Sitting of 9 July 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Charitable Lands Exchange; Grand Jury Cess; Court House (Ireland).—Read a third time:—Sale of Beer.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Brotherton, from Byers-green, Durham, against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.—By Mr. Lockhart, from Wandell, in favour of the Church of Scotland Benefices Bill.—By Mr. Wallace, from Greenock, in favour of Grinding Foreign Corn in Bond.—By Lord Hillsborough, from Ryan (Down), in favour of Non-Intrusion.—By Mr. Hume, from Medical Practitioners in Kilkenny, for Remuneration for Medieal Witnesses; and from Barshead, in Renfrew, for the Release of Political Offenders.—By Sir R. H. Inglis, from Womboune, and from Islington, against Sunday Trading; from Twining, and Dumford, for a Repeal of the Catholic Emancipation Act; and from Wavendon, against any Grant to Maynooth.—By Mr. Gillon, from the Synod of the United Secession, Edinburgh, to apply the Clergy Reserves, Canada, to General Education.

ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES.
House in Committee on the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.
On Clause 26,
Lord Eliot Lord Eliot moved to add the following proviso, "that the canonry or canonries, or portions of canonry or canonries, which under the provisions of this act shall be annexed or appropriated to any archdeaconry, shall be in addition to the number of canonries which shall continue to exist under this bill."
The Committee divided: —Ayes 57; Noes 85—Majority 28.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Hodgson, R.

A'Court, Captain

Holmes, W.

Bailey, J.

Houstoun, G.

Baring, hon W. B.

Jackson, Mr. Serjeant

Barrington, Viscount

Knight, H. G.

Blackburne, I.

Lennox, Lord A.

Boldero, H. G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Boiling, W.

Lygon, hon. General

Bramston, T. W.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Broadley, H.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Pakington, J. S.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Palmer, G.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Parker, M.

Codrington, C. W.

Parker, R. T.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Pemberton, T.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Polhill, F.

Darby, G.

Rolleston, L.

De Horsey, S. H.

Round, J.

Dick, Q.

Sandon, Viscount

Estcourt, T.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Feilden, W.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Freshfield, J. W.

Sheppard, T.

Gladstone, W. E.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Smith, A.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Somerset, Lord G.

Grimsditch, T.

Sturt, H. C.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Sugden, rt. hn. sir E.

577

Thornhill, G.

TELLERS.

Wynn, rt. hn. C. W.

Eliot, Lord

Young, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Lascelles, hon. W. S

Aglionby, H. A.

Loch, J.

Alston, R.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Bannerman, A.

Morris, D.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Muntz, G. F.

Barnard, E. G.

Nagle, Sir R.

Bewes, T.

Nicholl, J.

Blackett, C.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Brotherton, J.

O'Brien, C.

Bryan, G.

Oswald, J.

Buller, C.

Pattison, J.

Buller, E.

Pechell, Captain

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Philips, G. R.

Childers, J. W.

Ponsonby, C. F. A. C.

Clay, W.

Power, J.

Clements, Viscount

Price, Sir R.

Corbally, M. E.

Pryme, G.

Craig, W. G.

Rawdon, Col. J. D.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Russell, Lord J.

Duncan, Viscount

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Dundas, D.

Salwey, Colonel

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Scholefield, J.

Ellice, E.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Euston, Earl of

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Evans, W.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Ferguson, R.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Finch, F.

Stock, Dr.

Fitzsimon, N.

Thornely T.

Godson, R.

Tollemache, F. J.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir C.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Vernon, G. H.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Vigors, N. A.

Hayter, W. G.

Walker, R.

Heathcote, G. J.

Wallace, R.

Hector, C. J.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

White, A.

Hindley, C.

Wood, G. W.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wood, B.

Hughes, W. B.

Worsley, Lord

Hume, J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Hutt, W.

Yates, J. A.

Hutton, R.

TELLERS.

Lambton, H.

Dalmeny, Lord

Langton, W. G.

Tufnell, H.

Clause agreed to.
On Clause 45, providing that the profits of suppressed canonries should be vested in commissioners,
Sir R. Inglisentertained fundamental objections to this clause, as well as to the whole principle of the bill, because it sought to merge into a common fund properties conferred by the donors upon individuals, and which was alien to the intention of the original bequests. The object of the bill was, no doubt, a good one, but the property affected by the bill was about to be placed under the control of persons who did not command his con-
578
fidence. However reluctant he was to trouble the House with a division, yet he felt himself impelled by a strong sense of duty to do so, and to move that the clause be omitted.
The Committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the bill:—Ayes 48; Noes 14—Majority 34.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Nicholl, J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Power, J.

Alston, R.

Pryme, G.

Archbold, R.

Rundle, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Russell, Lord J.

Bewes, T.

Somers, J. P.

Bowes, J.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Bridgeman, H.

Stock, Dr.

Brotherton, J.

Thornely, T.

Busfield, W.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Dundas, Sir R.

Verney, Sir H.

Fitzsimon, N.

Vigors, N. A.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Greenaway, C.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir. G.

Williams, W.

Hector, C. J.

Williams, W. A.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wood, G. W.

Horsman, E.

Wood, B.

Hume, J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Kemble, H.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Knight, H. G.

Yates, J. A.

Lambton, H.

Young, J.

Melgund, Viscount

Morris, D.

TELLERS.

Musket, G. A.

Parker, J.

Nagle, Sir R.

Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Perceval, Colonel

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Polhill, F.

East, J. B.

Round, J.

Estcourt, T.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Feilden, W.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Gladstone, W. E.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

TELLERS.

Palmer, G.

Ackland, T.

Parker, R. T.

Inglis, Sir R, H.

Clause agreed to.
On the 55th Clause, providing for the augmentation of smaller dignities from the surplus of larger dignities,
Mr. Lambton Mr. Lambton moved the following amendment:—
"Provided nevertheless, that before such fixed annual sums as aforesaid, under the control of the said commissioners (being any portion of the revenues of the larger deaneries and canonries), shall be paid to the holders of the smaller deaneries and canonries respectively, consideration shall first be had by the said commissioners, in the manner hereinafter provided, to the local parochial exigencies of the dioceses from which such revenues are respectively derived."
The alienation, he said, of any part of the church revenues from the diocese to which it. originally belonged was injurious to the service of the Church; and this evil had been particularly felt in the county to which he had the honour to belong. The Bishop of London was one of the commissioners, and yet he had in his own diocese acted on a different principle from that laid down in the present bill. That right rev. Prelate had introduced a bill, which had passed the House of Lords and a first reading in the Commons, providing for the sale of the prebendal estate of Finsbury, and the application of the proceeds to the increase of small livings within five or six miles of Westminster and St. Paul's. This was a just principle, and, as he wished to see it generally acted on, he proposed his amendment.
Mr. A. Whitesupported the amendment. He was in the possession of collieries in the district of Durham, and he knew there was need of religious instruction among the population.
Lord J. Russellsaid, the bill now proposed to increase the incomes of such canonries as were retained and fell under 70 l. or 80 l. a-year to 500 l. out of the revenues of the larger chapters, and it was also provided, that there should be no dean with a less income than l,000 l. a year. If the hon. Member's amendment were carried, it would entirely destroy the arrangements of the bill.
Lord Teignmouthobserved, that the instance referred to by the hon. Member was a peculiar case. The Bishop of London had been zealous in promoting the building of several new churches, but had been unable to procure for them a greater endowment than 50 l. a-year. It was to supply this deficiency that the bill referred to had been introduced.
The Committee divided on the question that the proviso be added:—Ayes 15; Noes 50—Majority 35.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Attwood, W.

Palmer, G.

Bowes, J.

Parker, R. T.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Round, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Wrightson, W. B.

East, J. B.

Estcourt, T.

TELLERS.

Evans, W.

Lambton, H.

Hodgson, R.

White, A.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Archbold, R.

580

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Phillpotts, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Power, J.

Barry, G. S.

Pryme, G.

Benett, J.

Rundle, J.

Bridgeman, H.

Russell, Lord J.

Burroughes, H. N.

Salwey, Colonel

Busfield, W.

Somers, J. P.

Byng, G.

Teignmouth, Lord

Clay, W.

Thornely, T.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Tufnell, H.

Fitzsimon, N.

Verney, Sir H.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Vigors, N. A.

Greenaway, C.

Villiers, hon. C P.

Hector, C. J.

Wakley, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Warburton, H.

Hodges, T. L.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Hume, J.

Williams, W.

James, W.

Williams, W. A.

Kemble, H.

Wood, G. W.

Knight, H. G.

Wood, B.

Lushington rt. hon. S.

Yates, J. A.

Morris, D.

Young, J.

Muntz, G. F.

Muskett, G. A.

TELLERS.

Nicholl, J.

Parker, J.

Palmerston, Viscount

Adam, Admiral

Clause agreed to.
On Clause 64, saving existing interests, Sir Robert Inglis proposed to add the words "day of the passing of this act."
The Committee divided on the question that the words be inserted:—Ayes 16; Noes 52—Majority 36.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, W.

Parker, R. T.

Blair, J.

Perceval, Colonel

Broadley, H.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Bruges, W. H.

Round, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Thompson, Mr. Aid.

East, J. B.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Estcourt, T.

Hodgson, R.

TELLERS.

Palmer, G.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Parker, M.

Acland, T. D.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Eitzsimon, N.

Archbold, R.

Gordon, R.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Barry, G. S.

Harcourt, G. G.

Bowes, J.

Hector, C. J.

Bridgeman, H.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Briscoe, J. I.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Brotherton, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Burroughs, H. N.

James, W.

Busfield, W.

Kemble, H.

Byng, G.

Knight, H. G.

Clay, W.

Lushington, C.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Maule, hon. F.

Evans, G.

Morpeth, Viscount

Evans, W.

Morris, D.

Finch, F.

Muntz, G. F.

581

Pechell, Captain

Vigors, N. A.

Philips, G. R.

Wakley, T.

Pryme, G.

Westenra, hn. H. R.

Russell, Lord J.

White, A.

Salwey, Colonel

Williams, W.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Williams, W. A.

Somers, J. P.

Yates, J. A.

Stewart, J.

TELLERS.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Parker, J.

Verney, Sir H.

Tufnell, H.

Clause agreed to.
On Clause C, to be added, "seven canonries to be suppressed at Winchester,"
Mr. Aglionbyobjected to the clause, the object of which was, to preserve an additional stall in Winchester Cathedral, to enable the Bishop of that diocese to fulfil a bargain he had made with the Archdeacon of Surrey for the patronage of the living at Farnham. The ecclesiastical commissioners recommended that eight out of the twelve stalls in Winchester Cathedral should be abolished. By the clause now brought up it was proposed to abolish seven only. He objected to this departure from the recommendation of the commissioners, and, if the clause were persisted in, he should take the sense of the Committee against it. He moved to substitute the word "eight," as the number of canonries which should be reduced at Winchester. The Committee divided on the original question:—Ayes 15; Noes 15—Majority 60.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H

Adam, Admiral

Greene, T.

Archbold, R.

Harcourt, G. G.

Attwood, W.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Bailey, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Hodgson, R.

Basset, J.

Horsman, E.

Blair, J.

Howard, hon. E. G.

Briscoe, J. I.

Hurst, R. H.

Broadley, H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bruges, W. H. L.

James, W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Kemble, H.

Burroughes, H. N.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Busfield, W.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Byng, G.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Chalmers, P.

Moreton, hon. A. A.

Clay, W.

Morris, D.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Oswald, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Parker, R. T.

Dundas, Sir R.

Perceval, Colonel

Dundas, D.

Philipps, Sir R.

East, J. B.

Philips, G. R.

Estcourt, T.

Pigot, D. R.

Evans, W.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Fitzsimon, N.

Rawdon, Col. J. D.

Gordon, R.

Rolleston, L.

582

Round, J.

Verner, Colonel

Russell, Lord J.

Verney, Sir H.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Vigors, N. A.

Sanford, E. A.

Vivian, Major C

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.

Sheppard, T.

Waddington, H. S.

Smith, R. V.

Westenra, hn. H. R.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

White, A.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Williams, W. A.

Stock, Dr.

Young, J.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

TELLERS.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Parker, J.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Salwey, Colonel

Bridgeman, H.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Brotherton, J.

Wakley, T.

Finch, F.

Williams, W.

Hector, C. J.

Wood, B.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Yates, J.

Muntz, G. F.

TELLERS.

Muskett, G. A.

Aglionby, H. A.

Pryme, G.

Pechell, Captain

Clause agreed to. Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill to be reported. House resumed.

POOR-LAW COMMISSION.
On the question that the House should go into Committee on the Poor-law Commission Bill,
Mr. Burroughesrose to move the instruction of which he had given notice. He thought it an extraordinary circumstance, that the number of assistant commissioners should be so many as seventeen, while by the Poor-law Amendment Act the power to appoint assistant-commissioners given to the chief commissioners was limited to nine, which number they were not to exceed without the consent of the Lords of the Treasury. He found, as he had stated, that the number had been nearly doubled, while the necessity for the assistant-commissioners was now almost done away with. The whole number of parishes that had been united was 13,691, and of these to be hereafter united there was only 799. The hon. Member moved, that it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to introduce a clause authorizing the boards of guardians, if they shall see fit, to administer relief to widows with families without compelling them to come into the workhouse, although such widows shall not reside within the union in which they have a legal settlement.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the proposed resolution did not properly belong

583
to the present measure, but was one which might fairly be discussed as an amendment upon the Poor-law Amendment Act. In regard to the particular proposition of the hon. Member, he did not see any reason why they should interfere on the subject. Orders had been given to relieve widows resident within the union; but with regard to those who were non-resident, he thought the general rule was, that they had no claim to relief. Any departure from that rule, he was afraid, would lead to very great abuses. It had frequently happened that those who were non-resident had come to the union and represented themselves as paupers, while, in fact, they were earning good wages in a neighbouring district. There was no mode in which imposition was more likely to take place than by relieving such persons. For these reasons the commissioners did not think it necessary to extend relief to such cases, and for himself he did not think it expedient to introduce any special provision on the subject.
Mr. Darbycould not agree with the noble Lord as to the nature of the proposed instruction. He thought that widows who had obtained situations out of the unions in which their children resided, would often be greatly benefitted by receiving assistance from that union, and as to the frauds practised upon the guardians, it was generally their own fault, as it was their duty to make every inquiry before granting relief.
Mr. Humehad been informed, by different guardians of the poor, that they had not seen the assistant-commissioners, nor heard of them, for many months. He could not, then, see the use of the large number of commissioners proposed by the bill. He deeply regretted that the other bill on this question had not passed, as various complaints had been made of the want of powers in the commissioners to carry out what he believed to be a correct system of Poor-laws.
Lord Worsleysaid, that the guardians had, in many instances, received great assistance from the assistant-commissioners, but he was informed, that for some time past they had not been seen or heard of. He hoped, therefore, that as the necessity for their services was diminished, the assistant-commissioners would be discontinued.
Mr. W, Attwoodwas surprised that the
584
noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) should object to the motion of the hon. Member for Norfolk on the ground of informality. If the House should support the noble Lord in that objection, there would be at once, for this Session, an end to every possibility of that control being exercised by the House over the proceedings of the Poor-law Commissioners which was originally contemplated, and which circumstances had shown to be absolutely necessary. As regarded the instruction moved, the reports of the Commissioners laid on the table of the House during the present Session, proved that it was imperatively called for. The committee of 1838 recommended strongly that widows, with families, should be, in deserving cases, relieved out of the workhouse. The Commissioners had not attended to that recommendation. On the contrary, in their reports presented this year, they referred expressly to the case of widows with families; they stated, that there were no less than 28,880 able-bodied widows (such was the expression of the Commissioners) with large families receiving out-door relief; that the workhouse test ought to be strictly applied, and all out-door relief withdrawn, and that thus the country would be relieved from a great expense with which it was fraudulently burthened. To such a ridiculous extent, ridiculous, at least, if not attended with so much misery, did the Commissioners proceed in carrying out their favourite principles, that they complained that some of those widows worked for almost incredibly small sums, in order to eke out the small pittance received from the guardians. Instead of giving these poor persons credit for their industry, the Commissioners pointed it out as a serious evil, and stated gravely the low rate at which stays and shirts were made as an especial grievance. There were other instances of the manner in which the Commissioners had neglected the opinion of the House, as expressed in the report of the committee of 1338. That committee came to the resolution that, under the New Poor-law, relief to the aged and infirm had been administered more freely than under the old law, that relief in those cases was generally given out of the house, and the committee approved and recommended the continuance of this system. Had the Commissioners attended to this recommendation? On the contrary, they appeared to have con-

585
sidered this approval of their liberality a tacit censure, and at once commenced an investigation on the subject. They now report that they find that about 290,000 aged and infirm persons are relieved out of the workhouse, and that of these about 80,000 are partially able to work, and they recommend, that in these cases the workhouse test should be applied, that out-door relief should be withdrawn, or, if continued, that the parties receiving it should be forbidden to work. Instead of approving the industry which urged persons broken down by age and infirmity still to use their remaining strength hi contributing to their own support, they propose to refuse all relief except on the condition of entire idleness. Again, in the case of medical relief, the committee of 1838 reported that the medical officers were too poorly paid, and that the districts were too large. After two years' deliberation, the Commissioners state that they find this to be the case, that the medical officers do not receive one-half what they ought to receive, and that the districts require to be reduced; but up to this time, no steps have been taken to reduce the districts or increase the pay. According to evidence given, one-fifth of the deaths in this country take place under parochial medical officers; it was, therefore, of material importance that the medical attendance provided should be ample and skilful; and it was now admitted by the Commissioners themselves, that under their system the medical officers had more duties to perform than they could properly discharge, and had not received one-half the remuneration to which they were entitled. For two years this state of things had been allowed to continue, after a distinct report from a committee of that House on the subject. And notwithstanding the present admission made by the Commissioners of the inadequacy of the system of medical relief, he must remind the House, that in 1836 or 1837, these very Commissioners had reported that they had inquired into the complaints made on this subject, and were satisfied that the best arrangements were adopted, and that the system was perfectly efficient. He had gone into these general observations in order to show that it was essentially requisite that this House should exercise its powers of superintendence and control over the proceedings of the Commissioners, and not trust to general assurances. Unless, therefore,
586
the noble Lord would give the assurance that the recommendations of the committee of 1838 should be carried into effect, he and many others would be compelled to oppose the present measure on the third reading, as the only mode by which they could hope to establish that authority over the proceedings of the Commissioners which was contemplated by the Poor-law Amendment Act, but which in the manner he had explained, had been practically set aside.
Mr. Slaneyconsidered that the principle of aiding able-bodied labourers out of the workhouse was most injurious, and had pauperized those whom it was intended to relieve. The same principle applied to able-bodied women. An independent female would, by that principle, be undersold by those who were aided by poor-rates.
Mr. Wakleyhoped the House would adopt the instruction. It was said, that this was not a time proper to introduce such a clause; but when would be the proper time to introduce it? Would the noble Lord promise to introduce it next year? He would do no such thing. He hoped that by next year the Legislature would abandon the entire system; for he said it had entirely failed—it had not fulfilled the prediction made respecting it —namely, that the wages of the poor would be increased. It had been proved that the wages of the poor had 'not increased. As this provision had humanity for its basis, he trusted that it would not be opposed by the noble Lord.
Mr. B. Woodwas dissatisfied with the expense entailed upon the country by the Poor-law commissioners. They cost the country 25,717 l. He was sure that the number of the commissioners could be easily reduced.
The House divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 60: Majority 26.

List of the AYES.

Bailey, J.

Houstoun, G.

Broadley, H.

Hughes, W. B.

Brotherton, J.

Kemble, H.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Mackenzie, T.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Darby, G.

Morris, D.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Muntz, G. F.

Elliot, Lord

Palmer, R.

Fielden, J.

Parker, rt. T.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Pringle, A.

Hodges, T. L.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Hodgson, R.

Rolleston, L.

Holmes, W.

Round, J.

587

Rushbrooke, Col.

Waddington, H. S.

Sheppard, T.

Wakley, T.

Sibthorp, Col.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

TELLERS.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Burroughes, H. N.

Vigors, N. A.

Attwood, T.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Pigot, D. R.

Archbold, R.

Price, Sir R.

Baines, E.

Pryme, G.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Rawdon, Col. J. D.

Berkely, hon. C.

Rundle, J.

Bernal, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Blair, J.

Rutherford, rt. hn. A.

Bramston, T. W.

Sanford, E. A.

Buller, E.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Busfeild, W.

Seymour, Lord

Campbell, Sir J.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Clay, W.

Slaney, R. A.

Dundas, Sir R.

Smith, J. A.

Dundas, D.

Smith, R. V.

Evans, W.

Stanley, hon. W.O.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Steuart, R.

Fitzsimon, N.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Greene, T.

Thornely, T.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Tufnell, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Vivian, rt. hon. Sir rt. H.

Hope, hon. C.

Wallace, R.

Horsman, E.

Warburton, H.

Howard, hn. Ed. G. G.

White, A.

Hume, J.

Williams, W. A.

Hurst, R. H.

Wood, B.

James, W.

Worsley, Lord

Macaulay, rt. hon. T.

Yates, J. A.

Morpeth, Visc.

Young, J.

Muskett, G. A.

Pakington, J. S.

TELLERS.

Palmerston, Visc.

Gordon, R.

Pechell, Capt.

Parker, J.

House in Committee.
On the first clause,
Lord J. Russellsaid, it had been made a matter of complaint that the number of assistant-commissioners was too great, and it was supposed that these assistant-commissioners had nothing to do after the formation of the Poor-law unions. The Poor-law commissioners, however, asserted the contrary. The subject would undergo a strict inquiry, and if a reduction in their number could be made, it would be carried into effect.
Mr. Humesaid, the present number of assistant-commissioners was seventeen, the original number having been nine. He thought that was a proper number for the House to adopt; he should therefore propose to add these words to the first clause:—" Provided also that the number of such assistant-commissioners shall not, after the 31st of March, 1841, exceed nine."
Mr. Law Hodgeshoped his hon. Friend would not, after what had fallen from the noble Lord, press his amendment.
Mr. Benjamin Woodwas inclined to support the amendment, for he believed that the boards of guardians could carry the Poor-law into effect, as well without the aid of assistant-commissioners as with it. There was very little left for the assistant-commissioners to do, there being only 799 parishes throughout England that had not been incorporated with the unions.
Sir R. Pricethought the hon. Member for Kilkenny ought to be satisfied with the declaration made by the noble Lord, that the Government would not allow more assistant-commissioners than were absolutely necessary to carry this great measure into effect.
Mr. Humewas as great a friend to the principle of the Poor-law as any man, and his wish was to make it popular, by rendering it as cheap in its administration as possible. What had been said by the noble Lord, appeared to him very fair, and was a good ground for him to withdraw his amendment.
Hon. Memberswould not allow the amendment to be withdrawn, and the Committee divided on the question, that the proviso be added: Ayes 11; Noes 61: Majority 50.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, W.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Vigors, N. A.

Finch, F.

Wakley, T.

Muntz, G. F.

Wood, B.

Parker, R. T.

TELLERS.

Pechell, Capt.

Sibtborp, Col.

Round, J.

Hodgson, E.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Archbold, R.

Hodges, T. L.

Bailey, J.

Holmes, W.

Baines, E.

Hope, hon. C.

Baring, rt. bon. F.T.

Horsman, E.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Houstoun, G.

Bramston, T. W.

Howard, hn. E. G. G.

Brotherton, J.

Hughes, W. B.

Buller, C.

Hume, J.

Buller, E.

Hurst, R. H.

Busfeild, W.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

Clay, W.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Cochrane, Sir T, J.

Morpeth, Visc.

Darby, G.

Muskett, G. A.

Eliot, L.

Pakington, J. S.

Evans, W.

Palmerston, Visc.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Perceval, Col.

Gordon, R.

Pigot, D. R.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Price, Sir R.

589

Pringle, A.

Steuart, R.

Pryme, G.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Tufnell, H.

Rolleston, L.

Waddington, H. S.

Rundle, J.

Wallace, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Warburton, H.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Williams, W. A.

Salwey, Col,

Wood, G. W.

Sanford, E. A.

Worsley, Lord

Seale, Sir J. H.

Young, J.

Seymour, Lord

TELLERS.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Stanley, hon E. J.

Slaney, R. A.

Parker J.

Original Clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill to be reported.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Blenhiem Palace Repairs.—Read a second time:—Arms (Ireland); Masters in Chancery.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of Exeter, from Drogheda, Nenagh, Maryborough, Cloyne, and many other places, against any system of National Education not under the superintendence of the Established Clergy.

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.
On the report of the Canada Government Bill being brought up, and several amendments agreed to,
Lord Ellenboroughadverted to clause 12, which enacts that
"The parts of the said province which now constitute the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada respectively, shall be represented by an equal number of representatives;"
And proposed, as an amendment, the omission of the word "equal." He made that proposition because he conceived the enactment to be highly unjust. They were taking on themselves to legislate for both these provinces; whereas they well knew that it was impossible for one of these provinces to express any opinion at all on the subject to which the bill related. Now, he did not think it was probable— nay, he conceived it to be most improba-
562
ble—that the people of Lower Canada would be content with this arrangement. How stood this case? Lower Canada contained a population of 700,000 souls, and possessed the whole navigation of the river St. Lawrence to the sea; while Upper Canada, with no such advantage, contained only 400,000 inhabitants. When the inequality between the two provinces was so great, it afforded a strong reason for supposing that Lower Canada would not be content with the proposed division of the representation. But he objected to this division on another ground. He objected to it because, while in the first instance it inflicted injustice upon Lower Canada, it would ultimately prove unjust to Upper Canada. If the population of that province increased, as it assuredly would, by means of extensive immigration, then in a few years its numbers would preponderate, and the weight of representation, as compared with numbers, would be in favour of Lower Canada. The Upper Province would feel the injustice of this unequal representation, which could not be remedied, unless Parliament again interfered. He therefore objected to this arrangement, because it would now be unjust to Lower Canada, and at a future time it would work equal injustice to Upper Canada. It was, he conceived, particularly unjust to adopt such a rule of representation now, when the Lower Province was incapable of expressing any opinion on it. If the inhabitants of Lower Canada were afforded such an opportunity, he was sure that they would not agree to the proposition.
Viscount Melbournewas understood to say, that if the population of Upper Canada hereafter increased in the manner to which the noble Lord alluded, it would be in the power of Parliament to revise the measure.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that his views upon this point were borne out by the opinion of the Earl of Durham, who, in his report, stated—
"I am adverse to every plan that has been proposed for giving an equal number of members to the two provinces in order to attain the temporary end of out-numbering the French, because I think the same object will be obtained without any violation of the principles of representation, and without any such appearance of injustice in the scheme as would set public opinion, both in England and America, strongly against it; and because, when emigration shall have increased the

563
English population in the Upper Province, the adoption of such a principle would operate to defeat the very purpose it is intended to serve. It appears to me that any such electoral arrangement, founded on the present provincial divisions, would tend to defeat the purposes of union, and perpetuate the idea of disunion."
Amendment negatived.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he trusted that their Lordships would agree to the proposition which he was now about to make, which he considered to be just in itself, and perfectly reasonable. It offered, in his opinion the only prospect by which this measure was likely to be rendered advantageous to this country, and conducive to the prosperity and tranquillity of Canada. The proposition which he was about to make had reference to an alteration in the proposed system of representation. Their Lordships had already determined that the members representing the upper and lower province should be equal for each province. Now, his object was to make such an arrangement as that the number of representatives for Lower Canada should be so distributed as to render it most satisfactory to the great majority of the population. The bill in this respect proceeded on a principle of which he greatly disapproved. Thus it proposed to give to Sherbrooke a member, while it excluded the town of William Henry, which was of more importance. Why was this? He could see no other reason for it except that the population of the former was in a great degree English, which was not the case with the latter. With the same feeling the bill proposed to give to a constituency of 2,300 persons the right of nominating a member, while it consolidated eight counties into four, and gave to each, the population amounting to 30,000 persons, the right of electing a single Member. This was done for the purpose of, as it was called, upholding the British interest. It was just as if, in case an alteration was proposed in the Reform Bill of this country, it was desired that the small county of Rutland should continue to send two Members to Parliament, because it happened at the time to return two Whigs, while the two divisions of Devonshire, were required to be consolidated, and to return only two Members, because they had previously sent two Conservatives to Parliament. The spirit in which this bill was conceived was precisely the spirit that dictated the penal
564
laws against the Roman Catholics of Ireland. The object of the bill evidently was to deprive, as far as possible by a legislative enactment, the people of Lower Canada of French origin—of any share at all in the Government of the united province. To that principle he entirely objected. It was not found to work advantageously where it had been put in force, and it would be found not to operate advantageously now, because it was in itself unfair and unjust. If they distrusted the people of Lower Canada, why let them take steps to deprive them of all power at once; but if they felt confidence in that people, let them show by their proceedings that such was the fact, and let them so act as to inspire confidence on the other side. Even in private life, where confidence was shown, it was almost uniformly met by corresponding confidence. But if they took a middle course—if they adopted half measures—if they showed a distrustful spirit —if they feared to go the whole length, but endeavoured by trick and chicanery to deprive these people of a just representation, they would ultimately find their efforts unsuccessful, and they deserved so to find them, because such a proceeding was contrary to the principles of good Government, and was inconsistent with the dictates of common sense. He proposed that, so far as it could be done, they should give such a representation to Lower Canada as would be satisfactory to the people of that country. In endeavouring to find a ground for such a representation, he would have recourse to the Act passed in 1829, which was acquiesced in by the Government of that time, and the amendments to which, proposed by the Legislative Assembly, were agreed to by the Legislative Council. He allowed great weight to the opinion of the noble and gallant Lord on the cross bench, and he was willing to adopt his suggestion on this point—as far as they could be adopted, consistently with other provisions of the bill. He was willing that every county now existing in Lower Canada should send one member to the Legislative Assembly. He wished to act with those people on a broad and liberal principle, and not to send them into the colonial parliament with angry recollections, and feelings hostile not only to the union of the two provinces, but to the connexion with this country. When the town of Three Rivers was allowed to elect

565
a member, he could not see why the town of William Henry, which was a large place, should be deprived of a similar right, on the colourable pretext that it was necessary to support what was called the British interest. The bill gave two members to Quebec, two to Montreal, one to Three Rivers, and one to Sherbrooke. He wished to add four to these, raising the number of representatives for the Lower Province from 42 to 46. If that were acceded to, it would consequently be necessary, as the principle of equality of representatives for each province was determined on, to raise the number of representatives for Upper Canada also to 46. On that point he conceived the suggestion of the noble and gallant Lord on the cross-bench might be advantageously adopted. When this bill was introduced to the House of Commons by her Majesty's Ministers it contained a provision for district councillors. It was consistent with that provision that the number of the members of the Legislature should be diminished, but when that provision was struck out of the bill, the number of legislators was too few for the local government of that country. Let noble Lords recollect that all the parish roads and bridges, which by the bill were intended to be thrown on these district councils, would be cast upon the United Legislature. The United Legislature would also have to take into their consideration the propriety of altering, continuing, or renewing about 150 acts of Parliament, and it was utterly impossible, with the present number of Members, that they could get through so much business. He did not find fault with those who had thrown out those clauses, but in his opinion they might have received some modification, and he was convinced that under the present plan it would be impracticable to govern the united province. It had been said that this measure was founded on the plan of Lord Durham; but this was not the plan of Lord Durham, nor anything like it. Lord Durham's plan was, to unite all the provinces, and give a separate legislature to each separate province, for the purpose of local government. That was an intelligible plan. The business of the general legislature would have been principally business of a judicial character, affecting the whole union, and provincial matters affecting each province would have been settled by
566
its own legislature. That, he repealed, was an intelligible plan, and every one who considered the condition of our North American provinces would soon be brought to doubt whether it might not ultimately be necessary to adopt some such plan, at least if it was intended to preserve those provinces, because the great object which we had to accomplish was to give the colonists a feeling of nationality, Now, we never should preserve those provinces if we gave them a bad government, such as they must have if we cast upon the united Legislature the duty of legislating about the minute details. Let their Lordships consider what that Legislature was, and of what it was to be composed. The members who came from the two most distant points of the province, united as it was to be, would traverse a distance equal to the distance between the Straits of Calais and the Straits of Messina, and in point of the time taken up in travelling would be more distant from each other than London was from Bombay. Now that legislature, so composed, was to deal with the question of every road and bridge of the most trifling kind that could exist throughout the whole of the intermediate space, the greater part of which intermediate space being in a state which closely resembled that of Britain in the time of the Druids. He must say that he liked the bill of the Government as it was originally introduced, better than the measure as it now stood. He thought that what the Government originally proposed, subject to amendments, was practicable; but the bill which their Lordships had before them was impracticable, and he thought that nothing could justify us in giving to the people of Canada a government which must be bad. The Ministers of the Crown had certainly succeeded in getting a majority in the Legislature for the people of British origin, but he bade them beware lest that majority should turn into a majority hostile to the connexion with this country, owing in Lower Canada to the manner in which we had treated them, and in Upper Canada to causes which it was not necessary for him to specify. It was for these reasons that he hoped that her Majesty's Ministers would reconsider the state of the representation, with the view of doing away with, at the least, that additional cause of discontent.
Viscount Melbourneentirely agreed

567
with the general principles laid down by the noble Baron, that the share of the representation given to the Lower Province should be given in a fair and honest manner, and one that would secure the cordial concurrence of its inhabitants in the working of this bill. He could not, however, agree in the violent censure which the noble Baron had cast upon the measure, or in the charge of fraud which be had brought against the provisions of this bill. On the contrary he was fully persuaded that, when their Lordships carefully considered the position of the two provinces, and the real facts of the case, they would come to the conclusion that the measure as it now stood was not liable to any of the imputations which the noble Lord had cast upon it. The noble Baron had been guilty of a great exaggeration when he said that the bill was conceived in the same spirit as the penal laws by which it was so long attempted to abolish the Catholic religion, and to keep down and depress the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. He thought that the present arrangement had been framed on right principles of representation, and when the noble Baron said that a small county sent to the Legislature a Member, when two larger counties were united and formed one electoral district, sending but one Member, he must say that he thought it had been agreed, even by those who were the strongest Reformers, that it was highly desirable that some Members should be elected by a larger, and some by a smaller constituency, and therefore he could not think that any just exception existed on this ground. With respect to the noble Baron's complaint about taking away a member from the town of William Henry, and giving one to Sherbrooke, he thought it was not of sufficient importance to justify any change in the arrangement proposed. He knew that the town of William Henry was a very small town, and that it was not likely to be larger, but Sherbrooke was increasing in population. As to the counties which had been united and formed under the bill one electoral district, the population was not large even when the two counties were united, and by no means too large to be represented by a single member. The counties were also comparatively small in point of extent, and lie had been told, that from their situation and the nature of the soil, the population was not likely to
568
increase in any very great degree. With regard to any alteration in the boundaries and divisions established by the Colonial Act of 1829, he knew very well that nothing was more difficult to manage, and nothing more likely to create dislike, alienation, and offence, than to make any unnecessary change in old boundaries. The bill, therefore, retained the limits marked out by the act of 1829, so far as was possible, and those exceptions to which the noble Baron had adverted were the only instances of departure from them. The act of 1829 was assented to by the Government of which the noble Baron formed a part. That assent, however, created surprise in some minds, because that act was in reality a scheme of the French dominant party to increase their own power; and, in fact, it was framed by M. Papineau, to establish and consolidate his own influence and authority. The ancient divisions of the country, as he understood, were those which were established by this bill; and, therefore, the bill did not interfere with the ancient divisions of the country, but with the divisions marked out by the act of 1829. Now, admitting that it would be unjust to make any territorial arrangement for the purpose of giving predominance to a particular party, yet, when an arrangement had been brought about in order to further the views of a party, it was not unfair to restore matters to the state in which they were before. He must say the representation was arranged on what appeared fair and equitable grounds.
Lord Ellenboroughwas quite sure, that if the noble Viscount had read, as he had taken the trouble to do, the report of the Canadian commissioners, he would not be satisfied that the arrangement made by the act of 1829 was perfectly fair. Now, so far was it from being the case that these small counties were taken to increase the French majority, that they were given to increase the English party, and the average number of English returning a member was 3,500, while the average number of French returning a member was 6,500. When he said that this bill was conceived in the spirit of the penal laws against the Catholics of Ireland, he did not mean that the framers of this bill would interfere with the Roman Catholic population of Canada. On the contrary, he believed that their religion, their institutions, and their establishments would be preserved inviolable.
The Earl of Riponrecollected perfectly well, that when the act of 1829 passed, a very considerable portion of the English population of Lower Canada felt that that act would be by no means beneficial to them. It would be a very unfortunate circumstance if Sherbrooke were shut out of the bill. It was one of the most thriving towns in the country, and was situated in a rather important point on the southeastern frontier, near to the United States. With respect to the clauses appointing district councils, he thought that it was a great improvement to leave them out of the bill. He did not think it desirable, in a measure of this kind, to introduce details, for the due execution of which we must refer to the local legislature.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that, perhaps, the noble Baron opposite was not aware that the whole of these territorial distributions, and the whole of the act, had been published in the Canadian newspapers, and opportunity had been given for remonstrances from the districts affected, yet no objection had been made to the arrangement. There had been petitions against the whole bill, but not one had been presented to their Lordships against this particular grievance of territorial distribution. It was fair, then, to presume, that the arrangement had not given dissatisfaction to the inhabitants of the colony. The noble Baron had also omitted to notice, that in this bill there was a specific clause, enabling the Legislature of Canada to alter these proportions, if they thought fit. In the26th clause of the bill, their Lordships would find that there was power given to the Legislature of Canada to alter the apportionment of representatives to be chosen by the counties, ridings, cities, and towns respectively, and to make a new and different apportionment of the number of representatives to be chosen in and for those parts of the province of Canada, which now constituted the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, and in and for the several districts, counties, ridings, and towns in the same. Now, this clause in the bill contained a provision to enable the Legislature of Canada to alter the apportionment of the representation; and, as they were on the spot, they had better means of doing justice in the distribution than the noble Baron or any other Member of their Lordships' House, and they had better means of altering the distribution if it was unequal in its character, and un-
570
just in its tendency. Thus, for instance, if, in a few years, the town of Sherbrooke was found not to be of sufficient importance to return a member, a new adjustment might take place, and that in a manner infinitely more satisfactory to the people of Canada than if the noble Baron's views were carried into effect by the present bill. The noble Lord had compared the existing state of Canada to England in the time of the Druids. If the noble Lord had chosen to travel a little further down in English history, to the period of the Heptarchy, he would find it quite as difficult to traverse England then as Canada at the present time. Yet history informed them, that England acquired at that period a degree of stability, power, and solidity from the union which then took place, which had laid the foundation of all her subsequent prosperity. In his opinion, they would do wisely to leave the adjustment of these matters and the constitution of municipal councils to the wisdom of the provincial Legislature.
The Earl of Gosfordbegged to remark, that the noble Viscount was in error in stating, that Papineau was the chief framer of the bill of 1829. The person chiefly occupied in framing that measure was a very intelligent Scotchman, named Nelson. With respect to Montmorency and Sherbrooke, which under the new arrangement it was proposed should return only one member, he had to observe that the population of Montmorency was 10,000, instead of 7,000 or 8,000, as stated by the noble Viscount. He thought that an additional member should be given to this district.
Amendment withdrawn.
The Bishop of Exeterwished to call their Lordships' attention to the 26th clause, which required a larger concurrence on the part of the representatives than would be found possible in practice. It required the concurrence of two-thirds of the Members for the time being, not of those only who were actually present. There was another point which he was astonished that the acuteness of noble Lords had not before detected. It was, that these people, when they met, could not possibly understand each other. He was assured that, even in the Lower Province, the members sate together night after night, and a member of French extraction could not exchange a word with his neighbour, who was of English extrac-

571
tion. It was the lawyers alone that could speak both languages, and the accomplishment of speaking the French language was very rare in the Upper Province. It reminded him of a circumstance which he had met with in one of the reports of the Education Commissioners for Ireland, where a schoolmaster in the province of Connaught could not speak a word of Irish, and the boys could not speak a word of English; but this was in Ireland.
Lord Ashburtonreferred to the Legislatures of Belgium and Holland, when those countries were united—where German, French, High Dutch, and Low Dutch, were all spoken by the members; also to the state of Louisiana, and other states, where a similar inconvenience to that pointed out by the right rev. Prelate had been apprehended; yet the members had been found to understand each other much better than had been anticipated.
The Bishop of Exeterthanked the noble Baron for the illustration derived from Belgium and Holland, which had flown off with a mutual repulsion that led to a degree of commotion which he hoped never to witness in Canada. This bill had been described as unjust and tyrannous, and to this description he wished to add the word "absurd."
The Marquess of Lansdowneremarked, that no inconvenience was felt in one of the oldest constitutions in Europe—the Swiss Diet—where French was exclusively spoken by one portion, and German by the other.
Report agreed to. Bill to be read a third time.
Bill read a second time.

BIRMINGHAM RIOTS.
The Earl of Warwickrose to move for the production of Mr. Dundas's report, and the evidence taken on the investigation held at Birmingham respecting the riots of the 15th of July, 1839, and also for the letter of Mr. Alston to Lord John Russell, dated the 11th of July, 1839, with the answer returned thereto. He was unwilling to revert to any of the circumstances connected with the riots at Birmingham, but be was sure, that in the observations he had to make to their Lordships' he should avoid the use of any expressions which Could possibly offend any one. The case was simply this—certain persons in Birmingham had complained of the conduct of the magistrates of Birmingham, during
572
the riots in that place, and in consequence an investigation into those complaints had been instituted by the Government. When that inquiry was finished the complaining parties were told by the noble Marquess the Secretary for the Home Department, that no case had been made out against the magistrates. Now, he thought it was hard that those persons should be told they had made false charges against the magistrates, and yet when they asked for the report of Mr. Dundas, and the evidence taken before him, that that request should have been refused by the noble Marquess. It was on their behalf, therefore, that he was induced to move for the production of those documents, because it was upon the report of Mr. Dundas the noble Marquess had formed the opinion, that no case had been made out against the magistrates. He wished to state the whole facts to their Lordships, and to ask for the papers which the Home-office had refused. In doing so he thought the best course he could follow Would be to read a part of the correspondence which had passed between the complaining parties and the Home-office, as by that means the whole case would be fully explained to their Lordships. From a paper which he held in his hand, he found that a memorial had been transmitted to the Government, containing a list of the names of all those persons whose property had been burned or destroyed, and in that memorial it was stated, that from half-past eight o'clock, on the evening of the riots, till ten o'clock, the lives and property of the inhabitants in the vicinity of the scene of those disturbances had been left at the mercy of an organized mob, although the mayor and magistrates had been duly informed of what was taking place. They, therefore, considered that the magistrates had been guilty of a dereliction of duty, and prayed for investigation. It had been urged that the memorialists had made use of very strong language, but their Lordships would recollect that the riots took place on the evening of the 15th, and the memorial was Written on the 16th, when the town was in a state of the greatest alarm. They also stated, that the magistrates had had due information of what was likely to take place, and if the investigation were permitted, that they felt they would be able to substantiate those charges. The investigation was granted, and the noble Viscount op-

573
posite made that circumstance an excuse for suspending his judgment upon the subject when questioned about it by him (Lord Warwick). He asked the noble Viscount if there was a sufficient military and police force in the neighbourhood to carry the orders of the magistrates into execution, and the noble Viscount said, he had no doubt there was, adding, however, that he was surprised something of this sort had not occurred long before. Various applications were made by letter for Mr. Dundas's report, but in vain. At length, in the month of December, the noble Marquess caused a reply to be written, stating, that having considered the evidence which had been taken on the part of the memorialists before Mr. Dun-das, he was of opinion that the memorialists had altogether failed to establish the charges they had made, and that the evidence showed that they were not warranted in calling for any such proceedings against the mayor or magistrates of Birmingham. This was the letter of which he complained. How the noble Marquess could have come to that conclusion he knew not, if there was any truth in the evidence as published in one of the country papers. It was still more surprising to find that the noble Lord (J. Russell) had received a letter four days previous to the 15th of July from Mr. Alston, a magistrate, informing him of the expected riots, and yet that no steps had been taken by the magistrates to prevent them. Notwithstanding all this, the memorialists were told that they had made out no case of expected riots, and the danger that was likely to ensue from them. If the report and evidence of investigations were to be thus withheld, he could see no utility in such investigations; and if the noble Marquess intended to refuse them, he hoped he would at least favour their Lordships with his reasons for doing so.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that there was nothing whatever contained in the papers moved for that rendered their production inconsistent with the public service? If the noble Earl had made his motion the day after the opening of Parliament, the papers would have been produced without the slightest objection. They were now ready to be produced, but considering, as he had reason to believe, that all angry feelings were subsiding in the town, he could not but think it unfortunate that the noble Earl had postponed
574
his motion to the present time, as it might tend in some degree to revive those feelings. He could assure the noble Earl, that he had no intention of dealing either hardly or harshly with the individuals upon whose memorial the investigation took place. He was ready to make every allowance, considering the time and circumstances under which they made the application, and that they might have been labouring under an unusual degree of irritation, for the strong expressions which they made use of upon the occasion; but in sending his answer, he was obliged to deal with the facts as they had been stated to him. The memorialists stated that the magistrates had been guilty of a gross dereliction of duty; that they had had full and authentic information of the intention of the rioters; and that they had by gross misconduct actually brought those riots on. Now, if the magistrates had been guilty to the extent stated by the memorialists, who called for their dismissal, they ought not only to have been dismissed, but put upon their trial, and if found guilty, severely punished. Mr. Alston had certainly written to Lord John Russell, stating that a certain meeting for a specific object was to be held; but the information which he and others communicated did not at all correspond with what had occurred. Ha did not mean to say that the magistrates would have been exempted from blame if they had not guarded against what they had been warned of, and had a right to expect. But their Lordships would find, from the papers moved for, that all proper precaution necessary to guard against the expected evils had been taken to meet those evils, if they had assumed the shape which it was announced they would. When the whole of the evidence was laid before their Lordships, it would be found that the charges made by the memorialists against the magistrates had not been made out. It would be seen that the letter of Mr. Alston fully proved that the magistrates had no previous knowledge with respect to the meeting of the rioters, and that both the charges and the Censure of the memorialists were greatly exaggerated, and that there was nothing in the conduct of the magistrates to warrant either. If it had been otherwise, and that the charge against the magistrates had been substantiated, he should have felt it his duty to call them to account.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that though an opinion on the question could not well be formed without having the whole of the papers, still it appeared that the magistrates had been furnished with more information than the noble Marquess seemed inclined to admit. It was evident that notice of the intended riot had been furnished to them, and yet they had not taken care to have two magistrates in attendance, and the consequence was that the police could not act in the absence of the requisite number of magistrates.
The Earl of Warwickin reply said, that nothing but Providence saved the town from destruction, as the wind, which previous to the firing of the houses had been rather high, sunk into a dead calm. With respect to the riot, though the magistrates had previous information, no preparations were made to resist the rioters.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, it was evident that the magistrates were aware of the intended gathering, as a meeting had been held for the purpose of discussing whether or not it would be prudent to disperse it. That there was neglect was evident from the fact of the military being in readiness to repress the outrage if called upon. A bookseller of the town, too, had a conversation with the mayor, in which he gave information of a proposed meeting of the Chartists on the following night for the purpose of possessing themselves of the Bull-ring at St. Thomas's church, and that they were advised by their leaders to come prepared for the police. To this the mayor answered, "Let them come, we shall be prepared for them." Yet, notwithstanding this, no preparation had been made, though there was a police force in the town sufficient to repress the riots. When the police were called upon to act, Mr. May said that they could not act without the direction of a magistrate, but there was no magistrate present. When these facts were before their Lordships, how could they possibly acquit the magistrates of the gross neglect of which the memorialists complained? In his opinion a case of gross dereliction of duty had been made out, and the noble Marquess opposite was rather too hasty in his acquittal.
Motion agreed to.