Sitting of 17 July 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Customs; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Insolvent Debtors; India; Punishment of Death (Ireland); Small Tenements.—Read a second time:—Drainage (Ireland); Pilots.—Read a third time:—Parliamentary Boroughs; Friendly Societies; Assessed Taxes Composition.

FARNHAM RECTORY—CHURCH LEASES.
Mr. Darbybrought up the report on the Farnham Rectory Chapels Bill, and moved certain amendments which were read a first time.
On the question that they be read a second time,
Mr. Humesaid, that as they were altering the standing orders relating to pri-

781
vate business, he thought it was essentially necessary that they should introduce some alteration to prevent bills relating to public property, which church property undoubtedly was, from passing as private bills. This was the more necessary when they found that the most valuable property, such, for instance, as the Southampton estate, which was of the value of two millions, had been passed away by a private bill for a paltry consideration of 300 l. a year. That properly had been passed away by a private bill, and had been conferred by the Minister of the Crown of that day upon his brother. If that property, extending from St. Giles's to Highgate, and out of which the grantee had realised more than a million and a half, had not been passed away in that manner, they would have had ample funds for Church purposes, without any necessity of applying to Parliament for assistance. He knew nothing of the merits of the present bill; but he protested against bills relating to Church property being considered as private bills.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, that in ordinary cases it was not necessary that evidence relating to private bills should be printed. The case, however, was then different. He would therefore move, that the evidence taken before the committee should be printed, and that in the meantime the further consideration of the question should be postponed.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that as it would be for the convenience of the House, that there should be but one discussion, he should take it now, although it was not the most regular course. This was a private bill, and the only persons who were at all interested were consenting parties to it. The Archdeacon of Surrey would be by it prohibited from renewing certain leases, and he consented, with the concurrence of the Bishop of Winchester, who was interested as the patron, to apply the fines, to which he would otherwise have been entitled on renewal, to the endowment of certain incumbencies, and the erection of certain churches. These sums amounted to 11,200 l. He (Sir R. Inglis) should feel it his duty to oppose the clause granting compensation to the lessees; for whether the lessees of Church property had an interest, for which they were entitled to compensation, or not, he thought the question was too important to be decided in this manner by a side wind.
The House divided on the original question:—Ayes 110; Noes 73: Majority 37.
Amendments read a second time.
On a part of them which referred to giving compensation to the lessees, Sir R. Inglis moved that this part of the clause be omitted. Mr. Hume moved that the debate be adjourned.
The House divided on Mr. Hume's motion:—Ayes 49; Noes 95: Majority 46.
On the question being again proposed,
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved that the House do adjourn.
After a protracted discussion on the order of proceeding, and the necessity of printing the evidence, the House divided on the question of adjournment:—Ayes 10; Noes 102: Majority 92.
On the question being again put,
Mr. Humethought that the hon. Baronet opposite had taken the House by surprise by the course he had adopted. The principle proposed to be introduced into the bill, was in direct opposition to that which had been already adopted in the case of the Irish Church, and it certainly was not fair that it should be adopted without a full discussion. He would move that the debate be adjourned.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that the sense of the House had already been taken in four divisions. His proposal now would be the adoption of the amendments, pro forma, with an understanding that the sense of the House should be taken on them on the third reading.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, this was a public bill, and of great importance; and he thought it was incumbent on the Government to be present at the discussion, and to give their opinion on the principle of the bill. The bill was, in fact, one that involved the rights of all the Church lessees in the kingdom. For this reason he should vote for the postponement of the discussion.
Mr. Baineshad always been friendly to the principle of the bill, as he considered it a great improvement on the system of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and instruction, at present practised on the Farnham rectories. However, he saw no reason why the debate should not be adjourned until Monday.
Lord J. Russell: With regard to this particular question, I really must say that I do not think the proposal of an adjournment until Monday at all an unrea-

783
sonable request. I have an opinion on the rights of the lessees of the Church which differs from that which has been expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth, and also from that which on a former occasion was expressed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Pembroke. I maintain, that the lessees have no right to expect renewals of their leases, and that Parliament is not bound to assert any right for them. I am, notwithstanding, quite clear that there could not be a more important or difficult question, and therefore I repeat, that the proposal of postponement is moderate and fair.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that the present question was not a new one, and he was of opinion, that it should be finally disposed of on that evening. The noble Lord opposite, had been pleased to refer to an opinion delivered by him (Sir J. Graham) in the course of last Session. He had then contended, that although church leases had no legal right of renewal, they had an equitable right founded on long usage. But that right was altered when the rights of lessors, having short and terminable interests, were transferred to bodies having permanent interests. He felt the difficulty of the question to the full extent stated by the noble Lord, but he thought the House was as competent to decide it on a Friday as on a Monday. He felt that it was a balanced claim, and, therefore, taking the whole merits into consideration, he had determined on voting against compensation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down formed, in his mind, the strongest reason for the postponement of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the bill involved a great and important principle, in which it was even contended that, contrary to established practice, the Ministers of the Crown should give an opinion. He would ask, was it fair to decide on such a bill without the slightest notice given? All that was asked was a postponement until Monday, that a full opportunity might be given for the discussion of a bill which, although nominally private, was confessedly of great public importance.
The House divided on the question of adjournment: Ayes 58; Noes 58.
The Speaker gave the casting vote for the adjournment.
Debate adjourned.

NEWSPAPER STAMPS.
Sir R. Peel: I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question as to newspaper stamps. We know that the quantities of stamps taken out by each newspaper are published periodically, and a very proper regulation it is. We know also, that on this return appeals are made by some newspapers to the public, inviting advertisements in consequence of the amount of their circulation. It is therefore very desirable, that the real circulation of newspapers should be correctly stated in this official return. I believe some newspapers are in the habit of changing stamps with the Stamp Office, and the return ought to show the instances in which these stamps have been changed, as otherwise it is a fallacious return, and it has been complained that some papers have taken credit for the stamps exchanged as well as those received in return. I have had two or three complaints from newspapers of the kind, and I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would find any difficulty in stating these exchanges in the returns?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad also received communications on the subject, in consequence of which he had made some inquiries, the result of which was, that though a few instances might have occurred, this complaint was rather suppositious than real. He would have no objection to give the return if the right hon. Baronet would take the trouble to move for it.
Sir R. Peel: If the impression be erroneous even, it is of importance to satisfy the public that it is so. I think I shall do better by leaving it in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman to draw the distinction.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he should be very glad to give the return if he knew what was really wanted; but he had heard so many suppositions that he did not think any return could satisfy everybody.
Sir R. Peel: It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman has heard a great deal more about it than 1 have, and therefore will be better able to frame a satisfactory return. I have heard but one complaint, that when a newspaper may have changed its title, size, or type, that the stamps on hand have been exchanged for others, and both taken credit for in the statement of circulation.

WINDOW TAX.
Mr. Macleanwished to know of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether in the new survey on account of the window-tax those windows of coachmakers, and other trades requiring a large quantity of light, and having, consequently, the greater portion of their workshops made of glass, were to be rated in the same manner as they had been hitherto? He felt bound to apologise to the hon. Gentleman for asking this question without due notice, but he hoped that it would not prevent an answer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it was certainly a very difficult thing to answer questions without due notice. But what he had stated on a former occasion, he could not hesitate to repeat then, which was, that the new survey was not for the purpose of unduly increasing the window tax, but for the purpose of bringing into payment those windows which came within the existing law on the subject, but which, from the laxity of the practice, had not recently paid any tax at all. Under these circumstances, he could not undertake to pledge himself that the new survey should be conducted in the same manner as the old survey; nor that windows which paid no tax at present should be in the future also exempt. This, however, he would say, that there should be no vexatious interference with the public in regard to this tax.
Mr. Hindleywished to know whether, in case a manufacturer lived in his manufactory, he would be charged with the tax as for a dwelling-house? At present, manufactories were in part exempt, and he thought it would be a very hard case to charge a man who might, for economy's sake, live on his working premises.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it was not quite fair to him to put questions involving nice points of law without due notice. He was aware of the fact alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, and it was impossible to remedy it at present.
Subject dropped.

FACTORY INSPECTORS—SPIES.
On the order of the day being moved for a Committee of Supply,
Mr. J. Fieldenrose to move, pursuant to his notice, that a select committee be appointed to inquire further into the disclosures made to the committee on mills and factories by Mr. Stuart, inspector of factories, on the 23rd day of June instant,
786
and by Mr. Beal, superintendent of factories, the day following, as to their employment in other matters than those assigned to them by the authority of Parliament, and to ascertain how far the inspectors and superintendents of factories have been employed by the Government in the capacity of political spies. The hon. Member said he had been induced to bring forward this motion in consequence of proceedings that took place in the factory committee on the 23d and 24th of June last, and of information which he bad received that those appointed by the Government to inspect factories had been employed as political spies; and he made use of those terms advisedly, their import being given by Dr. Johnson in the sense which he attached to them, and he considered this an employment most odious and degrading, and which had been considered so from the most remote periods of history down to the present period. So much so, that nations, at war with each other, punished with ignominious death those employed as such, and sent from the enemy's camp; and, if it be odious to a degree to subject such characters to such a fate, what odium ought to attach to those who employed them, or to those who were so employed amongst their fellow-subjects! He was first led into the investigation of the facts connected with this occupation, in consequence of the superintendents of factories who appeared before the committee complaining of the arduous duties they had to perform, for the inadequate remuneration they received. In the committee he was anxious to pursue the inquiry as to the facts of this case, and having Mr. Stuart, one of the factory inspectors, under examination, he put this question to him:—
"Have you employed Mr. Beal (one of his superintendents) in any other capacity than as a superintendent of factories?"
To which lie received this curious answer:—
"I object to that question. This inquiry is limited to the operation of the Factory Act."
The room was cleared, and after considerable discussion, Mr. Stuart was recalled, and informed by the Chairman that he should answer the question. The examination proceeded, and to question 8,213, Mr. Stuart said, that:—
"He had required his superintendents to give him information, in respect to both the

787
distress of the manufacturing districts, and the state of political feeling "
And he repeated this in his answer to question 8,227. But, in answer to question 8,235, he said:—
"I have never asked for information from the superintendents, except by direction from the Secretary of State. I have never done it on my own account."
Then this question was put:—
"Can you furnish the instructions which you received from Government by to-morrow?"
To which he answered:—
"My impression is, they are not in existence. The instructions I got from Government, I am quite sure I have not. My recollection is, that they were entirely verbal, or if they were given to the inspectors, they were given to all the inspectors at once, and, therefore, could not be with me."
Here, then, according to the evidence of this gentleman, the Government and the inspectors, and the superintendents of factories, were all mixed up in this affair. These questions were also put to Mr. Stuart, and these answers made by him:—
"What was the nature of the instructions you gave to your superintendents?—To obtain information respecting certain places which I pointed out."
"What sort of information?—Respecting the state of political feeling, and respecting the manufacturing districts as to trade.
"Did you ask them to mix themselves up with public meetings?—No, certainly not; I gave no particular instructions, so far as I remember; I think so."
Then Mr. Maule put this question:—
"Were you ever told or instructed by the Government to desire your superintendents to attend at public meetings, and to give your report of the public speeches, or watch the conduct of private individuals?—No, I do not think that we have a communication of that sort; it is possible I may have said, when Feargus O'Connor was once at Dundee: it is possible I might say,' Let me know what he says,' but I do not recollect having done so; yet in letters written in that way, it is quite a possible case, though I cannot speak positively."
At the time these proceedings were going on in the committee he (Mr. Fielden) had in his possession a copy of a letter of instructions from a factory inspector to one of his superintendents, and he, therefore, desired that Mr. Beal, a superintendent under Mr. Stuart, might be recalled,
788
that he might examine him as to whether he had received any instructions to employ himself in any other capacity than that of inspecting factories. This letter he would now, with permission, read to the House:—
"Dear Sir,—I have to acquaint you, for your own information alone, that I am especially instructed to watch and take measures for obtaining information as to any proceedings in any district relative to assemblages of workpeople, or Chartists, or circumstances calculated to disturb the public peace. You will, therefore, be so good as to make me weekly a confidential report on this subject. The newspapers from different parts of your district will generally point out to you any places requiring particularly to be noticed, but take care at Dundee and elsewhere to act with secresy and prudence, so that you may escape observation, and not be suspected of giving information. I am, dear Sir, yours truly, James Stuart."
This letter is dated from 345 Strand, London, 30th July, 1839, marked "confidential," and addressed to "John Beal, Esq., superintendent of Factories." This letter required no comment. It spoke for itself. The writer, a superior officer, appointed under the sign manual of the Crown, said he had been especially instructed to watch and take measures for obtaining information as to any proceedings relative to assemblages of work-people or Chartists. And he directs his subordinates to make him weekly a confidential report on this subject; points out how he is to have information where to go; and enjoins him to act with secresy and prudence, so that he may escape observation, and not be suspected of giving information. In fact, the instructions are as complete as could be given to the party to act as spies. Now the evidence of Mr. Stuart, which he had read to the House, and the information contained in this letter, justified him in recalling Mr. Beal, who came to the committee the morning following, and to whom I put this question:—
"Mr. Stuart has stated that he gave his superintendent instructions to make reports to him on other matter than the inspection of factories; did you receive communications from him to such an effect?—Yes.
"How many such communications did you receive?—I received the first quite unconnected with any other subject; but there were observations relative to the same matter in future letters connected with the Factory Act. I do not know how many; I cannot say the number."

789
Then the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Maule, put this question:—
"Were those communications of a public or a private character?—Private, confidential. The first letter was marked 'Confidential.' "
The room was cleared, a long discussion ensued, and among others this resolution was passed:—
"That it is the opinion of this committee that the employment of the inspectors and superintendents of mills and factories in the discharge of duties under confidential instructions, such as those stated in the latter part of the examination of Mr. Stuart and Mr. Beal, ought to be brought before the House of Commons as a distinct question, and, therefore, that, it is not expedient that the committee should now make further inquiry upon that subject."
What he had now stated to the House appeared to him to show most clearly, that an odious system of spying had been resorted to by the Government and he charged the Ministers with having employed men, appointed under an Act of Parliament to carry into execution an act intended to benefit children and young persons, with having misapplied the funds voted by Parliament to pay these men, and with having employed them in a pursuit that they themselves must consider odious and degrading. It was assigning new duties to them, of which the Parliament knew nothing, and therefore employing the money voted by Parliament for a purpose altogether different from that for which it was voted. He, therefore, demanded inquiry as to what extent these inspectors of factories had been employed in the capacity he had mentioned. He had not forgotten the observations made by the hon. Gentleman, the Under-secretary of State, on the motion of want of confidence of the hon. Member for Devonshire, when the hon. Secretary boasted that the Government had not had recourse to such "unholy proceedings" (as he properly termed them) as the Government of 1817, who had employed spies. But how did the House know that, seeing that the disclosure which he (Mr. Fielden) had made to the House was brought forward in the factory committee. There was but a small step between being employed as Mr. Smart and Mr. Beal were employed, and that of becoming instigators to the acts which they were employed to denounce to the Government. How did the House know either, seeing
790
that they had been so employed, that Poor-law Commissioners, police, and all who were in direct communication with the Government, and the officers under them, had not been similarly employed? He believed they had; he had no doubt that the Todmorden riots were caused by some such emissaries. The Government system of centralization naturally led to this, and to an establishing of a system of spying throughout the country. It was the very thing which should excite the watchfulness and jealousy of the country, and especially of those who returned Members to that House. He knew, and the committee, he was sure, would bear him out in saying, that the Factory Act had not been carried out in Scotland. The powers possessed by the inspectors under it had been used for purposes of oppression, and their time, for anything that he knew, might have been wholly taken up in this degrading occupation, instead of attending to their duties, and to ascertain to what extent the time of those authorized to inspect factories had been employed in the manner he had described, he asked the House to grant him a committee to inquire, and he trusted that they would accede to his request.
Mr. F Maulewould admit the charge was one of a very grave nature, if such proof had been adduced in support of it as would warrant the House in entertaining it. But, on the showing of the hon. Member himself, all the proof which he had consisted in whispered rumours in the House of Commons, and in a letter which the hon. Gentleman had admitted was private and confidential, and intended only to meet the eye of the factory inspector. How that letter came into the hand of the hon. Gentleman he did not know. It was obtained either from the person to whom it was addressed—a breach of confidence which he was satisfied the House would not countenance—or it was acquired in some other way; and if so, he would much rather that the hon. Gentleman should use it on this occasion than that he should. He would, however, explain the facts with respect to it. The House was aware of the duties of factory inspectors, and would see that it was their charge to acquire information with respect to the condition and the habits of the working classes, not for the purpose imputed by the hon. Gentleman, but for the purpose of informing the Government

791
as to their state and condition. This was the object of these instructions, not, as had been hinted, as political spies to denounce the people, but to furnish that information which every Government ought to possess as to the distress or the prosperity of the people, and to state their condition under every vicissitude. To acquire accurate information as to the condition of the great mass of the people ought not to be a matter of indifference to any government. Instructions were given from time to time to have information given upon these points, as well as upon the nature of the harvest at its conclusion, as well as upon other matters connected with the welfare of the people. It was intimated by the hon. Gentleman, but he was sure that no other Gentleman in the House would entertain the supposition, that the superintendents of factories had been employed to act in the degrading capacity of political spies; but the House need not be astonished, for there were instances to show that the hon. Gentleman's dislike of those officers was such, that he did not hesitate to broach any calumny against them, however injurious. Unfortunately for the argument of the hon. Gentleman, he had selected Scotland as the place in which to lay his charge. Now, of all the Chartist meetings which had taken place, those which had taken place in Scotland were most free from any charge of illegal acts. No prosecutions had taken place in that country, for the operatives there were too shrewd and too prudent to listen to the suggestions of misleading demagogues. The Lord Advocate had in no one instance been called upon to restrain illegal meetings or institute prosecutions. It was true that Mr. O'Connor had gone into Scotland, and it was possible that Mr. Stuart might have written to the superintendent to say that there was to be a meeting at Dundee, at which Mr. O'Connor proposed to attend, and perhaps requested to know the particulars; but could anything be more fair than that Government should from time to time endeavour to get acquainted with the general state of the country? If so, the objection of the hon. Member for Oldham would hold good against any Government. On the same principle a general ought not to endeavour to acquire information from a subordinate officer, nor the magistrates assembled in petty session from those under their authority. In short, no information from
792
the different branches should be sent up to the head department. It was easy to cast aspersions, but it was not so easy to remove them, and the hon. Gentleman had much to answer for, if he should unfortunately produce such an impression upon the public mind, by branding these officers as political spies, as that any insult should be offered to them, of whom he would unhesitatingly affirm that they not only had not received the directions alleged, but that if they had, they would far sooner resign than consent to carry them into effect. With regard to the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that convictions of Chartists had been obtained by means of spies, he could only say that those convictions had been obtained in open court, and upon the evidence of persons whose names were before the public, and who had not up to the present moment, been accused or suspected of being spies. Those who showed their friendship for the people by attempting to lead them to such a belief were far from being their real friends. He should like to ask the hon. Member for Oldham whether the Government which endeavoured to prevent the operative classes of the country from being led away by foolish or designing men, did not better deserve to be called their Friends than those who, having the operative classes more immediately under their control, and taking offence at some law of the land which did not suit their fancy or their purpose, upon that law being brought into operation, in the neighbourhood in which they resided, instead of protecting the working classes, and allowing them to continue quietly at their daily employment, shut up their mills for the purpose of opposing the law. He thought the preventive policy the best—that policy which induced those in authority to study beforehand the feelings of the working classes, in order that they might meet their distresses; that they might allay their passions when they saw them excited by others, and that they might timely recall them to their duty when straying from the path which the law and the love of order ought naturally to point out. Considering the manner in which evidence was taken before those committees, that parties were not examined upon oath, and might put on record what they chose, he could not think that any such committee would be conducive to the well-working of the Factory Act, or to the interests

793
of the operative classes generally. He should therefore oppose the motion of the hon. Member, convinced that the public would feel that the charges which the hon. Member had made against thos gentlemen in their official capacity were not well founded, and that they would believe with him that those gentlemen had never shown anything but the sincerest consideration and desire for the prosperity of those classes amongst whom the greater part of their time was spent.
Mr. D'Israelisaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat, in speaking of confidential communications, had confessed that those gentlemen were not merely missionaries of humanity; that they had some duties to perform which were not known to the House of Commons, and for which they were not paid by the public votes of a popular assembly; that they had to make reports to a minister, and that they had to communicate with Downing-street. The hon. Gentleman had also accurately defined for them the nature of such communications. Those gentlemen, he said, had to report as to the state of the working classes in their prosperity, and even in their adversity. They had also to report as to the state of the harvest; and it appeared that one of those confidential circulars, anticipating, perhaps, the doubtful issue of the harvest, which was interesting to all, had, by means the most mysterious, and in a manner which had provoked the indignation of the hon. Under Secretary of State, fallen into the hands of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oldham. It would, therefore, be curious to remark the manner in which these communications were made to the Government, especially when the state of the harvest was doubtful, and its results problematical. Observe:—
"I have to acquaint you, for your own information alone, that I am especially instructed to watch and take measures for obtaining information (not as to the harvest, but) as to any proceedings in any district relative to assemblages of work-people, or Chartists, or circumstances calculated to disturb the public peace, &c.
Here was a letter respecting the "condition of the people not only in prosperity but also in adversity, and especially as to the state of the harvest." The hon. the Under Secretary of State, who seemed so proud to admit that a paternal government like the present gave instruction to
794
agents to furnish them with information in this spirit, was to an equal extent indignant that the letter he had read should have found its way into the hands of the hon. Member for Oldham, and also that the hon. Member should have made use of that letter which only concerned the "condition of the people in their prosperity as well as adversity, and which particularly related to the state of the harvest." They had seen year after year a portion of those men who had flourished during the passing of the Reform Bill vanish from their relation to what was called a Liberal Government. Last year they had a civil war, or at least a quasi civil war, announced in England. The then Secretary of State for the Home Department acknowledged that there was a domestic insurrection in the country. Twelve months had elapsed, and they now fixed the Government with the employment of spies. It might be thought to be the duty of the Government in troubled times to have recourse to spies; they might be told that the party who filled the Opposition benches in that House had had recourse to spies; perhaps, there was no Government, which in turbulent times, might not feel itself warranted in employing spies, but assuredly there never was a Government before who, having employed spies and being detected, told the House and the country that they had merely ordered a circular to be written respecting the "condition of the people, not only in prosperity but adversity, and especially as regarded the harvest." Such monstrous and pharisaical hypocrisy need only be noticed in order to be exposed. He very much doubted whether the liberal constituencies of the country, if answered by their representatives on the subject of this letter respecting the state of the harvest, in the terms of the Downing-street explanation, would be likely to agree with them in their solution of the mysterious epistle. The hon. Under Secretary of State, in favouring them with those loose declarations which hon. Under Secretaries attempted al the end of the Session to soothe the fears of their party, had drawn a picturesque contrast between those who endeavoured to prevent the people from going astray, and those who by their speeches at public meetings, stimulate them to acts of outrage and disorder. He did not know if the hon. Under Secretary, in referring to speeches of that cha-

795
racter made at public meetings, particularly alluded to the speeches of wandering Ministers of state, containing their constitutional congratulations to the people, that torch-light meetings could be held in the country; but he concluded that those must be the speeches to which the hon. Gentleman referred, for they were immediately followed by an insurrection. The hon. Under Secretary, however, quietly escaping from the allusion which was of too delicate a nature to dwell upon, cast a rapid glance to the benches behind him, and finding that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was not in his place, again referred to the example of those who stimulated the passions of the people in order to fill their own pockets. Had the hon. Under Secretary forgotten the quack advertisement of political empirics—the announcement of "1,000,000 of heads, at a shilling a head, and national emancipation, one million of shillings and a repeal of the union?" Oh, no; but those unhappy individuals who edited miserable newspapers, who committed the heinous crime of sedition, and who, immured in a dungeon, communicated by petition and memorial with the hon. Under Secretary of State for the Home Department—these poor devils were lectured, and held up to public reprobation by Ministers, who, being themselves the children and the champions of sedition, dared to speak thus to the House of Commons. He would ask the hon. Under Secretary if the Government were in the habit of receiving from Poor-law Commissioners, there being no Factory Commissioners in Ireland—[Mr. F. Maule: There are.]—of receiving, then, from those commissioners reports upon the "condition of the people in their adversity as well as prosperity, and especially upon the state of the harvest?" If so, the people of England would have cause to rejoice, being anxious that justice should be done to both countries, and that they should; be placed upon a footing of equal rights. it would be extremely satisfactory to the people of England to know whether the Government were equally desirous that the state of the harvest in Ireland should be examined in all its ramifications with the same degree of attention and minuteness as in this part of the empire. As Parliament was now about to be prorogued, he thought that Members could return to their constituents with a better grace, and
796
with more confidence in their exertions, after having established a committee of inquiry into matters of such general importance. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would agree to the motion of the hon. Member for Oldham. The state of the harvest being, at this particular period, the month of July, a subject of great interest, he could scarcely believe that the noble Lord, the leader of the Government, would oppose such a motion.
Lord Ashleysaid, that during the many years he had acted upon this question with the hon. Member for Oldham, he had never had occasion to differ from him until the present moment, when he did so with regret. He thought that the hon. Member had not taken that course which was best calculated to carry out the object he had in view, namely, the efficient operation of the Factory Act. He had seen nothing in the committee which had sat upon this subject to excite suspicion that there was any thing wrong in the conduct of the inspectors, or of the Government who had given the instructions. Entertaining the opinion that the examination of the inspectors before the committee ought not to be proceeded with—that the confidential servants of the Crown should not be brought before a committee of inquiry, for the purpose of getting them to state on cross-examination that which had been confided to them by their employers, he suggested that the room should be cleared for deliberation. It was, however, determined that the examination should be continued, the result of which was before them. He could not but regret that the hon. Member for Oldham had made use of such harsh language towards those Gentlemen. The hon. Member, no doubt, felt strongly upon the subject, and on that ground allowance ought, perhaps, to be made; but when he made use of the words "political spies," he was prejudging the whole question. There was nothing in evidence to show that those officers had acted as spies. They had assumed no disguise. They had not got into the confidence of those who were to address the meetings which they were directed to notice. Nothing of that kind had been done, and he was therefore most anxious that the country should believe so, because otherwise the operation of this act which he had at heart, and to which he had devoted so many years of his life, would become null and

797
void in the country. The inspectors would be hunted like mad dogs wherever they made their appearance; for he had authority for stating, that if there was one term more odious than another in the eyes of the people, it was that of "political spies." He was therefore extremely glad, that the matter had been brought before the House of Commons, and that an explanation of it had been given by the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State. He sincerely hoped, that the hon. Member for Oldham would be satisfied with that explanation, and not push the question any further. Fully and solemnly convinced, that if the impression were to go forth through the country that the factory inspectors were political spies or agents, they might as well at once wipe out all legislation on the subject, he again called upon the hon. Member to proceed no further.
Mr. Hindleyagreed with the hon. Member for Oldham in many of his opinions respecting the Factory Bill and central organization; but, at the same time, he must say, he thought the hon. Member had not acted judiciously in bringing the question before the House. He would ask the hon. Member whether the Government should not obtain information either with respect to the harvest, or the state of the working classes, their prejudices, feelings, and general condition? It could not be denied that it was their duty. When the hon. Member sat on the Poor-law Committee, he felt it his duty to send persons to investigate the condition of the poor in Bedfordshire. These might be called Poor-law spies. Now, he would ask, did the Government send persons on purpose to all the northern districts to attend public meetings, and report their opinions? What would be the effect? Why, those people, being paid servants, would feel themselves bound to give their employers a quid pro quo, and would feel it their duty to tell the Government that speeches of an illegal nature had been uttered, whether such speeches had been uttered or no. The inspectors or superintendents of factories might be considered as the guardians of the poor people in those districts, and if the Government made any inquiries into the condition of the poor, they were certainly the best channels through which they could be made. He hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw
798
his motion, but if he pressed it, he would suggest to him the propriety of making it more extensive, and extending it to magistrates and Poor-law commissioners, as well as to factory inspectors.
Mr. M. Phillipshoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his motion. If he thought that the Government had descended to such meanness as to send political spies among the people for the purpose of goading them into a violation of the law, he should not support them. He was confident the Government would not attempt to obtain information in an improper way; he entirely acquitted them of any intention of employing any parties as spies. He was surprised at the course pursued by the hon. Member for Maid-stone; only a few evenings since, in the debate on Dr. Bowring's reports, that hon. Member had stated, that it was the duty of the Government to obtain all such information as that obtained by Dr. Bowring from the Consuls, and now he blamed them for obtaining information from the factory inspectors, instead of sending persons specially for the purpose of obtaining it. He agreed with the noble Lord opposite, that if they wished to injure the operation of the Factory Act he knew no more effectual mode of doing it than by throwing out imputations of that kind on those who were appointed to carry that Act into effect. He wished to see that Act carried out fully and fairly, and not got rid of by a side wind; but, if these imputations were to be cast upon the inspectors, he agreed with the noble Lord, that it would be better to abrogate the law at once.
Mr. Humethought that the bringing forward this question was likely to injure the operation of the Factory Act, but as the question had been brought forward something more must be afforded in the way of explanation. If there was anything likely to do mischief to the factory inspectors it was the leaving them exposed to suspicion. They had been appointed to superintend the operation of the Factory Act, and so cautious had been the Legislature on this subject, that the instructions to the factory commissioners were the only instructions to any commissioners which had been directed to be laid before Parliament. He wished his hon. Friend had been able to deny that the letter which had been read was a genuine letter; but here was a letter from a factory officer

799
in London to another in the country, marked confidential, and asking for secret communications, not regarding the factory children, but regarding the state of the people, and their public meetings. [An hon. Member: And why not?] Because it was no part of his duty. It created a suspicion that these persons were in the habit of meddling with what did not belong to their department. He asked his hon. Friend for further disclosures. Was that a solitary letter written incautiously, or were similar instructions sent to all the factory inspectors? If it were a mere casual letter, although he might regret that such a letter should have been written incautiously, yet he should consider it as a matter of no moment. But Government had no right to employ the factory commissioners to interfere in the public political meetings of the people. They had ample means of obtaining any information they might require on such subjects from the magistrates and the police; and had such a letter been written to them, he should have considered that the Government had been only doing their duty.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that any one who had ever been under the responsibility of maintaining the public peace—any one who had ever held an office the duties of which were in any manner connected with the preservation of the public tranquillity, would readily make great allowances for those exertions which her Majesty's Government might feel called upon to take for the purpose of preventing the grievous calamities which must arise if there were a total absence of information as to the designs of the disaffected or the feelings generally of the great bulk of the people. Both in this country and in Ireland he had been for a considerable time responsible for the state of the public peace, and he had found it absolutely necessary to use those which he trusted were legitimate means for obtaining the information which was necessary to an efficient and satisfactory discharge of the duties which he had undertaken to perform. In times of great excitement and of great distress, when agitation and poverty stimulated men to the commission of acts which their calmer reason must disapprove, it became a matter of expediency that the Government should resort to means of obtaining information, without which the public service could not be carried on. Recently,
800
at Bristol, at Nottingham, and at Newport, there were ample warnings as to the danger with which the public peace was then threatened. Had there been no such warnings, the danger to the public peace might have been infinitely greater. Perhaps, in such cases, no precautions would have been sufficient, but no man could think of saying that it would be better to be without full information than to be in possession of it, and no man could estimate the number of human lives that might be saved, or the amount of human suffering that might be prevented, if due precautions were in every case taken. He did not hesitate to acknowledge, that if he were Secretary of State he would endeavour to obtain information respecting the condition of the public mind, and respecting any facts calculated to aid the Government in forming a judgment with respect to any danger that might threaten the public tranquillity. He knew, that if he failed in preserving the public peace, and that any serious calamity occurred, those who were now the loudest in censuring the ordinary means of acquiring information would then be the loudest in condemning the negligence by which the safety of the State would be endangered. These considerations only tended to convince him how exceedingly similar, in this respect, all Governments were—they all procured information alike, and by pretty nearly the same means. Of the letter to which reference had been so frequently made he did not himself complain. The letter directed that the person to whom it was written should take measures to procure information relative to any meetings of working people, or any proceedings of Chartists, or any other occurrences in the district to which he belonged, that might be thought likely to disturb the public tranquillity. It might be a question whether the person to whom this letter had been addressed was the properest person to be employed for such a purpose; as a matter of prudence, it might be thought that the information in question could more readily and more advantageously be obtained by other means. His doubt was not as to the necessity of obtaining the information, but whether the instrument by which it had been acquired was well chosen. What did this letter desire should be done? It desired the person to whom it was addressed to go about amongst the people, and obtain all the information

801
which he could as to what was passing amongst the people. But there was no suggestion to mix amongst the people, or to stimulate them to engage in illegal proceedings for the purpose of getting information to be afterwards used by the Government. It was impossible to suppose that the letter was intended to effect anything so foolish—anything so abominable; and when the hon. Member for Manchester told the House that the present Government were incapable of anything of the sort, he would take upon himself to tell the hon. Member, that the Governments which preceded them in office were equally incapable of such conduct. He would assert, that the Governments of Lord Castlereagh and Lord Sidmouth had never employed persons for any such purposes. As regarded the motion for a committee then before the House, he conceived that nothing could be more foolish than to agree to a motion of the kind; the appointment of a committee with a view to any such investigation could not fail to have the effect of weakening the influence of such inquiries; but if an inquiry of that nature were to be instituted, he begged to say, that the party with whom he was in the habit of acting, dreaded it as little as those who sat upon the opposite benches. He hoped, then, if hereafter he should be found pursuing the course which her Majesty's Government had in the present case adopted, that their conduct towards him would, in such an event, be the same as his towards them had now been, and that they would admit the necessity of affording to the people of England that protection which law and government ought to afford in every civilised society.
Lord John Russellhad not intended to take part in this debate, but that he found the right hon. Gentleman confounded two things that were essentially different; and he himself must say, he had always endeavoured to make a distinction between them. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Manchester, had, he believed, hardly expressed his meaning correctly, when he said he was sure that this Government would not endeavour to goad the people, or to excite them to insurrection. He believed that no Government would make such an attempt. But then, with regard to the prudence to be exercised as to the means to obtain information, he thought a very different course had been pursued.
802
The hon. Member who had brought forward this motion confounded the two. That hon. Gentleman always used the term "political spies" as to persons not belonging to the party, for whom he was interested—it was applied to those who did not at once agree to the opinions they had expressed, and who did not yield to that system of terror that it had been endeavoured to enforce in this country. Any person going to a public meeting which was called by public advertisement—any person listening there, and who did not assent to the opinions expressed, and who then, if called upon, gave information before a magistrate, that man was called a political spy. A man going along a road, and seeing a meeting of persons having arms, and likely to commit violence—a person thus placed, and stating what he had seen, was also called a political spy. Any person disposed under such circumstances to give information to the lawful authorities, had this odious name given for the purpose of deterring him from giving information. In the present case, all they knew was, that a person desired to have general information given to him with regard to the state of the country. Mr. Stuart's instructions were confidential. He must say, that he thought this mode adopted by Mr. Stuart was a perfectly legitimate mode of obtaining information and it served to correct any errors that might be made in communications derived from other quarters. The Secretary of State was not generally in want of information. The difficulty was to know whether it were correct. Letters, perhaps, were received from a distance, saying that there had been a formidable meeting—an assemblage of 20,000 persons—and that the appearance of the meeting was of a most threatening character, whereas perhaps a person residing near the spot, of sound judgment and good practical information would inform the Government that the assemblage was of a trifling and insignificant nature, consisting perhaps of only a few hundred boys, and that it was not worthy of serious attention. The inspectors and superintendents of factories being persons resident in the great manufacturing towns, and well acquainted with the character and habits of the population, were the persons best calculated to form a correct opinion of what was going on. With respect to police, in most of the counties there was no force of that de-

803
scription from which any information could be derived. The Lords-lieutenant and magistrates no doubt were in the habit of communicating with the Secretary of State; and, for aught he knew, the hon. Member for Oldham, in his next motion, might apply to them the epithet of political spies. But there was another kind of information which was not obtained with any view of goading persons into designs hostile to the institutions of the country: and although it might be necessary in times of very great peril to obtain such information, still he thought that it ought not to be resorted to except in cases of the very strongest necessity, seeing that it was calculated to produce very lamentable events—he alluded to such means as were employed in 1817. At that time there were persons having no official character, not being magistrates, nor police, nor persons notoriously vested with public authority, nor openly employed in supporting the law, who were supposed by those who were combined together for seditious and unlawful purposes, to be their friends and confederates. These persons were paid out of the fund at the disposal of the Secretary of State, and were employed to give him constant information of what was going on. Now the danger of employing persons of this description was very great. They were generally men of the worst character, men who, in the first place, were ready to engage in any wild or rash plot to overthrow the authority of the law, and who having so engaged were not less ready for a sum of money to betray and even hang their associates. Such men were very dangerous instruments to employ; because it too frequently happened that persons of that kind, instead of confining themselves to what the Government and the Secretary of State wished them to do, namely, to report faithfully what was doing at the meeting at which the people assembled—they often endeavoured to instigate the very crimes it was wished to prevent, and, for the sake of receiving a greater reward, would try to drive the people into more dangerous courses than they would otherwise be inclined to pursue. There was an instance of this kind in 1817. It came out on some of the trials on that occasion that one or two of the persons employed as political spies (and to them the character of political spies truly applied) had told the per-
804
sons in custody that there was every chance of a successful resistance to the law; that they knew that there were in other parts of the country 20,000 or 30,000 men ready to rise to support the insurrection, and that it needed only a bold stroke to overthrow the Government, and establish a new order of things. Thus the misguided men, who subsequently became amenable to the laws, were instigated to dangerous and illegal courses, which they would not otherwise have pursued. This was the danger of employing what were properly called political spies. He did not say that such an instrument might not be employed by a Government in cases of great necessity and peril; but as a general system it was one that could not be too strongly reprobated by Parliament. He certainly joined with those who condemned it in 1817, considering that it had then led to scenes of violence and outrage which would not otherwise have arisen. He thought that there was a great distinction between employing such instruments and saying to a person in a public office, or holding an official situation, "Do you tell the Government anything you hear as to the general state of the country—do you give information to the Secretary of State whether there are large public meetings in your neighbourhood—whether those meetings threaten the public peace—whether the general disposition is one likely to lead to outrage and the suspension of trade and business—whether it seems probable that a large force may be required to secure the peace of the district: in short, do you inform the Government of all the facts that come under your notice." There was a vast distinction to be drawn between such a course of proceeding and that other course which led the Secretary of State to say to a person in a low station in life, "You are engaged with these men—you are a confederate in this seditious combination—you belong to these illegal clubs or societies—you shall obtain a large reward if you will go into those clubs—if you will remain a member of them, and from time to time give information to the Government of all that takes place amongst its members." The hon. Member for Kilkenny had requested to be informed what the course taken by the Government in the present instance really was. It was no other than this: that the inspectors of factories, and the generals, and other officers of the army

805
serving in the feverish districts, were told, in most instances verbally, "This is a time when there appears to be a great deal of disturbance; any information which may enable the Government to know the extent of the danger, and to meet it in the way that may be most conducive to the preservation of the public peace, will be acceptable to them." This was the course that bad been pursued; but he could not agree with the right hon. Baronet that the steps taken by every government under similar circumstances had been exactly the same. He never thought that any government, either that with which the right hon. Baronet was connected, or with which Lord Castlereagh or Lord Sidmouth were associated, ever entertained the wish or the project of urging the people to the commission of illegal acts, or to a participation in scenes of riot and insurrection; but he could not help thinking that, in the employment of their means, they did at one time act with very great imprudence, and that in more than one instance they were the cause of encouraging rather than repressing the crimes which it was their object to prevent.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the case which he had particularly in his mind was one to which the noble Lord had not referred. This was the way in which the case was generally found—One of the parties belonging to the confederacy gave notice to the Government that he was aware of what was passing. Let him take the case of Thistle-wood. In that case the information was conveyed to the Government by a party to the conspiracy. What course was the Government to take in such a case? Were they to say to the party "Break off your connexion with that conspiracy?" or, were they to say, "or remain a party to the confederacy—don't excite them, but give us notice of the day on which the intended transaction is to take place." He knew that that led to the risk of the party taking a course which they did not mean he should take, of holding language to incite his confederates, and he admitted that the greatest precaution was necessary; but cases would occur in which the Government could not well refuse to receive information from persons who were connected with a conspiracy.
Mr. Wakleysaid, the safety of society required that means should be taken to collect information, but then it should not
806
be of a vicious and suspicious character—in fact, that those means should not be pregnant with the sources of that very mischief which it was the object of the Government to prevent. He was surprised to hear the arguments of the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord, but more particularly those of the former. In the first place the right hon. Baronet did not seem to consider that the character of a spy was so unpopular at the present time as at a former period.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that what he had stated was, that obtaining information as to the intentions of disaffected men was not now so unpopular with the hon. Gentleman's Friends as it formerly was.
Mr. Wakleywas glad to hear so, because it showed that he and his friends had no bad intention. He believed that the character of a spy was just as odious in this country at the present day as it ever was. He did not believe that in society there could exist a more worthless, odious ruffian, than that man who went into the society of his fellow men, and whilst he assumed one character acted under another; and he trusted in a country like this, it was a character the odium of which would never be lessened by any sophistry which might be employed in its defence. In this case the Government had employed means of obtaining information, and the question to be determined was, whether those means were justifiable or not? Me had yet to learn that when a person was employed by the Government with the public money in his pocket, avowedly to perform certain functions, that at the same time, under the disguise of that character, he was to perform functions of a totally different nature. He did not believe that the noble Lord, in giving the instructions to the inspectors of factories, was actuated by any improper motive, his whole conduct showed the contrary. But was it discreet to employ those persons. The noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet had given them an outline of the manner in which spies exercised their functions. And how was it done? By worming themselves into the confidence of men whom it was their object first to excite and afterwards to betray. The noble Lord first gave his instructions to the inspector, saying—"Strange things are passing in the country. You have an opportunity of observing those things, and you are to give

807
us all the information you can obtain on the subject." The inspector then spoke to the superintendents, saying, "If you go to a certain part of the country, you will find there a number of designing men who intend to overturn the Government. You are to watch them, and to give me an account of their proceedings." What did the superintendent do? He was known to the persons in the district; he could not go into the political societies or debating clubs, and so he employed his agents. And then back came those reporters, and he (Mr. Wakley) would say, that those persons were the real spies, and that such means of obtaining information created the very mischief it was intended to prevent. The real spy, thinking he might get a little money by it, incited others to certain acts; and when he had got his dupes into his net, he went back to the superintendent, who stated it to the inspector, and the inspector to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State then sent down his police to apprehend those men who were betrayed by the very parties whom the Government had employed. Was it not alleged at the time of the Thistlewood conspiracy, that Oliver and Edmonds were parties concerned in getting up that conspiracy? He believed it originated in that manner; and he must say, that if the Government were to employ official persons in that way, the means they employed were not the best, and that it would be dangerous to society. The employment of the inspectors in such duty was not consistent with propriety, nor would it be justified by the public.
Mr. Brothertonagreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury, that no character could be more odious than that of a political spy, but he thought that no grounds had been laid for applying that name to the inspectors of factories for the manner in which they had acted under the instructions given to them by the Government. Therefore, if the hon. Member for Old-ham pressed his motion to a division, he should certainly vote against him.
Mr. Muntzdid not rise to take part in this debate because he was the representative of one of those large constituencies to which the hon. Member for Maid-stone had referred, but to request his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham to withdraw his motion. He agreed with the hon. Member for Salford in thinking that no grounds had been laid for it. Every
808
Government must have information. If he (Mr. Muntz) were in the Government, he would take care to have information from all quarters of everything that was passing. Some years ago, when he took a more prominent part in political agitation, he was aware that the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) knew perfectly everything that was done; and he thought that the right hon. Baronet was right to get that information. No man could feel greater indignation than he did at such spies as were employed in 1817, but he did not think that the present Government had employed any agents of that kind. He trusted that his hon. Friend would consent to withdraw the motion.
Mr. Ewartthought it most unfortunate that the inspectors and superintendents of factories should have been employed upon a service which was calculated to make them odious in the estimation of the people, and thereby greatly to impair the efficacy of their services in the employment which legitimately belonged to them.
Mr. Slaneysaid, the Government ought to obtain information as to the state of the working classes. That could not be denied. Well then, to whom were they to apply? The hon. Gentleman would not be satisfied if they sought it from the local magistracy or from the clergy. The object was to obtain a knowledge of the distress which was alleged to prevail amongst the working classes, and he thought the best agents that could be obtained at present had been employed, although perhaps a better channel through which to get information might have been provided. He recommended the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
The House divided on the question that the Order of the Day be read:—Ayes 113; Noes 11: Majority 102.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Acland, T. D.

Buller, E.

Adam, Admiral

Campbell, Sir J.

Ashley, Lord

Clay, W.

Baines, E.

Clerk, Sir G.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Damer, hon. D.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Darby, G.

Bernal, R.

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

Blackburne, I.

Blair, J.

Dottin, A. R.

Bowes, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Bramston, T. W.

Duke, Sir J.

Bridgeman, H.

Dunbar, G.

Broadley, H.

Easthope, J.

Brotherton, J.

Egerton, Sir P.

809

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Ellis, J.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Estcourt, T.

Perceval, Colonel

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Philips, M.

Gordon, R.

Phillpotts, J.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Praed, W. T.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Pryme, G.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Pryse, P.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir C.

Pusey, P.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Rawdon, Col. J. D.

Grimsditch, T.

Rice, E. R.

Harcourt, G. G.

Roche, W.

Hawes, B.

Russell, Lord J.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A

Hobhouse, T. B.

Salwey, Colonel

Hodgson, R.

Sandon, Viscount

Hope, hon. C.

Seymour, Lord

Hope, G. W.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Horsman, E.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Hoskins, K.

Slaney, R. A.

Hughes, W. B.

Smith, R. V.

Hurt, F.

Somers, J. P.

Hutt, W.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Ingestrie, Viscount

Steuart, R.

James, W.

Stock, Dr.

Jones, Captain

Style, Sir C.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Thompson, Alderman

Loch, J.

Thornely, T.

Lockhart, A. M.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Tufnell, H.

Martin, J.

Tyrrell, Sir J. T.

Melgund, Viscount

Vigors, N. A.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Warburton, H.

Miles, W.

Ward, H. G.

Morpeth, Viscount

Wilshere, W.

Morris, D.

Wood, G. W.

Muntz, G. F.

Wood, B.

Muskett, G. A.

Wrightson, W. B.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Wyse, T.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Young, J.

Paget, F.

Palmerston, Viscount

TELLERS.

Parker, J.

Maule, hon. F.

Pechell, Captain

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Parker, R. T.

Attwood, W.

Wakley, T.

Boldero, H. G.

Williams, W.

Duncombe, T.

Wyndham, W.

Hindley, C.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Feilden, J.

Johnson, General

D'Israeli, B.

Order of the Day and Committee of Supply postponed.

POOR-LAW COMMISSION.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the third reading of this bill.
Mr. W. Attwoodobjected to proceeding with it at that late hour of the night.
Lord John Russellthought that the House was generally of opinion that the bill ought to pass, and he knew no reason why they should refuse to proceed with it.
Mr. Humesaid, that in a former discussion on this bill, he had objected to the number of the poor-law assistant commissioners; and as the noble Lord had assured him that they would be dispensed with, he was inclined to go on with the bill.
Mr. W. Attwoodmoved that the House do now adjourn.
Mr. Grimsditchsaid, that he felt a strong objection to the commission being continued, and there was a vast number of his constituents who disliked the laws which emanated, not from the House of Commons, but from the Poor-law Commissioners at Somerset-House. As the noble Lord had abandoned his bill for the amendment of the Poor-law Act, he hoped he would consent to fix the third reading of the present bill for some early day next week.
Viscount Morpethsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had raised an objection against proceeding with the present measure, because Government had not gone on with the Poor-law Amendment Act; but the hon. Member would surely admit, when he considered the business which had hitherto occupied the House, that it would be impossible to carry such a measure through Parliament this Session. It being acknowledged, then, that it was necessary to continue the powers at present entrusted to the Poor-law Commissioners, he hoped there would be no further objection made to proceeding with the bill.
Mr. Wakleythought it was time that business should make some progress in that House, and though he had no doubt of the sincerity of hon. Gentlemen in their opposition to this bill, he would yet like to know what they would gain by a delay of two or three weeks. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would withdraw their opposition to the present measure.
Mr. W. Attwoodwould persist in his amendment, as the bill had not been brought on at a time of the evening when the House could properly discuss it.
The House divided on the question of adjournment:—Ayes 10; Noes 71: Majority 61.

List of the AYES.

Brotherton, J.

Johnson, General

D'Israeli, B.

Kelly, F.

Fielden, J.

Maclean, D.

Ingestrie, Viscount

Parker, R. T.

811

TELLERS.

Perceval, Colonel

Attwood, W.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Grimsditch, T.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Morpeth, Viscount

Aglionby, H. A.

Muskett, G. A.

Baines, E.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Palmerston, Viscount

Berkeley, hon. H.

Pechell, Captain

Bernal, R.

Pendarves, E.W. W.

Broadley, H.

Pryme, G.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Pusey, P.

Campbell, W. F.

Rawdon, Col, J. D.

Clay, W.

Rice, E. R.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Roche, W.

Duke, Sir J.

Russell, Lord J.

Duncombe, T.

Salwey, Colonel

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Seymour, Lord

Ellis, J.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Slaney, R. A.

Gordon, R.

Smith, R. V.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Somers, J. P.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Steuart, R.

Hawes, B.

Stock, Dr.

Hindley, C.

Style, Sir C.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Tufnell, H.

Hodgson, R.

Vigors, N. A.

Hope, hon. C.

Wakley, T.

Horsman, E.

Warburton, H.

Hoskins, K.

Ward, H. G.

Hughes, W. B.

Williams, W.

Hume, J.

Wilshere, W.

Hurt, F.

Wood, G. W.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Wood, B.

Loch, J,

Wrightson, W. B.

Lockhart, A. M.

Wyse, T.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

Young, J.

Martin, J.

TELLERS.

Maule, hon. F.

Stanley, E. J.

Melgund, Viscount

Parker, J.

Question again put.
Mr. Fielden moved the adjournment of the debate,
Debate adjourned.

ABOLITION OF THE PUNISHMENT OF DEATH (IRELAND).
Mr. Kelly Mr. Kelly moved for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the punishment of death in certain cases in Ireland. The bill was exactly to the same extent as the bill that had been introduced for England.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, that great inconvenience had arisen from the form in which the bill for England had been drawn. The amendments could not be discussed on the enacting clauses, but had to be taken on the preamble. Unless the hon. and learned Gentleman could assure him that no such inconvenience would arise in the form of the present bill, he should be disposed to withhold his assent from it.
Mr. Kellycould not give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he desired.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, he was not aware whether his hon. and learned Friend had shown the bill to the Solicitor-general for Ireland, or the bill that was in preparation for Scotland to the Lord Advocate. He did not see there was the remotest chance of these bills becoming law during the present Session, and unless the principle could be carried into effect in all parts of the United Kingdom it would be objectionable to press it at present. He would add, that the form in which the English bill was drawn had been found extremely inconvenient. He would advise his hon. and learned Friend not to persist in his bill.
Mr. Ewartsupported the motion, and adverted to the cases of measures brought in by Sir Samuel Romilly and Sir Robert Peel that were made to apply to Ireland, although it was desirable that similar laws should have been introduced for that country. It was, therefore, in his opinion, the duty of the House to make a contemporaneous change in the law with regard to that country in the present instance.
Mr. Kellysaid, that he should always look at any suggestion from the Members of Government with distrust after this; for he had been asked by her Majesty's Attorney-general to prepare a bill for Ireland, and now that he had done so the Government opposed it.
Mr. Pigothoped that the bill which the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to introduce was not exactly in the same form with that which he had introduced for England. If it were, it would be almost impossible to discuss it, there being so many crimes punishable with death in Ireland that were not even contemplated by the laws of this country.
Mr. Kellysaid, that the bill certainly resembled the English bill. It abolished death in all cases except treason and murder.
Leave given.
Bill brought in and read a first time.
The House adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—County Constabulary; Turnpike Trusts; Juvenile Offenders.—Read a second time:—Sale of Beer.—Read a third time:—Blenheim Palace Repairs.
Petitions presented. By Lord Brougham, from the Provincial Newspaper Society, for Amendment of the Law of Libel.—By Viscount Melbourne, from Royston, Brighton, and other places, against the Sale of Beer Bill.—By the Earl of Winchilsea, from the Western Division of the county of Kent, and by the Duke of Richmond, from Market-gardeners of Surrey and Kent, for an Increase of Duty on Fresh Foreign Fruit,—By Lord Brougham,

775
from places in Cheshire, against the Weaver Churches Bill; and from Edward England, against the Chimneysweepers' Bill.

SPANISH INDEMNITY BONDS.
The Earl of Aberdeen, in presenting to the House a petition from the holders of Spanish Indemnity bonds, and asking the attention of the noble Viscount for a few moments to the statement of the petitioners, reminded the House that he had presented a similar petition just two years ago from the same parties, and couched in the same terms. On that occasion, the noble Viscount not only admitted the justice and strength, and truth of the representations made by the petitioners, but he had gone further, and declared that the claim of the petitioners was of such a nature, that it ought to be liquidated preferably to any other claims on the Spanish Government, and that her Majesty's Government would lose no time in urging the settlement of the demand. Nothing had, however, since been done for the relief of those parties; and therefore they had again come forward with a petition, in the hope of obtaining redress. A convention was entered into in 1823, by the ambassador from this country to the Court of Madrid, for the purpose of obtaining redress on account of certain outrages, and the capture of certain property by the Spanish Government previous to that year. A mixed commission was in consequence appointed to examine the matter; but nothing was done up to the year 1828, when the parties complaining, by his advice, agreed to a compromise. They were willing to receive 900.000 l., instead of upwards of 2,000,000 l., the amount of claims registered under this commission. In consequence 600,000 l. was paid in money, and bonds were given for the remaining 300,000 l, which bonds were secured by treaty entered into by the Spanish Government for that purpose, and sanctioned by, and textually embodied in an Act of Parliament, thus giving a security for these bonds, which no other bonds could possess. In 1836, the interest on these bonds ceased to be paid, and those by whom they were held suffered much inconvenience in consequence. The sum was so small, and the sanction for its payment so solemn, that it was impossible to suppose, that if the Government had exerted itself in pressing these claims properly, they would not have succeeded in effecting that object. Last winter an at-
776
tempt was made on the part of the Government to effect an arrangement for the payment of this arrear, and acceptances were granted on the part of the Spanish agent for that purpose; but when the bills arrived at maturity, they were protested. Six dividends were now owing. The claims of the Spanish Legion bad been pressed with an extraordinary degree of activity and perseverance in that House, and he saw by a letter from Sir De Lacy Evans, that they were nearly settled, and that a sum of 50,000 l. had been actually paid. He did not deny the claims of the Legion, or the right which they had to call upon Government to assist them in obtaining justice; but their claims, assuredly, were not greater than those of the petitioners. They had taken these bonds under the sanction of a solemn treaty, which the Government was as much bound by as by any treaty that ever was made. He thought that there was something like a breach of engagement on the part of the noble Viscount (who had said that these claims ought to be liquidated preferably to all other claims) in not pressing the subject more strenuously on the Spanish Government. One circumstance ought not to be omitted in noticing this case. It was notorious that throughout all Europe Spanish bonds, and other Spanish securities, were at one time worth nothing; yet, owing to the sanction of the British Government, these indemnity bonds were received, when other Spanish securities were good for nothing, as valuable. He was much interested in this subject, because he was the person who had induced the parties to enter into a compromise in lieu of their original demand, and they naturally looked to him, by whose advice they took that step, to direct them with reference to the proceedings which they should adopt. He had thought it right to bring it forward again, and he trusted that it would be speedily settled. He wished that the noble Viscount would in this instance, exhibit a little of that energy which he had shown in endeavouring to effect a settlement of the claims of the Spanish Legion.
Viscount Melbourneobserved that the facts, as stated by his noble Friend, were perfectly indisputable; and he must fairly admit, that the claims of the petitioners were entitled to a priority of consideration with the Spanish Government. But when he made that admission, he must at the

777
same time observe that there were other circumstances than those of neglect or want of energy on the part of her Majesty's Government, which afforded in his estimation a sufficiently reasonable ground for the cessation of these payments. The claims of the petitioners had been strongly urged on the Spanish minister in this country, and also on the Spanish Government at Madrid, in the spring of this year, to which it was replied that Spain was really so pressed by the exigencies of the civil war, and that it was of such paramount necessity—of such supreme, absolute, and primary importance to put an end to that civil war, that for the present it was quite impossible to discharge any of the pecuniary claims which foreign nations might have upon her. It was further urged, that it would be more for the advantage of the creditors of Spain themselves that all the resources of the country should be applied to the great object of subduing the internal enemy, and of puting an end to the civil strife by which all the energies of the country had hitherto been paralyzed. It was impossible, he thought, not to feel the force of that argument. He must say, that he did not think his noble Friend had exhibited either now or on former occasions a disposition to make sufficient allowance for a country and a Government placed in such a situation as that of Spain. It was easy for his noble Friend to say that the sum claimed was small, and that Spain was a large country; but here in England we knew little or nothing of the difficulty that existed in procuring even the smallest sums in a country exhausted by civil war. Spain had shown great energy and a strong disposition to meet its engagements, and was only prevented doing so by that necessity to which all persons and all nations were compelled to yield. His noble Friend said he was quite sure the justice of these claims would be admitted, and that they ought to be satisfied, and that the Government was not justified in paying more attention to the claims of the Legion, though the claims of the Legion had something in them of a temporary nature, which perhaps these claims had not. He did not say that this was a just argument, though he could conceive some reason why that should be the case, but at the same time it was impossible, amidst the difficult affairs of a distracted and convulsed nation, to preserve that exact
778
regularity of transaction which might be maintained in time of peace. There was now reason to hope that the civil war had terminated; but it was impossible that all the effects of it should cease at once, and that the resources of the country should become available to other purposes without some further delay. However, a better state of things and a more regular course of procedure might now be expected, and it would be amongst the first duties of her Majesty's Government to make such representations upon this subject as should appear to be necessary; and he had no doubt that the Spanish Government would also see the necessity of settling claims which were so manifestly just, and which they were bound by solemn treaty to liquidate. He felt perfectly satisfied that the claims of these petitioners would now be attended to with as little delay as the affairs of the country would permit.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that the treaty which had been entered into rendered it a British obligation to see that the demands of these bondholders were satisfied. These bondholders were not persons to enter into speculations in foreign funds; but they received those securities under the guarantee of a British treaty, and the obligation was fully admitted by the Spanish Government. It was no answer to tell those persons that one of the contracting parties was poor.
Petition laid on the table.

LAW OF EVIDENCE (SCOTLAND.)
The Lord Chancellor, having moved the second reading of the Law of Evidence (Scotland) Bill, stated that the object of the bill was to do away with the present rule in the Scottish courts of excluding all persons from being examined as witnesses in cases, where the parties concerned came within certain degrees of consanguinity. Such a rule must operate to the frustration of justice in many instances, where the transactions under inquiry had taken place in the bosom of a family, and within the cognizance of near relatives only. He could not conceive that any opposition would be offered to so rational a measure. What would their Lordships think, if any noble Lord were to propose to alter the law of England, so as to exclude persons from giving evidence in cases in which their relatives were concerned? Such a proposition would be

779
considered absurd. This measure came before their Lordships, sanctioned by many eminent persons, and he thought their Lordships would have no difficulty in agreeing to the second reading of the bill.
The Earl of Haddingtonobserved, that the case supposed by the noble and learned Lord, of a proposition to alter the law of England, so as to make it the same as that of Scotland at present with regard to the subject of this bill, might appear absurd to the noble and learned Lord; but he thought it was a case which could scarcely apply to the question before the House, inasmuch as the law of England had been long established, had worked well, and it would be very difficult to convince the country that any advantage was to be gained by the change. It would be equally difficult to prove to the people of Scotland, that they would be benefitted by an alteration of the law in this respect. The administration of justice in that country had proceeded satisfactorily; and it might not be hard to show that, in some cases, the ends of justice might be thwarted, unless the principle of exclusion, proposed to be done away with by this bill, were allowed to operate. But, without going into that debateable point, it would be sufficient for him to state to their Lordships, that the whole Faculty of Advocates, and he believed the majority of the Scotch judges, were against the change. Therefore let their Lordships pause before they agreed to the second reading of this bill: let the whole subject be thoroughly investigated, and let the bill be postponed for another session. He called on their Lordships to give due weight to the opinions held by the whole bar of Scotland on this subject, especially as several of the judges had given their opinions against part of the change which was now proposed. He begged, therefore, to move that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Lord Broughamsupported the bill. The report which had been made by the committee of the Faculty of Advocates recommended the chief alterations that would be made by this bill, and only objected to some minor points. The change respecting examination in initialibus was not objected to; and the only objection made to the clause as to keeping witnesses out of court, was that the law was already similar to what the bill proposed. With respect to the opposition which the legal profession gave the bill, he would remind
780
their Lordships, that some of the most beneficial changes lately made in the law of England had been strongly objected to by the profession. He had no hesitation in saying, that the late changes in the law of real property were as beneficial as any that had been made since the time of Edward 1st, yet no measures could have received less support from the profession than those which effected those changes.
Lord Denmansaid, that to expunge the first clause would involve a denial of the truth, and a distinct refusal of evidence. Was this a proper state of legislation in a civilized country? Were they to take the recommendation of the Faculty of Advocates, contrary to the distinct advice of a committee appointed by that very body of advocates? Were they about to place on the shoulders of a judge the unpleasant responsibility of deciding whether, after five or six witnesses were examined, there was a penuria of evidence, and whether a seventh witness was to be brought forward, labouring under an admitted incompetency? If the existing practice were to be continued, there might be no possibility of adducing proof of a man's innocence, though perfectly well known to one or two of his relations, because their evidence was inadmissible. He would give his vote cordially in favour of the bill.
The Lord Chancellorreplied, and instanced a recent case, where four boys had been put on their trial for theft, and the case failed in consequence of the uncle of one of them being the only witness against them. Was it not requisite that a remedy should be provided for so monstrous an anomaly?
Bill read a second time.