there might be some bill brought forward, of an inferior and less important character. Now, he felt it incumbent upon him to say, that there were many important circumstances connected with this subject which were well worthy of the most mature consideration; and there might be many more circumstances of which he had no knowledge, sufficient to induce the Government to postpone legislation in detail. The noble Lord had stated, that he had that day received important information from Canada, which had confirmed him in the opinion that legislation, for the present, was impolitic. He trusted that it was the intention of the noble Lord to lay that information on the table of the House, and when they saw the resolutions, and the address to which the noble Lord had alluded, they
1278
would then be the better able to come to a safe and satisfactory conclusion on the course which the Government proposed to adopt. He spoke then, at present, without full information on the subject, without that information which had confirmed the opinions of the noble Lord, without that information which was necessary to remove the doubts which he entertained on this important subject. Until, then, the whole of the information which the Government possessed was communicated to the House, and until he had fully and maturely considered the propositions which had been submitted for their consideration, he reserved to himself the right of opposing those propositions, either in whole or in part, or of supporting them if he should afterwards see fit to do so. The noble Lord had asked them to assent to the principle, that they should proceed to legislate in 1842; but, at the same time, he said, that the House of Assembly was not to meet till that period. Now, he thought it would be well for the House to consider whether it was wise or politic for the Imperial Legislature to give a pledge on any subject when they were not to proceed to actual legislation on a subject before the year 1842. Could it be thought wise in 1839 to come to a positive resolution as to what they were to do in 1842? Could they now say that union was a wise measure abstractedly considered, without knowing how the weight of the two provinces in the representative assembly was to be adjusted and maintained? Lord Durham had in his report pressed strongly for the immediate consideration of Parliament in regard to a legislative union. He would prove from that report, that immediate legislation on the abstract principle of union was loudly called for, although that report might not be relied on in regard to the details of any such measure. But it was good for this—that it pointed out in the clearest manner the necessity for immediate legislation. Lord Durham said, that on his first arrival in Canada he was inclined to advocate the project of a federal union; and from the first, he had determined that there was nothing in the Lower Province preventing a legislative union. That did not, however, apply to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The noble Lord said, in his report—
"Moreover, the state of the two Canadas is such, that neither the feelings of the parties concerned, nor the interests of the Crown, nor the colonies themselves, will admit of a

1279
single session, or even a large portion of a session, of Parliament being allowed to pass without a definite decision, by the Imperial Legislature, as to the basis on which it purposes to found the future Government of those colonies."
That was no recommendation of an abstract principle. No recommendation for passing a resolution, but one pressing on the Government to bring in a bill without letting a single session, or a large portion of a sessions pass away before. And, the report went on to say—
"In existing circumstances, the conclusion to which the foregoing considerations lead me, is, that no time should be lost in proposing to Parliament a bill for repealing, the 31st of George 3rd, restoring the union of the Canadas under one legislation, and re-constituting them as one province."
He was not prepared to say, that under the circumstances of the case, her Majesty's Government might not have heard sufficient grounds, of which the House was not aware, to induce them to adopt the recommendation of Lord Durham. But, having abandoned the intention of immediate legislation, should they better themselves by pledging themselves to an abstract principle? He could not but say, that the whole course of his Parliamentary experience had been entirely against resolutions pledging the House to any particular course. When he considered the vicissitudes of the colonies, when he looked at their present state, and when he remembered what had occurred in the colonies, could he say, could he so depend upon the future, that he should give a positive pledge that in 1842 the steps proposed by the noble Lord should be taken? [Lord John Russell: We may legislate without the Act coming into operation.] Well, if it were not the fact that they were not to legislate until 1842, at least he understood the noble Lord distinctly to propose that the fruit of legislation should not be reaped until 1842. Therefore, if that whole interval were to elapse before any act which might be passed could come into operation, and if that act were to apply to the future, for so he understood the proposition of the noble Lord, it was a matter for grave consideration whether or no he was advancing the legitimate end which was the ultimate union of the provinces, by coming to his proposed resolution. The noble Lord had said, that he would give a guarantee that a constitutional government should be ulti-
1280
mately established, but that they were to continue the power now existing in Canada for some time; that while it was proposed to give the present Government and Council an absolute power in Lower Canada, yet it might be desirable that they should give the public an assurance that they would ultimately establish a constitutional government. That was the sole advantage to be derived from laying down this principle. His answer to that was, that they had given that solemn guarantee before; that they had justified the suspension of the constitution in Lower Canada, solely on the ground that they would give the Canadas a constitutional government, and when the act for suspending the constitution was made by the Imperial Parliament, it was distinctly stated, that the measure was only resorted to from the dire necessity of the case, a necessity created by circumstances which they could not overrule. In the preamble of that act it was distinctly declared:—
"It is expedient to make temporary provisions for the government of Lower Canada, in order that Parliament may be enabled, after mature deliberation, to make permanent arrangements for the constitution and government of the said province, upon such a basis as may best secure the rights and liberties, and promote the interests, of all classes of her Majesty's subjects in the said province."
Therefore, it was distinctly understood, that arbitrary government in Lower Canada was not to endure for ever, but that it was the duty of Parliament to consider the mode by which a constitutional government was to be established. Now, the noble Lord said, he was not prepared with any measures of immediate legislation. But he said at once, that it was his intention, that the inhabitants of Lower Canada should not be enabled to dictate to the inhabitants of Upper Canada, whatever their prejudices or feelings might prompt; and that it was his intention to declare, that an union of the provinces should ultimately take place. That might be perfectly just. He did not mean to say, that if they were to retain those colonies, it was or was not quite right to do so. But such a course as this would not relieve them from their present responsibility in the slightest degree. On the contrary, by laying down an abstract principle like this, they were only tending to increase the difficulties which might otherwise be reduced. He deeply regretted, that the advice which he

1281
offered last Session had not been adopted; that they did not at once apply themselves to the examination of the whole case at the Bar of that House, and that they did not send over to the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, and say to them—"We have hut one object in view, we wish that the union of the two Governments should be maintained, but we do not wish to retain the Government of the colonies for any paltry or pecuniary advantages. We are determined, that you shall remain a British colony, but we will take care of this, that we shall not make ourselves responsible for defending you from foreign enemies, and at the same time, be constantly opposed and thwarted by your resistance of our authority." It was necessary, that we should say this, as well for the welfare of the colony, as for the mother country. But what bad been done? They had not made the slightest advance. Notwithstanding all the commissioners that had been sent out, they had not advanced one step beyond the principle laid down by his right hon. Friend, Sir Wilmot Horton, in 1823, who declared himself in favour of an union of the colonies. What proposition were they considering that very night? The proposal was nothing more than this—let us decide in favour of an union of the colonies. But there was an admission on the part of the noble Lord that they had not the means of proceeding further. Beyond the principle of 1823 they had not advanced one single step, and now they were to send out commissioners to the colonies for the purposes of inquiry. The noble Lord said, that the details of the measure would depend on local inquiry. But pending this inquiry, the noble Lord would allow no explanation to be given of the character and form of Government hereafter to be established; he would not explain how far, or in what manner, the elective power of the people was to be extended, and in what manner property should have influence in the Legislature. If the noble Lord had not the means of judging what course of legislation should be at once adopted, the first point was to get the information; but if they were in possession of the necessary information, why not proceed to legislate now? If local inquiry was necessary, means must be taken to carry it out, and some persons must be appointed, whether they were called commissioners or not, for that purpose. That being the case, and being quite unprepared to throw out a word against the principle, and
1282
being also perfectly prepared to give to her Majesty's Government any powers necessary for the purpose of maintaining the just authority of the Crown in those colonies, yet he would reserve to himself the perfect right to inquire and decide whether he ought to he called on to say, that it was right to violate the constitution by a law which they could not practically repeal until the year 1842, and whether they should endeavour to soothe the prejudices of the Canadians by pledging the House to a resolution for establishing a future constitution. He now gave the noble Lord due notice, that he would act on the same principle which guided him last Session. He would never see a colony in rebellion, and condescend to make the settlement of that rebellion a party question. But at the same time, if he had a strong opinion differing from that of her Majesty's Government, he would not try to gain credit by professing an abstinence of party feeling, and by restraining his expression of that opinion. He would neither make this a party question, nor compromise his principles by refraining from giving expression to his opinions.
Mr. C. Bullerwas glad to hear that the noble Lord was favourable to the plan of the union of the two provinces, and he was only sorry that he' had not adopted a still more valuable suggestion contained in the report of the Earl of Durham, for the union of all the five provinces, in his opinion by far the most valuable part of the Report. He had been deeply grieved at it, because he believed that without it the Executive Government would be imperfect; and if the Government were not prepared to adopt that principle, he believed that it would have been far more honest, and more prudent, and more really liberal, to do away with the farce of a responsible Government. He should not now enter into the consideration of the argument of the noble Lord. He was happy that there were at that moment strangers in the House,—he meant rather to say that be was happy that the debate in which they were then engaged would be conveyed to the notice and attention of the delegates to this House of the representatives of some of the most loyal of our North American colonies. They had come with the instructions of their countrymen, commissioned to represent their case to the Government and to demand redress. In the House of Assembly, three executive

1283
councillors represented the executive Government. The question arose as to the appointment of the delegates to England, and there was a division as to each of the two delegates, and the majority against the first was 37 to 7; while in the second case, the numbers were 35 to 9. They would be called very large proportional majorities, and in the minorities on each occasion were the whole of the executive councillors. He asked, then, how was the Executive Government to go on in this way? There was a regular ministerial minority in the House of Assembly, and he begged to ask the noble Lord in what country of the earth, whether a colony or a mother country, dependent or independent,—and let him draw on the troubled times of our own colonies,—a legislature had ever been carried on to the advantage of the community when the Executive was constantly opposed to the will of the people? He begged to ask how long it was thought that the people of Canada would submit to this system being carried on? How the noble Lord could expect that the House of Assembly would hear to see every office of the Government given to the most determined enemies of the people? Did he think that such a system could last a single Session, without the supplies being refused; and if they were refused, what force could compel the Assembly to grant them? What the Earl of Durham proposed was a representative Legislature, with a responsible Executive; and, until enlightened by the superior intelligence on constitutional history of those who dissented from him, he should continue in the belief that this at least was new, If the Legislature had no voice in the composition of the Executive, then they ought no longer to carry on the Government after they had lost the confidence of the representative body. But this was a matter on which he did not oppose the plan of the noble Lord. Any bill which the noble Lord might introduce for the union of the two Canadas he would support, without any reference to the principle of a representative Government, because he thought that the union would in itself carry out that principle; but he could not help remarking upon the entire omission to legislate at all on this subject. Under any circumstances, he was surprised at the proposition of the noble Lord to delay legislating for so imperative an evil. He would not go over the argu-
1284
ments of the right hon. Baronet, who had so ably and eloquently urged on this point, but would allude to those things which had struck him in the noble Lord's statement in reference to this subject. He had seen the country during the summer of doubt, and the winter of alarm. During the summer every man was arming himself against his neighbour, and he was not exaggerating when he said, that while he was in Canada there was hardly a day passed without some accounts being brought of actual incursions made by refugees who had procured small bands of armed men to join them, for the purposes of pillage and bloodshed. There were no vagabonds on the frontier who did not think it safe and prudent to beard the British Government, and their attempts at plunder generally succeeded but too well for the interests of the settlers. What security was there, then, against such a winter as the last? Was it supposed that the refugees who were on the frontiers were less determined to enter into the country again? In the almost impenetrable fortress of Quebec they were anticipating danger, and even in that place, which above all might be considered the safest spot in the colony, they had constant details of bloodshed, and the fears which were not unreasonably enter tamed by civilians, were not unfelt by Persons of no small military experience. Was it thought that the cruel punishments which had been inflicted on that unhappy country were at all calculated to soothe the evils? The House was not at all aware of the horrors occasioned by putting down the insurrection. In the course of the winter the cold was so excessive, that no man could stir out without putting on almost all the clothes which he could obtain. It was in that season that the volunteers came out, awl laid waste Beauharnois, and the adjoining districts, and they left no house of the French Canadians standing. They turned the people into the forest, where they were left to lie down and seek the only refuge which was left for them, death. He would instance one village, which had taken no part in the insurrection, from which no armed band had issued. He saw it after a regiment of the line had passed through it, and every house was sacked. The people were entirely free from any suspicion of interference, and were perfectly innocent, their only fault being that they might

1285
have fostered the insurrection. He did not blame the soldiers for it, but he said that this House must shrink from the repetition of such horrors. He would advert now to the present state of the frontier of Lower Canada. The population of the frontier consisted entirely of Englishmen, of American citizens, who from the cheapness of land in Canada had crossed over from Vermont and the surrounding counties and in some instances the English had passed over to the State, preferring the protection of the laws of that country to the state of anarchy in which they were obliged to live in the colony which they left. A Canadian refugee would get a few men together, and would cross the frontier—it was not confined to the Canadians, for those on the American side were as bad—and would go to the farm of the man whom he conceived to have injured him, by denouncing him to Government, which immediately became a scene of rapine and bloodshed. He asked, how long such outrages could be permitted to go on without their producing warfare between the two nations? He need only refer to the recent transaction with regard to the disputed boundary of Maine, in proof of the probability of such an event occurring. He did not suppose that the disturbances and differences could be soothed by magic, but he said that they had no right to leave these people whom they were to govern in uncertainty. Let them see that the English Government had some plan to govern them—let the plan be declared at once, and he believed that those even who might disapprove of it would prefer it to remaining in their present position. They required nothing so much as a strong effective government, and he believed that the only mode in which the disturbances and disorders which arose there could be put down, was by means of the strong arm of the British Government. In speaking thus, he did not mean to allude to any permanent measure which might tend to elevate the British possessions in North America to be equal in strength with the adjoining Union, but he spoke of the present state of the calamitous disorders which could not last without causing the entire depopulation or destruction of the provinces in a short time. The increase of emigration from Canada had already been referred to, and Lord Durham in his report had said, but not with half the strength with which he might have said it,
1286
that he had heard from very good authority that in two towns emigration had been going on to the extent of fifty or sixty persons a-day, which would tend greatly to depopulate the greater part of Upper Canada. In thinking of the subject, it must not be forgotten that the land was the least valuable part of the stock of the farmer, and the facility with which he might drive off his flocks and carry away his furniture to the neighbouring country, where he knew there would be protection against any future aggressions, must be remembered. He believed, that this House would sacrifice every party feeling to put an end to such horrors as he had referred to, and be thought that all classes and all parties in that House would at once unite to establish on a firm and permanent basis a free and constitutional Government for these colonies.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that it appeared to him that the noble Lord, in describing the miseries which existed in Canada, had fallen very far short of the truth. If he understood the noble Lord, he supposed that the whole of the existing grievances would cease the moment the measure was passed which was proposed. He could not conceive why. He could think that it would do so if it were carried out liberally, and with the consent of the people of both provinces; but to jump hand over head to it, before consulting the people, would be most improper. The effect would be annihilate the French Canadians as a party. He believed they were the worst treated, or nearly so, since their conquest, of any of the races, and if a measure were passed to unite both provinces and by that means sacrifice the French Canadians, they would by that means destroy a most amiable and excellent people. They proposed, then, that they should be sacrificed to what was called the British party, but that would only be an additional outrage upon Canada. With regard to the course now suggested by the Government, if they had proposed to go on flippantly with this legislative union, there would have been grave complaints of their proceeding in so solemn a matter without learning what it was that the people wanted. Now, however, when they talked of pausing before they acted effectively, they were taunted with acting with uncertainty. Was it not better, however, to be cautious, and to ascertain how far the measure would be acceptable to those parties who were most interested than to proceed hastily to determine upon

1287
the ultimate plan, by which the discontent of the people might be caused. He only wished to protest against carrying this union into execution at the expense of the French Canadians; and it ought to be permitted that if the union were made, it should not give the superiority to either colony, but that the French Canadians should be placed in a situation of perfect equality with the other inhabitants, and should enjoy every advantage conferred on them. If this were not the principle on which any union between the colonies was based, such an union would be of no use. There was example enough of the effect of such an unequal union in the case of Ireland. The rebellion in that country was not put down by the legislative union with England being effected. Yet precisely the same arguments were used prior to the adoption of that measure that were now used by the hon. Member for Liskeard. The rebellion, however, continued long after—a sufficient evidence that the name of an union alone was useless, unless the union itself were based on the terms of perfect equality.
Lord J. Russellthought it necessary to say a few words, as well on what had fallen from the hon. Member for Liskeard, as on what had been observed by the right hon. Member for Tamworth. With regard to the hon. Member for Liskeard, he (Lord J. Russell) certainly could not have expected, that he would have taken what he said in a sense, so directly opposite to that which he intended. The hon. Gentleman asked him (Lord J. Russell) whether he approved of the principle that the executive Government of a colony should be carried on with a minority in the House of Assembly. What he really said was, that the executive should be carried on in such a way, as that their measures should be acceptable and agreeable to the representatives of the people, and that he saw no reason why the Government should not agree to adopt the measures approved of by a majority of the colonists. He certainly did say, as he still thought, that it was not wise to day down as a principle that the Canadian constitution, or any colonial constitution, should be an exact copy of the British constitution, unless the analogy could be completely carried into effect. And he thought the right hon. Baronet himself would say, that we could not have a Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at New Brunswick who
1288
would negotiate with Maine on principles different from those held by the Government at home. He certainly did think it unwise to lay down a principle which, although it went through the entire executive here, could not be applied to the entire executive of the colonies. With regard to the hon. Member for Liskeard's statement of the miseries now endured by the Canadians, he could assure the hon. Member that the Government felt on that subject as deeply as he could; and if the Government thought there was any measure likely to be immediately passed which would put an end to these miseries, he would not lose an hour in asking the immediate attention of Parliament to it. But it was not his opinion that, with the events of the last two or three years, it was likely that the dreadful warfare which had been so lately raging in Canada would immediately cease. He really thought, too, considering the excitement that immediately preceded the insurrection in Lower Canada, that calling together the representatives of that colony, even in conjunction with those of the Upper Province, would be more likely to increase the danger and produce fresh commotion, than if time were allowed for the excited feelings to subside before a popular government was established. The right hon. Baronet had also raised an objection on the score that the resolution was not to be immediately followed by a bill. The right hon. Baronet, in the former part of his speech, had observed, that the Government had gone on making inquiries and receiving reports, but that no step had been taken or was about to be taken. Now, he was, on the contrary, of opinion that if that House came to a resolution in favour of the principle of an union, a very important step would have been taken. Such a declaration of the sense of the House of Commons would have very great weight and authority in Canada, and the Canadians would be more disposed to say, "As the principle is agreed on, let us now make such arrangements as will be most likely to be advantageous." It was more likely they would do this if the resolution was adopted than if terms were merely proposed on behalf of the Ministers of the Crown. There was another course, one which he had originally intended to adopt—that of introducing a bill, and proceeding, if possible, to enact all its details. But he really did think if he had

1289
taken that course, the effect of which the right hon. Baronet might not have fully considered—if he had brought in a bill (as he might do after this resolution was agreed to), and had asked the House to pledge themselves to all the details, the right hon. Gentleman would have been very likely to say—and with much greater effect than attached to his argument on the present occasion—"It is all very well to adopt the principles of an union, but when you ask me to adopt all these details, and finally to ratify them, I must hear in mind that the Legislative Council in Upper Canada have protested against such a course without their having the opportunity to consider them; and I therefore think that you ought to stop till another year to hear their opinions." He (Lord John Russell) thought it would not have been possible for the House to concur in such a bill if that objection had been made. When he proposed first to introduce the bill, he thought they understood what were the sentiments of the Upper Canadians, and that they would appoint delegates to give their assent to the measure; but since then they had declined to act on that resolve, and wished the House to stop until their opinions could be known. He had great respect for both these parties in Upper Canada, thinking, as he did, that they had shown great spirit, zeal, and loyalty. He was not, therefore, ready to say that he would do what would be repugnant to their declared sentiments. With these feelings it was, that he approved of the course now taken—a course which answered the object of taking a great and important step towards settling the affairs of Canada, and, at the same time, avoiding to do what would be repugnant to the feelings of the representatives of Upper Canada. The right hon. Baronet also had said the Government were now coming down with a resolution on which they did not propose to act till 1842. That was not his (Lord John Russell's) statement. He was of opinion that the Assembly ought not to meet till 1842, but that the union might be effected much earlier. At the same time he was by no means sure that much time might not be required for the adjustment of so important a question. In a similar case—that of the union with Scotland—a considerable time elapsed, and a great deal of discussion arose, before the measure could be finally enacted. Persons were appointed by the Crown to
1290
look severally to the interests of the English and Scotish Parliaments, who had long discussions and debates before they finally adopted the measure. This precedent afforded another reason for not now enacting an union to take place from the end of the present year. He thought it unadvisable to say, by a peremptory legislation, that the union should at once operate, and that in 1842 the Legislature should meet. He thought by the course they now proposed, to take, they would put an end to existing strife, and, by the intervention of this country, reconcile the various parties.
Sir Robert Peelhad been misunderstood by the noble Lord if he supposed that he meant to press for peremptory legislation this Session. When the noble Lord announced his abandonment of the former measures, he did not press for peremptory legislation. All he asked was, that if they were not prepared to legislate now, they would not call on him to affirm the abstract principle of union, without telling I him what were to be the details of the; plan on which it was to be effected.
Debate adjourned to Monday.

CITY OF LONDON POLICE—EXPLANATION.
Sir Robert Peelwished for an explanation from the noble Lord upon a point connected with this bill. It had been publicly stated that he (Sir Robert Peel) had in that House expressed his opinion that it was on the whole better that the City Police should be amalgamated with the general metropolitan police, but that in deference to the very general opinion expressed in the City against the measure he had consented to waive his opinion, whereas the Government were adhering to the principle of amalgamation, and determined to follow it out. A contrast much to his disadvantage had been drawn between his abandonment of his principle, and the supposed adherence of Government to theirs. Now he distinctly understood that the bill was brought in with the consent of the Government, they being pledged to support the principle on which it was based, yet that on the whole they came to the same conclusion as himself, that it was expedient to force on such a body a system of police to which they were opposed. He wished to know from the noble Lord if he had correctly stated what occurred en the occasion.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was quite right, His

1291
opinion had been, and still was, that it would be much better to have one police for the whole metropolis, in accordance with the report of the committee. But he also concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the other evening in thinking, that as a very great outcry had been raised in the City against the introduction of this bill, it was probable that if it were forced on the City the commissioners of police would not have that authority or be so well received in the City as was requisite in order to secure to the public the full benefits of the act. This he considered a sufficient reason for waiving what he thought would be a very great improvement.

METROPOLITAN POLICE.
The second reading of the Metropolitan Police Bill having been moved,
Colonel Sibthorpopposed the motion. He objected to several clauses, particularly that which gave to the police a despotic power to enter houses.
Mr. Humeobjected to some clauses of the bill, particularly to that by which the police magistrates were to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. This was to place them on a footing with the judges. An annual voting of the money by the public would be a much better principle. He hoped the hon. Baronet who announced his opposition to the bill at a future stage would at once state what were his main objections to the bill. Various vague and unfounded reports were in circulation, and it was very desirable the public mind should be disabused concerning them.
Mr. Fox Maulewould not enter into the details of the bill now, as he thought that had much better be done in committee. Of this, he apprehended there could be no doubt: that it was absolutely necessary to the public comfort, that there should be a well-regulated police. When he introduced the bill, he was perfectly well aware, that it would expose both the Government and himself to a considerable degree of obloquy; but that he was ready to submit to, if the measure would conduce to the comfort of the metropolis. The hon. and gallant Member had alluded to a despotic power of entering houses, which he assumed to be given to the police by this bill. He (Mr. F. Maule) was not aware of any such provision. There was a clause which empowered them to enter gaming-houses under certain circumstances.
Mr. Wakleythought, that the course that the government was pursuing with
1292
respect to this bill was so irregular and uneven, that he hardly knew how to treat the subject. The bill purported to be for the establishment of a uniform system of police throughout the metropolis; but, in its present form, would it have that effect? The bill, when introduced, excited great alarm in the city, as it attacked the privileges of the citizens, which had existed since the time of Alfred, and this in a greater degree than had ever been attempted by a Tory Government. The citizens instantly put the screw on the Government, and now the city of London was exempted from the operation of the bill, as the first fourteen clauses of it had been struck out. If the bill was good for the metropolitan boroughs, it was equally good for the city, and if it was not to be applied to the latter, it might not be so applied to the former. He saw no necessity for any bill of the kind.
Mr. Fox Maulestated, that there was this necessity for the bill, namely, that the Metropolitan Police Act expired within a very short time.
Captain Woodwas strongly opposed to the bill, as it tended greatly to increase the powers of the police, and was, in some respects, republican in its tendency.
Bill read a second time.

METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS.
Mr. Fox Maulemoved the second reading of the Police Courts Bill.
Sir Benjamin Hallsaid, he should take the sense of the House against this Bill; to which, as to the one just disposed of, he believed public feeling was decidedly opposed. This Bill would extend the jurisdiction of the Police Magistrates, who were to be increased to twenty-seven, over a circuit of fifteen miles round Charing-Cross, at a great additional expense to the country. The Government were to have the power of appointing these magistrates, who were to receive salaries varying from 1,400 l. to 1,000 l. each, with retiring allowances of two-thirds of their salaries. Now, he saw no reason for this extension of Government patronage. If, however, the number of the police magistrates was to be increased, and their jurisdiction so far extended, it ought to be with other magistrates than those who now occupied the police bench. And what ground could be urged for excluding from that concurrent jurisdiction which they now exercised, the county magistrates. The report of the committee upon which the bill was founded had stated it would tend to diminish crime,

1293
and lessen the expense of prosecutions. This Bill gave the new magistrates the power of convicting summarily in cases of larceny or stealing from the person without violence, under the value of 40 s. The returns of committals to Coldbath-fields showed a great increase of crime, as compared with the returns of jury convictions. And both Sergeant Adams (the Middlesex Quarter Sessions Chairman) and the chaplain of the House of Correction, had expressed their decided opinion against summary convictions; the latter stating that it too often led to the corruption, by improper associations, of juvenile offenders; and the former, that summary convictions were frequently unjust, and in cases where juries would have acquitted. Before such extraordinary powers were committed to any persons, it ought to be ascertained that prisoners would receive equal justice, as though they went before juries of their countrymen. But there was high authority for saying that summary conviction was an evil, and an evil never to be incurred, except to prevent a greater—not on any account to be delegated to one magistrate, nor to less than two. And unless the police magistrates were of a superior class, it was a great injustice to the parties who were brought before them, and who were deprived of that trial by jury, the advantages of which were in this country so generally appreciated. He would not speak with unnecessary harshness of the present police magistrates. Many of them were highly qualified for their situations. But some were utterly disqualified for their office, and no person could read the police reports without constantly seeing, with regret, cases which were merely the medium of putting forward idle and ridiculous jesting at the expence of the culprit or the witness. And was it not a matter of grave doubt whether, on such persons as these, additional powers should be conferred? A most startling proposition in this bill was, that any magistrate was to have the power of sending a prisoner to trial without the intervention of a Grand Jury. The prisoner ought to have every chance allowed him, consistently with the law. The Grand Juries were one of those institutions of the country which ought not to be lightly abandoned, even in the favoured metropolitan district. For all these reasons he should move, that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Colonel Sibthorpseconded the amendment, saying that he did not approve of in-
1294
creasing the patronage of the noble Lord (J. Russell), who had already more than he could well manage, except for himself. There was no end to patronage, inasmuch as every officer, even down to the doorkeepers, were to hold office during the pleasure of the noble Lord, who might discharge them without any cause. The bill was full of expense—it was full of patronage and full of degradation to men who had conducted themselves well; therefore, he thought, the best thing they could do was to throw out the bill, and so save the country the increased expense which it would entail upon them.
Mr. Haweswas exceedingly glad that an opportunity had occurred of explaining the ground-work on which this bill had been introduced by her Majesty's Government. It had been said that bills so unconstitutional and tyrannical as those regarding the improvement of the metropolitan police had never previously been before Parliament, and his hon. Friend who had moved the rejection of this bill had used language nearly as strong. Yet in the whole course of the speech which his hon. Friend had just made to the House, he had heard nothing which affected the principle of the measure; nor could he gather any thing even against its details that might not be removed in committee. And certainly he had heard nothing from his hon. Friend which went to show that the measure contained anything either despotic or unconstitutional. As a member of one of the districts of the metropolis, he had felt it his duty to pay his best attention to the improvement of the metropolitan police. There was no subject of so much importance—none that so generally affected the comfort and happiness of all classes of society, the poor as well as the rich, and there was no portion of society that suffered so much from the inefficiency of the police as the poorer classes of the community. Guided by those principles, he was fully prepared to defend this bill, and to acknowledge with sincerity the gratitude which he felt to her Majesty's Government for the good they had done by the introduction of such measures, founded upon the report of a select committee of that House; and he would at once declare that he did not know where they could have had a better, or a surer groundwork. That committee sat for two entire Sessions. The members composing it had done him the honour to appoint him chairman, and he certainly had not been proposed to that office by any poli-

1295
tical Friend. In the discharge of his duties while officiating on that committee, it had been his most anxious wish to obtain the best evidence; and he begged to state that he had looked in vain for any adverse evidence. The labours of the committee had received much public attention—they had formed the subject of ample discussion and comment in the newspapers, and every possible effort had been made to arrive at an accurate and sound conclusion. The committee had no difference of opinion notwithstanding their protracted labours—they never had a single division, although composed of Members of various opinions in politics, and among others a right hon. Baronet a distinguished Member of the Opposition side of the House. The report had been most minutely considered before it was approved by the committee; it had been discussed line by line—he might safely say almost word-by word. That report was agreed to unanimously, and obtained the support of Members of all shades of opinions in politics. It expressed the full and deliberate sentiments of all the Members of that committee, and he must therefore deny the insinuations that had been made, that the report was to be viewed as mainly containing the sentiments of himself individually although it had been formally sanctioned by the committee. As to the specific objections which had just been stated by the hon. Baronet, he thought they could be easily answered. The first was, that the bill would occasion great additional expense to the country. Now, he denied, distinctly, that any additional expense would be created by the measure; but if such were to be the case, he would fearlessly assert, that no portion of the public money could be better laid out than in improving the administration of public justice. The House and the Government could not confer a greater benefit on all classes of society, than in procuring the best and ablest men to act as police magistrates; and they would try in vain to accomplish that object, if they did not take means to provide them with adequate salaries. Such was the object of this bill; but it was a mistake to say that it increased the number of magistrates. The fact was, that it proposed to reduce one magistrate from each office, and to give the surplus salaries to the remaining magistrates; thus adopting the best means to secure better candidates: and for a similar purpose, the clauses had been introduced, empowering the magistrates to retire on fixed salaries, under
1296
certain circumstances—most properly, in his opinion; and though not wishing to speak unnecessarily of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, he did not hesitate to say, that there never was a Minister of the Crown who had done more for the improvement of the police, and administration of justice in the country. He did not wish to depreciate the claims or acts of any one. He fully acknowledged the great services of the right hon. Baronet opposite; but he, at the same time, felt it but just to state, that for his exertions and improvements in these respects, the noble Lord deserved well of his country. He had already alluded to the clauses empowering magistrates to retire under certain circumstances. He had stated, that it was to secure the services of efficient persons, and to obtain the best candidates. And he would ask, was it not reasonable to suppose that some Gentlemen, when they observed the increased labours which would devolve on them under the operation of this bill; when they saw the increased responsibility it would occasion, that it might, therefore, be their wish to retire? Such a course seemed to him to be the only way to get rid of inefficient officers. He saw no other way of getting rid of them, without personal application for their removal. But it was said, that it was an unusual power to give the Secretary of State the power to remove magistrates. Was it to be said, then, that magistrates were never to be removed, was it to be said that they were to be appointed for life? And if not, he would ask, who else ought to have the power of removing magistrates? Where could it be placed in better hands than in those of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who would be under the control of that House, and who discharged the duties of office publicly in sight of that House. [Lord J. Russell.—It was a power that would be seldom exercised.] The noble Lord said justly, it was a power that would be seldom exercised. He was confident it would be placed in the fittest hands, free from all caprice, and so long as the country possessed a popular House of Commons, he had no fear that any Minister of State could make an improper use of the powers which might be confided to him. With regard to the question of patronage, he begged to state, that the bill would really establish no increase of patronage. He wished to know where the supposed increase was to be found. At present there were twenty-seven magi-

1297
strates, nine police offices, with three magistrates to each office, and this bill proposed to enact, that there should not be more than twenty-seven magistrates. Where, then, was the increase of patronage? He came next to consider the objection that had been raised as to the extension of jurisdiction. Hon. Members were probably not aware, that the jurisdiction presently exercised by the police magistrates, was not only exceedingly extensive, but also not strictly legal. All that the present bill did was, to define their powers, particularly in cases of petty felony—which was much wanted—and to make their jurisdiction clear. He maintained confidently, that the bill did not extend, but defined their jurisdiction, and secured the public against abuse of power. A necessity had been long and very generally felt for some such bill as this. Hon. Members might, perhaps, recollect the statement made by the noble Lord last year, that in a large number of cases, it had been ascertained, that the prisoners had suffered a longer course of imprisonment before they had been brought to trial, than they had been sentenced to upon conviction. Was it desirable that such a state of things should continue, more particularly in regard to juvenile offenders? On that subject, he would request the attention of the House to the report of the committee on county-rates in the year 1834, in which they would find the following remarks:—
"We have reserved for the conclusion of our report, an earnest recommendation to Government, and to Parliament, to take into their early consideration the practicability of establishing some tribunal for the speedy trial of young offenders, charged with comparatively light offences. The present process of the law is too cumbrous, and too dilatory in regard to cases of this description, and neither gives adequate protection to innocence, nor ensures a duly a regulated punishment to guilt. The committal to prison for trial involves frequently a period of confinement longer than that which follows actual conviction, and a stigma upon character, not justified by the moral quality of the offence with which a young person is charged."
All the magistrates examined before that committee, concurred in recommending the establishment of a summary tribunal for the trial of young offenders; and the committee sent round the evidence given before them, to all the magistrates of the metropolis, calling their attention to the subject, and asking their opinion. Besides that committee on county-rates, the Commissioners appointed to inquire
1298
into the state of the criminal law, came also to the same conclusion; and certainly, if ever there was a case in which anything like fair grounds for legislation had been obtained it was the present, where all parties who had considered the subject had arrived at the same conclusion. He was justified, therefore, in saying that this bill was founded upon grounds which he would maintain were sound and stable. He was not so well acquainted with the question of trial by jury, but the object which the committee had in view was to establish a tribunal to which immediate appeal might be made, and which would at the same time provide proper checks against abuse, and obtain a deliberate and impartial hearing of each case. On that subject the committee had also come to an unanimous conclusion. All these clauses were said to be harsh and stringent. They were so apparently; but it was important for that House to know, that there was scarcely one of them which was not taken from some local act, some of which had been in existence for twenty-five or even forty years, and all local acts which had lately passed the House had formed the grounds from which some of these clauses had been selected; so that in this bill all the police regulations common to the different cities in the empire were concentrated. It was evident, from the numerous complaints made from different parts of the metropolis, that such a measure was necessary. They would all recollect the admirable arrangements made at the coronation of her Majesty—scarcely one accident had occurred, owing to the energetic and judicious manner in which the magistrates and police had acted on that occasion; but if people had been disposed to raise questions, some unpleasant litigation might have arisen from the uncertainty of the law, and the want of percision as to the nature and extent of the magistrates' jurisdiction. Every hour the efficacy of that establishment was increased, and it was daily rising in public approbation. He believed that this bill would still materially improve that establishment, and he only hoped that the noble Lord, or whoever else might be called upon to appoint magistrates under the powers which it conveyed, would exercise a sound discretion, and select those who would discharge their duties for the public benefit. Whoever would take the trouble to look through the report of the Select Committee, would find a most anxious desire manifested by all the Members to render the operation of the

1299
law useful to that class who had not hitherto been so well protected; and whether they referred to petty assaults or other crimes, all the provisions were founded on the practical results of experienced magistrates sitting in their offices from day to day, who had stated, that cases were continually occurring in which, under the existing system, they could not give relief. There was not any one class of the people, from the highest to the lowest, that would not be benefited by the passing of the bill. He would have been exceedingly sorry to have been connected with any thing like a harsh, violent, or unconstitutional measure. In his proceedings with regard to the present bill, he had been supported by his Friend, the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets—a Gentleman not at all likely to have given his sanction to any bill that could with justice be so designated. That hon. Member entirely concurred with him in his views on this subject. They were willing to throw their characters as supporters of it before the consideration of the public. He entertained no fears of the result, and would confidently wait the verdict. He would not detain the House longer, but would give the second reading of the bill his most cordial and best support.
Sir E. Knatchbullwas not one of those who would oppose the second reading of the bill. But there was such a large mass of business already before the House, that he doubted whether they should be able to afford time and consideration sufficient for a measure of that importance. He, therefore, was of opinion, that it would be better discussed in a Select Committee than in a committee of the whole House.
Lord John Russellsaid, that if these police bills were likely to be really improved by referring them to a Select Committee, he should certainly think it would be advisable to accept of that proposition. But, although there were certain bills with regard to which such a course might be advisable, he did not consider the present to be of that description. There were two classes of persons to whom these bills applied, whose conduct required some stringent provisions. He alluded first of all to pawnbrokers, who were instigators of the crimes so frequently committed by juvenile offenders—by children of nine, ten, and eleven years of age. These young offenders would not have the same inducements to commit crimes, if it were not for the facilities afforded them by pawnbrokers, who receive their stolen
1300
goods. These people receive from those young offenders every thing they could pick up, either in the shops or streets. The other class of persons to whom he referred, were the gambling-house keepers. These houses were on the increase year after year. They extended to all classes of society—not only to persons of the higher ranks, but to merchants' clerks, and to shopkeepers' apprentices. The evils resulting from the existence of those gambling houses required an immediate remedy. Therefore, apart from the very able speech which had been made by the hon. Member for Lambeth, he thought that it was necessary to proceed with this bill, in order to provide the means for repressing those dreadful scenes of profligacy and vice carried on under the name of gambling houses.
Mr. T. Duncombehoped the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone would not press his motion against the second reading, and allow the bill to pass through its present stage without a division! He must say, that the speech which they had heard from the hon. Member for Lambeth had satisfied his mind on many points, and although he wished still to draw the attention of the House, to the clauses regarding the establishment of Courts for Small Debts, he should reserve himself until the bill was in committee, and he hoped tile hon. Baronet would not persist in his amendment.
Mr. Fox Mottle,with reference to the Police Bill before the House, thought it right to express his own thanks, and the thanks of the party to which he was attached to the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes), for the clear, lucid, and distinct manner in which he had explained them. In vindicating the bills now before the House, the bon. Gentleman had in fact vindicated the conduct of the committee, of which he was the chairman. The debt which the country owed to the hon. Gentleman for the course he had taken, as well upon the committee as in the House, in reference to this most important subject, was greater than he could express; and if any person either in that House or out of it, should venture to charge the hon. Gentleman with introducing and supporting a tyrannical measure, he (Mr. F. Maule) was satisfied that the time would come, and shortly too, when not only the hon. Gentleman's own constituents, but the constituency of the whole of the metropolitan districts, would thank him for the pains he had taken to amend the police jurisdiction

1301
of the metropolis and its suburbs. As regarded the bill now under consideration, there was only one point upon which he wished to say a few words. Much objection had been taken to the proposition for allowing a certain class of offenders to be sent to trial without the intervention of the grand jury. He could only say, that that proposition had been made with the full sanction and approbation of the great majority of the metropolitan magistracy. For his own part, he thought it a most wise and proper regulation. Carefully guarded as it was, it was impossible, that it would tend in the smallest degree to infringe the liberty of the subject.
Mr. Wakleyrose to call the attention of the House to the salaries which this bill awarded, and to the class of persons from whom the new magistrates were exclusively to be selected. They found of late years that no opportunity was forgotten of introducing a person of the legal profession, whenever an office was to be filled up. He wanted to know why the Home Secretary was to be bound to choose a barrister of seven years' standing to fill the office of magistrate, when there were hundreds of thousands of persons, not members of the legal profession, who were better qualified to perform the duties of the magisterial bench. He trusted, that the hon. Member for Marylebone would not divide against the second reading of the bill, as there appeared to be a very general opinion in the House that the bill ought to go to committee. But when they came to the consideration of the clause which imposed the restriction to which he had adverted, he certainly hoped the Government would be disposed to give way upon that point. The amount of the salaries proposed to be given to the magistrates appeared to him to be most objectionable and most indefensible. The two police commissioners who had discharged their duties with so much credit to themselves, and so much advantage to the public, received each a salary of 800 l. a year. Those gentlemen, it was to be remembered, were appointed and their salaries affixed by Sir Robert Peel, a Tory. Now, what was the conduct of the Whig Ministers of the present day? Why, under this bill they proposed to give to each of the junior magistrates a salary of 1,000 l. a year, and to the chief magistrate 1,400 1. a year. He looked upon this reckless extravagance as wholly indefensible; and when the clause came under the consideration of the committee, he should certainly move,
1302
that the salaries be reduced from 1,000 l. to 800 l., and from 1,400 l to 1,000 l a year.
Mr. Claycould not concur in the views of his hon. Friend who had just sat down. In his opinion no justice was so dear as bad justice, at whatever price it might be obtained; and as they were about to give large powers to the magistrates appointed under this bill, he thought it was incumbent upon the House to give such an amount of remuneration as would enable them to obtain persons competent wisely, usefully, and honestly, to discharge the functions of the office they were about to impose upon them. Neither could he concur in the view of his hon. Friend with respect to the impropriety of limiting the choice of the magistrates to members of the bar. It was perfectly true, that gentlemen in other walks of life might be found fully competent upon all general points to perform the functions of magistrates, but under the extended jurisdiction of the courts now proposed to be established, it was more than probable that legal points might arise which would require a sound knowledge of the law in the person who presided. For his own part he fully concurred in the principle of the bill, and should give it his very cordial support.
Mr. Darbythought that some of the provisions of the bill were most objectionable, especially those which took away the right of trial by jury, and substituted a fine for imprisonment in certain cases of felony. He wished, in common with his hon. Friend, the Member for Kent, that these bills might be sent to a select committee. If they were not, he was convinced it would be impossible for them to pass through the House.
Sir E. Wilmotdiffered from his hon. Friend who had just sat down, and was decidedly favourable to the proposed plan of giving the magistrate summary jurisdiction in certain cases.
Lord Granville Somersetwas not friendly to the main provisions of the bill. He thought, indeed, that the measure could only be justified by the tyrant plea put forward by the hon. Member on the opposite side of the House. But, whatever the ultimate fate of the bill might be, he certainly hoped it would not be sent to a select committee. He was decidedly of opinion, that every provision of a bill of this kind ought to be discussed in the face of day.
Amendment withdrawn; bill read a second time.

SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
The Solicitor General moved the second reading of the Summary Jurisdiction Bill.
Lord Granville Somersetsaid, that, besides those clauses relating to summary jurisdiction, there were some extraordinary provisions contained in this bill which well deserved the consideration of the House. No doubt the subject of summary jurisdiction was one of both nicety and importance; but, without, for the present, touching on that part of the measure, he must say, that he should strongly object to the 32nd Clause, which went the length of disfranchising the clerks of the magistrates throughout the whole country.
The Attorney-Generalobserved, that, in point of fact, the clause to which the noble Lord had alluded, had nothing whatever to do with the principle of the bill. He had no hesitation in saying, that it had been inserted per incuriam, and therefore it would be competent to them to adopt or reject it in Committee. The objection to the clause was no argument that the bill should not be read a second time.
Mr. Prymeobjected to that part of the measure which gave magistrates a summary jurisdiction in cases of felony, without the intervention of a jury. Of late years, there had seemed a growing disposition to limit the functions of juries, and as he did not approve of such a departure from the law, it was his intention to raise the objection in the Committee.
Sir E. Knatchbullobjected to the provision rendering it imperative to hold petty sessions weekly, and said, that it was absolutely necessary to allow them to be held at public-houses. This was the practice at present, and it could not be departed from without great inconvenience and expense. There were several other parts of this bill to which he entertained strong objections, but he did not think that the proper opportunity for pressing them.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, if the right hon. Baronet had read the clause through, he would have found that it did not render the holding petty sessions weekly imperative, but left the matter open to the discretion of the magistrates. Now, with respect to not holding petty sessions in public-houses, he could only say that this was the case in Ireland, and that they were only assimilating the law of the two countries in this particular. It was found to be a good practice in Ireland, and he could not see why it should not be equally so for this country. In reference to the objection of
1304
his hon. Friend, the Member for Cambridge, all he could say was, that if it should prevail, there would be no use whatever for going into Committee on this bill. It was quite necessary that magistrates should have a power of dealing summarily with trifling offences committed by children, and although he would be prepared to consent to the withdrawal of the clause disfranchising the clerks of magistrates, he must say that he could not abandon that part of the measure which prevented the intervention of grand juries and trials in public courts of justice in cases where trifling felonies had been committed by juvenile offenders.
Mr. John Jonesobjected to the second clause of the bill, and thought that the measure was brought forward at a very improper time. It was a most bungling piece of legislation, and required the fullest scrutiny that a full House could give it.
Mr. Darbythought, that the principle of this bill was a very extraordinary one to come from the other side of the House. In the Quarter Sessions, they were not content with a full bench of magistrates, an experienced chairman, jury, and a bar attending, as securities for the proper administration of justice, but they must also have a barrister presiding; whereas in this summary jurisdiction they would have no bar, no barrister, no jury—but leave the decision of a felony to two magistrates. As to that part of the bill which prevented the holding of sessions in public houses, he thought it a very unnecessary interference with the discretion of the magistrates, and objectionable as throwing additional expense upon counties.
Sir Eardley Wilmotagreed in many of the objections to this bill. He thought it had been drawn up without sufficient practical knowledge. But with respect to that part which gave magistrates the power to inflict a fine of 5l. for certain offences which were now felony, he thought it necessary for the object of the bill. There had been a great increase of crime, and it was found that that increase was very much owing to the early imprisonment of children in gaols with convicted felons. To avoid this, the present bill proposed, in the case of juvenile offenders, virtually to convert what was now felony into a misdemeanour, He hoped the House would consent to a second reading, and give time for a dispassionate consideration of the whole subject in Committee.
Bill read a second time.

BOROUGH COURTS.
On the motion of the Solicitor-General, the House went into Committee on the Borough Courts Bill.
Mr. Cresswellmoved the insertion of a new clause with a view to prevent parties from removing causes under 50 l. by writ of certiorari into a superior court, without previously obtaining a judge's order, and cause being shown thereon, and also giving security for costs.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 1: Majority 56.
Clause inserted.
House resumed.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of LONDONDERRY, the Earls of ALBEMARLE, STANHOPE, DARTMOUTH, and HADDINGTON, from a number of places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.—By the Duke of ARGYLE, from one place, for Church Extension in Scotland.—By Lord REDESDALE, from Woodhouse, for Church Extension in Canada.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, and the Marquess of WESTMINSTER, from a number of places, against, and by Lord BROUGHAM, and Viscount MELBOURNE, from other places, in favour of the Beer Bill.

PENNY POSTAGE.
The Duke of Richmondpresented petitions from a great many places in favour of a Uniform rate of Penny postage. The noble Duke was anxious to call the attention of their Lordships, and more particularly that of her Majesty's Ministers, to the subject of the penny postage, as otherwise he might be too late in his efforts to make any alteration in a measure that was likely to be recommended by the other House of Parliament upon this subject. He did hope, if her Majesty's Ministers did reduce the postage at all, they would do it according to Mr. Rowland Hill's plan, and not according to the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, because if they did not, they would not be able to prevent the illegal conveyance of letters. The only way they could hope to prevent that would be, by taking the postage at the lowest rate, namely, a penny. He hoped, also, there would be nothing in that bill that would prevent an individual sending a letter, not in a penny cover, otherwise the Legislature would be against the very principle of Mr. Rowland Hill, which was to induce and encourage letter-writing. The right principle would be, to allow every man to write and send a letter without a stamp, if he pleased, but that all such letters should be charged, upon delivery, at a higher rate. He could not abstain either from adverting to one of the grossest abuses that ever existed in this country in the Post-Office Department, and that was official franking. He saw no reason why the Treasury should not purchase the stamps as
1232
well as other persons, and then it would be known what the amount of the money would come to in this way, and thereby the whole of the abuse of official franks would be got rid of. He would also throw out the propriety of allowing persons who purchased stamps, to send their letters by any stage coach, carrier, or steam-boat that might choose to take them, because so long as the revenue was secured, parties ought to have their own option as to the mode of conveyance.
Petition laid on the Table.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Lord Broughamsaid, it was a thing which very seldom happened to him, to have to complain of a breach of privilege, because he paid little regard to statements made out of doors; but there was one way in which the privileges of that House might certainly be abused, and that was by gross, and manifest, and wilful—and he confined himself to that—wilful mis-statements of what took place in that House. If it had been merely an inaccurate report, he would be the last person in the world to complain of it; on the contrary, it was a matter of wonder to him, as it must be to others, that the reports were so accurate as they were. That was his opinion, but when he saw a wilful misrepresentation in the newspapers, and more especially when it was directly in the teeth of its own report, he felt it his duty to call attention to it, for the purpose of exposing to the people of that country how little faith they could fix upon party statements of facts. He would now appeal to the House, whether any one of the three following assertions, which he was about to read in the paragraph he held in his hand, had any foundation; and if any one Member of their Lordships' House (and that was a great degree of audacity of assertion—that was a bold challenge), if any one of their Lordships would say, that there was any truth whatever in any one of the three following assertions, then he would cease to make any observations:—"The answer was as distinct and satisfactory as any answer that ever was given."—He did not know how far that might be true, but his noble Friend behind him could not think so. It then proceeded—"We are compelled to state"—now what compelled a man to state a gross falsehood he could not tell—except it might be his nature—"that there was not a single Member of the House who did not leave it disgusted with the speech." Not a single Member! He admitted that

1233
ninety-nine out of a hundred might have been disgusted. His noble Friend near him (Lord Melbourne) might have felt disgusted, but certainly there were some besides himself who did not leave it disgusted, for he had stated facts. Now there followed a more serious charge—"That the object of the speech was only in reality to indulge in his known inveteracy of hatred to the monarchy." Why he was the person who had defended the monarchy on that occasion, and he had objected to his noble Friend (Lord Melbourne), because he had said too little in its favour, for he only quoted King William—that he could not tell whether he liked best a monarchy or a republic. He declared upon his honour, that he never spoke with less idea of throwing disrespect upon the monarchy. His opinion and his argument was in favour of a monarchy, and it held up the monarchical principle; and if it was not his belief that what had been ill done by one party, and misrepresented by another, endangered the monarchy, he should not have inflicted that speech upon their Lordships. There was one kind of monarchy for which he had not expressed respect, and that was a monarchy which could not carry on its own measures; but that was not his sentiment or his speech—it was the sentiment of his noble Friend behind him, borrowed from King William. He did not believe that any single individual who heard him, had the least idea of that sort. The last paragraph was equally painful and equally false. It asserted, that he had assailed—whom did their Lordships think?—the actual Sovereign! Could anything be more base? Was there a man in the House, however disgusted he might be with his speech—was there one man in the House who could say conscientiously, that he made any—the slightest disrespectful allusion to the Sovereign? On the contrary, he had thought he was unnecessarily endeavouring to prevent the possibility of perversions, blunders, and misinterpretations. He now found that he, not unnecessarily, but uselessly and ineffectually, did so, for all that you could take in the way of pains, to prevent the possibility of that most offensive, and, to him, certainly painful misrepresentation was, he found, all thrown away, for the misrepresentation had been made.—[Several Peers, "What newspaper is it?"] The Observer Sunday paper—the organ of the Government. Two things appeared to have been in the contemplation of the parties who made that statement;—first, to
1234
ascertain what the fact was, and then to find out how they could say that which would be the most untrue, the most injurious, the most offensive, and the most painful to the individual against whom it was made. If it was any satisfaction to the parties to know they had succeeded in one of their objects, in saying that which was most untrue three times over, let them enjoy that satisfaction. He defied any body to surpass them in that; but if they required the other satisfaction of having given any great pain, why it was always painful to see one person hated another so much as to tell such falsehoods: any other pain he did not feel. He knew that if he had not mentioned this to their Lordships, and had held it up as a sort of a challenge, that for the next six months, he would have been misrepresented, first by one paper, then by another, and then by a third, till at last all papers, all speakers at country meetings, all orators at those great, unanimous, hearty, and most respectable and most numerous meetings, like the one at Kensington the other day, which, out of 12,000 inhabitants, had seventy-two present. At all those great, unanimous, and multitudinous meetings, as he saw one account called them, he should have been represented as having made an attack on the monarchy, and actually an attack on the Sovereign on the Throne. He had merely made these remarks for the purpose of repelling the statement, and to show there was not a shadow of foundation for it. The best thing any respectable publication could do, would be to give up the name of the individual who made that false party statement, and suggested it would be a good thing to put forth to the public. If anybody should say that he was interfering with the liberty of the press, of which he was a great advocate, he would answer, that he was only interfering with unlicensed falsehood, put forth to deceive the people of this country, and the sooner the people opened their eyes to such stratagems and falsehoods, the better it would be for the country.
The Marquess of Londonderrycertainly lamented that the noble and learned Lord had thought it necessary to trouble the House with a repetition of such trash, published in the newspaper he had just quoted. There was not an individual in that House who had not gone away with the conviction, that there never was a more eloquent, a more able, and a more constitutional speech than that made by the noble and

1235
learned Lord the other night. He and those nearly connected with him, had been opposed to the noble and learned Lord in political sentiments during the whole course of their lives, but he believed they were all agreed, that they had never heard so able and so clear an exposition of the British Constitution, and of the rights of the people, as that which the noble and learned Lord then made. If the noble and learned Lord had not already had sufficient praise bestowed on him by the universal acclamations and testimonials of regard and esteem he had received from all societies and all towns he had visited, he believed these marks of admiration would shortly be renewed from every part of the country. If the noble and learned Lord had not already had sufficient encomiums passed on him to satisfy his vanity, he believed there would be a renewal of them to such an extent as would overwhelm him.

ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS.
Lord Wharncliffebegged to draw the attention of the House to a subject which he conceived of great importance. His attention had been arrested by an account in one of the morning papers, quoted from the Freeman's Journal, of a requisition to the high sheriff of the county of Mayo, calling upon him to convene a meeting to address her Majesty on the resignation and recal of her present Ministers. The requisition was signed by the lord-lieutenant (the Marquess of Sligo.) The next signature was "John Archbishop of Tuam," and the third name was "Thomas Tuam." This did appear to him to be gross assumption on the part of the Roman Catholic archbishop, and he must say, it did appear to him, that the conduct of the Protestant bishop was most extraordinary. He should like to know, from the Government, whether they would allow a Roman Catholic archbishop to assume those titles, which, by law, they were under a penalty for using?
Viscount Melbournesaid, it was a matter for the Irish Government, if they thought fit, to take it under their consideration. But he could not help saying, that if the Protestant bishop concurred in the requisition, he did not think it would have been a wise thing in him to have withheld his signature on the ground that the other individual had assumed the title stated.
The Earl of Wicklowcould not hear what had fallen from the noble Viscount opposite, without expressing his total dissent from the whole of it. The mode in
1236
which the Irish Government was led and dictated to in that country was well known, and it was well known that the noble Viscount here, at the head of the Government, ought to exercise his authority over it. The new bishop was the son of the Lord Chancellor of that country—a person just appointed by the noble Lord himself; and a greater affliction could not have been imposed upon that country, proceeding from that mean subserviency to an individual to whom the noble Lord considered himself indebted, than the appointment of that individual.

SALE OF BEER ACT.
Lord Broughamsaid, that in rising to move the second reading of the Sale of Beer Act Repeal Bill, of which he had given notice, the only thing that operated on his mind as a discouragement to that in which he hoped to be successful, was the consideration, that it might be thought an effort on his part, which would be most contrary to his feelings and fixed principles, to deprive the humbler classes of society of some of the means of recreation adapted to their situation, and which was of no consequence to those who were placed in a different and higher sphere of life. He had, all his life, looked with the greatest suspicion upon every plan which had for its object, under whatever pretence, a limitation of the enjoyments of the common people, where equal limits were not, at the same time, proposed to be imposed upon the enjoyments of those in a higher condition. He had carried this feeling to the utmost extent; for instance, as to the Temperance Societies, no one could approve of them more than he did himself, and the noble Duke opposite had expressed the same sentiment. But he had joined with the noble Duke in refusing to become a member of those societies, for the obvious reason, that it would be no self-restraint upon individuals in his situation, to enter into a bond not to consume ardent spirits, when they had at their command the opportunity of consuming equally deleterious liquor. Why should the noble Duke, or his noble and learned Friend opposite, enter into a society binding themselves not to drink spirits, when they had the perfect power of drinking their claret, Burgundy, and Champagne? He knew plenty of persons who would have no objections to enter into those societies, but they said they would not be guilty of such hypocrisy as to declare that ardent spirits should not be

1237
drank, when they felt certain that they could continue to enjoy their wine. He himself felt strongly the objection to drinking ardent spirits. They were the parent of crimes of the worst description, as the police reports showed, namely, crimes accompanied by violence. But, if ardent spirits could be used with great moderation, they had the authority of Burke—no mean authority—for saying that, in moderation, they might be a needful stimulus to the poor man, particularly in the various branches of town industry, in damp positions, and in unwholesome occupations, where stimulus of that description was required. But, passing by that, they were all agreed that, to promote habits of temperance and avoid intemperance and those other offences which he should advert to by and by, as fostered prodigiously by those who kept beer-houses—that to get rid of those evils would be a very great improvement to the morals, the comfort, and the happiness of the labouring classes. He felt that he should not be discharging his duty to the country, to their Lordships, or to himself, if he delayed any longer in bringing the question before the House. He must observe, that some of his noble Friends near him had charged him with having changed his opinions upon that subject. These statements were not more true than many others that were made with respect to him: but the fact was quite the reverse. "How can you," said the letters he was receiving daily, "how can you be against the Beer Bill, who originally brought it in?" If he had brought it in, and found that he had been wrong, that would be a good reason why he should change his opinion. But it did so happen, that he had not only not brought it in, but had opposed it in every way he could. He had brought in a Beer Bill, out of which originated the Committee which proposed and carried the late measure. But what was his proposition—that beer might be allowed to be sold, but not consumed on the premises. That was, he had no objection to its being sold, like bread, or any other commodity, at the chandler's shop, but not drunk on the premises. Now, his bills of 1822, 1823, and 1824, for he had brought forward three, contained a clause prohibiting, under severe penalties, the consumption of beer on the premises. That was, it prohibited the beer-houses, or beer-shops, or public-houses whose sale was confined to beer, and selling without magistrates' license, having only the excise li-
1238
cense, from allowing beer to be consumed on the premises. Now, he would explain to their Lordships why he had urged upon them, and upon the lower House of Parliament, (for he was then a Member of that House) why he objected to the Beer Bill, and why he admitted the sale of beer in these shops, but not to be consumed on the premises. In the first place, it interfered with monopoly brewers. That was one, but only a small portion of his reasons. But the principal reason was, that it enabled a person to send his daughter to beer-shops, to get a quart or a pint of beer, for drinking in his own house, without the chance of her being contaminated by being sent to the ale-house. There was another, but a weightier reason, that a man was enticed from the ale-house, if he could only buy beer at these houses to consume with his family at home. He could not, according to the present excise laws, have a sufficient quantity at home, and if he went for it to the ale-house, he was, perhaps, induced to remain there His whole argument had been an argument against the beer-houses, but his principal argument had been, to enable a man to buy his beer at one of these shops, and bring it home to his family. It was then said, why support the bill of 1830, and suffer it to pass without opposition? He hail yielded to the Report of the Committee, but he stated that his opinion remained unaltered—that, as they had fully considered and examined the question, they might take the weight and responsibility of the measure on themselves; it was their measure, not his—their bill, not his—and they would see how it would work in practice. He had been urged, a year afterwards, to repeal it; but be had said, no: after a bill was once passed, it would not do to change it the next year because it had failed—it was better to give it a longer trial. He was then a Member of their Lordships' House, and in office, and he had said to his colleagues, give it a longer trial, and then it will be time enough to repeal it if it fails. That was the whole history of his ever having said anything in favour of the measure. He held that nothing was more calculated to bring legislation into disrepute than to try an experiment every year, and the next, without giving it a fair trial, to retrace their steps. Now, he found, after all the petitions, the many hundreds that had been presented at different times, and to the nature of which he would presently draw

1239
their Lordships' attention—he found his noble Friend, at the head of the Government, had that night presented a very bulky petition, signed, by he believed, eight thousand, headed by a beer seller, and he dared to say that many of those who signed it were beer sellers. He did not object to that, and he dared to say that there had been many from licensed victuallers whose interests were of an opposite nature. He had no objection to that, but the argument here was raised in favour of the measure, and he thought he could not do better than just state to their Lordships the arguments used against his bill. It stated, first, "that the opening of the trade in beer, whereby the monopoly in that essential article had been broken down, had been productive of great public good, that it had occasioned a considerable reduction in the price of the commodity, and a material improvement in the quality. That many of the petitioners in following their occupations (meaning labourers) were from an early hour till late at night from borne, and required dinners and other accommodation suitable to their circumstances, which were formerly furnished by the licensed victuallers, but were now obtained much more easily and cheaply at the beer houses. That many of them in pursuit of business resorted to some neighbouring house, and then in conversations with their friends and neighbours they enjoyed over a pint of ale a temporary relaxation from the cares of business." He wished to God that nothing worse took place at these houses. Then came the last point—"That the general conduct observed in these beer houses, so far as their experience extended, was as moral and as respectable as that observed at public houses, and from the absence of ardent intoxicating spirits there was less temptation to drunkenness." He denied the absence of ardent spirits—and but in a few instances he denied the rest of the argument of the petitioners. Now having read their own allegations of their own case, he would meet them by showing their Lordships facts from the most authentic and undoubted sources of information. If he were to rest his case upon the evidence of licensed victuallers, there might be some objections made, although he would show their Lordships presently that there were many licensed victuallers who had not the slighest objection to these beer-houses. But it was not their testimony that would establish his case—very far from it. It was the
1240
testimony of farmers, and landlords, and magistrates, and grand jurors, and reverend clergymen of the Established Church, and of all Dissenting persuasions. It was the evidence of Commissioners, appointed by the Government, to inquire into the state of the habits of the people, with a particular practical view—who had taken evidence on which to found recommendations for a police measure. All those testimonies of various classes of the community were unanimous, and they called for a repeal of the Beer Bill. Now, taking all these classes in another light, not as petitioners but as witnesses, he should state to their Lordships that it was upon their testimony he relied in establishing his case before them. Now, one of these classes, namely, the Magistrates, were said to have some interest in the subject, because it was contended that the Beer Bill took away a valuable branch of patronage, which it was said had been often converted to particular purposes. But what interest had the clergy of the Established Church or the Dissenting clergy in the matter? What interest had such men as the Government Commissioners and the farmers, whose evidence he was about to refer to? He was unwilling to believe that the magistrates of the country would view the matter in the light of a question affecting their interests or their patronage—or that they would be so lost to all sense of truth and honour as to pray their Lordships to pass a measure, on the ground that it would tend to improve the morals and promote the interest of the working classes, while all the time they merely advocated their own private interests. He would be still more averse to say that under the hypocritical and false pretence of improving the morals of the people, they were merely promoting their own patronage. He could not believe that such was the character of the magistracy of this country. Having stated the grounds on which he should rest his case, he would now call their attention to the particulars of the evidence, and which would substantiate the general remarks he had previously made. He would now quote from the evidence of the Commissioners on the subject of the habits of the people, and the state of crime, and he had already told their Lordships to what a degree the beer houses had contributed. In the examination of a solicitor from Welchpool, he found it stated, "The beer shops of this town, the sergeant at mace says, are kept open all night, so long as their customers seek to be served

1241
with drink." That was the common complaint every where. But then it might be said, why not enforce the law? The constable was an unpaid yearly officer, who did not serve voluntarily, but endeavoured, like the churchwarden or overseer, to go through his office as quietly as possible, and give as little offence as he might to the poor people among whom he lived. There was also another inducement, they frequented the beer-houses themselves. What if they were well treated there? What if others paid, and they did not, which their Lordships would presently see was the fact? The beer-house keeper, in order to keep him quiet, gave him beer for nothing, and the constable did not like to tell him to shut his shop because it would be shutting himself out, and he would thereby be deprived of the benefit of the company he might meet, and the drink, for he paid no bill. That was the case all over the country. He would now give them the evidence of a respectable farmer of Essex. In speaking of depredations, and his evidence was the more worthy of attention, because that was not the main object of inquiry, Mr. Gregory said,
"In all cases of depredation on farmers, the plunder must be considerable to be worth while, as the produce was sold at so much less than its value. The great source of evil is the beer-shops. I had hardly lost anything until a beer-shop was set up in my neighbourhood and now I am obliged to watch them every way. They take my fowls, and bring them to the beer-shop to sell or to cook; they cut off the heads of my cabbages, and on one occasion I took a fowl of mine half-cooked out of the pot."
It was added, that one of the parties concerned in these robberies was afterwards transported. Mr. William Kershaw, a canal carrier, also described the nature and extent of these depredations. He said the plunder consisted of every small article that could be carried off, and also flour and malt; and they had places where they disposed of it with great facility. These places were the cheap beer-shops; and the greater portion of the plundered property was sold to the proprietor, or to parties who congregated there. He also had before him the confession of a thief, who was of respectable parents in Manchester, and who stated, that he knew of beer-shops being started by thieves for the accommodation and reception of their fellows. There were two such at Nottingham and another a Chester, four in Manchester in
1242
one street, and others at Halifax and other towns. The expense of setting up was only 8l. for a license and 8l. for stock; the first week paid the expenses. The Messrs. Kenworthy, carriers, stated similar facts, and he had also the evidence of the deputy constable of Manchester, which he referred to merely to show that the evil was not confined to country districts, and that it would not be wise to adopt a proposition to put down beer-shops in the country, and allow them to exist still in towns. In the country, there was less felony, Jess prostitution, and more of trifling offences; but greater mischief was done to a better class of people, namely, the farm servants. In towns, however, they were very mischievous indeed, and he would only refer to the evidence with respect to Birmingham, Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds, and Liverpool, as affording a very fair sample of the effects of that measure. In Liverpool it was stated, that they were the source of a great deal of crime—that illicit spirits were frequently clandestinely sold in them. It was added, that it was not always safe for the constable to watch them; and if it was not safe merely to watch them, how could these men be expected to lay informations against them, when they ran the risk of having their heads broke. The magistrates of Leith-ward, in Cumberland, complained that the keepers of beer-shops were appointed as constables at the Courtleet. That he could bear testimony to himself. What hope was there that these constables would do their duty? At a place in Berkshire, it was stated, that three of the constables were reputed drunkards, and one of them the brother of a beer-shopkeeper. The evidence of the high constable of Chester was to the same effect; and it would be merely repeating what he had already stated, to quote it. Mr. Pool, of Howe-on-the-Wold, stated, that the keepers of the beer-shops were all opposed to the farmers, because they spoiled their trade of harbouring thieves. In the report of the Liverpool Watch Committee to the Town-council, it was stated, that there were several hundred of these beer-houses supported by the very worst characters. In Salop the constables stated, that they were in the habit of keeping their beer-houses open till a late hour of the night. Now these facts were not confined to the rural or agricultural districts, but extended to villages, towns manufacturing and commercial, canals and railways. The evidence of the grand jury of the county of

1243
Essex was to the effect, that the demoralizing effect of beer-houses licensed for the sale of beer to be drunk on the premises, still continued, and formed a serious subject of complaint from time to time. The same statements were made by the grand juries of Stafford, Oxford, Somerset, and other counties; and, although they were not in the habit of making presentments on the subject of beer-houses, they had on more than one occasion, as he was informed by a learned Friend of his, expressed to the court their opinion that many minor offences originated in beer-houses, and that was the result of their inquiries when finding bills of indictment. The grand jury of Falmouth reported that females were going about the streets almost in a state of nudity, and intoxicated, the consequence of beer-shops. These were tiresome details, but he thought it better that he should go into such particulars than make a speech on the subject; Mr. Justice Vaughan, in 1839, on the occasion of a child being left to perish, said, that the beer shops, from their causing abuses and immoralities, were to be regarded as public nuisances. It was contended by the petition from London, presented this day, that the regulations of the beer shops were as good as those of the licensed victuallers, and that argument was to be drawn from the state of the returns of public convictions made to the House of Commons. He would willingly put his case upon that issue, because never was there a grosser misrepresentation. The mistake arose in this way; in London in three years the convictions of licensed victuallers amounted to 2,316; of beer shops during the same time of 1,437; upon which, said the political calculators, there were twice as many convictions of licensed victuallers as of beer shop keepers. But then those calculators forgot to take into their account that there were 5,000 licensed victuallers and only 1,400 beer-shop keepers in London; so that, in proportion to the relative number of the two, there were twice as many convictions of beer-shop keepers as there were of licensed victuallers. Liverpool showed the same result. In Birmingham, the returns for seven years, from 1831 to 1838, showed, according to their proportions, very nearly three times the number of convictions of beer-shop keepers to those of licensed victuallers. So much for the regulations of the beer-shops which had been so much bragged of; and their convictions would be many more if the con-
1244
stables only did their duty, but the beer-shop keepers treated the constables with beer and seduced them from doing their duty; whereas the licensed victuallers would not treat them, and therefore were informed of by them. With respect to the effects of beer-shops upon the morals of the people, he was in possession of some of the most grievous and distressing facts. Hardly a petition came to him that was not accompanied by a letter, either from a magistrate, a grand-juror, an overseer, a high constable, or a reverend clergyman, all stating facts similar to what he was about to detail, and they were only to be taken as a sample. The chief police-officer and billet master of Halifax, where there was a population of 22,000, stated, that in the beer-houses there, gambling was very common—gambling by boys, and that in one case out of every two, they were frequented by boys and girls. He said that in these houses it was truly shocking to see girls for the purpose of prostitution, and boys for the purpose of availing themselves of the profligacy of the females. The noble and learned Lord would observe, that all the representations he had made, agreed in melancholy uniformity, as to these places being the resort for the gambling of boys, and the prostitution of girls. He was informed that the general management of those beer-houses was disgraceful; that many of them were kept by persons of the lowest character—persons who lived on the fruits of the prostitution of their own daughters, and who harboured reputed thieves. He supposed those were the persons to whom the petitioners of London referred in their petition, which had just been presented by his noble Friend, when they stated that beer-houses were places for persons in humble life to resort to to have a pint of ale and to enjoy themselves, as a temporary relaxation from the cares of business. The statements from Huddersfield were, that the wives and children of the poor men were exposed to the most painful examples of blasphemy and disorder; that the keepers of beer-houses admitted characters of the vilest description, and that men sent out their own children to follow a course of prostitution, that they might have money to spend in those houses, and that in doing so, they left others of more tender years in a state of sheer starvation. Examples were given, too shocking for him to read to the House, of the most abhorrent cases of female prostitution, and of such profligacy and crapulous vice, as he had never read or heard of

1245
before. In Leeds the convictions for drunkenness had increased four-fold since the passing of the Beer Bill. The high constable of Leeds attributed that entirely to the beer-houses. Now he would say, without meaning any offence to the common people, and without any desire to spare the feelings of those in the rank of their Lordships, that as to those which were vices in any rank of life—either gambling or drunkenness—the one being the parent of every mischief, and the other being the parent of every degree of dissoluteness in every rank, that they were ten thousand times worse for the common and industrious artizan and hard working man, than they were for the more elevated ranks of society. The time persons spent at such an occupation in their Lordships' rank was the mere fragment of their time, the money they spent in that way was the mere parings of their fortunes which they cast away; but to the poor man, such habits were destructive to his comforts, his industry, his honesty, and his mind itself. It was hardly possible that he could be an honest man—hardly possible that he could be an industrious man—utterly impossible that he could be a thriving man—if he indulged either in gaming or in drunkenness. Why were the state lotteries abolished? simply because the lower classes should not be induced or encouraged to gamble. While beer-shops had the effect of accustoming the common people to gamble, they generated dissipation of other sorts, in a lower class of people than would naturally be guilty of those excesses but for the beer-shops. Persons who went to licensed victuallers' houses either in town or in the country, were persons of a somewhat superior class in life to those who frequented beer-shops. They were better behaved persons, and they went to better-regulated places. To what good, or with what consistency should the clergy occupy themselves in inculcating piety and morals on a Sunday, and visiting their parishioners in order to tend their flocks and keep them in the right path,—to what good was it, that the Legislature should pass laws to punish crime, or that their Lordships should occupy themselves in finding out modes of improving the morals of the people by giving them education,—what, in the name of Heaven, could be the use of all the education they could bestow,—what the use of sowing a little seed here and plucking up a weed there, if those beer-shops were to be continued, that they might go on to sow the seeds—not of ignorance,
1246
but of that which was ten times worse—immorality, broad cast over the land, germinating the most frightful produce that ever had been allowed to grow up in a civilised country, and he was ashamed to add, under the fostering care of Parliament, and throwing the most baneful influence over the whole community? When he addressed their Lordships on these high grounds he really felt ashamed to descend to the mere petty question of finance. But if he did sink down to that, he would say, that he was perfectly confident that instead of a repeal of this bill being an injury to the revenue it would cause an increase of it. Why the utmost revenue which the beer-shops afforded was 100,000 l., and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not receive that from beer-house keepers he would receive it from a very superior class of persons. He might prove the superiority of licensed victuallers to beer-shop keepers by looking at their average rating. In Rochdale, for instance, the average rating of licensed victuallers was 52 l. a year, whereas the rating of the beer-house keepers was only 12 l. a year. It was said, that in England from 1828 to 1839, there was an increase of 3,306,000 bushels in the consumption of malt, and that was attributed to the beer-shops. He would prove that it arose from no such cause, but that it resulted from an increase in the population of the country. The Beer-shop Bill did not extend to Scotland, but there an increase had taken place to a much greater extent in the consumption of malt. In England, its consumption had increased as one in eleven, while in Scotland it had increased as one in eight. It was nonsense, therefore, to attribute it to the Beer Bill. The object of his bill was not to extinguish beer-shops altogether, but to allow beer only to be sold but not consumed on the premises; thereby enabling the poor man to send to the public-house for his beer, but not to drink it on the premises. A great number of the licensed victuallers brewed their own beer. In the country there were 56,000 licensed victuallers, 5,000 of whom carried on their business in London, and of that 56,000, no less than 26,000 brewed their own beer. Of the beer-shops there were 45,000, of which only 16,000 brewed their own beer; and the whole of these 16,000 were in favour of his bill for regulating the beer-shops in the same way as the licensed. victuallers; namely, by not allowing them to sell beer to be consumed on the premises without a

1247
license from the magistrates. The great ground of objection to this measure was, that after having allured people by the existing bill to lay out their capital in beer-houses, it was now proposed to adopt a measure that would cause their ruin. It was absurd to talk of the capital they had employed; he would venture to say in many instances it did not exceed 12 s. or 15 s., and that it hardly ever exceeded 5l. But for his own part he would sooner give some compensation to these parties than allow the present intolerable nuisance to continue. Those who brewed their own beer, had perhaps laid out a capital of 50 l. or 60 l., but that would not be lost because they would be allowed to sell beer still, though not to be drunk on the premises. He felt that he had done no more than his duty in bringing forward the measure in order, if possible, to put an end to the dissoluteness and vice that existed among the lower classes, and such being his object, he trusted he should have the support of their Lordships. The noble Lord concluded by moving the second reading of the bill.
The Duke of Wellington,in supporting the second reading of the bill, was anxious to say a few words. Very shortly after the Beer Bill passed, the country became aware that there were great objections to the measure, and from that time to the present he had invariably supported every measure that had been brought forward by any noble Lord, in order, if possible, to remedy the defects of the Act of 1829, but by some influence or other every attempt had proved unsuccessful. Believing the bill of the noble and learned Lord would be attended with great good, he should give it his support, and he earnestly recommended it to the attention of their Lordships. He should in committee do all in his power to render the measure perfect.
The Marquess of Westminsterhad not been induced either by the eloquence or the arguments of the noble and learned Lord to alter the opinions he had always entertained upon the present subject, and he felt no doubt that before he sat down he should be enabled to convince their Lordships that the bill ought to be read a second time that day six months. If the bill passed he would venture to say, that instead of its being the ruin of 45,000 individuals, it would ruin 300,000. He thought, if the noble and learned Lord had devoted his eloquence and wrath to deprecate the gin-palaces, he would have selected a far more proper ob-
1248
ject on which to cast his indignation. But he supposed the noble Lord had refrained from such an attack, because the noble and learned Lord knew the powerful opposition he would have to encounter. He considered, that the gin-palaces and the licensed victuallers did far more to demoralize the people and injure their morals than the beer-shops. He, therefore, felt bound to shield them if possible from the cruel, unjust, and unfair attack which had been made upon them. If this bill passed, it would either drive the beer-shop-keepers to ruin, or to keeping public-houses. A beer-shop-keeper was called on every year to produce a certificate signed by six ratepayers, of his good conduct; he had to close his premises at ten at night, and he subjected himself to fines and penalties for the most trivial offence. If he served a neighbour with a pint of beer two minutes after the time of closing, he was liable to pay a fine of 40 s., with perhaps 5l. costs, besides the risk of altogether failing in obtaining a renewal of his license. The noble and learned Lord had dwelt with peculiar emphasis and ability on the subject of thieves and prostitutes being harboured in beer-houses, but he believed they were harboured to a much greater extent in the houses of licensed victuallers. The noble and learned Lord had also talked of the increase of drunkenness, but there was as much drunkenness in the one species of house as in the other. He could not account for the extraordinary hostility the noble and learned Lord had manifested against the present Beer Bill, but he had been assured, with great gravity and earnestness, by some individuals with whom he had communicated, that it was to be attributed to the noble and learned Lord having purchased an estate in the South of France, and that he intended to become an importer of wine. One great objection, however, to the second reading of this bill was, that it ought to have been introduced first into the House of Commons, and he understood the House of Commons would not pass a bill for the repeal of a tax which had originated in their Lordships' House. Convinced that it would never become a law, he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
The Duke of Richmondfelt he was taking the part of the poor when he called upon their Lordships seriously to reflect on what had been the consequences of sanctioning the establishment of these beer-

1249
shops, He knew many instances in which boys and girls of ten years of age had gone into secluded cottages in which beer was sold—their morals were contaminated, and they were shortly afterwards brought to the Sessions charged with serious crimes. In allusion to what the noble Marquess who had just sat down, had said, he would observe it was not very likely a bill to repeal a tax would be permitted to pass the House of Commons if it originated in the Lords; but that was no reason why the bill should not be referred to a Committee, so that they might be ready with any amendments for the bill that might come up from the Commons. The beer-shops made the public-houses worse than they would otherwise be. The noble Marquess wished gin-palaces were destroyed. So did he, for he believed they were worse than beer-shops—he hated and detested them, and if he were in office, the first thing he would direct his attention to would be to correct that detestable evil. A poor man ought to be allowed to buy beer to drink in his own cottage, so that his family would partake of it; and if some regulation of that kind could be devised, it would be very desirable. He believed, that all the disgraceful riots and tumults that took place in Sussex in 1830 were caused by the beer-shops—it was the first year the beer-shops came into operation. It would be an act of favour to most of the beer-shop-keepers to deprive them of their licences—for theirs was a losing concern; they were quite as much under the command of the brewers as any of the licensed victuallers, and they did not sell so good an article.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, if the beer-shops were placed under the same restraint as the public-houses, their Lordships would have no complaint whatever against them. He was rather disposed to vote against the second reading, and wait for a bill which was in progress through the other House, but after what he had heard from the noble and learned Lord, he was inclined to allow the second reading to go, with the understanding, that ample time should be given before the bill was advanced another stage.
The Earl of Hardwickecomplained of the manner in which convictions against beer-houses were treated; in many cases the magistrates were brought into the Court of Queen's Bench, and actions brought against them for heavy damages. All that was so well understood, that con-
1250
victions were at an end, and there was no control over the beer-houses as the law at present stood. He hoped this matter would be taken up by her Majesty's Government, and that some clauses would be introduced to protect the magistrates and enable them to do justice.
Lord Wynfordexplained relative to the practice of the Court of Queen's Bench, in cases of actions of trespass. He hoped in the bill now before their Lordships, a proper form of conviction would be provided to prevent the recurrence of these actions. [Lord Brougham: There is a form in the bill.] He was glad to hear it. He thought the evils of beer-shops were as great as they had been described by his noble and learned Friend, in his eloquent speech; but the evils of beer-shops sank into insignificance when compared with those of the gin-palaces. He hoped the Government would direct their attention to that very important subject. If he were a Member of the committee to which the present bill would be referred, he would move the insertion of a clause to prevent any person carrying on a beer-house who did not brew the beer on his own premises; and thus prevent his being, as was too frequently the case, the agent of some great brewer.
The Earl of Warwicksupported the bill. The evidence of the demoralizing effects of beer-shops in the county with which he was connected was most extensive and authentic.
The Earl of Harewoodsaid, that although he was connected with a very extensive district of this country, he was not commissioned to state anything on the subject, further than what he collected from the petitions which he had presented; but he could bear testimony to this, that he had never heard anything from any human being but a complaint of these beer-shops, and more particularly in the neighbourhood of the large manufacturing towns, where scenes were going on daily and nightly, which it was quite out of the power of the police and of the magistrates to control. This was almost the only subject he ever knew, on which there was one universal feeling expressed throughout the country. He should support the present motion, and vote for the bill going into a Select Committee, and should not consider the subject connected with revenue at all. He would say, for the benefit of the people, at all risk, do away with this system, which was one of the greatest evils that

1251
ever had been inflicted upon them. It was absolutely essential for the morals of the people that it should be done away with.
Lord Portmansaid, that when this bill was introduced, which had been now so much complained of, he moved that it should be read a second time that day six months, and the noble and learned Lord on that occasion made a very eloquent speech in support of it, as he had now made in condemnation of it. However, as it was, he was happy the noble and learned Lord had now applied his great mind to it. He should have been disposed to have supported a bill for the absolute repeal of this Act. He believed, there could be no amendment of the bill in advance, it must be in retreat; and their Lordships would never effectually accomplish the object until the bill was entirely repealed. The object of their Lordships was, to supply the poor with good beer to be drank in their own houses; and the only way to do that, would be to facilitate the sale of beer by the brewer, to be drank off the premises. He should consent to the second reading of this bill, in the hope that in a Select Committee it might be made useful to the public. Nobody could take any part in the way of getting rid of the Beer Bill who did not do the greatest benefit to the poor.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that as this was a subject of very great importance, and as there seemed to be a general desire on the part of the House that it should be referred to a Select Committee, he should not offer any opposition to that; at the same time, he could not pledge himself or the Government in the other House to the adoption of this bill or any other bill on this subject.
Lord Broughamsaid, that of course the Government and the other House would exercise their own judgment on the question, but he trusted to the good sense of the Members of the other House, that they would pay attention to the voices of all the grand jurors, the magistracy, and the respectability of the country. The noble Marquess (Westminster) entirely mistook him, if he thought he had changed his opinion as to the use of ardent spirits. If the use of ardent spirits could be put an end to that would be a great benefit to the public, but he had never been able to see a prospect of that yet. If the duty on spirits were increased, then in proportion would illicit distillation take place. He had
1252
thought, when he first brought a bill on the subject of making the trade in beer free, into the House of Commons, that if they gave better beer to the poor, that would discourage the poor from going to gin-shops, and upon that impression he acted. The popularity which the Government in the other House thought they could gain in the country by resisting a measure of the sort now proposed, was nothing short of a popularity to be gained by going against justice. There was a great disposition in the other House to go against the magistrates, and in that way to gain a popularity with such persons as kept these beer-shops; but he did not think that would tell in the long run. If there was to be an appeal to the country, it would then be for the Government to consider whether they would consent to lose the favour of the beer-shop keepers, or the favour of the licensed victuallers, to the amount of 56,000, scattered all over the country. He knew the influence of licensed victuallers, and they were not silent people. It was to be remembered, too, that in running up the score at the Treasury for votes, it was always considered that the publicans, the brewers, and the bankers, were three of the most important classes of persons to look to. That was according to his experience. [The Marquess of Westminster: And the clergy.] But the clergy went, on this occasion, with the three he had enumerated. There were the ladies, too, who were not an uninfluential body, and they were with him in this instance; so that if his noble Friend would only look at that score, he thought, that, on reflection, he must support this Bill. Things that be had known done twenty years ago, he was morally certain could not be done now. He had known magistrates at sessions refuse to give a new licence to a man, because he had not voted rightly. He was sure that would not be done now. The magistrates now had their conduct so narrowly scrutinized, that no persons led more the life of a toad under a harrow than they did. He thought, that in committee they could so shape the bill as to ensure justice being done to all parties. With respect to what the noble Marquess had stated, relative to the purchase he had made, such was its magnitude, that one of the noble Marquess's halls or picture-galleries could contain it. As to the wines there, they were bad, but they had good oil. He trusted that the noble Marquess would honour him with a visit, and if he did, he

1253
would show him a beautiful and healthy climate. He had no objection to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, provided it was understood that so referring the Bill did not delay it. If the House of Commons should refuse to receive the Bill, which he did not anticipate, he could not help it. Notwithstanding what his noble Friend had stated, he must say, that the effect of this bill would be to repeal the present existing measure. In conclusion, he felt no doubt that their Lordships would at once accede to the second reading of the bill.
The Marquess of Westminsterwithdrew his amendment.
Bill read a second time.