Sitting of 19 May 1840

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Stanley, from Cheshire, against, and by Mr. Cresswell, from Liverpool, in favour of the Weaver Churches Bill.

WEAVER CHURCHES.
Sir P. Egerton, in rising to move the second reading of the Weaver Churches' Bill, said he had been informed that this bill was to be opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Only that his informant was worthy of all credit, he could scarcely have believed the rumour, for a bill more calculated to do unmixed good, to check demoralization, to support religion and morality among the community—a bill which ought more readily to receive the sanction of the House than the bill he held in his hand, it was not possible to find. It was a bill to enable the trustees of the river Weaver, a large and prosperous navigation, to provide the means of religious instruction in favour of a large body of men who did not belong to the country in which they lived—who were without landlords or patrons of any sort, or any one to look to for care, a class dependent upon their bodily labour entirely for their support, and who were at present shut out from all means of religious instruction. He was aware that much misrepresentation had gone forth with respect to the bill, and it being entirely of a local
* The Archbishop of Dublin having incorporated his reply in his published speech, ante p. 246, we will not repeat it.

315
nature, and one without parallel in the navigation of this country. It was about a century and a-half ago, when the Weaver was a little and unimportant stream, its geographical position connecting the county with the river Mersey, and thereby affording the means of communication and the exportation of the staple produce of the country, induced certain gentlemen of the county to think, that by the expenditure of money, it might be rendered navigable. They applied to Parliament for powers to carry their objects into execution. The money required for the purpose was no small sum, and it was subscribed by fourteen gentlemen of the county, who with a liberality which shed honour upon their memories, refused to take anything more than one per cent, above the legal interest of the money expended. In the year 1721, an application was made to Parliament for powers to make the navigation. By the bill three contractors were appointed to execute the works, who were made responsible for the body of petitioners, amounting to eighty, and power was given to levy rates, the surplus of which was to be applied to the general purposes of the county; this was the undertaking for which they originally applied to Parliament in 1721, and an act was obtained and the works proceeded. In a short time the undertakers discovered the powers obtained by the Act of Parliament were not sufficient to provide for the maintenance of the works of the navigation, as there was no provision in the act by which the property was vested in the contractors or petitioners, and the consequence was, that no redress could be obtained for injury done to the works; they, therefore, determined to apply to Parliament for increased powers. The trustees finding their powers did not enable them to fulfil the intentions of the originators of the bill, conceived themselves justified in applying anain to Parliament for an amended act, and in 1759 they obtained an amended act, but in which the constitution of the trustees were changed, the commissioners increased from 80 to 105, and the trustees empowered to discharge all duties for the maintenance of the navigation. These trustees were made responsible to the magistrates at the courts of Quarter Sessions, by being required once in every year to produce their accounts, to be by them audited or disallowed, as they should think proper. At that peroid there was
316
great difficulty in the navigation of the river, and instead of applying to Parliament for a grant in aid of their funds, the trustees advanced the money themselves, and he would also mention, that the landowners never demanded any compensation of them for the damage done to the property on the banks of the river, which was highly creditable to their public spirit. By the care of the trustees the navigation in the course of a few years after the passing of the act of 1759, increased so considerbly that in 1788 the trustees were enabled to pay over the sum of 500 l. in aid of the county funds. More than half a million had in fact been paid from this source in aid of the county funds. Now, the population along the river was yearly increasing, while no proportional provision was made for their religious instruction. Representations to that effect had been forwarded to the trustees, and it appeared that, to the scandal of the country at large, the same scenes of traffic occurred among the population in question on Sundays as on other days. The trustees then unanimously agreed to close all their works on Sundays, but it was soon found that those who wished to observe the Sabbath laboured under the peculiar difficulty that there was no facility to attend divine worship. It appeared that in several districts there was a lamentable want of the means of spiritual instruction. Whole districts were left without pastors, and those who had the care of souls could not devote their attention to those who did not come properly within the number of their flocks. The trustees in consequence called a general meeting of their body, to consider the means of remedying those evils. They then came, with but one dissentient, to the following resolution, to the effect, that the meeting consider it necessary to provide out of their revenues for church accommodation, and the religious instruction of those who were connected with the river and its traffic. A committee, however, afterwards declared that the trustees did not possess the power of providing out of their revenues for such accommodation. It was, therefore, recommended that an application should be made to Parliament for an act empowering them to apply such sums of money as might be necessary for the purpose. It was proposed that a sum of 7,000 l. should be appropriated for the object in question. The resolution to

317
that effect was carried by a majority of twenty-nine to nine. It was objected to the bill that it would increase the county-rates, but he would show the House how little foundation there was for that assertion. The commissioners proposed in the first instance to erect a church which would contain 400 free sittings, the estimated expense of which was 3,320 l. They proposed to distribute that over three years at the rate of 1,106 l. per an-num, and the proportion which the town rate would bear of that would not amount to one-thirteenth of a penny in the pound. They proposed also to defray all the expenses of the clergyman; and, under these circumstances, he trusted no opposition would be given to the measure. When it was considered that the trustees of this navigation had given nearly half a million of money in aid of the reduction of the rates, he was satisfied there was not a ratepayer who would refuse to advance the small sum he had stated, of the thirteenth of a penny in the pound for such an object. All he asked was permission to prove his case before a committee. The hon. Member moved the second reading of the bill.
Mr. Wilbraham Mr. Wilbraham moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Sir H. Verneysaid, he thought a more gross case of injustice to the public had never been brought before the House. Two cases had been stated—one, the case of those who desired that churches should be built, and the other the case of those who thought they ought not to be built, but the case of the public had not been stated. The case of the public was, that those who obtained benefit from the tolls were the inhabitants of the county of Chester, who ought to pay county rates. They paid no county rates at all, because the public paid more than they ought to pay in the shape of tolls. Instead of applying the surplus as proposed, a committee ought to be appointed to investigate the justice of the present law on this subject; and the inhabitants of the county of Chester ought no longer to raise a considerable sum annually, by which they were totally exempt from the rate.
Mr. E. J. Stanleywould occupy the House but a very short time. The question was, whether it was desirable that churches should be built out of the county rates. The demand for those churches did not originate with the workmen employed in the navigation, and it was
318
opposed by men of different politics in the county. The former Member for the county opposed it as well as many others. Indeed such was the unpopularity of the bill, that no Member of the county could be found to second it, and the hon. Gentleman opposite had been obliged to resort to the knight errantry of the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford. The petitions presented that day showed the feeling of the county upon that subject. Those in favour of the bill had been few, and were not numerously signed, while those against the measure were numerous, and signed by upwards of 10,000 inhabitants of the county. He hoped hon. Members would pause before they sanctioned the principle contained in the bill, which would allow trustees to do that with the funds entrusted to them which was foreign to their trusts, and that which they could not do without the power of the House. He thought the principle a vicious one, and that the House would show their sense of it by agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. T. Egertonbegged to detain the House but for one moment. It was with pain that he stated that he could not support the second reading of the bill. He could not allow funds provided for one purpose to be diverted to another. However, he was bound to say, that the bill was not so unpopular in the county of Chester as had been stated. There was a strong feeling in the county in favour of the bill, but he could not support it, and would, therefore, not vote.
Mr. J. Jarvismust state, in corroboration of what had fallen from the hon. Secretary for the Treasury, that the general body of the rate-payers were hostile to the bill, and every person who gave an attentive consideration to the case would see that it must be so. The real question was, whether the county-rates were now to be made liable for the rearing of churches. Such was the real question. The charges upon the Weaver were charges upon all classes of people in the country, and the county-rates must be increased in the same ratio as money would be expended on these churches. He agreed in the general proposition, that it would be well that church accommodation should be provided where it was proved that it was absolutely necessary; so also did those whom he represented, but he and they objected to take this money for such a purpose. It

319
was therefore new to him, as a proposition of law or morality, that parties having no benefit or interest in the funds should squander or misapply them from their proper destination, without the consent of parties really interested. But the truth was that there was no necessity for churches in the district in question. On the line of the river the churches were not more than a mile from each other, and they were placed at a less distance than through the greater part of the country. Twelve churches were to be found on the line, and twenty-eight dissenting meetinghouses. The hon. Gentleman concluded by stating, that he should vote against the motion of the hon. Member for Chester.
Mr. Gaily Knight—Sir, I regret to observe that even the Weaver churches are made a party question. I hoped it would have been one to which both sides of the House would have lent their support. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says, that if the House agrees to the second reading of this bill, all the counties in England will have to build churches out of the county-rate. But this is not the case, for the county of Chester is so peculiarly circumstanced as not to afford a precedent—for what are the facts? The county of Chester is, I believe, the only county in England which from a casual source, by a most extraordinary piece of good fortune, is almost entirely relieved from any county-rate. And the object of this bill is to provide those from whose labours the county of Chester derives this singular advantage with the opportunities of worship. What is there here in common with the other counties of England? Sir, the hon. Member for Cheshire exhorts the House not to suffer this bill to proceed for fear of establishing a principle. That is the very reason for which I hope the House will let it proceed, to establish the principle, which is the principle advocated by the promoters of this bill, that it is the bounden duty of all masters and all employers to take care of those by whose labours they profit. Sir I wish that those who oppose this bill may not have the fear of the rate-payers before their eyes rather than the fear of God. But I am convinced that if this matter were fully explained by the rate-payers of Cheshire, there would be nothing to fear from their disapprobation. The learned Serjeant to whom this case was referred gave it as his
320
opinion that there was a strong equitable ground in favour of the objects of this bill, and I hope the House will now give that equitable ground the force of law.
Mr. Hindleysaid, the case of the county of Chester seemed alone to have been considered in the debate. The case of the public appeared wholly to have been overlooked. Now he considered that the county had no right to apply the funds raised under this bill.
The House divided on the second reading Ayes 242; Noes 166: Majority 76.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Cochrane, Sir T.

Acland, Sir T.

Codrington, C. W.

A'Court, Captain

Colquhoun, J. C.

Adare, Lord

Compton, H.

Ainsworth, P.

Conolly, Col. C. M.

Alsager, Captain

Cooper, E. J.

Andover, Viscount

Copeland, W.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Corry, hon. H. L.

Archdall, M.

Courtenay, T. P.

Ashley, Lord

Cowper, hon. W.

Bagot, hon. W.

Creswell, C.

Bailey, J;

Crewe, Sir G.

Bailey, J., jun.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Baillie, H. J.

Darby, G.

Baker, E.

Darlington, Earl of

Baldwin, C. B.

De Horsey, S. H.

Baring, H. B.

Dottin, A. R.

Barneby, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Barrington, Lord

Drummond, H. H.

Bateson, Sir R.

Duffield, T.

Bell, M.

Dugdale, W. S.

Bethell, R.

Dunbar, G.

Blackburne, J. I.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Blair, J.

Duncannon, Visct.

Blakemore, R.

Du Pre, G.

Blennerhasset, A.

East, J. B.

Boldero, H. G.

Eastnor, Visct.

Boiling, W.

Eaton, R. J.

Bramston, T. W.

Eliot, Lord

Broadley, H.

Ellis, J.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Farnham, E. B.

Bruce, Lord E.

Fector, J. M.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Feilden, W.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Filmer, Sir E.

Buck, L. W.

Fitzalan, Lord

Buller, Sir J. B. Y.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Forester, hon. G.

Burroughes, H. N.

Fox, S. L.

Campbell, Sir H. P.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Canning, rt. hon. Sir S.

Freshfield, J. W.

Cantilupe, Visct.

Gaskell, J. M.

Cartwright, W. R.

Gladstone, W

Castlereagh, Visct.

Glynne, Sir S.

Chetwynd, W.

Gordon, hon. W.

Cholmondeley, H.

Gore, O. J. R.

Chute, W. L. W.

Gore, O. W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Goring, H. D.

Clive, R. H.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

321

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Granby, Marquess of

Neeld, J.

Greene, T. G.

Neeld, J.

Grimsditch, T.

Nicholl, J.

Grimston, hon E.

Noel, C. G.

Grimston, Viscount

Norreys, Lord

Guest, J. J.

Northland, Lord

Hale, R. B.

O'Neil, J. B. R.

Halford, H.

Ossulston, Lord

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Packe, C. W.

Hardinge, rt. hon. Sir H.

Pakington, J. S.

Hawkes, T.

Palmer, R.

Hayes, Sir E.

Palmer, G.

Heneage, G. W.

Parker, M.

Henniker, Lord

Parker, R. T.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Parker, T. A. W.

Herries, R. hon. J. C.

Pechell, Capt.

Hill, Sir R.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Hinde, J. H.

Pemberton, T.

Hodgson, F.

Perceval, Colonel

Hodgson, R.

Pigot, R.

Holmes, W. A'Court

Planta, rt. hon. J.

Holmes, W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Hope, C.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Hope, G. W.

Powerscourt, Visct.

Hotham, Lord

Praed, W. T.

Houldsworth, T.

Price, Sir R.

Houston, G.

Pringle, A.

Hughes, W. B.

Protheroe, E.

Hutt, F.

Pusey, P.

Ingestrie, Viscount

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Ingham, R.

Richards, R.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Rolleston, Col.

Irton, S.

Rose, Sir G.

Jackson, J. D.

Round, C. G.

Jermyn, Earl of

Round, J.

Johnstone, H.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Jones, J.

Rushout, G.

Kemble, H.

Sandon, Lord

Kelburne, Lord

Scarlett, hon. J.

Knightley, Sir C.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Lefroy, T.

Sheppard, T.

Lemon, Sir C.

Shirley, E. J.

Lennox, Lord A.

Sibthorpe, Colonel

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Sinclair Sir G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Smith, A.

Litton, E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Lockhart, A. M.

Sotherton, T. E.

Long, W.

Stanley, E.

Lowther, Colonel

Stanley, Lord

Lowther, Viscount

Stewart, John

Lowther, J. H.

Stuart, W. V.

Lucas, E.

Sturt, H. C.

Lygon, hon. General

Teignmouth, Lord

Mackenzie, T.

Thomas Colonel

Mackenzie, W. F.

Thompson, Alderman

Mackinnon, W. A.

Thornhill, G.

M'Taggart, J.

Tollemache, F. J.

Mahon, Viscount

Vere, Sir C. B.

Manners, Lord C.

Verner, W.

Marsland, T.

Vernon, G. H.

Marton, G. R.

Villiers, Viscount

Mathew, G. B.

Vivian, J, E.

Maunsell, T. P.

Waddington, H. S.

Meynell, H.

Welby, G. E.

Miles, W.

Wilbraham, R. B.

Miller W. H.

Williams, R.

322

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Young, J.

Winnington, Sir T.

Young, Sir W.

Wodehouse, E.

Wood, Colonel T.

TELLERS.

Wood, Colonel

Egerton, Sir P. G.

Wrightson, W.

Knight, H. G.

List of the NOES.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Acheson, Viscount

Fort, J.

Adam, Adm. Sir C.

French, F.

Aglionby, H. A.

Gillon, W; D.

Aglionby, Major

Gisborne, T.

Alston, R.

Grattan, J.

Archbold, R.

Grattan, H.

Baines, E.

Greg, R. H.

Bannerman, A.

Grieg, D.

Baring, rt. hon. F, T.

Grey, rt. hon Sir C. E.

Barnard, E. G.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Barron, H. W.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Beamish, F. B.

Hall, B.

Berkeley, hon. F. H.

Handley, H.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Hawes, B.

Bewes, T.

Hawkins, J. H.

Blake, W. J.

Heathcote, J.

Blewit, R.

Hector, C. J.

Bridgeman, H.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Brocklehurst, J.

Hindley, C.

Brodie, W. B.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Brotherton, J.

Horsman, E.

Brown, R. D.

Hume, J.

Buller, E.

Hutchins, E. J.

Busfield, W.

Hutton, R.

Callaghan, D.

James, W.

Campbell, Sir J.

Jervis, S.

Chalmers, P.

Johnson, Gen.

Chester, H.

Lambton, H.

Clay, W.

Langdale, hon. C.

Clements, Viscount

Langton, W. G

Clive, E. B.

Lister, E. C.

Collier, J.

Lynch, H. A.

Collins, W.

Maher, J.

Craig, W. G.

Marshall, W.

Crompton, S.

Marsland, H.

Currie, R.

Martin, J.

Dennistoun, J.

Maule, hon. F.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.

Melgund, Viscount

Divett, E.

Muntz, G. F.

Duncan, Lord

Murray, A.

Duncombe, T. S.

Muskett, G. A.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Nagle, Sir R.

Dundas, J. C.

O'Brien, W. S.

Easthope, J.

O'Connell, D.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

O'Connell, J.

Ellice, Captain

O'Connell, M. J.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

O'Connor, Don

Ellice, E.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Ellis, W.

Ord, W.

Erie, W.

Oswald, J.

Etwall, R.

Paget, Lord A.

Euston, Earl of

Paget, F.

Evans, G.

Parker, J.

Evans, W.

Pattison, J.

Ewart, W.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Ferguson, R.

Philips, M.

Fielden, J.

Philips, G. R.

Finch, F.

Ponsonby, hn, C. F. A.

323

Pousonby, hon, J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Power, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Price, Sir R.

Thornely, T.

Pryme, G.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Redington, T. N.

Tufnell, H.

Roche, E. B.

Turner, W.

Rundle, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Rutherford, R. hon. A.

Walker, R.

Salwey, Colonel

Wall, C. B.

Sanford, E. A.

Warburton, H.

Scholefield, J.

Ward, H. G.

Shiel, R. hon. R. L.

White, A.

Shelburne, Earl of

White, Col. H.

Smith, J. A.

White, Luke

Smith, B.

White, S.

Somerville, Sir W.

Wilbraham, G.

Stanley, M.

Williams, W. A.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Wilshere, W.

Stansfield, W. R.

Wood, G. W.

Steuart, R.

Wood, B.

Stock, Dr.

Wyse, T.

Strangways, hon. J.

Yates, J. A.

Strickland, Sir G.

Strutt, E.

TELLERS.

Stuart, Lord J.

Stanley, hon. F. J.

Style, Sir C.

Jervis, J.

Bill read a second time.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) —ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill read.
Mr. Dillon Brownewished to offer a few observations on this important question. He felt it an imperative duty which he could not neglect as representing one of the largest communities in Ireland, to repudiate in the strongest terms the measure now before the consideration of Parliament, which ought to be called a measure for the disfranchisement of Ireland. He felt it a duty devolved on him as representing a large community, for so pernicicious were the tendencies of the bill, that in proportion as the area of any country was extensive, was it more fatally affected by it. He seldom took the liberty of intruding on the time of the House—time which he considered ought to be so valuable, knowing that that which he abstained from doing, would be more efficiently and agreeably performed by others. But on this present occasion, he thought that no Irishman who could raise his voice should be silent, whatever might be his capacity, as the peril in which his country was placed, called the humblest abilities into action. Indeed, no man need fear to address the House for the virtuous cause in which he was
324
embarked, and the undisguised and palpable injury which was endeavoured to be done his country, would supply him with that eloquence and simple and natural arguments which result from the advocacy of justice and truth. He hoped, that during the course of the debate, or during the progress of the bill, that every Irish Liberal Member would be heard in opposition, for though little might be the effect of persuasion on hon. Gentlemen opposite, yet it would produce the result, that if the measure passed, they would ward off as long as possible, so great a calamity from their country, and would prove how much the public mind in Ireland was excited, and what a dangerous importance the measure had assumed. For when humble individuals like himself left their natural retirement, and assumed in the proceedings of that House the prominent part of debaters, there could not but be drawn from it a deduction, which was as true as it was startling, and as it was important, and which might be aptly illustrated by a metaphor familiar to all, that the straws would not be raised to the surface had the waters not been disturbed. He considered the bill as a measure the most aggressive upon the rights of Irishmen, which had been introduced for a long lapse of time, nearly inclusive of a century. For since the system of legislating grievances for that country (which the noble Lord wished to renew), was repudiated—since penal laws became unfashionable—since the first concession was granted to the Roman Catholic, there had been no attempt so aggressive on public liberty as that now made upon the liberties of Ireland. Since the Catholic first obtained a footing upon the soil, as time advanced the Legislature effected progressive improvements in his condition, and although those improvements slowly arrived, still there had been no attempt made like that to attack existing privileges, to despoil the Roman Catholic, without his consent, of all control over the machinery of legislation. He thought, that if the constitution of the country gave Parliament the power, it was dangerous for a Parliament, constituted as the present was, to attempt it. A Parliament elected by corrupt means, had no right to meddle with the constituency of Ireland. Was not the exercise of power and properly to divert the franchise from its proper inclination an evidence of the the corrupt means by

325
which that Parliament was elected? Was not the endeavour to separate the conscience from the vote a striking evidence of the fact? Were not the folios beneath which that Table groaned detailing fictitious votes, intimidation, and corruption, a striking evidence of the fact? Were not the reports of the Cambridge and Ludlow Election Committees conclusive of this assumption, that the House was elected by corrupt means? And certainly the great purity of that House might be well assumed from the proceedings on a lute occasion, when, in its Conservative zeal, it forgot the ordinary courtesies of society, and hurried out a new writ creative of new bribery and corruption. Therefore, he thought that a House so constituted need fear imminent danger in meddling with the existing liberties of the people. They must recollect, that the governed had their rights as well as the governing, and that in the covenant between them there were conditions which it was dangerous for either party to violate. The bill before the House went to disfranchise the people of Ireland. That was distinctly proved by hon. Gentlemen who had preceded him, and especially the hon. Baronet who opened the debate, in a speech, luminous, temperate, and eloquent. The hon. Baronet had proved distinctly that there was no danger of the great evil anticipated by the hon. Gentleman opposite—the swamping of the bona fide voters by the fictitious voters. He had proved that the constituencies of Ireland were miserably small in comparison to the census of the country. He had given some details which were clear and indisputable, and he would add one to the number. In the county which he had the honour to represent there were 400,000 inhabitants and only 1,600 electors. As to fictitious voters, the best test was after a general election, in the consideration of the number of petitions forwarded to Parliament, and the result of those petitions. Notwithstanding the Spottiswoode conspiracy, how little evidence was there of fictitious voters, and wherever that evidence existed, they found those fictitious voters ranked on the side of Conservatism. The Liberal party had almost invariably succeeded. They had the Dublin, Westmeath, Longford, Tralee, Youghull, Carlow, and other election petitions; on the other side there had been only one or two instances of success.
326
One of those, the Kinsale election petition, in which a Committee of the House admitted fictitious voters, contrary to the opinion of the judges. The declared object of the bill was to assimilate the registrations of England and Ireland, and to provide for the rejection of fictitious voters on the registry. That was to be done by annual revision. But what was the covert design of the present bill? Annihilation of the franchise. For annual revision, under the circumstances, in Ireland, meant nothing else. The poverty of the people, the tyranny of landlords, the law's delays, the uncertainty of the law, and the thousand obstacles which he unfortunate peasant had to encounter in his weary pilgrimage in search of the franchise, made annual revision little less than total annihilation. And then the unfortunate peasant was only to enjoy his right for six months, for if there was an appeal made from the assistant barrister in September, he could not be admitted to the right of voting till the subsequent March, and then he only enjoyed it for six months more, when again his qualification was questioned at the annual revision. Why did not the noble Lord introduce an explicit bill declaratory of his real object, which was a large increase of the qualification of the Irish voter? Why did he not boldly attack the franchise, and not introduce a cruel and hypocritical bill of that kind, which pursued the unhappy peasant with the slow and steady pace of the wolf, till, exhausted, he was obliged to yield up all political vitality. The bill was illustrative of the political history of the noble Lord. Attaching great importance to minor objects for the sake of perplexity, scattering the seeds of his natural petulancy amid the humblest machinery of Government (for the contending parties in Ireland would have a bone for contention in every clause of his bill), creating angry feelings and difficulties, where the greatest order and simplicity should prevail, in fact, vexation was a synonyme for the bill, and the notice of the claimant, harrassing and perplexing, was as an epigram of one of the speeches of the noble Lord. He would ask, why were not the Protestant clergy obliged to give that notice? Why were they not obliged to enter their Christian names in full? He supposed they had so many Christian virtues that there was no necessity for a record of their Christian names. No, the object

327
was that ungenerous one to throw any difficulty in the way of one party, and to embarrass as little as possible the other. For his part he would rather see Catholic Emancipation repealed than see the bill carried; for while the franchise had been granted by Parliament to the Roman Catholic, that bill took away from him the opportunity of enjoying it. It was, as Mr. Lawless once said, showing him a desirable situation in a lofty building, and taking away the ladder by which he could ascend. The measure would destroy the Liberal constituency, and place all the power in the hands of the Conservatives. He would rather see the Catholic Emancipation Bill repealed, for then, though Catholic Members could not be returned to Parliament, they would have (with the assistance of the honest forty-shilling freeholders) the power to return Liberal Protestants, who would regard the interests of their common country, as they did before, with no vision jaundiced by religious or political prejudices—but with a noble emulation to serve their country without the paltry distinction made between Catholic and Protestant. The bill would virtually repeal the Relief Bill; it would do more than that, it would take away from the Roman Catholics the properly which had been conveyed to them by the Constitution, without restoring to them the purchase money. Did the noble Lord think that, by that means, he would maintain the stability of the Established Church? Did he mean to do so by the means of perpetual aggression? The Established Church—he spoke numerically— was an insignificant minority. The Roman Catholics of Ireland was a great majority, which had wonderfully increased within a few years in wealth, intelligence, and determination. Did the noble Lord think that such a minority could exist in perpetual aggression against such a majority? The noble Lord, in his desire to attack the liberties of the Irish people, only looked progressively. The noble Lord did not take a retrospective view of the circumstances under which those liberties were achieved. He did not compare the condition of Ireland when those liberties were first attempted to be maintained, and the present condition of the people of Ireland when he despoiled them of them. If the bill passed, it would shake the very fabric of society in Ireland; it would scatter the seeds of discord in every hamlet and every town; it
328
would give a brief to every demagogue; it would, perhaps, convert the patriot into the traitor; it would justify the language of sedition on the principle of right and justice, and it would make many a man exclaim in those spirit-stirring words, the truth contained in them rendering them still more dangerous—"Nos neque imperium neque divitas petimus, sed libertatem quam nemo bonus nisa cœca anima simul omittet."
Mr. J. Youngsaid, that every grievance, however imaginary, had been brought to bear on this question, and threats of physical force had even been resorted to by the other side, which, however, had now lost all their terror. All that hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House sought, in supporting this bill, was to provide an efficient remedy for great and flagrant abuses, which were on all hands acknowledged to exist in the Irish registration, as was proved by the number of bills which had been brought in to amend the present system. All who were acquainted with the present state of Ireland knew that the grossest fraud and perjury prevailed among those who claimed to be registered. He would refer to the testimony of Mr. Scriven, an assistant-barrister, who described the amount of perjury as frightful. [Mr. O' Connell: He is an Orangeman.] That did not invalidate his testimony. He could only account for the opposition to this bill by supposing that its opponents were anxious to substitute for the franchise, as fixed by the Roman Catholic Bill, one of a lower character, which would be more convenient for their own party views and purposes. The outcry which was raised against the removal of fictitious votes, as an act of injustice, reminded him of an anecdote he had heard of a contest between two Malays, in which the stronger man, after having heartily thrashed the weaker, turned round to the spectators and complained of his pitiful case, in being so maltreated. He should vote for the bill, believing that not one of its clauses could be fairly objected to by any one who was sincerely desirous of correcting abuses so often pointed out.
Mr. W. V. Stuartsaid, that it was quite unfair to charge his side of the House with wishing to retain the evils of the present system of registration in Ireland, as had been done by several hon. Members opposite. It did not follow, that because

329
they did not choose to adopt the bill of the noble Lord, that they were therefore adverse to improvement. They were willing to abolish the evils, but they would do so without curtailing the franchise. He considered that there existed various powerful arguments against the adoption of the bill before the House. One of the chief of them on his mind was, the machinery introduced to work out its theory. He feared that that machinery would render it impossible to fulfil the purposes of the Constitution, which, he believed, were, that a majority of electors should return Members to Parliament. At present, even with the octennial registration, there existed a great apathy on the part of the people of Ireland to register. How would it be, then, when the same trial and trouble was made an annual imposition? He was afraid that the result would be, that the electors would wholly forego their franchise, and again look for redress of their political grievances to those secret societies which had been the curse of that country. The evils of the present system arose, in his opinion, from the indefinite wording of the Reform Act as to the qualification of voters; and he was convinced, that at no distant period, it would be found necessary to alter that measure as regarded that point. The primary objection to the bill of the noble Lord, however, was, that it impeded, instead of facilitated, the obtainment of the franchise, and on that ground alone he (Mr. Stuart) would give it his most strenuous opposition.
Mr. William Rochesaid, that the hon. Gentleman who spoke last on the opposite side, treated the House with an East Indian anecdote, which reminded him (Mr. Roche) of an English one. The celebrated poet, Pope, had been in the habit of using, when his temper was excited, the exclamation, "God mend me," and happening so to express himself on remonstrating with a post-boy, who drove him unsatisfactorily, the postilion repeating the words, added, "it would be much easier to make you over anew;" Pope being personally not well formed. Such, too, was his (Mr. Roche's) opinion of the noble Lord's bill, deeming it, as he did, a measure so bad and incurable as to be unsusceptible of improvement, and requiring to be extinguished altogether. It could not be modelled into any beneficial purpose. The same hon. Member too, used, in characterising the present bill,
330
a rather strange misnomer, calling it one of simplicity, whereas a bill more complex, more embarrassing, or tortuous, was never laid on the table of the House. The hon. Member also insinuated, that encouragement was held out to physical force in Ireland, by the opposition to this measure, whereas nothing was more manifest than the anxious and perfectly successful efforts made to prevent any such outbreak and unhappy result, but to confine hostility to the more salutary and convincing weapons of argument and truth. The hon. Member had also animadverted on the revival of the Repeal of the Union question, upon which subject he would only remark, that it was unjust and exasperating measures like the present, which goaded the Irish into such thoughts and desires, and would furnish aliment for the wish, until Ireland was placed at the side of the sister countries, in possession of a perfect equality in all constitutional rights; less than which she would not submit to, and less than which she ought never to be content with. He very recently presented a petition, signed by several thousands of his constituents, and embodying the sentiments of of many thousands more, in uncompromising hostility to this measure, introduced though it was under the smooth and imposing, but delusive guise of purification and improvement. He fully participated in those sentiments, and in the anxiety and alarm which pervaded Ireland, deeming the bill alike destructive of the rights, and derogatory to the character of his country. He therefore would give it his most determined opposition, and act in concert with those who meant to battle against it, in every stage of its progress, and resist every clause of its enactments. The very first of them inflicted enormous trouble, expense, and turmoil, on the whole constituency of Ireland, by requiring an entirely new registration, although the voters had only just gone through that ordeal, in obedience to the provisions of the Reform Act. The Irish representatives on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, solely because they sat and voted there, were charged with owing their returns to Parliament to those fictitious means which tins bill professed to cure; whereas, if a judgment were to be formed from the late exposures at Ludlow and Cambridge, and many other places, not a tithe of the chicanery and corruption which prevailed in England had existence in Ireland, where even the poorest class of voters were in the

331
habit of resisting temptation, and braving, intimidation, even to rendering themselves houseless and pennyless, rather than violate their consciences, or injure their country. With respect to himself he could say, that having been three times successively and nearly unanimously returned to Parliament, by the spontaneous kindness of his fellow-citizens, the more pure, free, full and fair the elective franchise was made, both in its acquisition and practical exercise, the more satisfactory to him. He had occasion to fear only the opposite practices of corruption and intimidation. Therefore, if the genuine object of this bill were to promote fairness and honesty, instead of undermining the popular portion of the franchise, it should command his willing and zealous support. But if this bill were so useful and innocent as represented, why had it not been made general, and England and Scotland admitted to share its blessings and advantages. If, on the contrary, its real object, or at least its obvious result would be to gradually narrow and finally extinguish the popular part of the franchise in Ireland, was it to be tolerated that the Irish should be told that though the promoters of this measure dare not offer such a bill, or such an insult to this country—though it would be repudiated with scorn by the English—they must receive and digest it as they best could? It was too bad that when Ireland had so much reason to complain of its already too limited constituency, and was pressing for its increase, such a necessary concession should not only not be granted, not only simply denied, but as if in punishment or derision of their effrontery in asking at all for redress, they should be visited with an increase of the grievance instead of the required relief. When they asked for the removal of existing obstructions to the voters, they were treated with an augmentation of the evil, instead of the removal of complaint. But why this peculiar attack on the Irish constituency? solely because it dared to return some two-thirds of its representatives to that (the Ministerial) side of the House, in opposition to the interests and principles of the Gentlemen on the other side. Were it the contrary way, the constituency would assuredly be couleur de rose for the hon. Gentlemen opposite, and eulogium, not vituperation, would be the order of the day. He felt, however, though mortifying that measures like the present were not unattended with some consolation, reviving and re-animating as it did that spirit of patriot-
332
ism, vigilance, and energy which was latterly becoming a little torpid, and becoming so because of the reliance—the very just reliance, which the people of Ireland reposed in the good intentions of the present Ministry, marred though these intentions so frequently and seriously were, by the opposition of their adversaries; and because of the people's gratitude for the just and generous administration of affairs in Ireland under the upright and spirited vice-royalty of a Normanby, and still continued by the mild steady and equitable sway of an Ebrington. But how could this obnoxious measure be persevered in now that the Government had undertaken to bring in a bill calculated, it was to be hoped, to cure any existing defect, but not to extinguish, like the present bill, every existing good, so far, at least, as regarded the popular part of the Irish franchise. He agreed in the sentiment of the hon. Member for Water-ford, who just addressed the House, that every ease and facility should be given to the fair attainment and exercise of the franchise for otherwise it would be converting a privilege into a penalty, and the palladium of every other political right into vexation and punishment. As regarded purifying the elective system, whether in reference to the electors or elected, he was decidedly of opinion that Ballot would be the only sound and effectual means, and sure he was that the common sense of the country together with every day's progressive experience of the utter inadequacy of all other remedies would ere long cause it to be imperatively called for. On the whole that he deemed this bill destitute of one redeeming quality—to be a mass of intricacy, embarrassment, and one that would finally work out a total extinction of the popular portion of the elective franchise. Were it sent to an examination of its details in committee, they would have to battle with every clause from its preamble to its conclusion, and therefore both its own inherent mischievousness, and the time of the House called for an immediate and decisive overthrow instead of allowing it to linger in committee, and like (he might say), a "wounded snake drag its slow length along." He would, therefore, cordially support the amendment, and consequent abandonment of so incurable and pernicious a measure.
Sir G. Sinclairsaid, that in spite, or or rather in consequence, of the objections which had been marshalled in such formidable array, he was persuaded that the

333
measure introduced by his noble Friend was equally sound in its principles, and effective in its provisions. Its usefulness would be almost proportioned to the fierceness with which it had been assailed, and to the industry with which it had been misrepresented. If passed into a law, it could not fail to promote throughout Ireland the triumph of justice, morality, and independence. He regarded it as essentially connected with true Roman Catholic emancipation, because it tended pro tanto to liberate the unfortunate peasantry of that persuasion, at least so far as politics are concerned, from being subject to the thraldom of the priest, or succumbing to the threat of the demagogue. How many were now compelled, by one or both of these sinister influences, to register, although they knew that they had no right to vote, although they were conscious that they had no liberty? How many were painfully aware that no option was presented to them but that of reluctant ingratitude at the hustings, or appalling denunciations at the altar? How many were obliged to support a stranger whom they never saw, in preference to a landlord whom they have long revered? How many would consider disfranchisement as a boon, and were thankful to the proprietor for allowing them to hold their possessions by such a tenure as should exonerate them from the misfortune of being encumbered with a privilege which they dare not exercise in a manner consonant with their feelings and their judgment. They were ensnared and enslaved by a faction which would deem it a far graver crime for a bonâ fide voter to support West and Hamilton, than for one who was indebted for his suffrage to perjury or persecution, to vote for O'Connell and Hutton. He should here very briefly notice the two most prominent advantages by which this bill was entitled to be favourably considered. In the first place, what could be more consistent with equity, than that a judge should possess in both cases the jurisdiction already assigned to him in one? It was, no doubt, a great hardship upon an individual to be rejected when he produced a bonâ fide qualification; but was not a whole constituency aggrieved by every claim improperly admitted? Was not every honest elector injured, when his vote was neutralized by the concurrence of one whose title he knew to be altogether unfounded? All men were in
334
some measure avowedly, and perhaps to a greater extent, unconsciously biassed in coming to any decision in political matters, by their private wishes and opinions; but no class of persons was so exempted from this infirmity as the judges, who acquired a habit of dealing impartially with all questions, not only from the very sanctity which belonged to their exalted office, but from being daily called upon to consider and determine cases altogether unconnected with politics between individuals to whom they were entire strangers, and in regard to whose conflicting interests they cannot possibly be influenced by any personal or unworthy motive. But barristers all glory in being politicians and partisans; they are aspiring to the high dignity which the judge already enjoyed, and which, under the auspices of the present Administration, can best be attained by the most unswerving and unscrupulous devotedness to their measures and to their interests. On this point he rejoiced to think that he could quote, in support of his views, the powerful, though now repudiated declaration of the hon. Member for Dublin. In this instance he did not think that the hon. and learned Member's second thoughts were best. With all his ingenuity he had hitherto entirely failed to weaken the force of his own arguments, or mar the felicity of his own illustrations, although the hon. and learned Member certainly had proved to a demonstration, that much might be said upon both sides. He could scarcely account for his change of opinion upon any other consideration than that the number of Whig judges in the Irish bench had increased, and is increasing, (though he did not add, and ought to be diminished), and that, perhaps, the hon. and learned Member, as he had as much confidence in their talents and integrity, as he had, in the impartiality and discernment of their thoroughgoing Tory predecessors. But he would next observe, that the more frequent revision of the registry was not less beneficial than important. The present system operated as a premium upon perjury, injustice, and personation. A man would commit a crime when assured of eight years of impunity, which he would scarcely think it worth his while to attempt, if he were liable to lose the fruits of it at the end of twelve months. Why should not some subsequent discovery of imposture, some fraus noviter veniens ad notitiam, enable

335
a constituency to purify its roll by the elimination of some intruder who had never any right to be there? These were, undoubtedly, the two chief considerations by which Gentlemen on the other side of the House were formerly induced to bring in bills in almost every particular analagous to the present. But then,
"Each, like the Grecian artist, wooed
"The image he himself had wrought,"
and ceased to support an identical measure when introduced from another quarter; nay, it even appeared as if they had been startled by the probable efficacy of their own propositions, and were more afraid of injuring their own interests by the application of a remedy, than anxious to benefit the country by the removal of the disease. He should now, with equal conciseness, notice the three main objections urged against this bill. The first, at least in point of seniority (and which, indeed, was older than the bill itself) was, that it emanated from his noble Friend. He expected to hear some of the Irish Members, and especially those for Carlow and Kilkenny, addressing to his noble Friend the language of indignant expostulation, and saying, "Why are you intruding upon our province, and putting your sickle into our harvest?" There might, perhaps, be some justice in these remonstrances. It might require the pencil of a Raphael to delineate accurately the evils of the existing system. But, on the same principle, which entitled the noble Secretary for the Colonies to stand forward and propose to rectify any abuses incident to the English Reform Bill, his noble Friend, as the author of the Reform Bill for Ireland, as having long been officially connected with that country, and being numbered amongst its most extensive and popular landed proprietors, as well as from his splendid talents and high character, is, of all men, the most qualified and the best entitled to take the lead upon such an occasion. Why, he really expected that the liberal party in Ireland, who arrogated to themselves an almost exclusive attachment to purity of elections, would have voted a piece of plate to his noble Friend, instead of denouncing him as a scorpion, a term, which had been eagerly adopted by the hon. Member for Dublin, at which he was not at all surprised, as he had so often winced under the scorpion's sting, and even showed such strong symptoms of
336
scorpiophobia when this subject was last discussed, that, although by the courtesy of the House, the author of any bill had always the privilege of speaking last on the evening of the second reading, the hon. Member cautionsly abstained from rising until his noble Friend had finished his reply, although the debate, which he himself had insisted upon getting adjourned on the preceding night, had almost expired for want of speakers at the early hour of eight o'clock. The second objection to this measure was one, for which he was in candour bound to admit, that there was considerable foundation. There could be no doubt, that its provisions would prove highly detrimental to the interests of certain bonâ fide electors, that was to say, of the voters connected with any party which would find itself in a minority, if it did not swell its ranks by calling in the aid of perjured and fraudulent auxiliaries. But the bonâ fide electors, who were now swamped by such iniquitous practices, would hail this measure as a boon; and, as to any additional inconvenience arising from more frequent attendance at the registration courts, they would account this as no trouble, but rather a pleasure, if they were thus enabled by legitimate means to avoid the recurrence of defeat, and ensure the achievement of a triumph. But, lastly, it was contended, he should not now enquire, whether justly or otherwise, that the number of electors in Ireland was too limited. Was this, however, any ground why the number should be augmented by illegal and nefarious expedients? If Cumberberland had more voters in proportion than Cork, or Rutland than Roscommon, did this consideration afford any pretext for screening perjured or personating claiments from being expunged? Supposing that a culprit were arraigned for uttering forged notes or counterfeit guineas, he thought he would stand a much greater chance of transportation than of acquittal, if he had no other plea to urge in his own defence, than to draw from his pocket at the trial, a rent roll of the largest estates in England, and allege his own comparative indigence in justification of his crime. Why, it was maintained, with equal vehemence, that Ireland had not- enough of representatives in this House, and it would, no doubt, be very convenient for her Majesty's Ministers, if, by means of fraud or violence, some forty or fifty ad-

337
ditional Irish Members could be introduced, which would, he believed, be not only the surest but the only successful device for reinforcing their rickety and precarious majority. He maintained that this was a British as much as it was an Irish question. This House, or rather the aggregate constituencies of the united empire, must be deeply and vitally interested in every measure which tended to ensure the return of representatives fairly chosen, and to facilitate the exclusion of individuals, who were indebted for their seats to such resources as fraud or subornation. The object for which fictitious electors were introduced in the registration rolls was, that fictitious Members might be sent to that House, and that, through their illegitimate influence, a system of misgovernment might be indefinitely prolonged, and the voice of genuine representatives be disregarded and overborne. It was impossible on such an occasion to avoid making a few comments upon the present state of Ireland, which so often afforded to her Majesty's Ministers and their adherents a theme for triumph and gratulation. Ireland, they were told, is tranquil, but so was an army completely equipped for battle; the commander-in-chief gives the word to "stand at ease," although they are prepared to obey him with still greater alacrity, when he orders them to "make ready, present, and fire." Had not Father Macguire himself, the accredited Popish champion in all polemical conflicts, openly proclaimed that he himself and nine-tenths of his sacerdotal coadjutors, are resolved to bring their respective contingents of tee-totallers into the field, if a line of policy should be adopted which does not meet with their sanction and approval? Ireland was only quiet because the so-called popular party are allowed to have everything their own way; because their hands are filled and their mouths are stopped, by an unexampled and most rigidly enforced monopoly of the favour and influence of the Crown. He once read somewhere of an Indian Nabob, who boasted not only that he had succeeded in taming a hyena, which had long been the dread and terror of the neighbourhood, but that he had achieved this object by a simple expedient. "All that I did," said he, "was to cause a very large supply of garbage to be deposited every morning at a respectful distance from his den, and to forbid all my subjects,
338
under pain of incurring my displeasure, to intrude upon his haunts, or interfere with his habits." "But, sir, pray what would happen if your highness's daily tribute of carrion should be withdrawn?" "Oh, he would, no doubt, in that case, be found as savage and untractable as ever." And so would the Irish patriots, if the current of promotion and patronage were to flow in an opposite direction. At present they are literally drenched with golden and most copious showers of honors and emoluments. It never rained but it poured. There never was such an alarming mortality among bishops, judges, and public servants of every class and description, as since the accession of her Majesty's Ministers. One could never take up any Irish paper, and more especially the Post or the Pilot, without finding the earliest intimation, that some meritorious functionary had been dropping off, and some lucrative office dropping in. All the Liberal peers either were, or intended to be enrolled among the Ribandmen, and although upon every vacancy in any department "Methinks there are six Richmonds in the field" to supply it, the unsuccessful candidates consoled themselves by reflecting, not only that, according to the old adage, "All is not lost that a friend gets," but by cherishing a confident hope that their turn may come next, for it was quite certain that, whilst the present Government continues in office, the most incompetent Whig would, in every instance, obtain the preference over the most distinguished and best qualified Conservative competitor. But he must here notice another anomaly in the present state of Ireland—the state of galling slavery and degrading responsibility to which many of its representatives are reduced. The hon. Member for Dublin seemed to have established a sort of political papacy in his own person. All the Members whose return his influence had contributed to promote, must look up to him as the keeper of their consciences, and surrender the right of private judgment. If they presumed to disobey his mandates, they must hold up their hands, and submit to be arraigned before his tribunal; the offence was, in a political sense, a capital one:—
"Off with his head—so much for Brabazon!"
And two other hon. and gallant friends of his would also have been cashiered or

339
ordered for execution, if they had not pleaded guilty, and been strongly recommended to mercy. When would Irish gentlemen shake off this ignominious bondage, and cease to lick the dust at a self-installed dictator's feet? They were, no doubt, "all honourable men," as well as hon. Members, and independent men too, but with two some what stringent limitations, namely, that they must never vote in opposition to the wishes of the learned Member for Dublin, or even presume to act upon the modest mezzotermine principle of non tiquet, by absenting themselves from any division. But her Majesty's Ministers are sunk into the same state of abject dependence upon the same absolute authority. It may be fairly inferred, from the speech of the Secretary for the Colonies, that the hon. Member for Dublin had ceased to be his own trumpeter, and that the functions of that high office had devolved upon the noble Lord. They were aware that their enjoyment of place on this side of the water can only be co-existent with the continuance of his power upon the other. They seemed to have furnished him with a letter of license to say and do whatever he pleased without responsibility or restraint. The hon. and learned Member expressed his determination to devote all the energies of his mind to the furtherance of an object which they themselves had declared to be equivalent to the dismemberment of the empire; and what did the Prime Minister say to this? Why he strove to get rid of the subject, by assuming a tone of unstatesmanlike poco-curanteism and ill-timed jocularity, and scarcely ventured to go so far as to
"Just hint a fault, and hesitate dislike."
But this matter was too serious to be trifled with. The poet told us that, in the case of merit, it is possible to "damn with faint praise;" and he would presume to add that, in the case of misconduct, it is easy to encourage by feeble disapprobation. He questioned whether any of her Majesty's Ministers in this House would would indignantly notice, on the present occasion, the recent attempts to excite agitation, and organize resistance in Ireland; but he told them that, if they did not, "cum tacent, clamant" and that they criminally sanctioned such proceedings, if they shrunk from the duty of condemning them. There was, however, after all, one point of view in which, perhaps, their con-
340
duct was defensible. They might, perhaps, concur in the opinions entertained by ninety-nine persons out of every hundred, in reference to the epistles and orations of the hon. Member for Dublin—that all his promises are fudge—that all his menaces are moonshine. He scarcely thought that the hon. and learned Member himself would stand up and declare, in this House, that he either expected or wished to effect the repeal of the union. The hon. Member could not deny that it was merely a worn-out and weather beaten stalking-horse, which even the Irish public was by this time quite sick of seeing so often paraded before them. He was informed, that the hon. Member had lately invented a repeal button. It seemed to be a very apt and significant emblem of the degree in which he cared for the question. In fact, it was universally admitted that the war-whoop, or rather sham-fight-whoop, of repeal, was now altogether at a discount; that it had ceased either to stimulate the enthusiast, or to terrify the alarmist, even throughout the various districts in Ireland in which the proclamations of the hon. and learned Member had the force of law, or rather the force which the law had not; and he might observe, that these manifestoes, however flaming, and however flowery, reminded him, in one respect, of certain puffing advertisements, promulgated by crafty and plausible empirics, in which, after reiterated allusions to their own long experience and disinterested humanity, they invariably concluded by adding, "correspondents in the country are expected to inclose a bank note."
"Societies may flourish, or may fade,
A breath can make them, as a breath has made;
But a bold pisanty, their country's pride,
Now grudge the cash so fruitlessly supplied."
And, therefore, the sinews of war are very sparingly forthcoming. The people of Ireland are beginning to open their eyes, and consequently to shut their purses. Contributors are literally worn out by a system of perpetual pre-payment. They find that their shillings never fructify to their own advantage in the unfathomable exchequer of these ephemeral institutions; that their great leader, like Falstaff, is no friend to the double trouble of paying back, and for this reason, if I might borrow a Chinese phrase, the silver is not "oozing out" so rapidly as it used to do;

341
and when confiscations are exhorted at chapels, or auditors entreated at public meetings to prove the liberality of their political sentiments by the largeness and alacrity of their donations, they seem disposed, and very naturally, to exclaim, in reference to the destination and the prospects of their money,—
"Vestigia terrent,
"Omnia te adversum spectantia nulla retrorsum."
If he could only ensure a smooth passage across the channel, and obtain such a safe conduct as might be depended upon, he should like of all things to address the "mixed multitude" on the Corn exchange. He might, indeed, find some difficulty in composing a picturesque peroration, à la Claude Lorraine, embellished with green valleys, lofty mountains, fertile plains, and meandering rivers; but he should take care that his hearers should be reminded for the seven hundredth time of the 700 years, during which their country has been misgoverned by England, according to the hon. and learned Member, or, as he contended, by the Pope. But he should at all events be provided with a ready made and indispensable exordium, for no speech would go down upon such an occasion, that was not ushered in by "hereditary bondsmen;" and he should, therefore, begin by exclaiming, "Hereditary bondsmen to your agitators and your Priests, how grossly have your understandings been outraged, how wantonly have your feelings been excited, how cruelly have your hopes been disappointed! Did one of you ever derive, from being enrolled in the ranks of the precursor society, any benefit equivalent to the shillings which you paid for your admission? Mr. O'Connell tells you that he is trying an experiment. Believe me it is an experiment upon your patience and credulity. I was not at all surprised at being asked last year by a respectable tradesman, who premised that he was no scholar, whether precursor was the Latin word for dupe? An experiment implies, on the part of him who embarks in it, a belief in, at least, the possibility of his own success. If you saw a man jumping in the Phœnix park, and he were to say that he was trying an experiment whether he could leap over the moon, you would at once infer that he was either a lunatic or an impostor. Mr. O'Connell knew as well
342
as he did, that as long as there was a House of Lords, or even a reformed House of Commons, he had just as good a prospect, and no better, of carrying through Parliament any of the measures which he professes his anxiety to see enacted. But his real object merely is, to keep the present Ministry in office on any terms, and at any price, and to ensure their co-operation by holding out the hope of advantages, not one of which he knows can ever be realized. There has not been so dexterous a wizard since the days of the bottle-conjurer, who contrived to make a gaping multitude pay their shillings, in the confident expectation that they would see him step into a pint decanter; and you, my friends, are such tractable camel-swallowers, that if he were to sow a field with flints, and solemnly affirm that if they did not, in the course of twelve months, yield a plentiful crop of potatoes he would hoist the standard of repeal. You would all, to a man, not only wait most patiently, but anticipate the favourable result. Do you really think that he himself for a single moment expects to obtain a larger proportion of representatives for Ireland, or a further confiscation of the property of the Church? He does not even dare to broach either subject in the House of Commons. Ask him why he allows so many months to elapse, or rather sessions to pass, without having taken one single step in furtherance of the schemes which he declares to be indispensable to the best interests of his country? The truth, my friends, is, that he is quite unrivalled in the histrionic art—to him 'All the world's a stage'—'Modo me Thebis, modo ponit Athenis,'—to-day, he is all and all with the Jews—to-morrow, hand and glove with the Jesuits—one week he is feasting at Liverpool—another time fasting at La Trappe; but you have often the good fortune to witness his inimitable performance of characters which he is very shy of assuming on the Parliamentary stage. He is great as Sir Giles Overreach, and I defy you to match him as Sir Benjamin Backbite. In the former of these characters, he contrives to buoy you up with the fond expectations of unattainable benefits, or rather of objects which, even if acquired, would in no respect ameliorate your condition, by causing you to enjoy one comfort more or endure one privation less. If all his plans were accomplished, you would ere long be mournfully exclaiming,

343
Was it for this that we have been breaking so many heads at fairs, and so many promises at hustings? Was it for this that we have so often trudged twenty miles in the dead of the night and in the middle of the rain to attend anti-tithe meetings, when we might just as well have stayed in our beds?' But, my friends, when enacting the other part, docs he not strive to excite in your breasts an unfounded and unextinguishable animosity against his opponents (who, let me tell you, are often, in reality, your best friends), by branding them with names and over whelming them with calumnies, which, in their presence, and within the walls of Parliament, he seems to have registered a vow in heaven never to reiterate? Not long ago he designated my noble Friend, the author of this bill, as a bad man! Will he venture to repeat this charge in the hearing of his friends? Will he tell the British House of Commons that my noble Friend is a bad son, a bad husband, a bad father, a bad neighbour, a bad landlord, a bad Christian? Has he ever been bad enough to sacrifice principle for the sake of place, or to promote his private interests by exciting the worst passions of others? But, my friends, in order to convince you that you are deceived by Mr. O'Connell, allow me to contrast two cases, in the one of which he is in earnest, in the other not. To you he says, "Support the only good Ministry that Ireland has had for 700 years." Now here I allow that he is quite serious, and therefore if any of you were to disobey his mandate, and in the free exercise of the electoral franchise, (given, as he seems to think, to be exercised according to his discretion, and not to yours) should vote for Colonel Conolly in Donegal, or refuse to support Mr. Gisborne, the "great unknown," at Carlow, a death's head would be painted upon his door, his own head would probably be broken, and he would be sent to Coventry by all the patriots, and to a worse place by all the priests. But, on the other hand, he says to you, "This Ministry must do justice to Ireland," a phrase of many meanings, but which now seems to denote inter alia, the confiscation of the rent charges of the Church, and a large addition to the number both of electors and representatives of the country. Now here he is not in earnest, and when the Ministry show no alacrity to bring forward, and no willingness to sup-
344
port such propositions, there are no cross words levelled at them, and no cross-bars chalked up in Downing-street; they may neglect your interests, and overlook his menaces with the most perfect impunity. Be not then any longer deluded and duped—rest assured that, even if the whole Church revenues were swept off to-morrow, not a shilling would find its way into your pockets, and that the repeal of the union could only be achieved through the medium of bloodshed and revolution." The Conservative party, continued the hon. Baronet, was not unfrequently reproached with asserting that her Majesty's Ministers are kept in place by commanding the support of a majority of the Irish representation. Why, this very circumstance was much oftener dwelt upon by the hon. Member for Dublin himself, as a source of exultation on his part, and a claim for gratitude on theirs. He was far from drawing any invidious line of distinction between the members deputed from the different portions of the united empire. He entertained the highest respect, not only for the Irish Gentleman who sat on his side of the House, but for many (such as the Members for Kildare and Roscommon, for the city of Waterford, or the town of Galway) whom he had the misfortune to see opposed to him. But he could not fail to observe that this scanty Ministerial majority was eked out by the votes of some gentlemen from Ireland, who would not be returned to Parliament if justice were done to all parties, the principles of the law clearly defined, and its provisions impartially applied, this was the only object for which this bill was introduced. This was the only ground upon which it was supported. His noble Friend had fearlessly undertaken and faithfully discharged a most important public duty. The demagogue might pour the vials of slander upon his motives—the priest might threaten him with the assassin's knife—but he had established an irrefragable and imperishable claim upon the respect, the admiration, and gratitude of all who were anxious to restore the lustre and secure the permanence of our national institutions.
Lord C. Russellwas sorry he could not join in the praises heaped upon this bill. It seemed to him that, independent of more serious objections, the machinery was so cumbrous and oppressive, that the poor Irish voter must sink under it, and

345
that the bill would inevitably destroy the franchise in that country. The manly character of the noble Lord who proposed it, his chivalrous bearing, his openness and candour in debate, all forbad him to think that the noble Lord intended such effects; but the noble Lord might as easily be mistaken in his policy as his bill would be unfortunate in its operation. It was particularly unfortunate that the noble Lord should have introduced such a measure, founded on the English system, when the Government were about to introduce a better one in this country; but, notwithstanding, they were, invited to decree that system good enough for Ireland. It was avowed that it was to limit the number of voters in Ireland; but the electoral body was already so attenuated, that he wished he could add to it instead of diminishing it. But it seemed not to be the question of how much they could grant, but how much they could take away from Ireland. He could not prophecy what would result from the present partizan re-action against the progress of liberality in Ireland; but it seemed, if he might judge from the wild cry of insanity that reached them from without, that the aspirations of the party went first to extinguish the franchise, and then to deprive the Irish of the hard-won right of Catholic emancipation. That would be a difficult task—but be that as it might, the desire prevailed; and it was certain that if they passed the bill then before the House, they might furnish inflammable materials enough to light a torch of discord which perhaps they would never see quenched, and which might eventually serve to set fire to the pile on which they might sacrifice the liberties already achieved by the Act of Catholic Emancipation.
Mr. H. Grattancongratulated the noble Lord who had just sat down upon the sentiments which he had expressed. The people of England did not know what they owed to the family of Russell, but the people of Ireland would never forget it. He regretted to have heard the extraordinary and lamentable exhibition that had preceded the speech of the noble Lord. He had often heard of plays in that House, but he had never before heard of a farce. The hon. Baronet and himself had spent some portion of the earlier part of their lives together, and in the heyday of youth the hon. Baronet was certainly so much of a patriot as to carry the
346
speeches of Charles James Fox in his pocket, and was in the habit of repeating extracts from them. [Sir G. Sinclair: "No, no, no."] In the main he was pretty certain that the hon. Baronet was a patriot. Therefore it was that he was surprised at the want of good feeling, good taste, and, he might add, good sense which characterised the speech of the hon. Baronet, and for which qualities the part of the country from which the hon Baronet came was distinguished. The people of Scotland were kind and just, but in the speech of the hon. Baronet there was neither kindness nor justice. One passage of the hon. Baronet's speech implied that the bills thrown to the Irish people by the Government were mere garbage. [Sir George Sinclair: "No, no."] That was the very word of the honorable Baronet, who had drawn largely upon his own fancy and on Claude Lorraine. In another passage of the hon. Baronet's speech the priests were represented as threatening with the knife of the assassin. He must say, that when a Member presumed to make a charge of that sort, against persons who were bound by their oaths to preserve the public peace, he must say, that it was one of the most audacious things he had ever heard uttered in that House. Nay, more, he would add, that in olden times, an hon. Member making such a declaration would have been stopped, and his words taken down. He pardoned the hon. Baronet, however, for the words were not his own—they had been put into his mouth by another hon. Baronet, who had obtained some notoriety from the malignant calumnies which he had circulated against the Irish people. He would be ashamed to produce to the House the calumnies of the hon. Baronet's coadjutor, but although they might be insulted by the legislation of that party, they would not be insulted by the language. The Irish had passed over many injuries that they would not, and they ought not, to forget. The hon. Baronet had made an assertion with regard to the rev. Mr. Maguire, which to his (Mr. Grattan's) knowledge was unfounded. He had asserted that Mr. Maguire had stated, that he would have 200,000 tee-totallers to oppose Lord Stanley's Bill. Now he never permitted improper language to be used in his presence; and if such a statement had been made, he would most decidedly have opposed it. If the pre-

347
sent bill passed into a law, that would probably be the last time when he should have the honour to address them, for he would never consent to sit in a House which would pass such a measure. Hon. Members might rest satisfied that the bill was levelled not only against the Irish, but against the English. The bill was objectionable, because it was dishonest, hypocritical, and would lead to interminable litigation and confusion. It had been said, that a great deal of perjury existed under the present system of registration in Ireland, but if that were so, why were not the parties prosecuted? But would the bill remedy either bribery or intimidation? Far from it. They charged the 10 l. voter with perjury; but did they bring the same charge against the 50 l. freeholder? No! They dealt differently with the rich and the poor man. The former was unmolested; but the poor man, in order to establish his claim, was to be dragged before a barrister, then before a judge, and at last to the notorious committees of that House. He spoke not of the present but the last Parliament. It was said, that this bill was the prototype of that of Sir Michael O'Loughlin, but he thought that no lawyer in that House would get up and hazard his character by venturing upon such an assertion. Why! Sir M. O'Loughlin had said, that those already in the registry should stand. His bill gave a jury for an appeal, and it moreover defined the beneficial interest, and did away with the trial before a committee of the House of Commons. He would not enter into the details of the bill; he objected to the notice required; he complained that the 10 l. voter should have to fill eleven columns with the description of his claims; and he objected to the expense which this bill would impose. All parties were to have the power of summonsing witnesses, and the county was to pay the whole expense. The registry of England cost 22,000 l., and he asked them whether they were prepared to impose upon Ireland that heavy burden with the additional tax of paying for all the witnesses? Was that justice? He was glad to see the hon. Member for Surrey in his place; that hon. Gentleman had been represented correctly as a perfect picture of John Bull. He had not only a plenitude of the ore rotundo, but a plenitude of another sort, and there was upon his face such signs of good nature and honesty
348
that he would willingly leave his property or his character to the decision of a jury composed of twelve such men. Now he happened to be a voter for the county of Surrey, and when he had wanted to vote, he had merely filled up a small piece of paper with some half dozen words, sent it to the proper officer, and his name was placed on the registry. Now that was the case of an Irishman coming to England. How would he be treated in his own country? He offered himself as a 10 l. claimant. He was examined; his title-deeds were ransacked, and his property, perhaps, lost by the discovery of the want of a stamp. Was that justice? He called for justice at the hands of the hon. Member for Surrey. Would he deny it? Out of the stand on Epsom race ground twelve votes had been manufactured, but in Ireland no two persons could vote as joint-tenant. He hoped those twelve voters were supporters of the hon. Member. [Mr. Kemble: It is not in my division of the country.] He was sorry for it; but he only complained of the arrogance of this proceeding, by which they disqualified a man in his own country, and only emancipated him when he left it. He almost began to doubt the truth of that eloquent panegyric which Mr. Curran pronounced upon the English laws, when he said, that no matter what tint an African sun had burnt on the countenance, the moment any one touched the British shores he stood disenthralled, unfettered, and emancipated, by the glorious genius of universal emancipation. The moment this bill was passed they declared war against the Irish people they were afraid to say so; it was unnecessary that they should say so in the plenitude of their power; but the people of Ireland were alarmed; they were indignant at this measure, they had expected from the noble Lord an exposition of the beneficial interest; and, if the bill had defined that, it would have been serviceable to Ireland. Did the noble Lord remember, that when he was in office, he had called a meeting of the Irish Members upon this very question of the beneficial interest? At that meeting the noble Lord had said, "It's settled; I don't want the oath of a solvent tenant that he would give 10 l. to back the voter's claim." The noble Lord had said, that if the claimant proved a beneficial interest of 10 l. he would not require a solvent tenant to say, that he would give

349
10 l. more. Now would the noble Lord adhere to that? Yes! Why did not the noble Lord last night cheer the hon. Member for Coleraine, when he said that the decision of the judges requiring the additional 10 l. was the law of the land? It was easy for the noble Lord to smile, but smiles were very bad arguments. [Laughter.] It was ridiculous to reply by the insanity of a laugh. They were not in the corporation of Dublin, and hon. Gentlemen were mistaken if they supposed that they could divert him from the discharge of his duty. He was not turning his back on his old friends; other men might abandon a corporation from which they had derived the greatest benefits; but, if his colours were good, he would stand to them to the last; and neither the noble Lord nor the right hon. Recorder of Dublin would be able to prevent him. They were now called upon, not to take part in advocating the repeal of the union. It was said that the question was dead. He thought not; and if he wanted an argument to advance that object he should first adopt the course pursued by the noble Lord, and introduce a bill for Ireland entirely different from that which applied to England; and the noble Lord appeared to feel that, for he had particularly dwelt on the circumstance that England and Ireland stood on the same base, that they formed one united empire; and he had called on English Member, not to consider that Ireland had any interests distinct from those of England. The noble Lord had on one occasion said, that "they were told that the circumstances of both countries were different," but he was sure that hon. Gentlemen would feel that the principle of reform was the same whether applied to England or Ireland. He entreated those who advocated Conservative interests, and were the supporters of the Protestant institutions of the country, to think of the danger to those interests which any other principle must involve. If they wanted to give to Ireland a solid, substantial grievance—if they wanted to give some handle to the excitement for the repeal of the union—they need only show that, in the British House of Commons, English interests were treated one way and Irish interests another. Was the noble Lord bound by these words? Well, he could not understand how the noble Lord could hold up this bill in one hand and that speech in the other, without acknowledg-
350
ing that one was a direct violation of the other. With what face could the noble Lord, after that, look Irish Members in the face? He had heard of persons wearing iron masks all their lives, but the noble Lord must live in a brazen one. He was warmly attached to the British connection; but, for his own part, he had rather abandon his country, part with his property, and go into some other land, than to live in Ireland united with England on any other footing than that of perfect equality. His countrymen were perfectly loyal; but if this course of injustice were adopted towards their country, they were prepared to imitate the example of their ancestors, and Ireland would be compelled to fall back upon her own resources. He called upon English gentlemen, therefore, to pause well before they passed a measure of this description, which would be so dangerous in its consequences, and which he trusted might not prove fatal.
Viscount Powerscourtrose without any intention of following the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, through the whole of his speech—without any intention even of alluding to the moderation in which it was conceived—or the modest and quiet demeanour with which it was delivered. Indeed, those qualities were so usual to the hon. Member, that it was quite unnecessary for him to make any observation with regard to them. After the brilliant and conclusive speech of the noble Lord who closed the debate of last night, he felt great hesitation in intruding his opinions at all upon the House, for a more conclusive speech on any subject he had never heard in that House—but the hon. Member for Galway had last night put a question to Irish landlords whether they thought this measure calculated to increase the scarcity of property in Ireland, and to that question he wished to give as explicit an answer as the hon. Member could possibly require; and he said that, not only did the Irish landlords consider that this measure would increase the security of property, but that they ought to think so, because any measure, the object of which was to prevent fraud and perjury, must have a tendency to produce that effect. They were now able to see the real value of the cry of "Justice to Ireland," which had always been accompanied by protestations against any distinction between the laws of the two

351
countries; and yet that cry was now raised when the question at issue was, whether they should assimilate the law of the two countries. They now saw the real object of that agitation, and the selfish nature of that boasted cry with which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin stunned the ears and deluded the understandings of the Irish. The opposition to going into committee on this bill was either factious, or it was an utter denial of the preamble of the bill. What was that preamble? It was briefly contained in three lines, giving nothing but the simple statement that it was expedient to amend the law touching the registration of voters. Now he had thought that no one could be found who would assert that no amendment was required. He had thought that the evils of the present system had been too much exposed for that to be possible; but it appeared that he was mistaken, for they not only had against them many of the Irish Members, but the Government had stepped forward as the champion of a system which had been productive of the greatest crime. In the county of Wicklow, in which he resided, he knew from a gentleman who was present at the time of the election, of a case in which perjury had been committed by three men. This gentleman knew the real voters perfectly well; they were tenants of his own, and he knew that they were at the time at Liverpool on business. The name of the gentleman was Sweeny; he did not know the voters' names. However, to the astonishment of that gentleman, three persons, entirely unknown to him, came in with the certificates, swore that they were the persons named therein, and voted. He understood that the gentleman came forward and offered to swear that the three men were not the persons whom they represented themselves to be; but his oath could not be taken, and the only redress washy a petition to the House of Commons. The way in which this system acted was therefore to hold out a premium to perjury. He held in his hand the particulars of forty-six cases, equally glaring, in that single election, in that single county. If the House wished to hear all the cases, there they were—if they pleased, he would read them all. Another great evil which this bill was calculated to remedy, was the great secrecy which prevailed in everything connected with the franchise. There
352
was no power, except just after an election, and during the trial of a petition, of ascertaining what title any claimant had. There were many instances in which persons had been forced to vote by Liberal landlords, who were quite as ready to force their tenants to vote against their will as Conservative landlords, notwithstanding all that was said on the other side of the House against intimidation. Many voters had been anxious to be struck off the poll, but the system was such, that if they were known to have shown their leases, whereby their claim might be upset, the effect to them and their families would be the same as if they had originally voted against their landlord. It could not, under those circumstances, be called a serious hardship that the title should be set out on the registry. The chief evil of the present system, however, was the want of a power of appeal on one side, whilst it existed on the other. It seemed to him to be this commonest rule of justice, that, if the single claimant had a right of appeal, the great body of voters should also have the same right to prevent false votes being placed on the registry. What, then, had caused all the opposition to this bill? Was it that it was impolitic? Was it that it was unjust or oppressive? No. The proper inference was, that some hon. Gentlemen opposite held their seats in that House by no solid tenure. That was the motive of all this energy—that was the reason of all that personal hatred and abuse which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had directed against the noble Lord. The opposition to the bill arose from its aim to prevent the fraudulent invasion of the law. It was opposed because its object was to protect the real voter, and deprive the fictitious voter of a franchise to which he had no title—and because its tendency was to deprive the hon. and learned Member of a great many seats in that House, and by that means to cripple his power. He should vote with sincere pleasure for this measure, because he considered it calculated to remove the grievous evils which were acknowledged to exist in the present system.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, it was with great regret, that after the best consideration which he had been able to give to this registration question, and after a careful consideration of all the arguments which had been urged against it both on this and on a

353
former occasion, he found himself unable to come to the conclusion that the House ought not to go into committee upon the bill of the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire. It was with great regret that he felt himself obliged to differ from the Government and from those with whom he had hitherto acted, in respect to the course which it was proposed to pursue in reference to this bill, and he sincerely trusted that that difference would be of no long duration. A great part of the arguments which had been urged against this bill was directed against the passing of the measure; and if the question which the right hon. Gentleman in the chair had to put was, that this bill do now pass, he should without the slightest hesitation give his vote against it. There were in this measure provisions of such a restrictive character that it was impossible for him to support them, and he would give his vote for the passing of no bill which imposed any sort of restrictions on the exercise of the legitimate franchise in Ireland. But the question upon which the House had to decide was not that the bill do pass; and they were only called upon to go into Committee and to consider the details of the measure. A great and acknowledged evil in regard to the franchise existed in Ireland, which no hon. Gentleman on either side of the House had attempted to deny. There existed in that country a very great number of votes totally fictitious, while there was at the same time a great deal of fraud, collusion, and perjury, the existence of which every one admitted, and which all professed an anxiety to remove. For remedying those evils bills on various former occasions had been introduced, both by private Members of that House and by Members of the Government; and it was only when the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire had understood from the noble Lord the Secretary of Ireland, in the early part of the present Session, that the Government had no intention of bringing forward any measure upon the subject, that the noble Lord had asked for leave to introduce this bill. The House had consented to the introduction of the measure, and the principle upon which it was founded had been sanctioned by a considerable majority on the second reading; and yet they were now called upon to reverse the decision which they had then come to, and say that the bill
354
was of such a nature as to be unfit to be considered in Committee. To such a conclusion he must say, that he for one could not come; and he thought, that having once sanctioned the principle of the bill, they were bound to adhere to their first decision, and to examine the details of the measure before rejecting what they had already approved. What were the main objections which were urged against the bill? The first objection was one the force of which he could not admit. It was said, that the bill did not contain any provision to determine the "beneficial interest" under the 10 l. franchise. Now, ever since the passing of the Reform Bill he had concurred with the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, in opposing all alterations in the elective franchise, while, on the other hand, he had as uniformly voted in support of every measure for the amendment of the registration. He could not, therefore, see how it could be an objection to this bill, that it did not contain all that he wished for, when it carried out many of his views. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, had in the present Session introduced two bills on this subject in relation to England—the one being for the amendment of the registration, and the other having reference to the franchise, which proved incontestably, that in the opinion of the noble Lord the two subjects ought not necessarily to be connected. If the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, introduced a bill for settling the question as to the "beneficial interest," he should vote in support of that bill, but it was no objection to this measure, that it did not contain provisions for deciding that much-disputed point. He was afraid, that while the law continued as it present stood, they must admit, that the decision of the majority of the Irish judges on the question of the "beneficial interest" was law as well as reason. It was his duty as a Member of a Committee of that House, to make himself acquainted with the different bearings of that question, and he had been obliged to come to the concluaion, that the decision of the judges was law and reason. But while he had come to that conclusion as to the opinion of the judges, he had also come to the decision, that that opinion was not in conformity with the intentions of the friends of the Reform Bill. The test of value, as it existed in the Roman Catholic bill, was

355
clear and distinct. The rent specified was that which the solvent tenant could pay, and unless it was in some way intended to alter the franchise, he could see no reason for any alteration of the words. When the bill was before the House of Lords, it was proposed to change the words on which the Irish judges had pronounced, but that alteration was strongly resisted, as it was contended, that it would have the effect of narrowing the franchise. He was, however, ready to admit, that the words were loose, and that they opened a door to fraud, collusion, and perjury, but whether it were possible to insert words giving a definite and and determinate meaning to those words, on which so much difference of opinion existed, he was unable to say. If it were possible to do so, he should vote for taking such a course, but if it could not be done in the restricted state of the franchise, then he should be ready to vote for an equivalent extension of the franchise. He could not, however, admit, that the omission of a provision for the accomplishment of that object was an objection to the present bill. As to the question of registration, he should not trouble the House with any remarks on that part of the subject, but it appeared to him, after a careful examination of the bill of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, as compared with other bills which had been introduced into that House, as well by private Members as by Members of the Government, that many of the provisions of those bills, and this bill, were exactly similar as regarded registration. His noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies said, he was not bound by those bills, which he admitted. The provisions, however, of the bill of the noble Lord opposite with regard to registration, were similar to those of the other bills to which he had alluded, and which had been brought in, or supported, by the Government; and he must say, therefore, that the prejudice which it was attempted to excite against this bill was most unfair and unjust. If he were called on to believe that the destruction of the liberal franchise would be the consequence of the passing of this measure, then he must believe also that the hon. Member for Limerick and the hon. Member for Water-ford had also introduced bills to destroy the constituency by which they were elected. If it was said that the bill of
356
the noble Lord opposite would destroy the majority of liberal Irish Members, who supported the Government, then he must also believe that the law officers of the Crown had introduced bills to destroy the source of that power on which their continuance in office depended. He did not believe that such was the case, and he could not, therefore, conclude that this bill had been devised by the laborious astuteness of hon. Gentlemen opposite, for the purpose, as it was said, of repealing the Reform Act. That there were serious objections to this measure, he admitted, but it appeared to him that those objections might be obviated, by alterations to be made in committee. It was said, that it was necessary to go too far to give the notice that was required by the bill; but the noble Lord was willing to alter that part of the measure, and had consented that a power should be given for the place of appeal to be brought nearer to the voter. There was another objection to giving costs, but he could see no reason why such a provision should not be adopted. He did not see how costs on frivolous claims could be considered as penal. As to whether there ought to be an appeal to the judges in both ways, it was difficult for him to form an opinion; but, although such a provision was not contained in the last bill introduced by the Government, yet Mr. Woulfe, the then Attorney-general, stated that an appeal to the judge was, in his opinion, better than the plan which he had himself proposed. The next objection which was urged was with reference to the annual revision. For himself, he thought that the voter was entitled to protection against party and frivolous objections, for some time, at least, after he had proved his qualification; but if that protection was not provided in the bill as it stood, it would be easy to introduce it in committee. All those objections, therefore, were not more than those urged generally against bills introduced into that House, nor would their removal, or the introduction of the clauses which were suggested, effect greater changes in the measure than were effected in other bills. If, then, this bill was so consistent in all its great features with the bills which had been introduced by hon. Members on his own side of the House, and with the bills which his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, had brought forward for amending the

357
English registration, and if it was so easy to alter the details of the measure, he must say that he could not see any good ground for the opposition which had been offered to this stage of the bill. He would say again, therefore, that the arguments which had been urged against this measure were in favour of going into committee, and that the only real objection was to the passing of the bill as it stood at present. It might be said, that in the course he was now pursuing he was acting inconsistently, as he had voted against the second reading of the bill; but he had not, when he gave that vote, fully considered the subject, nor examined the proposals of the noble Lord opposite. When he came down to the House upon that occasion, he found his noble Friend, the Secretary for Ireland, opposing the measure; and he had so great a respect for the judgment of his noble Friend, and so high an opinion of his knowledge of the condition of Ireland, that, without inquiring fully into the subject, he had voted with the noble Lord against the second reading of the bill. Since that time, however, he had examined the provisions of the bill of the noble Lord opposite, and when he was now called upon to take the strong measure of reversing the decision which a majority of the House had come to on a late occasion, he felt that it behoved every Member to consider maturely the grounds upon which he was to give his vote. He had given that question all the consideration in his power, and the result of his investigation had left him in no doubt as to the course which it was his duty to pursue. He thought it was extremely unwise to seek to reverse a decision of that House so lately after it had been come to, and he was of opinion that a very much stronger case ought to be made out than had yet been made out to justify them in refusing to go into committee upon a bill, the principle of which a majority had approved. Such a refusal tended to lower the character of the House, and to weaken the confidence of the people in their deliberations, as it partook more of the spirit of party warfare than of the calmness which ought to distinguish the Legislature. But in voting for going into committee upon the bill, he wished it to be distinctly understood that he should go into that committee perfectly uncommitted as to the votes which he might feel called upon to give upon the
358
different clauses of the measure. He must further say, that he should go into committee with the determination to vote against every provision of the measure which went to restrict or fetter the franchise in Ireland. His principles led him to extend rather than to restrict the franchise, and though he would not seek to disturb the settlement effected by the Reform Bill, yet he would ever be ready to give its provisions the most liberal construction. Actuated by such sentiments, he felt assured that a large majority of that House would support the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, in effecting in committee such alterations in the bill as the noble Lord might consider necessary for carrying out his views in reference to this subject—views which he, for one, most cordially approved of. But, supposing that the bill came out of committee, still they had the power to reject it, if it was found unsatisfactory, upon the third reading; and if it arrived at that stage, and if it then contained anything restricting the elective franchise, he should certainly vote against its further progress. He was ready to pay attention to the wishes of the Irish people and of the Irish Members upon a question of this kind, for he admitted that the English Members owed a deep debt of gratitude to the Irish Members for the support they had given to a liberal Government and to a liberal course of policy. He had never been backward in consulting the wishes of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, and he would not be found backward on this occasion, when they arrived at the proper stage of the measure. He should vote for going into committee, but he must have more confidence in his own judgment than ha had at present, before he could consent to force upon the people of Ireland a measure of which they so strongly disapproved.
Mr. M. J. O'Connellwould offer very few observations at that period of the evening, although, if he had had an earlier opportunity of addressing them, he might have been disposed to trespass at some length upon their attention. He had listened with great regret to the speech which had just been delivered by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite suppose this bill, and the case of the Irish Members to be their own. Let them go through the ordeals which were proposed by this measure—through these

359
intricacies which all the acquirements of a special pleader would be required to thread, in order to enable them to escape without the commission of errors. If they were then without the slightest real ground of objection called upon to attend before the revising barrister, there to produce their title deeds, and submit them to the court, and perhaps to the agent of the opposite party, to be cross-questioned, obliged to wait while a host of adverse witnesses were examined, after all this loss of time and annoyance, to be summoned at the Spring Assizes, at the distance of thirty, forty, or fifty miles again to support their claim, he asked whether they would submit to it? If the people of Halifax were to be subjected to inconveniences such as these, he asked whether the hon. Member would be prepared to deal with the measure with so much courtesy as he had shown to-night, and he begged to express his doubt whether any Englishman would permit such a bill to pass, and his belief that they would at once call upon the House to reject it. Would the constituencies of hon. Gentlemen submit to it? He believed that they would not, and that the ground suggested of the House having previously decided upon the question by a triumphant majority of sixteen, would not any more induce them to listen to such a proposal as was made. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the costs that were intended to be imposed on the parties as a mere trifle. At any rate, it was adopting a new principle, and would have the effect of limiting the franchise; and to what part of the empire was it that they were about first to supply it? To that portion of it in which the franchise was already miserably limited. When he saw how slow the process of extending the franchise had proceeded, he confessed he had no great faith in the opposite party coming forward on this occasion, and applying their measure of disfranchisement first to Ireland. As they had first conferred their benefits on other parts of the empire, he would entreat them to try their disfranchisement scheme on those other parts of the country, and wait and see how it would work in England and in Scotland, before they applied it to Ireland. The noble Viscount (the Member for Bath) had brought forward the old hacknied and worn-out charge of Reform Bill being a delusion practised upon the public; but he would ask, was there ever such a delusion as that attempted to be
360
practised, when hon. Members talked of this bill being an assimilation to the English system? It was an assimilation of every thing that tended to impede the exercise of the franchise, and get the voters entirely removed from the poll; beyond that, all the difficulties of the old system were left untouched, if not made worse. Why did they not propose to adopt this measure in both countries, and make the benefit of it common to both? No English Member cheered him when asking this question. No, they durst not extend such a bill as this to England, and they knew it. Would any English Member get up in his place, and declare that such a bill could be extended to England? And yet they who were prepared to deal with Ireland in this manner, and proposed to inflict upon that country a measure which they would not dare to propose for England, talked of the cry of the repeal of the union as being a delusion, and called out against those who wished to see the domestic parliament of Ireland restored. But the noble Lord, the framer of this measure, ought not at least to join in this cry. That noble Lord went to Ireland in 1830, when the feeling on the subject of the repeal was very small. He governed Ireland from the winter of 1830, to the beginning of 1833, and by that time the repeal agitation had risen to a height which required (according to the opinion of the noble Lord himself) a coercion bill. The noble Lord might be sure of this, that if he succeeded at present, no matter by what cause, whether by the apathy of hon. Members, or by misrepresentations put forward to the public, he would give a strength and an energy to the feeling for a repeal of the union which no other circumstance could effect. Last night the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Dr. Lefroy), spoke with great force of the vicious practice of creating fictitious votes, and of the system of personation in Ireland. Not one instance of personation was proved before the committee. A system of intimidation was, however, most unquestionably established. He would refer to the evidence of Mr. Thomas Courtney, the agent of Mr. Anthony Lefroy, in proof of this. The hon. Gentleman then read an extract from the evidence, showing that a covenant was inserted in the leases granted by Mr. Anthony Lefroy, empowering the landlord to turn the tenant out of possession, without the usual notice, and that this covenant

361
had been actually enforced against certain tenants who had voted in opposition to their landlord's wishes. Question 12,903 was put by Dr. Lefroy in committee to Mr. Courtney—"All these covenants are introduced as a protection to the tenants, that they might have an excuse to those who pressed them to act against the wishes of their landlords and their own wishes." This was the Gentleman who came forward and complained of the popular party crowding the poll-book with fictitious voters. This was your over-righteous man, who turned up his eyes with holy horror at the base practices of popery, perjury, and priestcraft. When the hon. Baronet, the Member for Caithness, made his next prepared impromptu at the table—when he next delivered it, with his eyes fixed upon his hat, in a manner which drew every eye in the house to it—and if he might usurp die hon. Baronet's privilege of parodying the poets, he would say—
"And still they gazed, and still the wonder grew
That one small hat should carry all he knew."
And when he talked of the perjured and suborned voters of Ireland, he hoped the hon. Baronet would not direct his regards altogether to those who sat on the Ministerial side of the House. Was it fair that those who could have recourse to such practices as these, should be allowed to have the entire control of the franchise of the country, which this measure was calculated to give them? It was a measure evidently intended to limit and narrow the franchise. Had the House forgotten the boast of the Secretary of the Conservative Society for the county of Cork—who bore the appropriate name of Nettles—for he bore the scorpion sting in that county? That Gentleman boasted, that the only chance of success of the Tories in that populous county was, by the landlords preventing their tenants from registering their votes. Were persons thus banded together against the popular franchise fit to be intrusted with a revision of the votes four times a year. He called upon the English Members to deal with this question as they would deal with it if it applied to themselves. If they did, it would tend to restore and maintain a good feeling in Ireland towards this country; but if they did not, it would create discontent and disaffection among the people of Ireland, the misfortune of which the Irish nation would
362
have to suffer, but the guilt and crime of which would lie exclusively at their own door.
Colonel Conollysaid, this was not the first time he had had occasion to explain to English Members the cause of the misunderstanding which existed between Irish landlords and their tenants, and with which Irish Members had been so frequently taunted. He had stated over and over again in the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that the intervention of agitators between the landlord and his tenants obliged the former to exercise his right to prevent his tenants from being subjected to that tyranny and intimidation by which they had been so frequently overborne. Of all the measures he had ever heard discussed before that House, it had never been his fate to hear one so grossly misrepresented as the present. There had been not only gross misrepresentations in that House, both of the motives of the Mover, and the intention and final operation of the bill, but this gross and shameless delusion had been presented to the people of Ireland—namely, that the bill was a measure of disfranchisement, when its very object was to support the legitimate voter in his rights, and to carry out the law as pronounced by ten out of twelve of the Irish judges. On the part of the illegitimate freeholders of Ireland, he (Colonel Conolly) condemned the principle upon which hon. Members opposite would extend the franchise by corrupt means. As well might it be said, that a limited circulation of money could be extended by an unlimited issue of base coin. The House was already well aware of the scandalous and increasing immorality and frauds which were committed in the Irish registration courts. England and Scotland had both had their registration bills since the passing of the Reform Act, and he called for the same "justice to Ireland." This bill would annihilate the corrupt voter in Ireland; the annual registration was the practice in England, and in Ireland would not be an annoyance to men who had honest votes, those only would tremble who stood on fictitious grounds. For two Parliaments a Member had been by fictitious votes forced upon the county of Kildare, who was unknown, and without property in the county. He had told Mr. Ruthven in that House that he represented neither the wealth nor the intelligence of

363
the county, and when he went back to Ireland he had been thanked for having said so. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had called for more Members for Ireland. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to import into Ireland more candidates from England if his call was satisfied? Was it the intention of the Reform Act, that persons who had never set a foot in the country should, by loud railings against tyrant and Tory landords, and by means of fictitious votes, be returned? Was it intended that Ireland should be represented by her resident gentry, or by strangers? Look at the Slate of the registry under the existing system. In the county next adjoining that he had the honour to represent, the tenants of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who held leases for the life of the Duke of Clarence, actually voted on that qualification at the election consequent upon the death of the late King. Let not the House be deceived, the voice of Ireland was not raised in hostility to the measure. He had presented a petition from every considerable town in the county he represented, in favour of it, his hon. Colleague had presented others, and these parties had so expressed their opinions without being called on by any sort of excitement, or led by any sort of representation, and without a cry of "injured Ireland," because they knew, that the existing state of things was a great evil, that it confounded right and wrong, property and fraud.
Mr. Pigotsaid, that if any doubt existed before the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who last spoke as to what was the real object of this bill, he had read to the House a moral lesson calculated to remove all doubt from the minds of the most sceptical. In complete accordance, he feared he must be compelled to say, with what fell from the noble Lord, the author of the bill, on the second reading, it did appear to be the design, if not of its framers, at least of those who supported it, that it should be made the instrument of accomplishing those purposes to which the hon. and gallant Member had referred. He was not surprised—no one could now be surprised that a feeling and sense of hostility had been manifested and expressed from Ireland to the extent even of that acknowledged by the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the floor (Mr. C. Wood). He thought that that might have
364
intimated to the hon. Gentleman some reason why even they who had not opposed the second reading of the bill, might now, on consideration, oppose it in the present stage. He objected to the bill because the vital principle of it was that very provision which the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. C. Wood) said was one of those provisions to which he never should consent. That provision of the bill which had been shown by the noble Lord himself to be its vital principle, and which was put forward as the principle of the bill, was that which went under the name of annual revision, but which in luth—for the word was equivocal—was re-investigation. Investigation again and again of the same matter of fact which had been proved before, not merely an inferior tribunal, but before the same tribunal, proved again before another tribunal, and again before the same tribunal, and then turn round again and again upon the claimant, until it became absolutely impossible, against these repeated worryings, that he could retain the franchise, no matter what were his merits. That was the vice of the measure which induced him to oppose its second reading, and that was its vice which justified the conviction that such a measure was absolutely detrimental to those liberties which were based upon a popular franchise, and which must justify every man in taking every possible means which a fair and rightly-conducted opposition could enable him to adopt to prevent the bill from passing into a law. The words annual revision of votes had been bandied about from one side to the other, as if the term denoted a sense to which various persons affixed the most opposite meanings. The noble Lord said the bill of Mr. O'Loughlen provided an annual revision, and so did this; that Mr. O'Loughlen's bill provided a double appeal, and so did this. But the noble Lord applied the same phrase with a perfectly distinct meaning. Nothing was more plain than the language of revision of lists used by the bill intended to be introduced by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies. It was a revision required from circumstances that had occurred since the last registration. He admitted the defects of the present registration in Ireland. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had dwelt much upon the subject of the certificates. He was prepared to become a party to introduce a measure which should remove altogether

365
every objection respecting certificates. At the time of the Reform Bill, the certificate was supposed to be a means by which to indentify the party who was registered, so as to prevent personation at the time of polling. He was, however, ready to admit that abuses existed in that respect, and that it became necessary to revise this part of the law. Again it was said, there was a multiplicity of names that were fictitious on the registry. His noble Friend had announced it to be the intention of the Government to submit a measure to Parliament to correct this evil, which would, in fact, form a general scheme applicable to both England and Ireland. It was right the whole scheme should be laid before Parliament at one and the same time, and he, as one of the officers of the Government, had no hesitation to pledge himself that a measure should be introduced to remove the defects existing in present system. What was the real object of the remedy applied in the measure of the noble Lord opposite? Not revision for the purpose of striking off the names of those who had lost their qualification—not for the purpose of preventing a multiplication of names upon the registry, but to re-investigate with the sole object of bringing the voter over and over again before the tribunals for the purpose of compelling him over and over again to prove the facts which had already been decided on. Who would hold property if the condition annexed to it was that of having, year after year, to subject his title to it to inquiry, and year after year to repeat the same proofs of his right, and to be taken from one court to another, and then back to the court where his claim had been originally decided upon? This was not a provision for the protection of the voter, and therefore it was that he would oppose it. The principle of re-investigation before another tribunal was one wholly foreign to the practice of our courts of law. In the Court of Chancery, in the Court of Queen's Bench, in cases of appeal to the highest legal tribunal in the country, it was distinctly understood as a principle, that the appeal case must be decided upon the evidence adduced in the inferior court, and that no new evidence should be admitted. The object of such a provision evidently was to prevent fraud and perjury. Yet the noble Lord called upon the House to sanction precisely the opposite principle in a bill which professed
366
to have for its object the prevention of fraud and perjury. He begged to call the attention of the noble Lord to what had taken place in the committee appointed to inquire into the manufacture of fictitious votes in Scotland, of which committee the noble Lord was a member. The report of the committee distinctly adverted to, and deprecated, the evils arising in that country out of the practice of allowing fresh testimony to be given when the re-investigation of a claim to vote was carried from one tribunal to another. The noble Lord, however called upon them in the present bill to adopt precisely the same principle which, in the other case, the committee of which he was a member had condemned. He opposed this bill, because he was prepared to support the bill about to be brought in by his noble Friend; and he would support that bill for the very reason that it went upon the same principle as that laid down in the report of the committee on fictitious votes in Scotland. There was one point which he could not sit down without adverting to, namely, the objection as to the appeal that this bill gave to the judge at assize. He must say that be thought that objection had been somewhat exemplified in the course of the present debate. The opponents of this bill said that, by giving this appeal, mistrust and want of confidence would be raised in the administration of justice, and that the judges would be subject to obloquy and misrepresentation on the part of those who would be apt to forget the dignity of the station which they occupied as administrators of the law. The hon. and learned Member for Coleraine had referred to a difference of opinion on the part of Baron Richards and another judge against the remaining ten, but he must say he regretted that the hon. and learned Member should, in the exuberance of his zeal in support of this measure, have so far forgotten himself as not to forbear from making observations on the opinions of individual judges. He should not there enter into the defence of Baron Richards, whose character stood too high to need vindication, but he could not help observing that, if in the course of a debate in the House of Commons itself, the hon. Member could find it impossible to refrain from making observations challenging those judges who differed from him with party bias, what must be the result, what must be the imputation which would be

367
thrown out in a country like Ireland, if they made every circuit town to which the judges came, a court of political litigation, over which the judges were to preside? This provision had been attempted to be justified by the provisions of the bill introduced by the right hon. Baronet opposite, when Catholic emancipation was carried, but there was a wide difference between the two provisions; the latter was for the protection of the franchise, and not as in the present case, for its investigation. The right hon. Baronet thought that some persons might object that to give the final decision in the franchise to assistant-barristers nominated by the Crown, would be to give the Crown too great a dominion over the franchise; and therefore, he gave the voter the protection, of an appeal to the judges on matters of law, and to a jury on matters of fact. This was an appeal which did not cause those evil consequences which would flow from the appeal proposed in the bill of the noble Lord. Up to 1830, the entire number of appeals under the bill of the right hon. Baronet, amounted only to 700, of which above 200 were successful; whereas, if the bill of the noble Lord were carried, there would be hundreds and thousands of appeals yearly until the franchise was altogether extinguished. On these grounds then, objecting to that which was the essential principle of the present bill, repeated and endless investigation of the right of the voter—objecting also to the details of the bill, and believing it impossible so to modify it in committee as to divest it of those objectionable principles—he felt himself compelled to support the motion of the hon. Baronet to commit the bill that day six months.
Viscount Howickcould assure the House that it was with great reluctance that he trespassed upon their attention at all after the protracted debate which had taken place on the subject. But it was so painful to him to vote against those with whom he had usually the pleasure of acting in that House, that he felt it was impossible for him to give that vote without explaining the grounds on which he voted, more especially after the speech lately delivered by the hon. and gallant Colonel opposite (Colonel Conolly). It was absolutely necessary, as he found himself compelled to vote in the same division with that hon. and gallant Member, to explain that he did so with totally differ-
368
ent objects and views, and guided by totally different feelings. He had ventured last night to express to the House his opinion that the question it had now to decide was not precisely that which they had to determine on the second reading. He did admit, even as far as regarded the second reading of the bill, that he gave his vote with great reluctance against the progress of the measure; but concurring with his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, in thinking that in its present shape it ought not to pass, and being desirous to support the Government of which his noble Friend was the organ, and more especially on questions relating to Irish policy, on which questions, so long as his noble Friend, the Member for Yorkshire, and his noble Friend Lord Ebrington, were at the head, he must continue to place great confidence in Government, and being, therefore, extremely anxious to mark his confidence with Government, he did vote against the second reading, believing that he did not go beyond that fair sacrifice of individual opinion which every Gentleman in that House, acting with others, for a great and common object must occasionally make. He voted then against the second reading, though he did at the time strongly entertain an opinion which he stated to many Gentlemen, amongst others to some of the Members of the Government, that it was the most highly imprudent course which the Government could have adopted, and that the bill was one which ought to have been allowed to proceed into committee, and be there discussed; and that only in the event of its being found impracticable to amend it, then ought it to be finally rejected. But how stood the question now? They were now called upon not only to prevent this bill going into committee, but to reverse a contrary decision to which the House had come. In his opinion it was always extremely inconvenient that the House should be compelled to reverse a vote to which it had shortly before come. Cases, he knew, did sometimes arise, in which such a course might properly be adopted. For instance, if a vote were come to in a very thin House, which might lead to considerable inconvenience, and to which the majority of Members, when it was more fully known might object—and sometimes, also (as in the instance of the malt tax), when a vote was come to, even in a full House, the effect of which might

369
not be fully known, it might be justifiable to reverse that vote, if good reason were shown for setting it aside. But neither of these reasons applied to the present case. It could not be said that the vote for the second reading was taken in a thin House, nor that the matter was not fully discussed. The House came to the decision after two nights of protracted debate, during which every possible objection was urged to the bill. But, in his opinion, even if the House had been surprised into its former decision, that decision ought not to be afterwards set aside, unless a revisal were the only means of avoiding great and serious evil; because it was impossible that the House should on one day renounce a vote to which it had come only a few days before without suffering somewhat in the public estimation. And such a proceeding was equivalent to a public confession of want of consideration in the performance of their duties in the first instance, or else of fickleness and want of firmness in their determinations, either of of which confessions was calculated to lower and degrade that House in the eyes of the country. At no time, but more especially in the times in which they lived, could that House afford to take any course by which their hold on public opinion should be weakened, and the confidence and respect which ought to attend them, as representing the wisdom of the country, should be lowered. If, then, he were right in contending that the House should only reverse a decision which had been lately adopted on the ground of very great and serious evil which would arise from taking any other course, let him ask, in applying that consideration to the present measure, what amount of public inconvenience would arise from this bill going into committee? What answer had been made to the argument of his hon. Friend who sat near him (Mr. C. Wood), that the objections which had been urged to the bill were objections not of principle but of detail. After that speech, so lately made, he had listened with the greatest anxiety to the speech of the right hon. and learned Solicitor-general for Ireland, to ascertain how it was that he intended to support the opposition to the bill going into committee on the ground that the objections were objections of principle. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that the present state of representation in Ireland was satisfactory—did be deny that there
370
were great and crying evils in it which urgently demanded reform? Far from it—for he said that he himself was prepared to undertake the task of reform. But he could not forget what had been said last night, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had somewhat of the latest undertaken that task. Neither did he put any great confidence that a bill brought on at this period of the session—and which, if he rightly understood the right hon. and learned Member, was not yet in existence, but in framing the provisions of which he was now occupied, he said he could not, looking at the period of the session and the state of parties in both Houses, feel great confidence that such a bill would become law. What next, said the right hon. and learned Gentleman? He objected to this bill because its principle was that of annual revision, and yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman immediately afterwards entered into an argument, with every word of which he agreed, to show that his objection was not to annual revision, but annual re-investigation, and to point out the difference between them, that annual revision was for the redress of the voters, whilst annual reinvestigation would be a monstrous and crying evil. But would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell him that annual registration was the principle of this bill? Undoubtedly not. As undoubtedly the clause, as it at at present stood, provided for annual re investigation. But it would not require the adroitness and learning even of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to draw up an amendment of three lines, which would put that matter right in committee. He himself did not profess to be a lawyer, or claim, any professional skill, but even without that assistance, he thought, he could draw up an amendment which should obviate that objection in not many more lines, and which would bring the bill in strict accordance with the principle which his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Colonies was prepared to lay down. So little was it the principle of this bill that there should be an annual re-investigation, that his noble Friend opposite, when he introduced it, said that he had himself for some time deliberated on the question whether it should be revision or re-investigation, and had ultimately decided in favour of re-investigation. But, though this was the decision of his noble Friend,

371
the decision of the committee rested on the House; and he begged to remind the hon. Baronet the Member for Drogheda, who moved last night that this bill should be committed that day six months—and he was bound to say in a speech distinguished by great ability and excellent temper and discretion—that he had mentioned this remarkable fact, that the Tory party in Drogheda itself supported this bill, under the mistaken impression that a vote once registered would not be liable to further investigation, except for objections which had arisen since the registry. The hon. Baronet mentioned this to show that the Tories themselves supported this bill under a misapprehension of its object; but did not that fact also show that amongst the Tory party there were many like himself who would be strongly disposed, when they went into committee, to support the revision instead of re-investigation, and he did believe, that when this point was urged fairly before the House in committee, that the hon. Baronet would find many hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who would agree with him in that view of the case, viz., that when once a man's vote should have been fairly scrutinised, it should not be liable to a second scrutiny, except on the ground of some objection that had arisen since the former investigation. Such a provision would meet all the evils which had been relied on by his noble Friend opposite as the basis of this bill, and such an amendment, which there was every reason to believe would be supported on the other side of the House, would remove by far the greatest and most serious objection to the passing of this measure. It was hardly necessary for him to consume time in proving to the House, that there was a degree of severity in scrutinising which would be really intolerable if it were to be annual. Such a severe scrutiny annually Repeated, the distance the voter might annually have to go, the consumption of his time, the expense and trouble to which it would put him, would render it too intolerable for the great bulk of the voters to submit to, whereas, if the investigation were final, those who claimed to vote would be more willing to submit to it, and he could not help saying, that he could not feel any great respect for those voters who valued the franchise so little, that en one occasion, to establish their votes in the first instance, they were not
372
prepared to undergo some considerable degree of trouble and sacrifice of time. This amendment, then, would go far to obviate objections to the bill. There were, however, other clauses referred to, and other objections started, but which also were entirely objections of detail. Some objections had been made to the appeal to the judges. He thought there was a great deal to be said on both sides of that question, but still it was perfectly open to the House to consider this question in committee, and to strike out the clause which gave an appeal to the judges, and to substitute, by way of amendment, an appeal to any better tribunal that could be devised. But, as one of those who had the misfortune to have been upon an Irish election committee, he did consider it of the greatest importance, and that justice to Ireland imperatively required, that in Ireland there should be some effective Court of Appeal, to prevent all those difficulties. As the law now stood, Gentlemen on Irish election committees were placed in this painful position, that if they voted against opening the registry, they did indirectly give a sanction to frauds and other crying abuses, whereas if the opened the registry they practically placed the representation at the mercy of the longest purse. That was an evil which still existed, and which those who had sat on Irish committees felt very deeply, and this was an evil which would be corrected by the bill proposed by his noble Friend opposite. The whole of this subject had been so largely debated, that he should not enter further into the details of the measure, but would only observe, that as to the two provisions of the bill, to which he had adverted, and on which the Solicitor-general for Ireland mainly rested his opposition to its going into committee, he trusted he had succeeded in showing the House, that the objections made were objections, not of principle, but of detail, and might easily be remedied in a future stage of its procedure. There was one other circumstance connected with this debate on which he must take the liberty of making one observation. He trusted it could not be intended by hon. Gentlemen who sat on his side of the House, but undoubtedly language had been used both that night and on the former debate which might be construed as bearing a meaning, that this bill ought not to be supported on the ground, that if a real, impartial,

373
and searching tribunal were established under the existing law it would lead to a narrowing of the franchise, and a great diminution in the number of voters in Ireland. He did not believe, that such was the intention of hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, and yet if not, he scarcely, with respect to some of them, could understand the meaning of those long arguments and statements which had been made as to the comparative small-ness of the number of voters in the Irish towns and counties as regarded population, compared with the number of voters in the towns and counties of England. It had been said, that the county of Cork, which was but little inferior to Yorkshire in point of population, had an infinitely smaller number of voters. Why, undoubtedly, that was so, but he need not point out the obvious answer, that Ireland was in a very different state of civilisation also as compared to England, and that whilst the franchise depended on a property qualification, and it was not (owing unhappily to former misgovernment) to be expected, that the county of Cork, however populous, should possess an equal number of voters with one of the wealthiest and most industrious county in England. He was not going to remark on that obvious fallacy, but to observe, that the statements and arguments to which he referred seemed to imply the conviction, on the part of those who made them, that it was a justifiable ground of rejecting this measure, that the establishment of a really searching tribunal, and the impartial administration of the existing law, would diminish the existing number of individuals voting in Ireland. Now there was no man who would regret more deeply than himself doing anything which could have the effect of diminishing the number of voters in Ireland. He might appeal to his past conduct in and out of office to prove that he had not been opposed to the people of Ireland. That opinion with regard to the Irish Church which he had held while he sat on the Ministerial bench, and the statement of which had given dissatisfaction to several noble and right hon. Friends of his, that opinion regarding the great question on which all other Irish questions did in fact turn he still held, to that opinion he should ever adhere, and ever be ready to maintain it on all proper occasions. With respect to the Irish Re-
374
form Act, if any mistake or misapprehension had arisen respecting the real meaning of the phrase "leasehold tenure," that, he said, ought to be explained, and all doubt cleared up by a legislative measure. Ireland ought to have the benefit of that. Surely, when the effect of the present system of registration was to afford facilities to perjury and fraud, the House was bound to adopt some measure by which that system might be amended. Thinking thus, he could not consent to risk the success of the future battles of Ireland by fighting her battles on ground which is untenable. The passing convenience of the hour might dictate to preserve an imperfect tribunal in order to keep the elective franchise in the hands of those who at present held it. Inconvenience no doubt there might be in the contrary course, the cause of the people might for a time be borne down, but, notwithstanding, he said, let the friends of the people do that which was consistent with truth and justice, and which was eligible in itself, and then let them fight the battle on the ground of having given the people of Ireland such a franchise as it was fair for them to possess; let them fight the battle on this fair and manly ground, and though at first they might be defeated, sure he was, that the hour of success would arrive. It was this conviction that the present system tended to demoralise the people of Ireland, and to perpetuate fraud and perjury, for which he could not blame them so much as those who allowed the system to continue, that induced him not to concur in the amendment, but to allow this bill to be fully and fairly discussed in committee.
Mr. Gisbornehad not intended to have troubled the House, but he had been called on by some hon. Members near him to give his opinion as an Irish representative. He trusted, however, that the House would allow him to state why he intended to vote against the committee. It was nothing to him that the bill corrected many things which existed in the present system of representation, or which might be found in measures that had been before brought in, he voted against the bill because it did not, in his opinion, afford a proper remedy for whatever evils might exist. He thought that the machinery of registration should become familiar to the people, and to make it so was certainly not the object of the present

375
bill. The noble Lord had said that, until lately, there had been no objection to the English system of annual revision, but he would remind the noble Lord, that he had strongly objected to it at the commencement of the present Session. A great stress had been laid on the opinion of the judges on the franchise. Now, he must say, with all his respect for those learned personages, that he thought nothing was more absurd then to place confidence in their opinions on political subjects. He certainly should not, if he were a poor Irish voter, be willing to have his claim referred to the judges. He would not further detain the House, except by observing, that he thought that, as it was proposed to amend the registration in England and Scotland, it would be much more reasonable to wait for those measures than to step over to the noble Lord, and help him to try his first experiment on Ireland.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that with unfeigned respect for the talents of the noble Lord (Viscount Howick) he felt obliged to pursue a course totally different from that which the noble Lord had adopted for the reason which he had urged. He wished the character of the House of Commons to stand as high as the noble Lord could wish it, and he was anxious to maintain it; but he thought it would be best maintained by not going into committee on this bill. The noble Lord had adverted to some of the clauses of the bill; he would take those clauses also, as a sample of the measure, the principle of which might well be gathered from them, because every clause of the bill was consistent with the principle of it, and that was to offer opposition to the acquirement of the electoral franchise. Every clause was directed to that object, and had a direct tendency to curtail the Franchise. Now, let the House consider; all the country had been hitherto waiting to see what measures would be devised to carry the Reform Act into full effect; they were now, however, asked to go into committee to see how far the Reform Act could be crippled. This was his opinion of the bill, and he would say, that when the bill came to be fully understood in the country, and the clauses should have been longer before the country, the greatest regret would be felt that the House should show such a disposition to tamper with the Reform Act as to go into
376
committee on this bill. If he was correct in the opinion that the whole bill was calculated to impede the attainments of the electoral franchise, what would be the effect of going into committee? Why, they would have to do, not what was the proper business of the committee, to deliberate on the details, the principle being already agreed upon, but they would have to engage in a conflict in every clause as to whether it should be framed so as to discourage the attainment of the electoral franchise, or so as to conform to what hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House wished. It had been said, that the objections went all to the details of this bill, and not to the principle. Now he knew not how he was to find the principle of a bill, except from looking into the bill, and from the general scope and tendency of the clauses to infer the principle of it, and having done so in the present case he was prepared to say that no man who did not mean to cripple the Reform Act, ought to go into committee on the bill. He had heard it said, that until now nothing had been stated in the way of complaint against the registration system in England. He was astonished to hear this, because he had heard nothing but complaints against the vexations of the registry. The country had been expecting measures from her Majesty's Ministers, to remedy the inconveniencies of the registry; and except for hon. Gentlemen opposite, the country would long since have had them. In 1835 a bill on the subject had been passed through that House, and sent up to the House of Lords, where it had been rejected with very little ceremony. For his part, he thought that the system of registration of Ireland was better and more convenient than that of England, and it would have been adopted here, most probably, if the machinery had existed. He reminded the House, that when a bill was sent up by it to the House of Lords 1835 to amend the present system of registration, it was met by a statement of the excellence of the present system; but now a bill was brought in by the same parties who opposed the former attempt to amend the registration and was defended on the opposite ground that the system was most defective. He was convinced that nothing had prevented a bill being prepared on this subject by her Majesty's Government, except the conviction that every bill on the subject which did not

377
impair the Reform Bill would be rejected, as a matter of course, by the House of Lords. He feared that even at present the noble Lord's bill would have only one recommendation to their Lordships, and that would be, its direct tendency to accomplish that object. He, therefore, said, that they might go into the Committee, and in the Committee might make alterations in the bill, but the effect of them would be, that unless they completely altered the principle of the bill, which could only be done by altering its clauses altogether, the bill could not be made a good bill, and it was to him perfectly clear, that if the bill was made a good bill, it would never meet with the concurrence of the House of Lords. If, then, they should determine to go into committee, they would have to sustain a perpetual conflict upon this point—namely, whether they would impair the Reform Bill, while pretending to do nothing more than amend the system of registration. No one on the Opposition benches had yet had courage to propose to repeal the Reform Bill. But it was clear to him that nearly every Member of the serried phalanx opposed to him was prepared to destroy its efficiency by attempts to amend it. What the country really apprehended at this moment was, that the party which had lost power through the Reform Bill, and which therefore hated the Reform Bill as the instrument by which their expulsion from power was effected, should succeed in impairing its efficiency by a series of hypocritical attempts to amend it. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, had said, and had said very truly, that this was the first retrograde motion. He believed that it was as decided an attempt to impair the Reform Bill as any which either had been or could be presented to Parliament. He asked the House whether there were not at present complaints enough of the difficulty of establishing the right of voting, and yet this measure appeared to he framed for the purpose of increasing that difficulty. He repeated the question which had been already asked in the course of this debate, whether any man on the benches opposite would have the hardihood to propose the adoption in England of such a system of registration as was now proposed for Ireland? Would not any Member who even ventured to support such a proposal, have, letter after letter, the next morning, from his constituents, expressing astonishment at such con-
378
duct? The system of registration adopted in England was a novel system, of which it was impossible, à priori, to foresee the working. It appeared as if the noble Lord had waited until he had ascertained the failure of the experiment in England, and had then determined to apply it to Ireland, and to apply it with great aggravation. But it had been said, that the noble Lord's bill was necessary to assimilate the systems of registration in England and in Ireland. Now, the noble Lord's bill did not assimilate them; it gave to Ireland the most defective parts of the English system, and nothing more. The hon. and learned Gentleman then proceeded to point out various defects in the details of the bill, and particularly complained of the enormous expenses to which claimants of the franchise would be exposed in consequence of the revising barristers having only the power to remove their courts from time to time, and not from place to place. [Lord Stanley read the 17th clause of the bill.] He admitted upon that point he was in error. Nevertheless, the expense which would be thrown by this bill upon the poor and independent voter in substantiating his vote before the different tribunals which it created, would be greater not merely than the worth of his vote, but also than the fee simple of his freehold. Under this bill, which was called a bill to purify the list of electors, every elector might have to run the gauntlet of opposition year after year, until he was wearied out of all desire to sustain his franchise. They ought, therefore, to take good care that in purifying the registry from spurious voters, they did not destroy the suffrages of a more numerous body of good and genuine voters. When he heard so much said on the other side about fictitious votes, and the perjury by which they were supported, and when he likewise heard of landlords creating freeholds by deed revocable on the shortest notice, and of those who held such freeholds being registered, he could not help asking, who was it that had trained up the people of Ireland to the commission of perjury? When the landlords of Ireland sent the peasant one year to perjure himself to please them, could they be surprised that the next year the same peasant should commit perjury to please himself? If the House rendered the elective franchise not merely a burden, but something worse to those who claimed it, they would soon drive from the register

379
every independent voter. The bill was not calculated to attain its professed objects. It was brought forward with the avowed intention of preventing fictitious votes from being placed on the registry, but it would, in reality, prove an obstacle to the acquisition of genuine votes. The Government had announced their intentions of proposing measures on the subject, but he confessed he was not very sanguine as to the probability of their passing into law. He had no doubt that that the bills proposed by the party opposite, if they received the sanction of the House, would pass into law. But would not the country prefer to retain the Reform Act, even with its present inconveniences, to the adoption of bills such as the party opposite brought forward? Would not the country rather wait for the time when the other House of Parliament should take a different course on these matters? He said that the Government ought to prepare bills in the way in which the public should have them, and if the House of Lords rejected them, still the principles of the Government would be seen, and it would also be seen where the impediment to good legislation was. Let no man impute to him, because he said this, that he felt any disrespect for the House of Lords. He would be the last man to injure the character of that House, but if that House was so constituted, that it felt such alarm at reform as to impede good legislation, it was fit that public opinion should operate upon the peers But this was only a temporary evil, for the noble lords who now sat in the House of Commons, when they took their seats in the other house, having been educated among the people, would not entertain the same dread of the progress of reform. It was right that the nature of the vote to which the House was about to come should be distinctly understood. If the bill should be carried, it would indicate an intention to impair the Reform Act, and every Englishman must feel alarm lest the House should next be disposed to pass a bill of a similar character with respect to England.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved that the debate be adjourned till next day.
Sir R. Peelfelt convinced no further discussion on the subject was necessary, and he called on the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies to act upon the opinion he expressed last night, that an adjournment was uncalled for.
Lord J. Russellshould certainly vote against the adjournment of the debate.
The House divided on the adjournment. Ayes 127; Noes 431: Majority 304.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Johnson, Gen.

Aglionby, Major

Langdale, hon. C,

Archbold, R.

Lister, E.

Barry, G. S.

Lushington, C.

Bellew, R. M.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Lynch, A.

Bewes, T.

Macnamara, W.

Blackett, M. J.

Maher, J.

Blewitt, R. J.

Marsland, H.

Bodkin, J. J.

Martin, J.

Bridgeman, H.

Morris, D.

Briscoe, J. I.

Muntz, G. F.

Brocklehurst, J.

Murray, A.

Brotherton, J.

Muskett, G. A.

Browne, R. D.

Nagle, Sir R.

Bryan, G.

Norreys, Sir D.

Bulwer, Sir L.

O'Brien, C.

Busfeild, W.

O'Callaghan, C.

Butler, hon. Colonel

O'Connell, D.

Callaghan, D.

O'Connell, J.

Cave, hon. R. O.

O'Connell, M. J.

Chester, H.

O'Connor Don

Clements, Viscount

Pattison, J.

Collier, J.

Pechell, Capt.

Collins, W.

Philips, M.

Corbally, M. E.

Phillpotts, J.

Craig, W. G.

Pinney, W.

Crawley, S.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Dashwood, G. H.

Power, J.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T

Power, J.

Duke, Sir J.

Redington, T. N.

Duncombe, T.

Roche, W.

Easthope, J.

Roche, Sir D.

Ellice, E.

Rundle, J.

Ellis, W.

Salwey, Col.

Etwall, K.

Scholefield, J.

Euston, Earl

Seale, Sir J. H.

Evans, G.

Smith, J. A.

Ewart, W.

Smith, B.

Fielden, J.

Smith, G. R.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Somers, J. P.

Fort, J.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Gillon, W. D.

Standish, C.

Grattan, J.

Stanley, M.

Grattan, H.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Greg, R. H.

Steuart, R.

Greig, D.

Stock, Dr.

Grey, Sir C.

Strickland, Sir G.

Grote, G.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Hastie, A.

Tancred, H. W.

Hawes, B.

Thornely, T.

Heathcoat, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Hector, C. J.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Heneage, E.

Wakley, T.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Wallace, R.

Hindley, C.

Warburton, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Ward, H. G.

Hodges, T. L.

White, H.

Hutton, R.

White, L.

Holland, R.

White, S.

James, W.

Wilbraham, G.

381

Williams, W.

Yates, J. A.

Wood, Sir M.

TELLERS.

Wood, B.

Hume, J.

Worsley, Lord

Roche, E. B.

List of the NOES.

Abercromby, hon. G.

Bucke, L. W.

Acheson, Viscount

Buller, C.

Acland, Sir T. D

Buller, E.

Acland, T. D.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

A'Court, Captain

Burr, H.

Adam, Adm. Sir C.

Burrell, Sir C.

Adare, Lord

Burroughes, H. N.

Ainsworth, P.

Byng, G.

Alford, Viscount

Calcraft, J. H.

Alsager, Captain

Campbell, Sir J.

Alston, R.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Andover, Viscount

Cantilupe, Viscount

Anson, Col.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Anson, Sir G.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Cavendish, G. H.

Archdall, M.

Chapman, Sir M.

Ashley, Lord

Chapman, A.

Ashley, H.

Chetwynd, Major

Attwood, W.

Childers, J. W.

Bagge, W.

Cholmondeley, H.

Bagot, W.

Christopher, R.

Bailey, J.

Chute, W. L. W.

Bailey, J., jun.

Clay, W.

Baillie, H. J.

Clayton, Sir W. R.

Baines, E.

Clerk, Sir G.

Baker, E.

Clive, E. B.

Baldwin, C. B.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Bannerman, A.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Codrington, C.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Colquhoun, Sir J.

Barneby, J.

Compton, H. C.

Barrington, Viscount

Conolly, Col. E.

Barron, H. W.

Cooper, E J.

Bassett, J.

Copeland, Alderman

Bateson, Sir R.

Corry, hon. H.

Beamish, F. B.

Courtenay, P.

Bell, M.

Cowper, F.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Cresswell, C.

Bethell, R.

Crewe, Sir G.

Blackburne, I.

Cripps, J.

Blacket, C.

Crompton, Sir S.

Blackstone, W. S.

Dalmeny, Lord

Blair, J.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Blake, W. J.

Darby, G.

Blakemore, R.

Darlington, Earl

Blennerhassett, A.

Denison, W. J.

Boldero, H. G.

De Horsey, S. H.

Bolling, W.

D'Israeli, B.

Bowes, J.

Divett, E.

Brabazon, Lord

Dottin, A.R.

Bradshaw, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Bramston, T. W.

Douro, Marquess of

Broadley, H.

Dowdeswell, W.

Brodie, W. B.

Drummond, H.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Duff, J.

Brownrigg, S.

Duffield, T.

Bruce, Lord E.

Dugdale, W. S.

Bruce, C. L. C

Dunbar, G.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Duncan, Viscount

382

Duncombe, hon. W.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Harland, W. C.

Dundas, F.

Hawkes, T.

Dundas, hon. J.

Hawkins, J. H.

Dundas, Sir R.

Hayes, Sir E.

Dundas, D.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Dungannon, Viscount

Heneage, G. W.

Du Pre, G.

Henniker, Lord

East, J. B.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Eastnor, Viscount

Herbert, hon. S.

Eaton, R. J

Heron, Sir R.

Egerton, W. T.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Egerton, Sir P.

Hill, Sir R.

Eliot, Lord

Hillsborough, Earl of

Elliott, hon. J. E.

Hinde, J. H.

Ellice, E.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Ellis, J.

Hodgson, F.

Erle, W.

Hodgson, R.

Estcourt, T.

Hogg, J. W.

Evans, W.

Holmes, hon. W.

Farnham, E. B.

Holmes, W.

Farrand, R

Hope, hon. C.

Feilden, W

Hope, H.T.

Fector, J. M.

Hope, G. W.

Fellowes, E.

Hoskins, K.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Hotham, Lord

Ferguson, R.

Houldsworth, T.

Filmer, Sir E.

Houstoun, G.

Finch, F.

Howard, hon. E.

Fitzalan, Lord

Howard, F. J,

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Howard, P. H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Howick, Viscount

Fleming, J.

Hughes, W. B.

Foley, E. T.

Humphery, J.

Follett, Sir W.

Hurst, R. H.

Forrester, hon. G.

Hurt, F.

Fox, S. L.

Hutchins, C. J.

French, F.

Hurt, W,

Freshfield, J. W.

Ingestre, Viscount

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Ingham, R.

Gisborne, T.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Gladstone, W. E.

Irton, S.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Irving, J.

Godson, R.

Jackson, Sergeant

Gordon, R.

James, Sir W. C.

Gordon, Captain

Jenkins, Sir R.

Gore, O. J. R.

Jermyn, Earl

Gore, O. W.

Jervis, J.

Goring, H. D.

Jones, J.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Jones, Captain

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Kelly, F.

Granby, Marquess of

Kemble, H.

Greene, T.

Kelburne, Lord

Greenaway, C.

Kirk, P.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir E.

Grimsditch, T.

Grimston, Viscount

Knight, H. G.

Grimston, E. H.

Knightley, Sir C.

Guest, Sir J.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Hale, R. B.

Lambton, H.

Halford, H.

Lascelles, hon. W.

Hall, Sir B.

Lefroy, T.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Lemon, Sir C.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Lennox, Lord G.

Handley, H.

Liddell, hon. H.

Harcourt, G. G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Harcourt, G. S.

Litton, E.

383

Loch, J.

Pigot, D. R.

Lockhart, A. M.

Pigot, R.

Long, W.

Planta, rt. hon. J.

Lowther, Colonel

Plumptre, J. P.

Lowther, J. H.

Polhill, F.

Lowther, Viscount

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Lygon, hon. General

Pollock, Sir F.

Macauley, rt. hn. T. B.

Ponsonby, C. F. A.

Mackenzie, T.

Powell, Colonel

Mackenzie, W.

Powerscourt, Viscout

Mackinnon, W.

Praed, W.T.

Maclean, D.

Paice, Sir R.

M'Taggart, J.

Price, R.

Mahon, Viscount

Pringle, A.

Maidstone, Viscount

Protheroe, E.

Manners, Lord C.

Pryme, G.

Marshall, W.

Pusey, P.

Marsland, T.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Martin, T. B.

Ramsbottom, J.

Marton, G.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Mathew, G. B.

Rice, E. R.

Maule, hon. F.

Rich, H.

Maunsell, T. P.

Richards, R.

Melgund, Viscount

Rickford, W.

Meynell, Captain

Oolleston, L.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Miles, P. W. S.

Round, C. G.

Miller, W. H.

Round, J.

Milnes, R. M.

Rumbold, C. E.

Monypenny, T.

Rushbrooke, R.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Rushout, G.

Moreton, A. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Morgan, C. M. K.

Rutherford, rt. hn. A.

Morpeth, Viscount

Sanderson, R.

Neeld, J.

Sandon, Lord

Neeld, J.

Sanford, E. A.

Nicholl, J.

Scarlett, J. Y.

Noel, C. G.

Scrope, G. P.

Norreys, Lord

Seymour, Lord

Northland, Lord

Shaw rt. hon. F.

O'Brien, W. S.

Sheil, R. L.

O'Ferrall, D. M.

Shelburne, Earl

O'Neil, J. B. R.

Sheppard T.

Ord, W.

Shirley, E. J.

Ossulston, Lord

Sibthorp, Colonel

Oswold, J.

Slaney, R. A.

Owen, Sir J.

Smith, A.

Packe, C. W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Paget, Lord A.

Stanley, hon. E.

Paget, F.

Stanley, E.

Pakington, J S.

Stanley, Lord

Palmer, G.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Palmer, G.

Stewart, J.

Palmerston, Viscount

Stewart, J.

Parker, J.

Stuart, Lord J.

Parker, M.

Stuart, W. V.

Parker, R. T.

Strangways, hon. J.

Parker, T. A. W.

Strutt, E.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Sturt, H. C.

Patten, J. W.

Style, Sir C.

Pease, J.

Sugden, Sir E.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Surrey, Earl of

Pemberton, T.

Talfourd, Sergeant.

Pendarves, E. W.

Tavistock, Marquis

Perceval, Colonel

Teignmouth, Lord

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Tennent, J. E.

Philips, G. R.

Thesiger, F.

384

Thomas, Col. H.

Wemyss, Captain

Thompson, Alderman

White, A.

Thornhill, G.

Wilbraham, B.

Tollemache, F. J,

Wilde, Sir T.

Townley, R. G.

Williams, R.

Trench, Sir F.

Williams, W. A.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Wilmot, Sir E.

Tufnell, H.

Wilshere, W.

Turner, E.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Turner, W.

Wilmington, H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Wodehouse, E.

Verner, Colonel

Wood, C.

Verney, Sir H.

Wood, Colonel T.

Vernon, G.

Wood, Colonel T.

Villiers, Lord

Wood, G. W.

Vivian, Major C.

Wynn, rt. hn. C. W.

Vivian, J. H.

Wyse, T.

Vivian, J. E.

Yorke, E. T.

Vivian, Sir R.

Young, J.

Waddington, H. S.

Young, Sir W.

Walker, R.

Wall, C. B.

TELLERS.

Walsh, Sir J.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Welby G. E.

Baring, H.

On the question being again put,
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved the House do adjourn.
Lord Ingestriebegged to assure the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, that if this futile attempt of adjournment was persevered in, he, for one, should do every thing in his power to prevent any of the Government business being proceeded with.
Lord J. Russellsaid, the noble Lord chose to presume that those who had moved the adjournment were acting under his control. He would tell the noble Lord, that if those who made motions of adjournment were always under his control, he should have taken care last year, when his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed a bill, that repeated motions for adjournment should not have been made upon that bill by those who supported the Government in that House. The course taken with respect to that bill was to obstruct it by repeated adjournments, and it seemed that parties not very different from those who made that opposition were now obstructing by motions of the same kind the bill proposed by the noble Lord opposite. He was no party to that course; he did not approve of it, but having been unable to prevent that course being taken with respect to a bill proposed by a Member of the Government, he did say, that the noble Lord had no right whatever, either to accuse him of promoting this motion for adjournment, or to accuse those who

385
were acting under a sense of what they conceived to be their duty of acting under the control of the Government. The noble Lord would take his own course with respect to the public business that might be brought forward; but certainly, finding no reason to admire the conduct of which the noble Lord disapproved, he saw much stronger reason to disapprove such a course as the noble Lord had announced that he should take, of obstructing all public business whatever, for which the noble Lord had given no just reason. He must say, that the noble Lord, upon a proceeding with which he was in no way connected, had founded an attack and imputation upon him which was entirely gratuitous, of which the noble Lord did not possess a jot or tittle of proof, and which the noble Lord ought never to have made without some plausible reason.
Mr. Humesaid, that having moved the adjournment, he begged to assure the noble Lord that he had as much to do with the motion as the noble Lord opposite himself had.
Lord Ingestriebagged most distinctly to assure the noble Lord that he meant no imputation with respect to any connexion on his part with the hon. Gentleman who had moved the adjournment. What he meant to say was this, that those who supported that motion were the habitual supporters of the noble Lord.
The House again divided on the question of adjournment. Ayes 91; Noes 375:—Majority 284.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Crawley, S.

Aglionby, Major

Dash wood, G. H.

Archbold, R.

Duncombe, T. S.

Bannerman, A.

Ellice, hon. E.

Barry, G. S.

Ellis, W.

Bellew, R. M.

Etwall, R.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Euston, Earl of

Bewes, T.

Evans, G.

Blake, M. J.

Ewart, W.

Blewitt, R. J.

Fielding, J.

Bodkin, J. J.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Bridgeman, H.

Grattan, H.

Brotherton, J.

Greig, D.

Browne, R. D.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Bryan, G.

Hawes, B.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Heathcoat, J.

Callaghan, D.

Hill, Lord A. M.

Cave, hon. R. O.

Hindley, C.

Chester, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Clive, E. B.

Hodges, T. L.

Collier, J.

Hollond, R.

Collins, W.

Hutton, R.

Corbally, M. E.

James, W.

386

Johnson, Gen.

Salwey, Colonel

Langdale, hon. C.

Schofield, J.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Smith, B.

Maher, J.

Somers, J. P.

Martin, J.

Standish, C.

Muntz, G. F.

Steuart, R.

Murray, A.

Stock, Dr.

Muskett, G. A.

Strickland, Sir G.

Nagle, Sir R.

Talbot, C. R. M

O'Brien, C.

Tancred, H. W.

O'Callaghan, hon. C.

Thornely, T.

O'Connell, D.

Vigors, N. A.

O'Connell, J.

Wakley, T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Wallace, R.

O'Conor Don

Warburton, H.

Pattison, J.

White, L.

Pechell, Captain

White, S.

Pinney, W.

Wilbraham, G.

Power, J.

Williams, W.

Power, J.

Wood, B.

Redington, T. N.

Yates, J. A.

Roche, W.

TELLERS.

Roche, Sir D.

Hume, J.

Rundle, J.

Roche, E. B.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Broadley, H.

Acland, T. D.

Brodie, W. B.

A'Court, Capt.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Adam, Admiral Sir C.

Brownrigg, S.

Ainsworth, P.

Bruce, Lord E.

Alford, Viscount

Bruce, C. L. C.

Alsager, Capt.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Alston, R.

Buck, L. W.

Andover, Viscount

Buller, C.

Anson, Sir G.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Burr, H.

Archdall, M.

Burroughes, H. N.

Ashley, Lord

Busfeild, W.

Ashley, hon. H.

Byng, G.

Attwood, W.

Calcraft, J. H.

Bagge, W.

Campbell, Sir J.

Bagot, hon. W.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Bailey, J., jun.

Cantilupe, Viscount

Baillie, H. J.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Baines, E.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Baker, E.

Chetwynd, Major

Baldwin, C. B.

Childers, J. W.

Baring rt. hon. F. T.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Christopher, R. A.

Barneby, J.

Clay, W.

Barrington, Viscount

Clayton, Sir W. R.

Bassett, J.

Clerk, Sir G.

Bateson, Sir R.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Beamish, F. B.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Bell, M.

Codrington, C. W.

Bethell, H.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Blackburne, I.

Colquhoun, Sir J. C.

Blackstone, W. S.

Compton, H.

Blair, J.

Conolly, Colonel E.

Blake, W. J.

Cooper, E. J.

Blakemore, R.

Corry, hon. H.

Blennerhassett, A.

Courtenay, P.

Boldero, H. G.

Craig, W. G.

Bowes, J.

Cresswell, C.

Bradshaw, J.

Crewe, Sir G.

Bramston, T. W.

Cripps, J.

387

Crompton, Sir S.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Dalmeny, Lord

Granby, Marquess of

Darner, hon. D.

Grattan, J.

Darlington, Earl of

Greene, T.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.

Greenaway, C.

De Horsey, S. H.

Greg, R. H.

D'Israeli, B.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Divett, E.

Grimsditch, T.

Dottin, A. R.

Grimston, Viscount

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Dowdeswell, W.

Grote, G.

Drummond, H. H.

Hale, R. B.

Duff, J.

Halford, H.

Duffield, T.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Duke, Sir J.

Handley, H.

Dunbar, G.

Harcourt, G. S.

Duncan, Viscount

Hardinge, hon. Sir H.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Harland, W. C.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Hastie, A.

Dundas, F.

Hawkes, T.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Hawkins, J. H.

Dundas, Sir R.

Hayes, Sir E.

Dundas, D.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Dungannon, Viscount

Heneage, E.

Du Pre, G.

Heneage, G. W.

East, J. B.

Henniker, Lord

Easthope, J.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Eastnor, Viscount

Herbert, hon. S.

Eaton, R. F.

Heron, Sir R.

Egerton, W. T.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Egerton, Sir P.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Eliot, Lord

Hinde, J. H.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C

Ellis, J.

Hodgson, F.

Erle, W.

Hodgson, R.

Estcourt, T.

Hogg, J. W.

Evans, W.

Holmes, W. A'C.

Farnham, E. B.

Holmes, W.

Farrand, R.

Hope, hon. C.

Feilden, W.

Hope, H. T.

Fector, J. M.

Hope, G. W.

Fellowes, E.

Hoskins, K.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Hotham, Lord

Ferguson, R.

Houstoun, G.

Filmer, Sir E.

Howard, hon. E. G.

Finch, F.

Howard, F. J.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Howard, P. H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Howick, Viscount

Fleming, J.

Hughes, W. B.

Follett, Sir W.

Hurst, R. H.

Forrester, hon. G.

Hurt, F.

Fort, J.

Ingestre, Viscount

Fox, S. L.

Ingham, R.

French, F.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Freshfield, J. W.

Irton, S.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Jackson, Sergeant

Gillon, W. D.

James, Sir W. C.

Gisborne, T.

Jenkins, Sir R.

Gladstone, W. E.

Jermyn, Earl

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Jervis, J.

Godson, R.

Jones, J.

Gordon, R.

Jones, Captain

Gordon, hon. Captain

Kelly, F.

Gore, O. J. R.

Kemble, H.

Gore, O. W.

Kelburne, Viscount

Goring, H. D.

Kirk, P.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

388

Knight, H. G.

Phillpotts, J.

Knightley, Sir C.

Pigot, D. R.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Pigot, R.

Lefroy, rt. hon. T.

Planta, right hon. J.

Lennox, Lord G.

Plumptre, J. P.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Polhill, F.

Lincoln, Earl of

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Litton, E.

Pollock, Sir F.

Loch, J.

Powell, Colonel

Lockhart, A. M.

Powerscourt, Viscount

Long, W.

Praed, W. T.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Price, Sir R.

Lowther, J. H.

Pringle, A.

Lushington, C.

Protheroe, E.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Pryme, G.

Lynch, A. H.

Pusey, P.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Mackenzie, T.

Ramsbottom, J.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Rice, E. R.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Richards, R.

Maclean, D.

Rickford, W.

M'Taggart, John

Rolleston, L.

Mahon, Viscount

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Round, C. G.

Marshall, W.

Round, J.

Martin, T. B.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Marton, G.

Rushout, G.

Mathew, G. B.

Russell, Lord J.

Maule, hon. F.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Maunsell, T. P.

Sanderson, R.

Melgund, Viscount

Sandon, Viscount

Meynell, Capt.

Sanford, E. A.

Miles, P. W. S.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Miller, W. H.

Scrope, G. P.

Monypenny, T. G.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Sheil, right hon. R. L.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Shelburne, Earl of

Morgan, C. M. R.

Sheppard, T.

Morpeth, Viscount

Shirley, E. J.

Neeld, J.

Sibthorp, Col.

Nicholl, J.

Smith, J. A.

Noel, hon. C. G.

Somerset Lord G.

Norreys, Lord

Somerville, Sir W.M.

Northland, Lord

Stanley, hon. E, J.

O'Brien, W. S.

Stanley, E.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Stanley, Lord

O'Neill, hon. J. B. R.

Stanley, M.

Ossulston, Lord

Stansfield, W. R.

Oswald, J.

Stewart, J.

Owen, Sir J.

Stuart, W. V.

Packe, C. W.

Strutt, E.

Paget, Lord A.

Sturt, H. C.

Palmer, R.

Style, Sir C.

Palmerston, Viscount

Sugden, it. hn. Sir E.

Parker, J.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Parker, M.

Teignmouth, Lord

Parker, R.

Tennent, J. E.

Parker, T. A. W.

Thesiger, F.

Parnell, it. hn. Sir H.

Thomas, Colonel H.

Pease, J.

Thompson, Alderman

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Thornhill, G.

Pemberton, T.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Townley, R. G.

Perceval, Colonel

Trench, Sir F.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Philips, M.

Tufnell, H.

Philips, G. R.

Turner, E.

389

Vere, Sir C. B.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Verner, Colonel

Wodehouse, E

Vernon, C. H.

Wood, C.

Villiers, Viscount

Wood, Colonel

Vivian, Major

Wood, G. W.

Vivian, J. E.

Wood, Colonel T.

Waddington, H. S.

Worsley, Lord

Wemyss, Captain

Wyse, T.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Wilde, Sir T.

Young, J.

Williams, R,

Young, Sir W.

Williams, W. A.

TELLERS.

Wilmot, Si E.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Wilshere, W.

Baring, H.

Mr. Humedeclared, that his object had been in moving the adjournment to give his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. O'Connell) an opportunity of delivering his sentiments on this most important question; and as he himself was also anxious to state his views upon it, but had not been able, though he had frequently risen in the course of the evening, to catch the Speaker's eye, he now felt it to be his duty to move, that the debate be adjourned till this day.
Lord Stanleysaid, it really was time for the House to consider seriously to what length they were disposed to permit the abuse of what in itself was really a most valuable privilege. No one was more ready than he was to admit that there were occasions on which some unreasonable propositions might be pressed in a thin House, and at a very late hour, by an overwhelming majority, for which the power of moving adjournments was the last and only remedy. In his judgment it was valuable at such a time, but then only was it a justifiable measure. It must be clear to every one, that if any Gentleman on either side was determined that a great question should not be settled without even offering to submit his opinions on the subject from five o'clock in the afternoon to two next morning. He might, by moving adjournment after adjournment, render it absolutely impossible to conduct the business of the House. He really should have thought that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin coming over from Ireland, burning with resentment against this bill, and against him, having met him face to face in that House, would have taken the earliest opportunity of redeeming the pledge he made in Dublin, that he would reiterate his charges to his f ice, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman would, at all events, have had the honesty of purpose to do so according to
390
the rules of the House, when he should have been enabled to answer his accusations. But, waving the advantage of a reply, he did not expect that the hon. and learned Gentleman, after two nights had been consumed in debating this question, which had been the subject matter of two nights' previous discussion on the second reading, without having made an attempt to offer himself to the House, would have resorted to a measure which, after all, could lead to nothing but public inconvenience and the stoppage of business, by again moving the adjournment of the House. He well knew a minority had the power of interposing and moving these adjournments; but he also knew, if they exercised that power, the business of the country could not be proceeded with. If they exercised it in every case in which they apprehended the judgment would be pronounced against them, they stood in the way of the expression of free public opinion in that House, and they must be subject to that imputation which the country would cast on them, of resorting to these expedients in the hope of putting off the evil day, when the voice of the people in that House would declare emphatically against them. Such a state of things really placed hon. Gentlemen who had charge of bills in the greatest possible difficulty. Every one must admit, that the question which he had already submitted to the consideration of the House was one of the deepest importance and most vital interest, on which it was most desirable they should have a speedy decision from the representatives of the people. The adjournment of last night had already interfered with the notices of motion which stood in Tuesday's paper; and Wednesday was fixed for the consideration of measures brought forward by private Members of Parliament. If the debate were again. adjourned, he should be obliged to ask for precedence, and that would postpone the consideration of other important bills, among others, that of the hon. and learned Member for Reading (the Copyright Bill) which had so frequently been postponed. If the House did agree to take an adjournment of the debate, what security had they that this game would not be played again? With all respect to those hon. Members who had spoken that night, he must say, that the debate was not much advanced from seven o'clock till ten or

391
half past ten. At half past six or seven o'clock there were about forty-five Members in the House, and the great difficulty that would be felt, even if this debate were adjourned would be the difficulty of keeping it alive, and of preventing the House from being counted out during those fatal hours which intervened between five and nine o'clock, because not one of those thirty or forty gentlemen who were determined to speak would condescend to speak till nine o'clock. This course might be followed, not only the next night, but for half a dozen nights more in succession. He had, therefore, no alternative but to appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and the other hon. Members who had notices on the paper, and ask for precedence for this debate.
Mr. Serjeant Talfourdcertainly felt that in the position in which this question stood, the noble Lord had taken the only course which he could pursue, and he hoped that other Members would follow his own example, and wave the orders for which they had precedence. He felt bound to give way himself, as the course of proceeding which had been adopted was one to which he would never be a party.
Debate adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Tithe Commutation Acts Amendment.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of Radnor, from York, for a Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Lord Prudhoe, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for Medical Reform.—By the Earl of Winchilsea, from Dorset, and many other places, for no further Grant to the College of Maynooth; and from Shropshire, against the Irish Municipal Reform Bill.—By the Earl of Aberdeen, from Dumfries, in favour of his measure for the Settlement of the Non-Intrusion Question.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Earl of Aberdeenrose to present a petition from die synod of Dumfries in favour of the bill which he had introduced for the settlement of the difference which at present unhappily distracted the Church of Scotland. The petitioners approved of the whole provisions of the bill. In other quarters, however, the measure had not been so favourably received. One gentleman, in a speech which had been published, severely reprobated the measure. Their Lordships need not be afraid that he was about to debate the subject with that rev. gentleman. But some of his arguments were of so extraordinary a nature, that he could not help adverting to them. It was by him asserted, "that even if there was nothing offensive in the bill, still it could not be permitted that the state should thus presume to dictate in a matter of this kind;" that "it would be a great and grievous act of national sin to sanction such a measure;" and that "the effect of such a proceeding would be to pull down the Redeemer from his throne, and trample on his glories." Such were the arguments made use of against the measure. He was, however, happy to say, that the reception of the bill, generally speaking, far exceeded his most sanguine expectations. From every quarter of the country—from the most enlightened, intelligent, and respectable of the clergy—he had received numerous statements, approving of the measure. He regretted exceedingly that the noble Viscount did not make up his mind on this subject a little sooner, so as to have enabled him (the Earl of Aberdeen) to bring in his bill before Easter. What might be the feeling of the General Assembly on the subject ultimately, it was quite impossible for him to say. He had heard that an overture had been made to them by the Synod of Lothian against supporting this bill; but if the approaching assembly would discuss the matter calmly and fairly, he entertained a strong hope that they would acquiesce in this measure,

239
and he was sanguine in the belief that it would be productive of those benefits which he was desirous should flow from it. The noble Earl then presented the petition, in which the petitioners declared, "that they were conscientiously and truly convinced, that by paying due obedience to the laws of the land, they did not sacrifice or compromise their religious principles."

STATE OF IRELAND.
The Earl of Glengallwished to make some observations with respect to the present unsatisfactory state of Ireland. Previous to Easter, he had asked whether any measures were about to be taken, to put a stop to the system of outrage which prevailed, to a very great extent in Ireland. Nothing, however, appeared to have been done, and the country was as much disturbed as ever. Recently, Mr. West had been murdered, and he wished to inquire, whether the Irish Government had, previously to that event, received any information that such a crime was contemplated? He also wished to know, whether Government was prepared to enforce the Registration of Arms Act, and to direct that a strict search should be made for arms?
The Marquess of Normanbyhad not the slightest hesitation in saying, that the Government had received no information whatever of the intention to murder Mr. West, nor heard of the murder until the lamentable event had occurred. With respect to the other question, he was in communication with his noble Friend at the head of the Government of Ireland, who was at this moment prepared to make a most rigorous search for arms in the disturbed districts. His noble Friend was not, however, prepared to press for any additional measure on the subject at present.
The Earl of Charlevillesaid, that certain parts of Ireland were, at present, in a most dangerous state, and it was most important that a strict search for arms should be made. The system of outrage was going on increasing from day to day. A meeting was held in consequence, on Friday last, at Palace Henry, in Limerick, when Mr. Rhodes, a magistrate, stated, that he had been a close observer of the county, and for thirty-five years it never was in such a state of lawless insurrection as it was at present. But it was not in that district alone that outrage existed. He had received information from a neighbouring county, that arms were commonly kept by reckless persons for felonious purposes, In-
240
formation of that nature was recently conveyed by a gentleman to the Government, accompanied with a statement, that the informant knew the character of certain parties to be of the very worst kind, that he firmly believed those parties were in possession of arms improperly, and expressing a hope that the Government would afford him the assistance of the police in making the necessary search. In answer to that application, the gentleman who made it was required to give certain information before Government would interpose. Now, what could he state but what he had stated—his positive belief that arms were in the possession of four men whom he named, who were known to be of the worst character, who were suspected of being intimately connected with the Riband Society, and who were supposed to have taken part in the recent outrages. The Crown Counsel farther "required to know whether the persons named had registered the arms alluded to, because, if not, the fact should be stated," together with various other points and the communication concluded by declaring, "that any information not containing such statements could not be acted on by Government." Now, if such a system as this were acted on, it would be almost impossible to detect crime, because such information as was here called for could never be procured. The informer, it should not be forgotten, came forward at the peril of his life, to give information. Under these circumstances, if a magistrate stated his positive belief that individuals were guilty of keeping arms for improper purposes, if he declared his conviction that such parties were connected with the outrages committed in the county, he did think that a heavy responsibility rested with Government in refusing to a magistrate the power to demand the assistance of the police in searching for arms. In consequence of the system pursued, the efforts of the police were paralyzed, and they seemed to be influenced by the feeling, that their promotion depended rather on the neglect than on the strict performance of their duty. There was a recent case, where a body of armed men appeared, not far from a police station. The police heard shots fired, but the parties were not molested, because it was supposed that the noise they made came from some boys who were shouting and firing at wild fowl. Again, Mr. Westcott was threatened with assassination, as he was proceeding to his farm. And what was the reason? Because he chose to sell

241
his milk chiefly in the town of Palace Henry, to certain individuals, and refused to supply others who had paid him nothing for his milk last year. Therefore it was that he was threatened with murder. In the county of Limerick, within the last six months, there had been twenty-two eases of crime, and only two persons had been brought to trial. He trusted that, for the future, something more effectual would be done, both for the prevention, and the punishment of crime.
The Earl of Devonsaid, that in justice to the unoffending part of the population of the county of Limerick, he must declare, from information which he possessed, that those unfortunate occurrences to which the noble Earl had alluded, though they might have taken place in some parts, were by no means general throughout the county. On the contrary, that part of the county of Limerick with which he was connected had, during the last eight or ten years, become progressively more and more quiet. The people were now well ordered and well conducted; and he thought that, to show a want of confidence in them would have a very prejudicial effect on their feelings. He thought it his duty to a large population, and to his own position, to bear this testimony.
The Earl of Wicklowwished to understand clearly, whether it was the intention of the Government to bring in a bill to enable magistrates to make a search for arms hereafter, which could not be done if the supposition were correct that the present act was about to expire?
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, it was not the intention of the Government of Ireland to leave that country without an Arms Act. But he believed that his noble Friend was misinformed as to the expiration of the Act, which he thought would not take place till the Session after this. He was very glad that he had given way to the noble Earl (Devon), and he could not but contrast the manner in which he had spoken with the tone and temper which the noble Earl opposite had evinced in making his observations. The noble Earl (Charleville) had taken upon himself on this occasion, relying on rumours which had been conveyed to him, and which he believed to be exaggerated, to throw out a most unfounded imputation against his noble Friend who was at the head of the Government of Ireland, and which he was sure his noble Friend would, at the proper time, triumphantly refute. The noble Earl
242
had said, that the police throughout the country were led to believe, by the conduct of the Government, that their promotion depended, not on their activity in the discharge of their duty, but on their neglect of it. Did the noble Earl know the effect of that accusation? Was he aware, that it was directly in the teeth of all the evidence, on oath, produced on the inquiry into the state of Ireland before a committee of their Lordships' House? Did he know that the opinion of every individual on that committee was, that the police did their duty efficiently, that they were ably officered, and admirably conducted? Was he aware that the condition of that portion of Ireland which was in a state of tranquillity was mainly owing to the exertions of that maligned force, of whom it was now said, that they were encouraged not to do their duty, in order that they might curry favour with the Government?
The Earl of Charlevillesaid, that if the noble Marquess would move for a committee to investigate the facts, he would second the motion. The noble Marquess would find, that 200 men had met in arms in a place between three police stations, and that the police must have heard the shots that were fired, although they did not disturb the parties. He could produce evidence that the police did not properly do their duty. He could show that the police were paralyzed in obeying the orders of the local magistrates, and was prevented from fully doing their duty. Why, even in a case of murder, a policeman, with a warrant in his hand, could not act upon it without first applying to his superior officer.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, the noble Earl had directed an accusation against the Irish Government, and against the distinguished officer, Colonel Macgregor, who was at the head of the police force in Ireland. The noble Earl had stated that the force was paralyzed in the performance of its duty by the hope of obtaining rewards, not for doing that duty, but for shrinking from it. Now, when the noble Earl said this, he (the Marquess of Normanby) contended that the responsibility lay on the noble Earl to prove his charge, if he could, and it was not for him to ask for a committee before which he might disprove it. If the noble Earl brought any proof before him that a policeman refused to act upon the warrant of a local magistrate, then he would say, not the whole police force was paralyzed,

243
but that that particular policeman had not done his duty.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that notwithstanding the triumphant tone which the noble Marquess who had just sat down had assumed, the House would remember that the charge which his noble Friend had made, was not that the police did not do their duty, but that they were paralyzed by the orders and directions issued by the Executive Government in Ireland. He intended to move for copies of the orders and directions given by the Government to the police in Ireland, and it would then be seen that the assertion made by his noble Friend—namely, that the local magistracy had been put aside, was quite correct. The charge, therefore, was against the Government, and not against the police. Why, the noble Marquess was not aware that the Arms Act would expire at the end of this Session, and yet he had stated, that there was no intention on the part of the Government to introduce a measure to renew that act.
The Marquess of Normanby.—No, I did not. I stated, that I thought the Arms Act would not expire until the end of next Session. I have sent out to inquire, and I find it will expire at the end of the present Session. I also stated that there was no intention to leave Ireland without the protection of the Arms Act.
The Marquess of Westmeathhad understood the noble Marquess, on a former occasion, distinctly to say, that there was no intention on the part of the noble Lord at the head of the Government in Ireland to recommend any measure in relation to the Arms Act.
The Marquess of Normanby.—I stated that my noble Friend, at that moment, was not prepared to recommend any alteration in the Arms Act.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, it was a dereliction on the part of the Government, that a measure (admitted by the noble Marquess to be necessary) to renew the Arms Act had not been introduced before the present—he might say advanced —state of the Session. It would seem that Ireland would have been left without the Arms Act but for the question which had been put by his noble Friend, and the inquiry on the part of the noble Marquess to which that question had led.
The Earl of Charlevillebegged, in answer to the charge brought against him by the noble Marquess at the head of the Home Department, that he (the Earl of
244
Charleville) had made assertions which were founded on vague rumours, to say that he had stated his opinions to be founded upon communications he had received and information he had derived from magistrates of the county. If the noble Marquess had leisure to read the proceedings of the meeting held on Friday last, he would find that the statements made by local magistrates, persons best acquainted with, and therefore most capable of judging of, the state of the county—he would find that his (the Earl of Charleville's) assertions were not founded on vague rumour. Great as was his respect for his noble Friend (the Earl of Devon), he must say, that resident magistrates were much better able to judge of the real state of the county than his noble Friend, who did not reside there for any lengthened period.
Lord Monteaglesaid, that though nothing could be more inconvenient than these desultory discussions without any species of notice, yet, as this meeting of magistrates had taken place within a short distance of his own property, and as some of the members of his own family had been engaged at the meeting, he felt it to be his duty to endeavour to undeceive the House as to those conclusions to which the observations of the noble Earl who had just sat down would lead it. The noble Earl seemed to consider his statements to be supported by the proceedings at that meeting. The gravamen of the charge brought by the noble Earl was, that the police of Ireland were encouraged in the neglect of their duty by reason of the supposed impunity with which that neglect was passed over by the Government, or from the encouragement they received from the Government in that neglect; and the noble Earl said, he made that charge, not on vague rumour, but upon the authority of the justices of the peace of the county in which the meeting in question was held. He had received copies of the resolutions which had been passed, and he must say, that they gave no countenance to the assertion that the police were encouraged in their neglect of duty by the supposed connivance of the Government. The charge, therefore, rested upon those loose statements which had been made by the noble Earl, and which the noble Earl had not had the generosity to retract. He (Lord Monteagle) could bear his testimony that his part of the county of Limerick was never in a state of more entire and complete tranquillity than at present; and, he must

245
further observe, that Sir Robert De Vere, a deputy-lieutenant of the county, and several other magistrates, had declined to join in the resolutions passed, on the ground that they were premature and ill-timed. He could not, therefore, but condemn the charges thus made upon mere vague rumour.
The Earl of Charlevillesaid, with regard to the objection raised to these desultory discussions without notice, that he had understood the noble Earl who had commenced the present conversation (the Earl of Glengall) to have intimated on a former occasion his intention to renew the inquiry he then made. With regard to the other observations of the noble Lord who had just spoken, he found it reported, that at the meeting in question Mr. Rhodes, a magistrate and a close observer of the state of the county for thirty-five years, had said, that he never knew it to be in so bad a state. Another Gentleman declared, that the cause of the outrages which had been perpetrated was the want of the co-operation of the police with the local magistracy. One of the resolutions passed was to the effect, that "the meeting viewed with deep concern the increased and increasing disturbed state of the district, and pledged itself to use its exertions to put down the insubordination now so widely extended." Let it also be remembered, that this was the second meeting of the magistrates held within three weeks in consequence of the disturbed state of the district. How, then, could it be said, that his statements had been made on vague rumour, or that the county was in a perfect state of tranquillity.
Lord Monteagleobserved, that the charge the noble Earl had made was, that the police had acted corruptly under corrupt orders issued by the Government. He was glad the noble Earl had now called attention to the resolutions, which did not contain one word against the Government, but, on the contrary, there was one which expressed a determination to apply to that very Government charged with acting corruptly for additional assistance. He, therefore, could not but thank the noble Earl for thus confirming all he (Lord Monteagle) had stated.
Subject dropped.

CHURCH RATES.
The Bishop of Norwichsaid, he had a petition to present from certain Protestant Dissenters resident at Ipswich, in the diocese of Norwich, on the
246
subject of Church-rates. He agreed with the petitioners in the wish they expressed that the question should he speedily settled, for as long as it remained unsettled, he conceived there would be constant bickerings and altercations, and that, which ever party won or lost, religion would be the loser. In the next place, he agreed with the petitioners that a Dissenter was not bound to support the church in all the luxuries, additions, and the variety of other circumstances which were comprised under the head of Church-rates, but he did not agree with them that a Dissenter should be altogether excused from Church-rates; because he conceived that as every man who bought lands did so subject to contributing his share of taxation, it would be unfair for him to draw back and say, that it was unjust to pay Church-rates for the maintenance of those ancient edifices, which every Englishman, whether Dissenter or churchman, ought to be proud to support. If he were living in a country where the religion was different from his own, and where he had purchased lands under a liability to certain taxes, he should think it unfair and discreditable to seek to be absolved from the payment of such taxation.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, he had heard the speech of the right rev. Prelate with great pleasure, and he apprehended that not one of their Lordships would disagree from the right rev. Prelate in repudiating any attempt to cast upon Dissenters charges for illegal luxuries, or in any way exceeding the legal objects for which Church-rates were imposed. He rejoiced that the Dissenters in the neighbourhood of Ipswich had placed this petition in the hands of the right rev. Prelate, and that he had done himself and them so much justice.
Petition laid on the table.

TRANSPORTATION OF CONVICTS.
The Archbishop of Dublinspoke to the following effect*.—I have, in the first place, to present a petition on the subject of the motion I am about to make; a petition which, though very brief in itself, is long in respect of signatures, being signed by 225 respectable persons resident in London and Westminster, among whom are five or
* Reprinted from a corrected report, entitled "Substance of a Speech," &c., published by Fellows, Ludgate Hill, with this motto, "It is a shameful and unblessed thing to take the scum of the people, and wicked condemned men, to be the people with whom you plant." —LORD BACON.

247
six merchants trading to New South Wales. The petitioners pray, in few, but expressive words, for the entire abolition of the punishment of Transportation. I regret, ray Lords, that this most important subject has not been, in the first instance, taken up by some other Member of this House, more practised as a debater than myself, and more qualified to meet the great and peculiar difficulties which pertain to it. Not, however, that the decision of the main question does appear to me to present any considerable difficulty, to those who have carefully and candidly attended to the subject; but to produce this attention—to direct men's minds to the subject, and fix them earnestly and steadily on the consideration of it,—this it is that in several years' experience, I have found to be the most difficult task. In the course of those years—not less than eleven—during which I have been engaged in repeated efforts to excite some public interest in a matter of such ital importance, I have sometimes been almost led to regret, that the subject of penal colonies has not been made a party question:—at least, to doubt whether that circumstance—advantageous as at first sight it appears with a view to its fair investigation, has not been in another point of view, a disadvantage. Party-questions are not indeed usually considered and discussed in the fairest and most dispassionate way; but at least they attract attention;—they do obtain consideration and discussion; and this is in itself at least, favourable to the cause of truth; it holds out some hope at least, of ultimately leading to a right decision. The present, on the contrary, being no party-question, has been generally, I regret to say, regarded with equal indifference by men of all parties; and that indifference has commonly been succeeded by a disgust which has still more turned aside their minds from the subject. Most persons with whom I have conversed respecting our system of transportation, have acknowleged to me, that it is a subject they had not much thought of, but of which they had a general impression that it is one attended with great difficulties, and those, of a peculiarly unpleasant character. And when so far roused to a sense of the importance of the question as to overcome their first repugnance to enter upon it at all, I have generally found them so disgusted with the painful, the shocking and loathsome details, into which the inquirer is necessarily led, as to shrink back with aversion from the investigation, and abandon all further con-
248
sideration of the subject; saying, either in words or virtually, that the whole question of Penal Legislation is difficult and disagreeable, and that they would rather have nothing to do with it. Such is the temper of mind I have too often met with in those who, in respect of other matters pertaining to the public welfare, are neither indifferent nor inactive. And when I have taken occasion to point out some measures that are imperatively called for, with a view to the immediate mitigation at least of some of the enormous and ever-growing evils of our transportation system, I have been usually met by the general answer that "there are difficulties" in every plan that has been suggested. Difficulties indeed! Why, what is all legislation—what is all Government, but a choice of difficulties? Most especially must criminal legislation be a choice of difficulties, because it is at best but a choice of evils; all punishment being in itself an evil. No one who is disposed to remain inactive, and to let all abuses take their course, need he at a loss for an excuse, if difficulties are a sufficient plea. "The slothful man saith, there is a lion in the way! a lion is in the path!" But is such a man fit to legislate or to govern? For what purpose, my Lords, do we sit here—with what professed view does any one undertake public office—except to grapple with and overcome difficulties in the way of the public welfare? But the difficulties, it is urged, are peculiarly great in the case of criminal legislation. They are so; and are greatly enhanced by the wrong course which we have so long been pursuing. If it is a troublesome and difficult task to devise and carry into effect wise measures, it, is a still harder task to undo the effects of unwise ones. To retrace our steps,—to remodel our whole procedure,—to abandon the system of penal colonies, and endeavour to remedy, in some degree, the frightful evils they have occasioned;—all this must of necessity add very greatly to the ordinary difficulties of legislating on this subject. But if the difficulties are great, is not the importance of the questions at issue even more than proportionably great? It is indeed one which is usually treated as if it were of second rate or third rate consequence; while the keenest interest is excited by questions, not unimportant indeed, but much more remotely-connected with the real end of all government and all legislation—the security of person and property, and the morality and general prosperity of the community. It

249
is by reference to these ends that the value of all laws—of all political institutions,—is to be measured. What is the use of Parliaments,—of judges,—of constitutional government altogether,—except to protect innocence and repress crime—to secure the rights, and promote the peace and good order, and the physical and moral welfare of the subjects? If these then,—the great ends of Government be unattained and unattended to, while we are earnestly devoting our attention to some subordinate and remote point of legislation,—while we are eagerly discussing, perhaps, the best mode of appointment of some government functionary, we are devoting ourselves to the means, while we disregard the end: we are acting as preposterously as an agriculturist would, who should be careful to provide agricultural implements of the best construction, and to arrange his farm-buildings on the most approved plan, while he entrusted the actual tillage of his land to the most careless and unskilful labourers, and cared nothing what seed was sown, or what crops were raised on it. The apathetic indifference of which I have been complaining, is, of late, I am happy to find, giving way to a better feeling. That frozen insensibility to some of the most important interests of the country and of the human race, which had so long prevailed, is now apparently beginning to thaw. More attention than heretofore is directed to the subject; and great, though I must think, far from sufficient, modifications of the existing system have been announced as resolved on. I most sincerely congratulate this House, and her Majesty's Ministers, and the nation at large, on this change. And some persons may perhaps have expected that I should have remained satisfied with those announcements of intended alteration, which have been lately made by Ministers in the other House: and that I should at least have waited for the result of the proposed experiments. But of the success of those experiments neither I nor, what is much more—the very proposers of them (as far as appears) entertain much hope. I am convinced, on the contrary, that those proposed modifications are not merely in themselves insufficient to fully remedy the main part of the evils which call for remedy, but that they leave the very root and principle of those evils wholly untouched. There is therefore not only no immediate accomplishment, but no tendency towards the gradual and ultimate accomplishment, of the great
250
object which we ought to aim at. The longest and fairest trial of any measure avails nothing towards an end which is not even proposed and sought for. And this is not merely my own conviction; it is also, as I have said, the conviction, apparently, even of the very proposers of the modifications I allude to. It is expressly stated in an official paper (printed last year) which your Lordships probably have seen,* that to "send the larger proportion of transported convicts to Norfolk island—would leave the main evil of transportation in full vigour;" because "at the expiration of their sentences they will flock to the Australian colonies, and render that noxious atmosphere fouler by the addition:" and this is immediately afterwards characterized as a "fatal objection." I see no reason, therefore, for supposing her Majesty's Ministers to be so wedded to the plans now proposed,—so fully satisfied of the efficacy and the sufficiency of the projected modifications, as not to be induced—I may say, encouraged, and enabled—by a strong expression of the feeling of this House, and of the public at large, to proceed much further in the good work, and adopt effectually-remedial measures for the evils in question. I have spoken of not inducing merely, but enabling Ministers so to proceed, because it is not in the power of the Executive to take such measures as are essentially requisite for the reform of our system of secondary punishments, without the aid of Parliament. It is left to Ministers—in respect of the present question—it is for them to steer the vessel, in some degree, in the right direction: but it is the Legislature alone that can supply a strong and a favourable gale. Before I proceed to point out to your Lordships the utter insufficiency, as it appears to me, of the modifications lately announced, towards remedying the main evils of the system, I wish to remark briefly on the extremely slow progress which has hitherto been made in the enlightening of men's minds as to those evils, and as to the urgent importance of aiming at their removal. I advert to this slowness of progress, because that circumstance indicates a danger that unless a stronger expression of opinion than has yet been elicited, on the part of this, or of the other House of Parliament, be
* Papers relative to Transportation, &c. Session 1839, No. 582. Official Note transmitted by S. M. Phillipps, Esq., to Sir George Grey, Bart., p. 6.

251
now called forth, the chief part of the evils of the system of penal colonies may remain unremedied for perhaps another half century; or we may even slide hack again into all those extremes of abuse and corruption which it is now proposed to put a stop to. Let it be remembered, then, that more than fifty years ago, when the scheme of a penal colony was first set on foot, the illustrious Howard most earnestly deprecated the measure.* He was not a man whom any one would call an experienced speculator setting up theory in place of experience: yet it was in defiance of his deliberate judgment—of his solemn remonstrance—that the plan was adopted: and not only the authority of that great philanthropist, but the too true fulfilment of his emphatic forebodings, during a period of half a century, were, till very lately, disregarded. But I might refer much further back, and to a still higher authority, that of Lord Bacon; who expressed, in the strongest terms, his own conviction of the impolicy as well as immorality of convict-colonization.
"It is," said that great man, "a shameful and unblessed thing to take the scum of people and wicked condemned men to be the
* See Howard's Works on Prisons and Lazarettos. The labours of Howard were the principal means of urging on the Legislature the Penitentiary Act, 19 Geo. 3rd, cap. 74, which he framed in conjunction with Sir William Blackstone, and Mr. Eden (afterwards Lord Auckland). Howard was appointed one of the three supervisors of the Penitentiaries to be erected pursuant to that act, but in consequence of an unfortunate dispute among the supervisors, in regard to the site of the first penitentiary for the metropolis, Howard resigned his office, and the plan consequently did not take effect. He however never altered the decided opinion which he had formed, in favour of a penitentiary system, and against the scheme of transportation which the Government had, in 1784, unhappily determined to adopt as a secondary punishment. Some years afterwards we find Howard thus expressing himself:—Such dreadful nurseries have been a principal cause of the increased number of crimes, and the shocking destruction of our fellow-creatures. I am persuaded this would have been in a great measure prevented, if penitentiary houses had been built on the salutary spot fixed on at Islington by Dr. Fothergill and myself. The gentlemen whose continued opposition defeated the design, and adopted the expensive, dangerous, and destructive scheme of transportation to Botany Bay, I leave to their own reflections upon their conduct."—Brown's Life of Howard, p. 495.
252
people with whom you plant; and not only so, but it spoileth the plantation; for they will ever live like rogues and not fall to work, but be lazy and do mischief and spend victuals, and be quickly weary, and then certify over to their country to the discredit of the plantation."*
To colonists of such a description Lord Bacon has indeed bequeathed in vain the exhortation which follows:—
"Let men make that profit of being in the wilderness that they have God always and his service before eyes!"
It is, indeed, somewhat mortifying to reflect how little the judgments of these eminent men have been attended to: but on the other hand, there is something encouraging in finding my views supported by such authority. I have been loudly censured—I have been derided—for the part I have taken in this question: but were I much more sensitive to human applause and censure than I trust. I have ever shown myself, I could not but regard it as an honour to be censured and derided in company with a Bacon and a Howard. My own attention was forcibly called to this subject a good many years ago, from my observation of the effects of the transportation-system in my own neighbourhood in Suffolk. I perceived the every way demoralizing tendencies of the system; which were more and more forced upon my notice in proportion as I extended my inquiries. I found the relatives and former neighbours of transported convicts receiving such favourable accounts of the situation of those convicts—sometimes true, and sometimes false, but always alluring,—that the punishment (so called) of transportation had the effect of a bounty on crime, and the condition of the convict with light work, and not only plentiful but luxurious maintenance, could not but be regarded with envy by the poor labourer, who, with hard work and scanty food, was struggling, and often struggling in vain, to keep himself and his family from the parish.† The
* Essay 33; Of Plantations.
† "I question much, however," (says Mr. Cunningham,) whether many English labourers live better than our convict servant here, whose weekly ration consists of a sufficiency of flour to make four quartern loaves at least; of seven pounds of beef; two ounces of tea, one pound of sugar, and two ounces of tobacco, with the occasional substitution of two or three quarts of milk daily for the tea and sugar allowance. Numbers of the English working poor would doubtless be happy to bargain for such a diet and thus their situation

253
alluring descriptions given of the condition of the convicts, I ascertained to be in a great majority of cases, true; but in some instances very much the reverse: in both cases, however, they did give the same kind of description; and the results were the same. For it unfortunately happens that, in reference to this subject, opposite causes produce the same effects. Men wish for companions either in enjoyment or in suffering; and whichever was the convict's lot, (lot it might strictly be called, for it was generally the decision of chance)* it was by an alluring description of it that he would be likely to induce others to join him. That these representations did produce their natural effect of leading to the commission of crimes in the hope of being transported, came to my knowledge in several instances; and these I could not but suppose to be but few in comparison of those which did not come to my knowledge. And I felt that it is no better than a mockery for any man to pray that he may not be "led into temptation" if he is in any way a consenting party to a system which thus leads his brethren into temptation. Then as to the returned convicts, all evidence from all quarters goes to show that, as a general rule, their characters are what might be expected to result from the voyage,—the life they lead in the colony,—the intermixture of
might in these points be bettered, by their being placed upon an equality with convicts!" * * * * "The Irish convicts are more happy and contented with their situation on board, than the English, although more loth to leave their country, even improved as the situation of the great body of them is by being thus removed,—numbers telling me they had never been half so well off in their lives before, It was most amusing to read the letters they sent to their friends on being fairly settled on board, (all such going through the surgeon's hands,) none ever failing to give a most circumstantial account of what the breakfast, dinner, and supper, consisted of; a minute list of the clothes supplied, and generally laying particular emphasis on the important fact of having a blanket and bed to 'my own self entirely,' which seemed to be somewhat of a novelty by their many circumlocutions about it. One observed, in speaking of the ship, that 'Mr. Reedy's parlour was never half so clane,' while the burden of another was, 'Many a Mac in your town, if he only knew what the situation of a convict was, would not be long in following my example! thank God for the same! I never was better off in my life.'"— First Letter to Earl Grey, pages 71–73.
* "Crime is not punished as crime, although certain criminals are treated with much severity.
254
all varieties of depraved characters,—and the other circumstances of their (misnamed) reformatory punishment; and that they return home usually so hardened in every vice, that I verily believe if only five out of every fifty should come back, those five would bring home with them a mass of depravity, greater, and of a more infectious kind, than the whole fifty took out with them. These views were more and more confirmed the more I extended my inquiries; which also brought under my notice the still more frightful results in respect of the penal settlements themselves, of our "shameful and unblessed" system of colonizing. It has been sometimes urged, in palliation of it, that if we had not availed ourselves of the advantage of convict labour, we should never have had such flourishing colonies as we now boast of in New Holland. Such colonies as those, we assuredly should not have had: and if the alternative had been that we should have had none at all, better—far better—would it have been that the lands of New South Wales should have remained till the end of time in their primitive wildness,—better for the mother-country,—.for the aborigines,—and for the settlers themselves,—that the whole region should have been swallowed up in the ocean, than that it should have been erected into such a monument of national folly and perversity, such a strong hold and seminary of wide-spreading and permanent moral corruption, as it now exhibits. The system,—I mean the continued adherence to the system, has been defended on the authority of Mr. Pitt,—under whose administration it was established. But I cannot see how any one is authorized to assume
The question of colonial profit and loss mixes with the award of justice, A man is estimated by his capacity as a colonist, not by his crime as a felon. A clever servant is employed as a steward or butler, regardless of the fact that he has been guilty of embezzlement. At the same time a boy who has stolen a fowl from a farm yard may be subjected to cruel servitude in a remote settlement. The servitude or slavery which is comprehended under the word 'assignment,' varies and must vary as slavery does, according to the temper and character of the master to whom the convict is assigned. The worst criminal may have the best master, and the most repentant may be driven into fresh offences by the oppression of which he is the victim, and the profligacy of which he is the witness."—Papers relative to Transportation, &c. Session, 1839. No. 582. Official Note, transmitted by S. M, Phillipps, Esq., to Sir G. Grey, Bart., P. 2.

255
that Mr. Pitt, if he were now living, and had the benefit of that experience whose results are now before us, would have still adhered to a plan which has long since been proved to have completely defeated all the objects he proposed from it. That the plan he adopted was an unwise one, and unlikely to realize his hopes, and that it was adopted in disregard of the forebodings and warnings of Howard to that effect, does not warrant our concluding that the fulfilment of those forebodings would have had no effect on his mind. It was begun indeed in defiance of all reason; but it does not follow that he would have persevered in it in defiance of all experience. Forcibly struck with the frightful amount, and the continual and alarming increase of these evils, and also with the generally prevailing ignorance of their real character and extent, and the strange apathy with which they were usually regarded, I felt myself called upon to use my best exertions, however feeble, towards awakening the public mind. I wrote first an article on the subject in the London Review,* which I afterwards reprinted in an appendix to a pamphlet in the form of a letter addressed (by permission) to Earl Grey when Premier. This was followed by a second letter on the same subject, in vindication of the views taken in the first; which were fully confirmed by the testimony of the very respondents who had undertaken to reply to them. And I subsequently made a communication in writing to the committee of the House of Commons which sat in the year 1838.† When I see, my Lords, what efforts many of my clerical brethren have made and are making for the mitigation or extinction of negro slavery, without incurring the shadow of an accusation of departing from their professional character, and intermeddling improperly in secular matters, I feel convinced that no one who has any just and adequate notions on the present subject can possibly feel it strange or indecorous that a clergyman should be warmly interested in it. Taken as a system of slavery alone, though that is but one portion of the vast and complicated mass of evils belonging to the system—as a system of slavery, it is in many points worse than negro-slavery. The master of negro-slaves, most of whom probably have
* This review appeared in 1829, and was continued only for two numbers. It had no connexion with any other reviews which have either formerly or subsequently appeared under the same title.
† Report, vol. ii. Appendix, p. 229.
256
been brought up in his family from childhood, and none of whom are necessarily tainted with crime, has every moral inducement, if he is at all capable of good feelings, to treat them well; and at any rate, from having a permanent property in them, has at least the same pecuniary interest in their well-being as in that of his cattle. The master of convict-slaves, on the contrary, has no permanent interest in them; his sympathy with them, and indulgence of them will be found greatest (as has been proved in evidence,) when he himself being a profligate character, makes them companions in debauchery or associates in crime; and the more licence and indulgence is usually shown to the more desperate ruffian where revengeful passions might be formidable. Then indeed, and when the master happens to be of a timid disposition, and his servants daring and hardened characters, it appears that, (in remote situations especially) the relation between the master and servants—the gaoler and prisoners—is often very nearly reversed. In short, though it must be admitted that a community consisting of masters and slaves is bad, and that a nation of gaolers and prisoners—of criminals I may say, and executioners—is bad, the union of the two in one system—the system of punishing criminals by assigning them as slaves to labour for the benefit of private individuals, is incomparably the worst of all. Yet this, which is but one out of the many evils of the transportation system—the one which it has been at length resolved to put an end to—continued to be carried on, in spite of all remonstrance—in spite of the fullest exposure of its noxious effects—for more than fifty years before the notorious truth was acknowledged and acted on!* I call your Lordships' attention to the very slow
* In many other subjects besides this, it is curious to observe how slowly and reluctantly men are induced to admit practically, and to act upon, conclusions of which their understanding has been convinced, when habit and prejudice are opposed to them. It is a long process first to effect such a conviction; and when this is accomplished, the task is but half completed: their habits of thought and of action continue, by a kind of vis inertiœ, to move in the same course, till time and frequent repetition shall have rendered familiar to their minds the conclusions which reason has established. The words which Shakespere, in mere sportiveness, puts into the mouth of Dogberry, seem in some such cases to be literally applicable:

257
progress which just notions on this subject have hitherto made, because there is much—very much—yet to be done, before a full remedy will have been applied to the abuses of our systems of secondary punishment and of colonization; and because I fear that our future progress will be no less deplorably slow, unless this House and the other branches of the Legislature are aroused to the importance of the subject, and apply to the work of reformation more energetically than heretofore. During the eleven years that I have been occupied in endeavouring to call public attention to the evils of our present system—several other persons having in that time been exerting themselves in the same cause—it was by careless apathy chiefly, and never by even any apparent refutation that our efforts were resisted. Indeed it may be fairly regarded as at least a strong presumption in favour of the soundness of my views, that from first to last no statement and no argument I have adduced has ever been met, except by attributing to me something quite different from what I really did say, and, in many instances, the very reverse. Vague, general, charges of exaggeration indeed have been thrown out, in reviews, and elsewhere, against the statements I have made; but even a slight examination will suffice to prove that I have kept on the safe side, and have made such statements as are not only borne out, but much more than borne out, both by the evidence before the committee of the other House, and even by the admission of the very advocates of the system.—With similar vagueness of assertion it has been said, that the opponents of transportation "have taken all their representations from one side." This indeed, as far as I am concerned, I must admit to be true. Nearly all the representations I have brought forward are indeed taken from one side; but that is not my own side. I was so anxious to keep clear of all danger, either of being unconsciously misled by prejudice, or of having prejudice or unfairness imputed to me, that I referred almost exclusively to the authority of persons decidedly favourable to the system. In the two tracts published in the form of Letters to Earl Grey, the principal authorities referred to
"it hath been proved already that you are no better than stark knaves; and it will go near to be thought so shortly."
258
in respect of matters of fact, were those of Mr. Cunningham, a surgeon of a convict-ship, who had expressed himself favourable to the system of Penal Colonies, and of Colonel (now Sir George) Arthur, Dr. Ross, and Archdeacon Broughton, now Bishop of Australia; who all wrote indefence of the system, in reply to my first letter. All these, as well as the witnesses before the committee, several of whom were by no means unfavourably disposed towards Penal-colonization, furnished the very facts on which my conclusions were based. And when any specific reply has been attempted,—anything more definite than general unsupported insinuations of exaggeration or partiality—it has invariably happened (as I have already remarked) that something quite unlike anything I ever really said has been attributed to me; and the advocate has then encountered and triumphed over a phantom of his own raising. Colonel Arthur, for instance, in replying to my first pamphlet, enters into the details of a certain plan of a penitentiary, and of the objections to it, as if it had been proposed by him.* But in this he must have proceeded on some rumour or conjecture; for in the publication which he had before him, not only this supposed plan is not to be found, but I had distinctly stated my reason for not recommending any plan, except that of appointing a commission to make enquiries with a view to ascertain what might be most eligible. And again, very lately, a representation had appeared in the newspapers (whether originating in a mistake of the reporters, or in a hasty credence given to some baseless rumour) of my having proposed a punishment—or rather a substitute for punishment—which would in effect be a bounty on crime. I am represented,—and the report, however it arose, has been widely circulated—as proposing' that each criminal on being convicted should, instead of suffering any punishment, be presented with a sum of money sufficient for his outfit and present maintenance, and should have a free passage given him to any colony to which he may choose to go, as a free settler. And to prove that this would rather encourage than deter criminals, a good deal of unnecessary ingenuity was expended, which only placed in a stronger point of view
* See second Letter to Earl Grey: pp. 98 —105.

259
the extravagance of the supposition that I, or any one in his senses, could really have made so absurd a proposal! I will now take the liberty of very briefly laying before your Lordships what I really did say. After having in all my publications dwelt earnestly on one (among many) of the great defects of the transportation-system, that it does not deter, but rather allures men, as appearing likely to put them in a better condition than that of many a poor labourer at home.* I remarked (in the letter transmitted to the Transportation Committee) that
"Under a reformed system of secondary punishment (supposing transportation abolished) it strikes me as desirable, with a view to the preservation from a return to evil courses of persons released from penitentiaries, &c., after the expiry of their punishment, that such as may have indicated a disposition to reform, should be, at their own desire, furnished with means of emigrating to various colonies, British or foreign, in which they may mix, not with such men as their old associates in crime, but with respectable persons, unacquainted with their past history, and may thus be enabled, as the phrase is, to 'turn over a new leaf.' This of course implies, that they should not emigrate in a body to any one place, and as a distinct class. For juvenile offenders, the same course would perhaps be even still more suitable. The colonies which should be specially excluded, should be (at least for fifty years to come) New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land; evidently the most unfit places in the world for a half-reclaimed offender. We have surely made trial long enough of that system of moral homoeopathy, which seeks to cure a man of vice by putting him in the way of acquiring fresh vice. Surely a physician would be reckoned insane who should send a patient convalescent from ague, and in danger of relapse, into the Lincolnshire fens for the complete re-establishment of his health."†
Your Lordships will observe that the whole of the suggestion here thrown out, has reference to persons "released after the expiracy of their punishment;" and that I am speaking of a special favour to such of them (perhaps 20 or 30 per cent.) as may have given proofs of "a disposition to reform." If release after punishment, and release without punishment, are the same, and if a "bounty on crime," and a bounty on reformation, be equivalent, then I am certainly guilty of the absurdity with which I have been charged. But if the reverse of this be the truth, then I must contend
* See my first Letter to Earl Grey, pp. 3,70, 71, 136, &c. &c.
† Report, vol. ii. Appendix, p, 302.
260
that it is some presumption in favour of the soundness of my views, to find the mode in which almost exclusively they are controverted, is by representing them as the opposite of what they really are. Although, however, I never was guilty of the absurdity of proposing that criminals should be rewarded, or should be left unpunished, I never undertook to decide what kind of secondary punishment should be substituted for transportation, or even that any one should be adopted in all cases alike.* The opponents of transportation are indeed constantly met by the inquiry, "what would you substitute?" as the sole and sufficient defence of the existing system;—as if it followed as a matter of course that we are to persevere in a system which has been proved to have failed, and more than failed, in every point, and has been shown to be the very worst of all, unless some one is ready to shew which is the best of all. I did not presume to determine at once so important and difficult a question as this; but I pointed out the necessity of taking steps to have a determination made after due investigation. I well knew that those who were—from whatever causes—resolved to adhere to the existing system, and yet conscious that it could not be vindicated, would resort to the question of "what would you 'substitute!'" merely with a view to raise objections (which may always be done,) against any plan that may be proposed; there being, from the nature of the case, none that can be exempt from objections: while those again who might ask the same question in good faith, from a real wish to see the most effectual reform introduced,—these would not fail to see the importance of a regular and careful inquiry. After having shewn, therefore, by irrefragable proofs, that the existing system was defeating all the objects proposed by it,—augmenting all the evils it was meant to diminish,—and doing unspeakable mischief in various ways besides, I thought a fair case for inquiry at least had been made out; and I recommended the appointment of some kind of properly authorised commission for examining and reforming our secondary punishments. And yet it has actually been sometimes alleged as an objection to my views, that in the eight years which
* See first Letter to Earl Grey, pp. 10, 12, 43, 44; also second letter to Earl Grey, p. 111, et seq.

261
have elapsed since my first pamphlet was published, I have never brought forward any plan for an unexceptionable system of secondary punishment: that is, that I have not undertaken to supersede such a commission, and to dispense with such an investigation as I had myself recommended, and shewn to be necessary. Something very nearly approaching to what I ventured to recommend, has, I am happy to say, been done; first in the appointment of a committee of the other House, which has brought before the public so much important information; appalling indeed and disgusting in its character, but yet valuable, as a chart of shoals and whirlpools to a mariner;—and subsequently by the appointment of the commission for inquiry respecting the constabulary force. These commissioners have of course been led to examine into all the causes which tend to the increase, or again to the prevention and suppression of crime; and I take this opportunity of observing, that as Government deserves credit for instituting that commission, so do the Commissioners, for the way in which they appear to be discharging their duty. Their first report—which most of your Lordships probably have seen, as it was published about a year ago, (and a second is, I understand, shortly to appear)—their first report seems to me one of the most important documents ever laid before the public. I cannot indeed call it an agreeable book to read; but it is interesting—painfully interesting; and not only highly instructive, but, in one respect, consolatory, in the midst of its most painful details; inasmuch as it shews plainly how great a proportion of crime is attributable to a want of those preventive measures which (as is also made evident by the same document) might easily be introduced. Let but the suggestions of the Commissioners on this point be adopted,—suggestions which indeed must occur spontaneously to every intelligent reader of the facts detailed—and we may reasonably hope for such a diminution of offences as will not only prove a vast benefit to the nation in other ways, but also greatly lessen the existing difficulties as to the disposal of convicts, both during and after their term of punishment. That prevention is better than punishment, and that punishment is justifiable only as a means of prevention, is indeed universally admitted; but I doubt whether we in
262
general sufficiently estimate the advantage in point of policy, and not merely of humanity and morality, of strict and judicious preventive measures over the denunciation of the most formidable penalties: I mean, the more effectual promotion of the ends of justice, by any measures which tend to shorten the probable career of impunity to an offender, than by the severity of the punishment in which that career terminates. The hope of even temporary impunity disarms even capital punishment of its terrors. It is the moral certainty of a speedy check that operates to deter. Dangers, however great, when they are contingent, and probably remote, have wonderfully little influence; especially on thoughtless uncalculating minds, bent on present enjoyment; which is just the description of those most exposed to the temptations to crime. When the occupation of an habitual offender is simply a dangerous one, it is so far, putting moral considerations apart—on a par with that of soldiers and sailors, and of persons engaged in many unwholesome trades. Some of these last afford the most striking illustration. The soldier, indeed, or the sailor, not unfrequently escapes through all his perils, and attains to a comfortable old age; but the Sheffield knife-grinders, and some others engaged in equally unwholesome occupations, have a moral certainty of death by a painful disease before they reach the age of thirty-five or forty; and yet for the extra ten or fifteen shillings per week wages, men are always to be found ready to expose themselves to this—not risk, but certainty—of premature death. We cannot therefore expect that any denunciation of punishment, even capital, will be effectual, as long as our preventive system is so defective, that a thief, while gaining double or treble the sum for which the Sheffield manufacturer sells his life, can calculate on a career of five or six years' impunity in towns, and probably double of that in the country.*
* The following passage is extracted from a private letter lately addressed to me by Edwin Chadwick, Esq.;—"In reference to any new Commission for the investigation of the available secondary punishments, I think we have investigated them as far any commission is likely to investigate them with profit. We (the Constabulary Force Commissioners) shall recommend the separate system of imprisonment. But amidst a population where the appetites for immediate indulgence are

263
It is hopeless to attempt repressing crime by any modifications of punishment, without such a systematic, well arranged and vigorous system of police, as shall cut off in a great degree the hope of escaping detection. Much however as is to be hoped from the labours of the Commissioners, if their recommendations are energetically acted on, it is plain that no other preventive measures can supersede the necessity of punishments; indeed, all other measures must be backed as it were, and supported by the denunciation of punishments as a last resort. All police regulations must proceed on that supposition. And that the secondary punishments which we do retain, should not be (whatever system we may ultimately adopt), any modification of transportation
strong; where, for two, three, or five pounds, or the means of two or three days drunkenness, volunteers are found for forlorn hopes and narrow chances of escape; where, for thirty or thirty-six shillings a week wages, or ten or fifteen shillings extra to spend in drink, men will undertake such deleterious manufacturing processes as those of the Sheffield knife-grinders, with the certainty of death of a painful kind before they are thirty-six, or within a very few years—amidst such a population, where, from the absence of preventive measures, a man who can get only eighteen or twenty shillings a week by severe labour, rising early and toiling late and monotonously, may as a thief get double the sum, and enjoy a career of four or five years in towns, and probably double that extent of career and profit in the country, (as might be shown by reference to the first portions of the evidence in the Constabulary Force Report, par, 4, 6, 10, 11,) it appears to me hopeless to expect that any considerable effect is to be obtained by any probable refinement of punishment. 'You have been punished repeatedly, and in various forms; is there no hopes of your reformation?' said an acquaintance of mine in France to a thief who was about to quit a prison. 'Look you,' said the thief; 'I am by trade a tailor. As a tailor I earn three francs a day. As a thief, I keep myself within the bounds of moderation (je me range), but I get not less than thirty francs a day. Would you be honest for that?' My acquaintance was silenced by the reply. I think I have heard, that when Baxter, viewing the strength of temptation, saw a thief go to execution, he used to exclaim, 'But for the grace of God, there goes Richard Baxter.' I think we should dwell on the enormity of the daily offence of leading men into temptation' by the neglect of preventive measures. As to their practicability, see par. 198 of the First Constabulary Force Report. See also par. 65."
264
to penal colonies—of that system which for half a century has been bringing disgrace upon us, and such complicated mischiefs upon the colonies and upon other nations as well as our own, is a conclusion which I can hardly understand any man's failing to draw from the evidence, or even any twenty or any ten pages of it taken at random, which was given before the committee.* I cannot but hope, therefore, that is not the deliberate and fixed resolution of Ministers to stop at the abolition of the assignment-system, and to persevere in a plan which is acknowledged even in the official document which recommends it, to "leave the main evil of transportation in full vigour," the plan of transporting convicts to Norfolk Island and Tasman's peninsula, and at the termination of their sentence, when they are (as is fully proved in evidence, and indeed admitted in the very same document,†)—far more incurably har-
* It has been urged, in favour of the system, that the French are designing to adopt it. That nation certainly are sometimes in danger of being led into ill-considered measures by their eagerness for "ships, colonies, and commerce;" but in the present case they are more to be excused for concluding that we should not have so long persevered in a system that was not beneficial, than we are, for having thus persevered against experience. And we deserve additional blame for having thus set a bad example to others; whose rash imitation of it may perhaps (besides the evil done to themselves and to the rest of the world) be eventually the means of leading to a war between the two countries.
Some French writers, however, there are, who, having made the needful inquiries, have perceived and exposed the erroneousness of the system of penal colonies. See, for instance, De Beaumont & De Tocqueville, Du Systême Pénitentiaire aux Etats-Unis, &c., Appendix: Des Colonies Pénales, chap, 1, 2, 3.
† The evidence taken by the Committee fully establishes the fact that the dread of Norfolk Island has not deterred from crime,—that many have returned there very shortly after discharge,—that it has had no reformatory effect, but has operated rather as the reverse of a preventive of crime. See Examinations of Dr. Ullathorne, Rept. vol. ii. p. 14; Major Wright, do. p. 130; the Right Rev. Dr. Polding, Rept. vol. ii. App. p. 266, and the Rev. H. T. Stiles, do. p. 267. The last-mentioned witness thus sums up his opinion;—"The effect, then, of banishment to Norfolk Island, as a preventive of crime in this colony, I conceive to be of the least assignable value possible. One reason why these effects are no greater than they are is

265
dened and corrupted than they were originally, to let them loose on the Australian colonies, so as to keep up a continual stream of fresh pollution flowing into a community which we have already so shockingly contaminated. To persevere, I say, knowingly and deliberately in thus creating a profligate nation, and by continual fresh supplies making and keeping it from generation to generation the most hopelessly corrupt community that ever the sun shone upon, would be a national crime and folly which I do trust there is too much good feeling and good sense among us to endure. To enter into all the details of the particulars which shew what sort of a population that of a Penal colony is, would be no less superfluous than tedious; as these are already before the public in the minutes of the evidence heard by the committee. But a tolerably correct notion may be formed, by simply referring to some of the population returns which have been made. It appears that in 1836 the population of New South Wales was 77,000; of which about 28,000 were actual convicts under sentence, and about 17,000 emancipists, that is, convicts whose terms had expired; so that there were only about 32,000—little more than two-fifths of the whole population, who had not been convicts; and even of these a considerable proportion are, of course, the children of convicts. But further, when we remember that the population return of 77,000 is inclusive of children, and that all the convicts and emancipists are adults, the real state of society will appear still more shocking, for supposing that of the 77,000 about 17,000 were children, and considering that the free emigrants are in a great part young married people, the adult po-
sufficiently obvious. The punishment is not visible in this colony, and therefore does not operate very powerfully in terrorem. My own district affords me an illustration of this truth. Two or three young men from the currying have within no very long space of time been transported to Norfolk Island; one of them is named Allsop, and was sent for cattle-stealing; but the same crime is, to say the least, as common in the district as ever; it is committed without reflecting upon Allsop's case, for he being out of sight, is also out of remembrance." The testimonies above cited, taken together, go far to confirm the expression quoted in the official paper, p. 9, "When a man comes to this island be loses the heart of a man," &c.
266
pulation will be reduced to 60,000, of which 45,000 are either convicts, or emancipists—so that a community is thus exhibited, of which three-fourths have been convicted felons! And when to this is added the circumstance that it appears the proportion of males to females among the convicts is six to one, and in the back settlements of the colony, seventeen to one, the consequences are such as may be faintly conceived, but cannot be, in this place described. The unutterable licentiousness prevailing among both sexes, as may be collected from many parts of the evidence, exceeds, if possible, even what might have been anticipated from the collection together of such a multitude and variety of profligate characters, so much outnumbering the sounder parts of the population. In bringing forward, on several occasions these facts—painful facts certainly, but, since facts they are, most important to be pressed on the attention both of Government and of individual, I have been accused of calumniating the colonists—of casting injurious imputations on their character, on slight and insufficient grounds. But let it be observed, that I have never spoken but of the general character of the society, which I have described as it is represented by the testimony—the uncontradicted testimony—of numerous eye-witnesses. I have never cast any censure on individuals. I have never expressed—I have never had—any doubt that there are individuals in those colonies of perfectly unblemished character, who have preserved—and it is greatly to their honour—themselves, and what is much more still, their families, untainted by the surrounding neighbourhood—by what Sir Francis Forbes, no unfriendly witness, describes as "the most contaminating community in the world."* It is of that community, and of its general tone of morals and manners, † that I have always been speaking. That it contains
* Evidence, vol. i. p. 89.
† The moral state of society in the penal colonies is described by the Transportation Committee under the fourth head of their inquiry. See Report, pages 23 to 33. See also Evidence of Mr. John Russell, vol. ii. p. 49–62. of John Barnes, esq. vol. ii. p. 46–49; of Dr. Ullathorne, vol. ii. p. 14–24, &c. Also Captain Mackonochie's separate Report on Van Dieman's Land, and Mr. Justice Burton's Charge, Appendix to Transp. Report, vol. i. p. 289. These witnesses, without citing more, will be found fully sufficient

267
worthy and truly respectable individuals, I never doubted; and what is more, I am perfectly confident that all the individuals in the colony of that description, be they many or few, will, instead of being displeased, be gratified by the course I am I pursuing. Although, therefore, I should not shrink from that course, though it were to be censured by all the colonists, or by all mankind, I am convinced that the truly respectable settlers, and all who have the best interests of the colonies at heart, must concur with me in this matter. I say this, because it is evident from the very nature of the case. There may indeed, be men who are what is called "respectable," in point of fortune or station, who may be influenced by views (though to me these seem mistaken views, even in respect of pecuniary profit and loss) of their own immediate interest, to wish for a continued importation of convicts. But for a man, respectable in point of real moral worth, to wish for a continuance of the system which has already made the community he lives in the most contaminating community in the world, would be a contradiction in terms. Such a man cannot but wish, on the contrary, for its purification, by the stoppage of that foul stream, and the influx of emigrants of good character in their stead. And it is manifest that there cannot be a greater impediment, in every way, both to the emigration of honest labourers, and to the influence of those who do arrive on the tone of society, than continual fresh additions of people of tainted character. It is, therefore, I say, impossible but that all the really worthy,* pure and upright individuals in the colonies, be they many or few, must prefer a moral to an immoral popu-
to show how truly Sir F. Forbes characterised the state of society.
* In some of the newspaper reports, the word "wealthy" was, by mistake, substituted for "worthy," The difference is of no small importance in all countries, but in none, perhaps, more important than in the colonies in question. It is well known that among the emancipated convicts are to be found individuals who have accumulated very large fortunes, and the transportation report gives an account of one who possessed 40,000 l. per annum. See evidence of Dr. Lang, Report. vol. i. p. 254; and of Mr. Mudie, ditto, p. 112. The means by winch the wealth was in this instance acquired, were principally by keeping a public-house, to which dissolute emancipist farmers were enticed, and where
268
lation, and must consequently be disposed rather to thank than to blame me, for labouring to put a stop to the evil from which the character of their community has suffered so grievously, But documents have lately been produced emanating from persons, some of them holding high stations in the colony of New South Wales, advocating the continuance of the assignment-system, and representing the state of society as totally the reverse of what I have described, and what has hitherto been generally believed: and on the strength of these documents, (without any reference whatever to the evidence before the committee, or any notice of of such a committee having ever sat) I have been held up to censure as rashly bringing injurious and groundless charges against the colony. And what is truly astonishing, I have been spoken of as having hastily given credence to some unknown private informant, nobody knows who! My Lords, I need hardly repeat that I have all along referred and appealed to the evidence given—the evidence of about twenty-four persons—before a committee of the other House;—to the report of that committee, and to sundry other printed and published documents containing the testimony, among others, of some of the principal persons who now come forward to give an opposite representation.* The language of reprobation in which I have spoken is certainly in itself strong, but much, very much stronger language would have been fully justified by the evidence adduced; as any one may easily see by even a slight glance at that evidence. But if we are to believe the documents brought forward of late (too late, it may well be said) by the defenders
they were in the habit of remaining for days together in a state of intoxication. On recovering their senses, the farmers found themselves charged sums exceeding their means of payment. Thus they fell into the power of their host, and were obliged to return to his house, from time to time, till the debts became such as to enable him to dispossess them of their estates, and he had thus actually become the proprietor of a great portion of the cultivated land of the colony. In this sort of way, it appears that not only the emancipist referred to, but many others, have acquired great wealth,
* See particularly the charge of Mr. Justice Burton to the jury of the supreme court at Sydney, Transp. Report, vol. i. Appendix p, 289.

269
of the system, we must conclude all that evidence given in 1837, and again in 1838—by persons of various stations and professions, and of various opinions also as to the subject in question—we must conclude all this concurrent testimony to have been from first to last a series of falsehood and misrepresentation. This is rather a strange supposition, but far more strange, that if this were so, all this evidence should have remained for so long a time unrefuted and uncontradicted. The committee sat first in 1837; the evidence was published, and must have found its way to Australia—to the very place from which materials for refutation, had there been such, might have been supplied. It sat again in the following year; a fresh body of evidence was published, and subsequently a report referring to that evidence—all this has been before the public for nearly two years, and great part of it much longer; yet in all that time, not even an attempt has been made to invalidate the testimony of the witnesses. But now, at the eleventh hour, without any disproof, or even any notice at all of that testimony, statements and descriptions utterly at variance with the whole of it are boldly produced, and unhesitating assent to them demanded. If the severest censure would have been due to me, as it certainly would, for rashly and on slight grounds making such representations as I did make, what censure do those deserve (if there were any such persons) who knowing or believing that all the evidence given was a tissue of fabrication and calumnious misrepresentation, yet left it undetected, unrefuted, uncontradicted? Month after month, and year after year, all this evidence was before the public; and yet those who now assume that the whole of it is a mass of falsehood, and pass heavy censures on any one who has given credit to it, never offered themselves as witnesses—never brought forward witnesses before the committee—never, when the evidence was published, put forth any attempt at disproof or denial of the testimony given, though some of them must have seen their own written statements cited as part of that testimony. But in fact no one of common sense can doubt that the evidence would have been disproved long since, had it been capable of disproof; and that all who are really well acquainted with the facts are well aware that it is perfectly true. And when they
270
reproach and stigmatize as a libeller one who states what that unimpeached evidence has proved to be the truth, let any fair-minded man judge against which party the charge of calumny will lie.* I have met with some persons, however, who set light by all such evidence, and who seem to take for granted that a Parliamentary committee must of course be partial, and that all their examinations and the testimony of all their witnesses, must flow down the current of that partiality. And accordingly, in the present case, because the committee was called for by persons having a bias unfavourable to transportation, and the hon. Baronet who sat as chairman was disposed to disapprove of the system, it is assumed that all the evidence taken is to be regarded as ex-parte evidence—as designed to make out the best possible case against penal
* "It is about four years (viz. in 1834) since the article appeared in the London Review, on (he second edition of Mr. Cunningham's book. Other evidence to the same effect had been still longer before the public. Why then did no one, long ago, step forth to denounce these witnesses as pernicious slanderers; which they must be, if their statements are untrue? Why did those who had the best opportunities of knowing the truth, suffer such malicious misrepresentations to circulate all that time, uncontradicted? The answer is obvious, because the inferences from these had not from the first been insisted on, and pressed on the public attention. As soon as the conclusions are drawn, then it is that it is found out, for the first time, that the premises are false. The evidence, it seems, might have remained for ever uncontradicted, had not I and others pointed out the obvious deductions from it. And why, again, is there even now no disproof offered of this evidence?—no attempt to impugn it except by bare unsupported denial? The obvious answer is, because it is true—too true to be disproved; and yet too conclusive to be admitted.—Second Letter to Earl Grey, pp. 65, 66. And let it be remembered, that three years subsequent to the publication of the above passage (during which interval no attempt at refutation was made) the first committee of the House of Commons was appointed, thus giving a new opportunity and call to those who might be willing and able to impugn what had been alleged. But instead of any thing of this kind all that came out before that committee tended to confirm those allegations. Yet, after the lapse of another interval of three years, the advocates of penal colonies are not ashamed to come forward, in the face of all evidence, and of their own tacit admissions, to censure me as bringing rash and unfounded charges.

271
colonies, by exaggerating on the one side and suppressing on the other. That the very reverse of this is the fact, I can bear testimony, from having not only read the evidence, but been present at several of the examinations; and any who has looked into even a portion of the published documents is competent to confirm my testimony. Not only were several witnesses examined who were evidently anxious to give as favourable an impression as possible of the existing system, but several members of the committee exerted themselves (I am far from blaming them for it, for I think their exertions were laudable) as advocates for the penal colonies; endeavouring to elicit everything that might place them in a favorable point of view, and to detect any exaggerations or misstatements on the opposite side. That the result was to expose the whole system and every part of it, as a complete and most lamentable failure, is to be attributed solely to the irresistible force of truth when brought to light by open investigation. The system was proved at once to be incapable of vindication, as soon as the facts were made known. But as to the committee, whatever bias there existed in it, as a body, was rather on the opposite side. Of this any one may satisfy himself by inspecting the report. It is, as a whole a clear, well written, and masterly document, exhibiting the natural results of the evidence taken based on and arising out of that evidence, and resting all its conclusions and all its recommendations, with one or two exceptions, on the facts elicited, and not on gratuitous assumptions or unauthorized conjectures. The exceptions I allude to are, the recommendation to encourage the emigration of free labourers to the penal colonies while still receiving annual supplies of convicted felons;* and again, the recommendation of continuing to maintain penal establishments in the colonies.† If any will take the pains to compare with the evidence given, the report generally, and also these particular portions of it, he will plainly see, that while the general tenor of it is fully in accordance with the facts proved, and is logically deduced from them, these particular recommendations on the contrary are quite unwarranted by the evidence, and, indeed, wholly at
* Report, p. 35.
† Report, pp. 43, 44.
272
variance with it. Now, these portions of the report were introduced, against the judgment, as is understood, of the chairman, but, of course, in conformity with that of the majority of the committee; whose bias, therefore, as far as there was any bias, was manifestly not towards the conclusions which the evidence tended to establish. Let any one, I say, but compare the two documents together, and he will be struck with the contrast between the two portions of the report I have been alluding to. The one part,—the main body of the report—seems to spring naturally out of the evidence like a tree growing from its own roots: the other part looks like a graft, with totally different foliage and fruit, brought from elsewhere, and inserted into the stock:—
"Miraturque novas frondes, et non sua poma."
I have said that the recommendation of sending out free emigrants into the penal colonies, while they are continually receiving from Norfolk Island, or elsewhere, fresh supplies of emancipated convicts, is not borne out by the evidence, but is directly at variance with the conclusions that evidence would naturally dictate. To prove as fully as might be done the truth of this assertion, would be to cite the greater part of each witness's testimony. They almost entirely concur in giving such a representation of the moral condition of that community, as to shew, that even if the importation of criminals be stopped from this day forward, still the task of regenerating such a society by the infusion of better materials, would be a most delicate and difficult task; requiring to be undertaken with the most deliberate and systematic care, lest in addition to a failure in the object proposed, we should increase the very evil to be remedied;—lest, instead of improving the colony, we should contaminate the emigrants. But if into a society in so unsound a state, and on which, "with all appliances and means to boot," it is so difficult to effect a moral cure, the seeds of fresh disease are to be continually brought, by the annual importation of a new set of liberated criminals, then, to think of bringing the colony into a healthy state by enticing honest labourers to settle there, does seem most preposterous. As well might any one think to purify one of the London sewers through which a continued stream of filth is flowing, by pouring in from time to time some cupfulls

273
of pure water, Yet I have been by some I persons severely censured, and even taxed with inconsistency, for complaining of the bad state of society in the penal colonies, and yet discouraging the emigration thither of respectable persons; which is the only mode, I have been told, of what is called "swamping the felonry,"—of giving a new character to the society—of converting, one might say, into sound wine, a cask full of vinegar by adding a little souud wine to it. And hopes and expectations have been expressed that the advice I have given to those who have consulted me as to the place to which they should emigrate, will not be listened to. Perhaps my efforts may prove unsuccessful. Some persons indeed have been influenced by my advice; but neither in this nor in any other point, can I expect to prevent all the evil, and accomplish all the good, that I could wish. At all events, however, I shall have cleared my own conscience, by the endeavour; nor will I ever while I live, relax my endeavours, at any man's bidding. For how could I have enjoyed a clear conscience,— how could I have lain down peaceably in my bed, if I had incurred the responsibility of inducing an emigrant of good character to expose himself, and, perhaps, a family of innocent children, to the frightful risks of such a moral pestilence? What ought I to have said, when my advice was asked by persons disposed to emigrate? Should I have described the state of things in a penal colony in their true colours, and still recommended emigration to such a colony? Should I have told them in plain terms, go by all means, to settle in such a neighbourhood as in any part of Europe would blast a man's character if he were known to have lived in it;—one, compared with which the foulest haunts of debauchery and crime in this metropolis are decent and respectable: to go to a country in which three-fifths of your neighbours, including some of the wealthiest, will be convicted criminals, and a considerable portion of the remainder, the children of such; and into which an annual reinforcement of hardened villains is poured by hundreds and by thousands: where you will have around you thieves and ruffians, and the vilest of prostitutes, such characters being not at all confined to the meanest situations; but a large proportion of rich tradesmen and farmers, inn-keepers, policemen, jurymen, schoolmasters, being convicted felons; where such monstrous
274
licentiousness as in this country could not be spoken of, from its being too horribly disgusting, is among them hardly spoken of, perhaps from its being too common to be noticed; where the servants you may engage, besides plundering you of property, will be likely to combine,—the males and the females,—to corrupt your innocent children* in a way too shocking to describe; your children, who will also be early familiarized in every other way to such language and such scenes as are the most polluting to the youthful mind, and who will probably receive the rudiments of education from some convicted swindler? Should I have told these plain truths (for they are established, and much more than established by the evidence), and still have advised the emigrant to go, as a forlorn hope, as it were, against this strong hold of depravity, and to sacrifice himself by way of helping to fill the ditch before the fortress, while fresh supplies of depraved characters are incessantly pouring in from another quarter? No; that would not have been a promising course for alluring settlers. I ought rather, I suppose, to have imitated the proceedings of some agents, who, I am sorry to say, are going about the country distributing tracts that profess to describe these colonies, and circulating in every way such accounts as are likely the most to entice men to emigrate thither.† I should have dwelt, I
* See evidence, vol. ii., p. 55, 66, (Mr. Russell's.) See also vol. i., p. 96, for an account of the horrible fate of Captain Waldron. If I were knowingly to recommend any one to take as a servant a man whom I believed likely to assail his master with the knife of the midnight assassin, I should be deemed almost an accessary to the murder. But it would have been meritorious, it seems, to recommend a man to settle in a neighbourhood where hardly a servant can be found who could in this country obtain a character;—where a master is torn to pieces by his female servants at noon-day!
† One of these tracts printed at Exeter, and industriously circulated by an emigration-agent there, after mentioning several other colonies, all of which are greatly disparaged in comparison of New South Wales, proceeds to describe this last in glowing colours, not only in respect of soil and climate, but in all that pertains to its literary, moral, and religious character, and its "manners and customs," which are, it is remarked, "the same as in England;" and then sums up a most alluring description by adding (what certainly is more than could be said with truth of England) that "the wild dogs are the only source

275
suppose, on the fertility of the soil,—or the salubrity of the climate,—or the ample wages paid for labour; and have suppressed all notice of anything objectionable in the moral condition of the population! For such, I grieve to say, is the character of the tracts I have alluded to: such are the delusive arts by which innocent females and honest and industrious labourers have been entrapped, and well-meaning and benevolent, but incautious persons among the gentry have been drawn in to countenance and aid the scheme. An attempt was made a few years since, under the patronage of several most respectable and well-intentioned individuals, to remedy the evils arising from the frightful disproportion between the sexes in those colonies, by sending out an entire ship-load of young women of unblemished character. Care was taken to receive none but such as brought certificates of good conduct from the ministers of their parishes, or some other responsible person; like the garlands with which the Hindu adorns the human sacrifice when just about to perish in the flames. I earnestly deprecated the plan, foreseeing and foretelling the deplorable results. We have it in evidence,* that, as might have been expected, nineteen-twentieths of these unfortunate creatures were swept down the strong current of licentiousness which prevails in those regions, and which no ordinary strength can be expected to resist. All attempts of this kind, as long as criminals shall continue to be poured into these colonies, must be not only hopeless as regards the object proposed, of reforming the vicious, but positively mischievous also, by corrupting the innocent. It is bad enough to preserve and perpetuate vice, by crowding together depraved characters, and making them the progenitors of a new nation,—in the course of a century probably a very numerous nation—formed, as if on purpose,
of annoyance!" Perhaps there may be in the term "wild dogs," some hidden meaning according to which the description may be nearly true; but in the literal sense, it does seem (in the face of such evidence as is before the public), one of the boldest assertions that ever was hazarded. Well did Cicero remark, "Qui semel verecundiœ fines transierit, eum oportet bene et gnaviter esse impudentem."
* See Evidence of Peter Murdoch, Esq., Report, vol. ii., p. 113; of Mr. John Russell, do. p. 59; of Dr. Ullathorne, do. p. 22; and of Mr. John Marshall, do. p. 90.
276
of the worst possible materials; but it is yet an aggravation of the absurdity to add to this the moral ruin of those who were originally, and might have remained, untainted characters, by throwing them, along with fresh importations of villainy, into this sink of corruption.
"So long," says a witness* by no means hostile to the system, "as it is deemed expedient to banish British criminals to this colony, so long must the amount of depravity in it be such as to make it the most contaminating community in the world."
The only possible mode of overwhelming the evil,—of regenerating such a community,—is by first stopping at once the polluted stream now flowing into it by the continual introduction of fresh criminals, and then taking measures for sending over honest and uncorrupted settlers in large bodies at once;—not by hundreds, or by thousands, but by tens of thousands: so that they may at once exert a preponderating influence, and form a public opinion among themselves. A great pile of green wood thrown all at once upon a fire, may perhaps extinguish it: but if the same quantity be cast on by a few billets at a time, these will be kindled and consumed, and will increase the fire; more especially if at the same time you continue to pour oil on the flames. Under the proposed system therefore, as well as that hitherto pursued,—under any system which continues the importation of persons who have been convicted of crime, all the efforts this country may make for the advantage of those colonies, will tend only to increase and extend the mischief; because the more such a colony flourishes in respect of worldly prosperity,—the more its population increases (as it is likely to do most rapidly, with a practically boundless extent of territory),—and the more of commercial and political importance it acquires,—the more will its evil tendencies be developed,—the more widely and the more powerfully will it diffuse its pestilential taint; till it become a most portentous curse, as well as disgrace, to this nation, and to the world at large. But the real state of the case is one so painful to contemplate, and the remedies called for involve so much forethought, care, and trouble, as well as firmness in coping with difficulties, that
* Sir Francis Forbes: Evidence, vol. i., p, 73.

277
one may find many persons content to turn off the subject with the consolatory reflection that, after all, crimes are committed,—vices exist, in all colonies—in all communities—and of course, in penal colonies among the rest:—and that abuses have taken place in prisons, and must be expected to occur occasionally under any system of secondary punishment that ever was or can be adopted. And the conclusion practically drawn amounts, in plain terms, to neither more nor less than this:—that since no human institution or system can be exempt from imperfections and evils, therefore all that is alleged and proved respecting the especial imperfections of the punishment of transportation—the peculiar evils of penal colonies should be disregarded, and go for nothing. On such a principle, equally futile are all questions about laws universally, since none can claim perfection:—about governments; since cases of abuse may be made out under every government, about the healthiness, or unhealthiness of different climates; since men are liable to disease and to death, both in Siena Leone and in England, &c. In short, all the most momentous questions that ever were discussed, might be got rid of at once by this summary mode of arguing. But men never do proceed on such absurd arguments in cases where they are really in earnest; that is, when their own interest and immediate welfare are concerned. In fact, any man who did so proceed in his private affairs, would be deprived by a court of justice of the management of his own property; he would be pronounced of unsound mind, if in those transactions of life which are justly supposed to call forth what powers of mind a man does possess, he should so set all computation at defiance,—should appear not to understand what is meant by proportion, or by quantity. For instance there are crimes, and there are convictions for crime, in New South Wales; and so there are in England, and in all countries; where then is the difference? Why, that murders, attempts to murder, and other crimes of like magnitude are as common as petty larcenies in England;—that if in this country there had been, in the course of the last year, 7,000 persons executed, besides 10,000 more capitally convicted, and 120,000 convicted of minor felonies, then (in proportion to the population) this country
278
and the penal colonies would be on a par in respect of crimes and punishments:—that there are there as many capital convictions (in proportion) in one year as in Ireland—a country not celebrated for obedience to the laws,—in three centuries:—that putting out of account all the convicts under sentence, and all the emancipists, who are three-fifths of the population, and taking only the soundest part of it, the free emigrants, and natives, it appears that the proportion convicted of various offences among these persons alone,—this select portion, who are likely, we have been told, to be more strict in their morals than the population of the mother-country,—is nearly three times as great as in this country; and finally, that those most favourably disposed towards the interests and the credit of the colony of New South Wales, admit it to be "the most contaminating community in the world." There is vice—there are infamous characters—at home, as well as in those colonies, and what is the difference? Why this: that if in the British Islands there were 12,000,000 of convicted felons, many of them among the wealthiest members of the community, then the state of society here would be on a par with what exists in those colonies! Is all this to be practically overlooked, and passed over with the general, sweeping remark, that there are vices and Crimes in all countries? Am I not borne out in saying that a man would be pronounced insane who should, in his private concerns, manifest such a total incapacity of estimating the comparative magnitude of two evils;—who should be utterly insensible to the most monstrous disproportion between two objects? And would it not be almost insanity for us to persevere in acting on such principles and plans, after the absurdity of them, as well as their noxious tendency, have been so long and so fully exposed? We have as it were founded, and endowed, and patronized a "University of Wickedness:" it would surely be inexcusable to go on cherishing and supporting it, and supplying it with continued reinforcements of criminals and free settlers thrown together,—the teachers as it might be expressed, and the learners, of villainy and profligacy;—till the whole shall have grown up into a numerous and powerful nation, exhibiting on a great scale a strange and appalling specimen of the

279
lised: such views, though inconsistent with reason and with experience, are at least not inconsistent with themselves. But then, when any one points out the superior advantages of having our penitentiaries nearer home, instead of at a distance of four months' voyage, with a view of avoiding both the heavy cost, and, much more, the corrupting effects, of a long-voyage, and especially, for the sake of being able to exercise a vigilant and ready superintendence, then rises the cry of alarm, what is to be done with the criminals when discharged from penitentiaries at home? How will it be possible to live in the country if such a multitude of miscreants are let loose upon society? The same penitentiary discipline, it seems, which would, in Australia, send forth reformed characters, would, in Europe, send forth none but intolerable pests of society: the discharged convicts who would there be so well-conducted as to be a blessing to the community, would here prove an unconquerable and unbearable pollution! This is as if one should maintain that a bucket-full of some filthy or noxious substance, which, if thrown into the Thames, would pollute and poison the whole river from its source to its mouth, would have no ill effect at all, if cast into a small well. Then again, if any proposal is made for the establishment of penitentiaries in this country, or near our own shores, a clamour is immediately raised against the apprehended expense to be incurred; and we are told of the abuses that are likely to take place in penitentiaries, and what a strong case may be made out against them; but if the penitentiaries are to be established in the southern hemisphere, the case, it seems, is altered for the better; the estimates are lowered, though all circumstances are manifestly such as to enhance expenses;—we are no longer to feel apprehension of abuses, and of difficulties of management; all is to go on well, so the penitentiaries are but established at 16,000 miles' distance. And on several other points* be-
not only to the wretched beings themselves, but the colony of New South Wales at large, are dreadful to contemplate."—Papers Relalative to Transportation, &c. Session 1839, No. 582, p. 9.
* "Each objection, as soon as brought forward, is eagerly met by such statements and representations as the case may seem to call or, supported as strongly as bold and vehe-
280
sides those which I have been adverting to, I have found opposite statements made, opposite reasonings resorted to, opposite principles maintained,—according as each might serve a present purpose,—might vindicate the measures of selfish policy, or of temporary ease and convenience. Now, what man of common sense and of candour can fail to perceive the inconsistency—I may say the disingenuous inconsistency—of this procedure;—of pretending to be actuated by reasons and by motives which are instantly discarded whenever it suits our purpose? The fact is, that distance is especially favourable to those who wish to prevent, not the existence of abuses, but the knowledge of them. Actual complaints are diminished by the very cause which increases the just grounds of complaint. To those who are thinking only of keeping up appearances, the ten-fold aggravation of evils in a distant colony is as nothing, so long as they are less forced upon public attention. But those who would perform the office of wise and honest legislators must not shrink from grappling effectually with difficulties near at hand,—must not satisfy themselves with merely keeping them out of sight, or letting their apparent magnitude, like that of the heavenly bodies, be diminished by distance from the unreflecting spectator; must seek not to evade detection, but to provide remedies. If we look to the real magnitude of difficulties—the actual
ment assertions can support any thing; and then the advocates seem to calculate on the reader's not only being perfectly satisfied with what is said, but immediately afterwards forgetting the whole of it; so as to be prepared to receive from the same pen representations the most opposite to the foregoing, calculated to meet some different objection."
"At one time we find the situation of the convict painted in the most favourable colours, as one of considerable present comfort, and full of cheering confidence of speedy and complete restoration (on the supposition of tolerably good conduct) to a respectable place in society, with such advantages in respect of worldly prosperity, as the individual could not elsewhere have hoped. This is to shew the utility of the system as a mode of reformation. Then, to shew its utility as a mode of deterring from crime by terror, the picture is reversed, and the same convict is represented as undergoing the most galling and degrading slavery—as suffering the most unmitigated misery, and branded with the most indelible disgrace."—Second Letter to Earl Grey, pp. 41, 42.

281
utmost point to which the human race can be degraded and depraved by a system,—apparently, and as it would strike a bystander—devised designedly and most ingeniously contrived for that very purpose:—
"By curse
Created evil, for evil only good:
Where all life dies, death lives, and nature breeds
Perverse, all-monstrous, all-prodigious things, Abominable, unutterable, and worse
Than fables yet have feigned, or fear conceiv'd."
But if such mischiefs result, it is often urged,—from turning loose on society those who have been convicted of crimes, it is the more important that we in this country should secure ourselves from that evil, by getting rid of such characters, and settling them permanently in a distant land. Now, if all who are transported were sentenced to exile for life, instead of being allowed to return, as it is well known they frequently do, almost always, more hardened and more accomplished villains than before, and if the punishment of transportation should be so regulated as not only to be in reality severe, but to be a terror, instead of what it has oftener been hitherto, an encouragement to offenders,—so as no longer to raise up a fresh stock of criminals,* in place of those who are thus, as it is called, "got rid of;" then, there would be at least an apparent policy in such a course,—a specious plea of present selfish expediency, involving no inconsistency at least with the principle of looking only to our own benefit, with an utter and avowed disregard of all justice and humanity,—with an entire carelessness how great evils we might inflict on others, so we could avoid a far smaller inconvenience to ourselves—with an unblushing contempt not only for the welfare of the rest of mankind in general, but of the rest of the British empire. But disgusting as is an open and undisguised selfishness, there is something still more offensive in the inconsistency of professing a sedulous care for the welfare of the very parties whom we unscrupulously sacrifice on the altar of our own apparent self-interest. It seems to be an adding of insult to injury, when we thus pretend to be seeking alike the good of the colony and of the mother country, and yet apply totally opposite
* See first Letter to Earl Grey, pp. 76,77,
282
principles to the one and to the other. For example, when statements are made unfavourable to the character of the society in those colonies, an outcry is raised by some persons against these alleged "libels upon our fellow-subjects,"—our beloved brethren: when it is proposed to deprive them of the supposed benefit of convict-labour, or to dissuade emigrants from going thither, then forsooth, the colony is a portion of the British empire,—a jewel in the Sovereign's Crown,—a flourishing, and promising, and deserving community, whose rights and interests ought to be as dear to us as our own. But again, when any one points out the cruelty of overwhelming a small and infant community with the outpourings of all the scum and impurity of this great empire, and the moral ruin which in so limited a society such a preponderance of vicious ingredients must produce, then, it seems, the case is quite altered: then, the cry is, let us not have these bad characters let loose upon ourselves; let us get rid of them at all events; send them to a distance,—to an Australian colony; they are too bad to be kept at home, but they are good enough for New South Wales. Our dear brethren at the Antipodes—our esteemed and honoured fellow-subjects, are not worth a thought, when any advantage or convenience to ourselves is at stake! But again, we are told that the severe system which is henceforward to be carried on at Norfolk Island, will reform the convicts, who are to be then carried to New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land, where they will prove a great advantage to those colonies, in their new character of steady, honest, industrious labourers. This is at least conceivable and intelligible, how much soever it may be at variance with probability: we have only to cherish the sanguine hope that the discipline of the Government-chain-gangs, as they are called, will from henceforth produce effects the very opposite to what they have always hitherto produced,* and the picture may be rea-
* That as a place for the reformation of criminals it is worse than useless, is unhappily a fact too notorious to be contradicted; and if it be true, as no doubt it is, that our present statutes propose the reformation of the offender as well as his punishment, then "this place is of all others the least calculated to produce so desirable a result; and in a moral and religious point of view, the consequences,

283
amount of mischief,—and not, merely, to the impression produced on men's minds at home, we shall see at once that the difference between the mother-country and a distant colony is precisely the reverse of what the advocates of transportation assume it to be. It must be, of course, an evil to any community to have discharged convicts thrown loose on society; but in a penal colony it must be, from the nature of the case, incomparably a greater evil than in this country. Such a colony is the worst possible place for the liberated convicts; and they are the worst possible settlers. In this country,—in almost any country except a penal colony, the discharged offender finds himself in a society, the general current of which runs counter to such conduct as he has been suffering for: the wealthiest persons, and those filling respectable situations, are (if not honest men) at all events not convicted criminals, but persons at least pretending to unsullied character: he has therefore the strongest inducement, from example, and from interest, to seek to obtain and to preserve a good character: and he has generally the opportunity of fixing himself apart from his former associates, where his former delinquency is not known; and is thereby encouraged, as the phrase is, to turn over a new leaf. And under such an improved police-system as any one may see from the published Report of the Constabulary Force Commission to be both practicable and much needed, there is every reason to hope that not only the number of such characters will be greatly diminished, but also that they will be, in many instances, led to betake themselves to honest courses; especially if they shall have been subjected to the discipline of a well-regulated penitentiary on the separate system, which, even where it fails to reform, at least produces no fresh corruption,—introduces a man to no fresh associates in vice. This is not, I am happy to say, a mere conjectural speculation,—a sanguine anticipation; but, I may almost say, a fact which has been experienced. A result at least strongly illustrative of what I have been saying, took place at the time of the late reform of the English poor-laws. Your Lordships may remember what multitudes of men were at that time out of work, ostensibly from want of demand for their labour, but, in truth, from their preferring to eat the bread of idleness;—living on parish allowance, disorderly, slothful, and,
284
not seldom, engaged in smuggling, poaching, and pilfering.* But when these men found that they were no longer to subsist as drones, at the expense of the industrious, the far greater part of them sought employment with a sincere wish to make themselves serviceable; and, in consequence, almost all of them found it; and have been long since absorbed into the labouring population, and generally without even finding it necessary to change their abode. Now this affords good ground to hope for the reclaiming even of discharged convicts, in a well-ordered community. But in the penal colonies, nearly all these favourable circumstances are totally reversed. The emancipated convict, there, finds a society in which three-fifths of the total population are tainted with crime, and above a third of the free population,—including most of the wealthiest emancipists like himself. And a large portion of the remainder also being the offspring or kindred of criminals, this preponderance of known and avowed criminality gives, of course, as the evidence too plainly shews, a complete character of its own to the society. Not only is every kind of profligate example to be found everywhere close at hand, but a debased and depraved public opinion is established. The current sets, as it were, against temperance, against purity of life, against integrity, and virtue in general. In such a community, the moral standard being lowered, it may be expected that such persons as would be in very low repute in most parts of Europe, will be regarded as highly respectable characters; because, in every society, those will be so considered who are considerably above the average, and belong to "the better sort," as compared with the generality. And again, persons of eminent firmness of character may resist altogether the contagion of the surrounding immorality. But this surely is not to be looked for in the discharged felon, even though he should be one not incapable, under favourable circumstances, of being reformed. He is placed in circumstances
* It is but fair to remark in this place, that what I here say does not apply to Ireland. The people there had no parish-pay to tempt them to idleness: the want of employment, which, in England, was artificial, or a pretext is, in Ireland, real. Whether the same remedy is likely to be equally salutary in two such different cases, remains to be proved.—See Report of Commission of Inquiry into the State of the Poor in Ireland.

285
every way the most unfavourable, when not only surrounded with every variety of bad characters, but also fully aware that they are acquainted with his delinquency, and conscious that he knows theirs. Such men, so circumstanced, are fully qualified to keep each other in countenance in everything that is evil. They may be said to be, in a certain sense, irreproachable characters; since each of them, however depraved, is surrounded by his neighbours who cannot fairly reproach him for it;—who serve as mirrors to reflect the image of his own vices. Discharged convicts, even when partially reformed in character,—and not, as appears to be invariably the case with the Norfolk Island convicts, incurably hardened and depraved,—when thus thrown together, may be compared to I half-quenched firebrands, which, is scattered abroad, are soon extinguished, but if piled into a heap, will kindle each other into a blaze. In such a society accordingly, one might expect to find just that state of things which, the evidence proves but too fully, we do find. There is, as it were, a continual conjugating and declining of villainy and profligacy, through every mood and tense,—every person, gender, and number: it is, "I am a rogue: you are a rogue; he is a rogue; she is a rogue; we are rogues; they are rogues; we have been rogues; we shall be rogues; be thou a rogue;" &c. &c. And terms far more abominable than "rogue" might with equal truth, I fear be superadded.* In such a community, with a fresh stream of pollution continually pouring into it, to expect that free settlers of ordinary good character will remain uncontaminated, or reformed offenders be confirmed in good conduct, and not relapse into vice, would be most extravagantly sanguine: but to expect that the vicious will be reclaimed, the unreformed convict become a virtuous character, in the midst of every encouragement and temptation to vice, would be downright infatuation. That such a colony therefore is, as I have said, the worst possible place for discharged felons, is as manifest as that they are the worst possible settlers—the most unfit materials for raising up a new nation; and still more especially noxious to such a colony, as is labouring
* "How can you be surprised," says the Bishop of Australia, "that we have a corrupt population, when you consider the torrents of vice that have been poured in upon us."
286
under the very evil which they will continually aggravate. Then, again, in respect of penitentiaries, of whatever kind, all the objections that are brought against them, apply with incomparably greater force to such institutions at a distance of sixteen thousand miles. The expensiveness of the penitentiary system is much dwelt on: and in that point of view, such an institution in a remote colony must be far more objectionable. To Norfolk Island, building materials must be brought at least nine hundred miles; and the transport of the convicts themselves, and of the soldiers who are to guard them, becomes, in the case of a four months' voyage, a very heavy item.† I am almost ashamed, my Lords, to dwell so much on pecuniary considerations, in a case where so much more important interests are at stake—the suppression of crime, the efficiency of the laws, the temporal and eternal interests of many thousands of our countrymen, the character to all succeeding generations of what will one day probably be a mighty nation, and a blessing or a portentous curse to nearly the whole world. But pecuniary considerations have a great—in the present question—an excessive weight. The imagined cheapness (for after all it is but imaginary) of the transportation system has been, I conceive, a principal inducement to many persons to shut their eyes to the enormity of its evils; and it seems still to operate in no small degree, even now that the abandonment of the assignment-system has destroyed whatever recommendation on the score of economy the penal colonies ever could boast. A considerable portion of the expense of the system has been kept out of sight, by not estimating adequately the large share of the military and police establishments of the colonies which belong to them as penal colonies,
* Any foreigner visiting Ireland, and finding the island in a course of being studded over with workhouses for the residence and safe custody of those in distress, including able-bodied men out of work, would not suppose us to be parsimonious in our expenditure for public objects. He might, indeed, perhaps wonder why our procedure was not reversed—why, instead of shutting up honest labourers at home, and sending out criminals to found a new nation in the colonies, we did not rather shut up the criminals at home, and people our settlements with the honest men. But he could not suspect us of unduly sparing expense.

287
being beyond what would be necessary except for the convicts. Taking the very lowest possible computation of this and of the other items, it appears that at the proposed establishment in Norfolk Islnd the cost of each convict's punishment (taking four years as the average term) will be not less than 145 l. Now in a penitentiary in this country, on the separate system, as recommended by Howard, by Hanway, and by the commissioners now engaged in the inspection of the prisons of Great Britain, the expense, on the most liberal computation, does not appear likely to amount to one half of this. The expense of the building is estimated by competent judges at from 100 l. to 120 l. per head; the interest of which last mentioned sum (and this is the fair way of computing) for four years, at as high a rate as five percent, would be 24 l.: and the maintenance of the prisoners, Mr. Brebner, the intelligent and experienced governor of the Glasgow bridewell assures me, has cost in his prison, on an average of the last ten years, less than 5l. per head annually, including the amount of salaries and all other incidental expense?. Taking, however, the double of this, to allow for all possible increase of cost for maintenance, this would amount to 40 l. for the four years; which, with the addition of the above-mentioned 24 l., would make the total cost 64 l. instead of 145 l, as the total cost per head of the punishment of convicts. Even, however, if this computation were reversed—if the Norfolk Island system were as much the cheapest of all modes of secondary punishment as it is in fact the most costly, still I should say that the impossibility of exercising that vigilant superintendence which is nowhere more called for than in the case of a prison, would alone outweigh all other considerations. Let any one but reflect attentively on the great and multifarious difficulties connected with prison discipline—on the care requisite for the safe custody of the prisoners, their health, their morals; on the danger, on the one side, of making the prison a desirable abode, and of cruelty or neglect, on the other—let him reflect on the various abuses that have taken place in prisons and penitentiaries of every description, and which have been, strangely enough, brought forward and dwelt on by the advocates of the present system, that is, of the system of having such establishments
288
removed to the other hemisphere; (where to be sure the abuses, though likely to be actually much greater, are less likely to be heard of here,—let him but reflect I say on all this, and the conclusion will surely be, that even a school, a farm, a manufacture, in short any other kind of institution rather than a penitentiary, should be conducted at the distance of half the globe—that this, above all others, requires the prompt transmission of directions, the speedy remedy of defects or abuses, the immediate appointment, whenever vacancies occur, of well-selected governors, as well as the immediate removal of the unfit;* and in short that continual active
* "In order to carry this proposal into effect, a prison will require to be erected, capable of holding as many convicts as can be conveniently and profitably employed in the island, and so arranged as to facilitate the adoption of the most effectual means of enforcing an improved system of discipline; and that for this purpose, as no correct estimate can be formed here of the expenses to be incurred in the erection of such a prison at Norfolk Island, I have to desire that you will at your earliest convenience, transmit to me such an estimate, together with a plan of the proposed building.
" In my predecessor's circular despatch, of the 21st of October, 1837, he transmitted to you a volume, containing extracts from the second report of the inspectors of prisons in this country, containing plans of prisons; and I now transmit to you a subsequent volume on the same subject, which will afford you the requisite information on this subject. In the mean time you will consider yourself authorized to incur such expenses as may be necessary for the temporary accommodation of an increased number of convicts in that island; and of those who shall arrive in New South Wales from this country in the course of the present year, you will send as large a portion to Norfolk Island as you think can be properly received there.
"The convicts themselves may be advantageously employed in making this temporary accommodation.
"A small increase in the military guard will probably be required, which you will send from the troops now stationed in New South Wales.
The general principles which are to guide the future management of transported convicts are,—
"1st. That a fixed period of imprisonment should, in the first instance, be allotted for the punishment of the crime of which the prisoner has been convicted.
"2d. That the actual period of imprisonment should be liable to a subsequent abridgment, according to the previous

289
and watchful superintendence and control, which is the very reverse of what can be exercised when it takes about three quarters of a year to make an enquiry and receive the answer. But it is urged that, at any rate, the proposed system must be adopted for the present; transportation to a penal colony must be to a certain extent continued, at least till proper penitentiaries can be built. In answer to this objection, I will venture to throw out a suggestion which was made not long since by my lamented friend Mr. Drummond. I am happy and proud to call him such; for I had, of course, for some years, much intercourse with him, and our mutual esteem and regard was, I believe, continually increased during that intercourse. Not long before the nation was deprived by an untimely death of his valuable services, he was conversing with his usual intelligence on the present subject, and after remarking on the extreme impolicy of removing to such a vast distance an establishment which above all others requires vigilant superintendence, he added, "Why not make Dalkey Island, Norfolk Island?" Dalkey is a small rocky island, the property of the Crown, lying at a short distance from Kingstown. The suggestion evidently was, that either that,
character of the prisoner, the nature of his crime, and his conduct during his punishment.
"3d. That when allowed to leave Norfolk Island, he should not be assigned to any individual in Australia, but should enjoy advantages at least equal to those of a ticket of leave.
"No prisoner is to be detained in Norfolk Island longer than fifteen years.
"In order fully to carry these regulations into effect, it is desirable that, as far as possible, Norfolk Island should be appropriated to convicts from the United Kingdom, and that persons convicted of offences in New South Wales should be confined in some other part of the colony, or employed on the roads.
"In order to carry the new system fully into effect, the superintendence of it should be entrusted to an officer, on whose qualifications for the duty the best reliance can be placed; he should feel a deep interest in the moral improvement of the convicts, and be disposed to devote his whole energies to this important object. The opposite faults of over severity and over indulgence should be carefully avoided, as alike destructive of any good effect on the prisoners'"—Papers relative to Transportation, &c. Session 1839, No. 582, p. 17.
290
or some of the other numerous barren and nearly uninhabited islands (such as Lundy Island, for instance, in the Bristol channel) on the British or Irish coasts, the voyage to which would take about as many hours as to Norfolk Island it takes months, should be allotted to this use, as at least a temporary expedient. I do not think the Norfolk Island system a good one, even if it could be thus brought about 16,000 miles nearer home; but the change would be in all respects a manifest improvement as far as it went; and as an immediate and temporary expedient, would be both practicable and unexceptionable. And if there is any advantage in the name of "transportation" there can be no reason it should not be continued. For in all that I have said respecting transportation, I mean, of course, what is now commonly understood by that term, viz.: transportation to a colony. But then it would be necessary, I have heard it urged, to erect buildings on the island that might be selected; and this would be a work of time. Why such temporary accommodations as were erected in Norfolk Island and the other places where Government chain-gangs have been stationed, when convicts were first sent to them,—such as these could be provided in less than half the time that the voyage to Norfolk Island occupies: so that if it were determined that from this day no more convicts should be sent to a colony, the persons under sentence of transportation, if detained in prison or on board of a ship till due preparation was made for receiving them in one of those islands on our own coasts, and then transported thither, would actually reach their ultimate destination much sooner than if conveyed all the way to Australia. I have said that I do not consider the system as a good one. The confinement and restraint of prisoners by a wall of flesh and blood,—by a rampart of bayonets, and the crowding of them promiscuously together, and then endeavouring to guard against the ill effects of this by the constant presence of severe overseers, must, as experience has proved, have a corrupting effect upon both parties,—must tend to harden and brutalize both the convicts and the soldiers. But as long as we are compelled to resort to such means, that is, till proper restraint by means of stone walls can be provided, it would be a manifest improvement as far

291
as it goes, to get rid at once of one great part of the evil,—a long and costly voyage to a spot far out of the reach of proper superintendence.* The only shadow of argument I have ever heard adduced in favour of a remote penal establishment, is the supposed terror, to some minds, of a very distant place of exile. "Omne ignotum pro mirifico" has been cited as applicable to this case. The imagination, it has been said, enhances the dread of sufferings whose nature, from the remoteness of the place, cannot be accurately known. That the opposite effect is full as likely to take place, is not only a reasonable conjecture, but a fact of which we have abundant experience. It is admitted on all hands that unduly favourable ideas of the condition of the transported convict have been, in a vast number of instances, conveyed to this country. It may be that this will be effectually prevented in future, by the uniform severity to be exercised on all convicts in Norfolk Island. But even then, that this punishment should be exaggerated by the imagination,—that its severity should be believed greater than it really is,—seems neither needful nor possible. If it be, as we are assured by official documents,† in reality a punishment so much worse than capital, that men have been known to commit crimes on purpose to escape from it by death, one does not well see how an over-estimate of its severity can be formed by the imagination.
* One advantage which such an island as Dalkey or Lundy would possess over Norfolk Island, would be that there would be no vines or orange-trees to eradicate. This may sound strange to any one who is not aware that Norfolk Island,—one of the most favoured spots in the whole world for soil and climate,—has been made almost a garden of Eden by the fruit trees, which, sprung from seeds left by voyagers, have naturalized themselves and overrun the island. It has, therefore, been judged right, first to select this lovely spot as the abode of the worst of criminals, and then, for fear it should be too agreeable, to spoil it as far as possible, by destroying the fruit trees!
† The Catholic chaplain, the Rev. Mr. Ullathorne, corroborated by other authorities, represents that the convicts are driven to despair; that they have been known to commit murder for the sake of ridding themselves of life; and according to the expression used by one of the convicts himself, "When a man come to this island he loses the heart of a man, and gets the heart of a beast."—Papers relative to Transportation, &c, Session 1839. No. 582 5 p. 9.
292
When the actual infliction is so shockingly severe that the people of this country, who can hardly be brought to tolerate capital punishment, would far less tolerate one which is beyond capital, if they once had their attention roused to it,—in such a case, I say, whatever uncertainty and indistinctness there may be respecting the convict's condition, may operate to extenuate but never to aggravate the terror of the punishment. Supposing however, the reverse of this to be true,—supposing—contrary to all reason and all experience—that the punishment of the transported convict was never underrated, and was sometimes overrated in the imagination; and that consequently a distant place of exile, was, to some minds, a distinct source of salutary terror, without any counterbalancing effect of the opposite kind on other minds;—still the price is so enormously disproportionate at which this supposed benefit is to be purchased, that I think no one who will sit down and dispassionately count the cost, could have a moment's hesitation on the question. For the sake of retaining a system which to some particular minds, it is supposed, may hold out the additional terror of distant exile, we are to send criminals at a heavy cost to a penal establishment, which is completely out of the reach of all vigilant inspection;—an establishment in which, instead of being reformed, they are debased and degraded, and hardened to the utmost possible degree. It was observed to me lately by Sir Edward Parry* as the result of several years' experience on the spot, that "he believed it impossible a convict could be sent to Norfolk Island without coming back a double-distilled villain." Then, after four years' (on the average) preparatory training in this university of depravity, they are to be let loose, to the amount of 4,000 annually,—or perhaps, under the proposed mitigation of the system, 2,000 or 1,000,—on the Australian Colonies, as free labourers and settlers. This precious importation is to consist, yon will observe, entirely of men; (of males I should rather say; for the other term would be hardly appropriate) no woman, as far as I can understand, being henceforth to be sent out as convicts. So that a community already overwhelmed with such unspeakable horrors from the shocking disproportion of the sexes, is to
* See his Evidence, Report, vol. ii. p. 62.

293
be annually inundated with a fresh torrent of pollution, by the influx of hundreds or thousands of the most abandoned profligates, exclusively males! And it is thus that a new and flourishing nation is to be created and cherished in its growth;—a nation flourishing in numbers and in wealth, but already of such a character as to have been described by one of the witnesses before the Committee by the concise and emphatic expression of "Sodom and Gomorrah." All sacrifices are to be made—no cost spared—to increase the extent and to keep up the odious character of such a community: a conspicuous and lasting monument of England's shame and guilt: a monument such as I suppose was never before erected by any people, Christian or Pagan, of combined absurdity and wickedness. But even this is not all: if the proposed system be adopted and persevered in, the other colonies also in the southern hemisphere will be contaminated by the same polluted stream. The colonies already infected indeed,—New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land,—are such as some might think fitting subjects of any experiment however wild; or incpable of receiving, morally, either injury or benefit from any; and incapable (though I cherish better hopes), of being regenerated, even by perseverance in wise measures. But to taint not only these, but also the rising colonies of Swan River, South Australia, and New Zealand, by an influx of discharged felons, would be doubly unpardonable. The convicts, it has been suggested, at Norfolk Island and Tasman's Peninsula, on the expiration of their sentence, are to be conveyed to the neighbouring colonies, generally, (without any limitation to those which have been hitherto penal colonies,) and there let loose; and thus each of these rising communities is to be from its early infancy distorted and diseased by the depravity of these "double-distilled villains." Now the free-settlers in New South Wales indeed, cannot complain of this as an unexpected hardship; (except indeed, such emigrants as have been deluded from their country by the false accounts given in tracts such as those I have alluded to) but to expose to this moral pestilence those who have settled in the other colonies, under the express understanding, that their settlements were not to be thus polluted, is manifestly as unjust and treacherous as it is impolitic and inhuman. In-
294
deed there is an express Act of Parliament* forbidding the introduction of convicts into South Australia; an act under which the settlers there have felt themselves secure from the evil it was meant to guard against;—an evil from which they will be secured, if there be any sense of honour in the British Government. For it would manifestly be an invasion of the act, to send thither the refuse of our jails, after having undergone their period of punishment and of debasement in Norfolk Island, on the plea that these men are not transported, but only conveyed ("convey, the wise it call"), and I hat they are not convicts, but merely persons who had been convicts, and whose term has expired: they are not precisely the same description of persons as we have promised not to send to South Australia,—convicts under sentence; but differ from them somewhat as a wild beast loose, does from a wild beast chained! Such are the results,—I may almost say the acknowledged and foreseen results,—to be expected from our persevering in the
* 4 & 5 Will. iv. c. 95. According to the South Australian Register, dated 25th January last, it appears that the influx of criminals into that colony from the penal settlements has already become a very serious source of annoyance.—"No precautions (says the Register) have been adopted to prevent the importation of escaped convicts or ticket-of-leave men from the neighbouring penal settlements; and the consequence is, that South Australia is overrun with persons of these descriptions, and the police find constant employment in apprehending them. That crime has been seriously increased by the unchecked importation of this class of bandits, may be gathered from the fact that out of the thirty prisoners tried at the last gaol-delivery, there was only one convicted who had come to the colony direct from England; and among the twenty-five prisoners now awaiting their trial for different offences, there are but five English emigrants; the remaining twenty being either escaped convicts, ticket-of-leave men, or emancipists from New South Wales or Van Diemen's Land. Now, we know not what orders have been issued to the port-officer with regard to the crews and passengers of vessels arriving from the penal settlements; but this we do know, that not the slightest attention is paid to the subject, either at Glenelg or at the port, and that a ship-load of escaped convicts could at any time be landed without remark or remonstrance. Again, there is no check upon the overland arrivals, and it is notorious that some of the worst desperadoes of New South Wales have found their way hither by that route."

295
transportation system, even under a modified shape and to a diminished extent. They may be called acknowledged and foreseen results, because the statements and principles on which I have been arguing are mostly drawn, not from conjectures or observations of my own,—not even merely from uncontradicted testimony, or from the report of a Parliamentary Committee,—but from Government documents,—from descriptions and remarks, not merely admitted, but spontaneously and prominently set forth, in official papers. That a convict "in Norfolk Island loses the heart of a man and gets the heart of a beast," that "as a place for the reformation of criminals it is worse than useless,"—that "the proposal of allowing them to flock to the Australian Colonies at the expiration of their sentences, would render that noxious atmosphere more foul by their addition," and would therefore be open to a "fatal objection," as "leaving the main evil of transportation in full vigour,"—all this being, in so many words, acknowledged and foreseen, leaves me at a loss for arguments against the scheme I am deprecating. It seems of itself to plead guilty, as it were, to every charge brought against it. I know of no terms in which to condemn it more strongly than it stands self-condemned. I do cherish a hope therefore, that her Majesty's Ministers will be induced to follow out fully the principles which have been thus admitted, and to apply a thorough remedy to evils which have been so thoroughly exposed. If some system good in itself had been pushed to a faulty excess, a moderated continuance of it would be all that we could desire: if abuses had crept into such a system, it would be enough to remedy the abuses: but when a system has been shewn to be in itself an abuse,—to be radically and fundamentally bad, we ought not to be satisfied with a mere diminution of the evil. Those who introduced and who carried on for above fifty years the transportation system with the expectation of doing good, have been doing unspeakable mischief; but if we, without that expectation, continue the system, though in a mitigated degree, and satisfy ourselves with merely doing rather less mischief, but that, with our eyes open, and knowing what it is that we are doing, we shall be incomparably more to blame than our predecessors. From that blame,
296
my Lords, I have exonerated my own conscience; and I call on this House,—on the Legislature,—and the British Nation,—not lightly to cast from them the consideration of this question, merely because there is no party contest about it; but to weigh well its importance to the credit and welfare of this country,—to the welfare of almost every nation, civilized or uncivilized, throughout the world. And I hope for such a strong expression of the opinion of this House and of the public at large, as shall induce and enable Ministers to take effectual measures for putting an end not to a part only, but to the whole, of the present most pernicious and indefensible system, and for removing from this country one of the foulest stains that ever blemished our national character. The Resolution, my Lords, which I have to move is, "That the System of Transportation ought to be immediately, completely, and finally abolished."*
The Marquess of Normanbyobserved, that
* The published speech was accompanied by the following postscript, and by a considerable appendix, which we do not add on account of its length. It contained useful illustrations of the principles laid down in the speech, and refutations of the opinions of some of the adversaries with whom the most Rev. Prelate has been engaged in controversy on this question. The postscript was as follows.

POSTSCRIPT.
Though the motion was not pressed to a division, it happily had the effect of calling forth some able speeches, which at once evinced the increased public attention which the subject has attracted, and also tended to increase that attention.
But I cannot forbear remarking, that the main objection to the immediate abolition of transportation to a colony, which I had forestalled by Mr. Drummond's suggestion of substituting for Norfolk Island (as a temporary expedient at least) one on our own coasts,—this objection was not supported by any weighty reasons against that suggestion.
The only argument adduced, was the supposed tenor with which, to some minds, it is said, a very remote place of exile is invested by the imagination.
I have given my reasons for believing this argument to be greatly over-rated, and to be quite insufficient, even if it be not over-rated, to counterbalance the considerations on the opposite side. But as it does seem to weigh much with those on whom the practical decision rests, I will venture to throw out in this place another suggestion, by which advantage may be taken of the feeling in question, for a beneficial purpose, without incurring (as now)

297
the most rev. Prelate might feel assured, that if the subject he had introduced to their Lordships' notice did not attract the deepest attention, it was not on account of the manner in which he had treated it. It, perhaps, did not require all the talent which the most rev. Prelate had exerted to show that vice, wherever it existed, was corrupting, and that crime led to contamination. It was now eight years since the most rev. Prelate's attention had been directed to the subject, yet he hardly seemed to have allowed full credit to the changes effected of late. The transportation committee presented a most able report two years ago, which had led to some of the most useful and important alterations in the system, correcting some of the crying abuses to which the most rev. Prelate had alluded. Many of the evils had been removed by the abolition of assignment. The most rev. Prelate said, that his attention was first drawn to the subject by the alluring accounts sent home by the convicts of their condition. These attractive accounts had ceased to be sent home, and he of late years only knew one instance of a convict sending a flattering description of the place to his relations, and expressing a wish that they should join him. He could assure the most rev. Prelate that transportation was now considered to be really a severe punishment, and it would be a great boon to any person sentenced to transportation to commute his punishment to imprisonment in the Penitentiary. With respect to the corrupting influence of transportation, he begged to observe, that according to the new regulations, no convict would be sent to the settled parts
the enormous counterbalancing disadvantages.
Let Norfolk Island, or some such remote spot, be made, exclusively, the place of exile to those (a very small proportion of criminals) who are sentenced to transportation for life. Let no others—convicts or free settlers—be located there. And thus you will obtain all the advantages, and avoid (as far as the thing is possible) the disadvantages of a remote penal-establishment. For,
1st. There will be an approach towards a scale of punishments, proportioned to offences, by adding on, in the most heinous cases, whatever terror there may be in remote exile.
2dly. The promiscuous association together of those sentenced to a term (for slighter offences) and for life, will be avoided.
3dly, The dreadful consequences of over-
298
of Van Dieman's Land, There was one most important and grave part of the subject, which the most rev. Prelate had treated lightly. He proposed a resolution for the immediate abolition of the punishment of transportation, but he suggested no substitute. There were many serious and weighty considerations connected with the question of a proper secondary punishment, which must press on the minds of all statesmen, particularly at the present moment, when the current of public opinion was setting forcibly, as he believed usefully, in favour of the gradual abolition of the punishment of death. There were many reasons which rendered the infliction of a secondary punishment at home particularly difficult. He conceived it to be utterly impossible to substitute for the punishment of death any other than a punishment which should last during life. At the same time, it would be repugnant to the feelings of Englishmen to think that any human being was immured within four walls for the whole period of his life; and as little would they endure the substitution of that punishment, usual in some other countries, which consisted in compelling the criminals to work in chains in the streets. Then came the question of penitentiaries. With regard to the expense of this system, he thought the most rev. Prelate had not spoken with his usual clearness. A gentleman who had paid considerable attention to the subject had estimated that the first expense of establishing penitentiaries would be 25,000,000 l., and that the expense of maintaining them would be 1,500,000 l. He thought this estimate exaggerated, but
whelming our Australian Colonies with the discharged convicts,—which, it is truly observed in the Government papers (p. 6), "leaves the main evil of transportation in full vigour"—will be avoided.
4thly. The frightful severity exercised in Norfolk Island might be considerably relaxed, without those ill effects which would, now, follow from such relaxation; because the numbers of the exiles would be so much smaller, and also the remoteness and seclusion of the place of banishment, and its being for life, might be a sufficient terror, without any additional severity of treatment.
Such a plan I conceive would be at least a manifest and great improvement on the present or proposed course; and would be open to none of the objections, as far as I can see, which have been urged against any of the other suggestions of the -opponents of transportation.

299
he alluded to it for the purpose of showing that the expense had been calculated at a much higher amount than the most rev. Prelate seemed disposed to put it at. But another more important consideration was, that relating to the health of the prisoners. A system of separate confinement could not be adopted, unless it was made rigid, and the result of his inquiries induced him to entertain considerable doubt as to the effect of such a system in this climate. In the Penitentiary at Mill-bank soldiers were confined; but their confinement was necessarily short, and he was informed by a medical gentleman that their health there was not only as good as the health of soldiers in any other prison, but as good as that of soldiers when unconfined. But this was by no means the case with respect to those who suffered confinement for a considerable time; and it appeared that the health of the prisoners broke down after a certain period. Their Lordships were called upon by this resolution not to adopt a more gradual change, but immediately and finally to abolish the whole system of transportation. But it was physically impossible, even if the necessary funds were at hand, to provide adequate accommodation in the gaols, hulks, and penitentiaries at home for the convicts now in the course of justice. During the last ten years there had been condemned to transportation 41,300 convicts, of which 35,937 had been actually transported, and 400 upon an average having completed their term were annually set at liberty. For the next ten years it was calculated there would be 38,000 for Great Britain, and about 10,000 for Ireland. During the present year 1,390 had been condemned to various periods of transportation; the remaining months of the year would give an addition of 2,550, and there were at present confined in the hulks 3,008, in the gaols 1,000, and in the penitentiary 300; in all, little short of 7,000, while the utmost additional accommodation that could be provided would be for only 1,112. The new model prison would not be finished for two years, but the accommodation would even then be only increased to the extent of 500. It would be impossible, as he had already stated, exactly to calculate the great increase of expense which must result from the establishment of that system of penitentiaries as recommended by the most rev. Prelate; but in order to give
300
their Lordships some faint idea of it, he might be allowed to state, that in consequence of the regulation which their Lordships had adopted last year, in the propriety of which he entirely concurred, that prisoners should no longer be employed in the service of the prisons, the expense of turnkeys, matrons, and other officers for the three metropolitan gaols, Coldbath-fields, Clerkenwell, and Tothill-fields, instead of 8,000 l., as formerly, now amounted to 15,000 l. The tendency of the public mind, too, was decidedly in favour of the abrogation of capital punishments; and he had always supported measures for the amelioration of the penal code; but if transportation were abolished—above all, if such a change as that now recommended were rashly adopted, he very much feared it would be impossible to substitute another secondary punishment, adequate to the protection of property which the circumstances of the country would enable them to inflict. The most rev. Prelate had done most essential service in calling the attention of their Lordships to this important subject, and he should be at all times most anxious to listen to any means that could be suggested to mitigate the evils of the present system. With all respect, therefore, for the most rev. Prelate, and even gratitude for his meritorious exertions in the cause of philanthropy, he would not call upon their Lordships to give a direct negative to the motion, but content himself with moving the previous question.
The Bishop of Exeterconsidered the most rev. Prelate entitled to the thanks of Parliament, for bringing this subject under the attention of their Lordships. There was no one subject he knew of, on which the energies of that great mind could have been more worthily employed, than in tracing the moral evils of transportation, and endeavouring to provide for them an effectual remedy. Yet the most rev. Prelate must forgive him, if he said, that with all gratitude for his services in this matter, there was one important circumstance he desiderated. The most rev. Prelate, in addressing himself to the evils of transportation in general, confined his views almost entirely to the effects it had produced in the colony of New South Wales. He seemed to suppose that transportation could only be conducted as it had been by this country since 1787. That, he must frankly say, was not so extensive a

301
view of the subject as he should have expected from the most rev. Prelate. The evils which had resulted from the system adopted in 1787, had continued with but little improvement till within the last twelve or fourteen years, had been most enormous; but were these consequences necessary to transportation? The system adopted in 1787, was carried out in the most absurd manner, convicts being employed to colonize a country. It was a system so sure to fail, that one's only amazement was, that the great intellects then in the Government of the country should ever have ventured upon it. But did it necessarily follow, if a system of colonization by free emigrants had accompanied, or rather preceded, penal transportation, that the same consequences would have ensued? In that case, had due attention been paid to the moral and religious care of the convicts, a very different result would, no doubt, have taken place. What were the facts with respect to New South Wales? We sent out 1,200 convicts at once, and what steps had been taken to insure their moral and religious instruction? It was notorious there was not even a thought of sending out a single chaplain to give them spiritual instruction when cast on those desolate shores. Surely that was no necessary part of the punishment of transportation. The benevolent men who interfered—Wilberforce, Bishop Porteus, and others—pressed upon Government, the necessity of taking some measures to insure the religious instruction of the convicts, and with difficulty induced them to allow one solitary chaplain to accompany the expedition. For the first seven years one chaplain only was employed for the spiritual care of those wretched persons. The next seven years two were sent; but, as if that were too many, the third seven years only one chaplain was sent. There was something so shocking in this, that, as an Englishman, he should blush for his country if he could think for a moment, it was the result of indifference to the moral and spiritual welfare of those unhappy but guilty persons. The real cause, he believed, was, that at the time the whole energies of the Government of the country were employed in that great contest which lasted so long, and which engrossed the whole attention of those who conducted it. The colonization of New South Wales, and even the correction of convicts, were held to be
302
trifles in comparison to that important struggle. But that struggle being over, he wished there had been some appearances of attention to the duty of the country in this particular. Such, however, was not the case. Many, many years elapsed, before anything like due regard was paid to this subject, and the necessity that those sent out as convicts should have the means of reformation. He had no doubt he should surprise some of their Lordships when he told them, that with 4,000 convicts, in what were called iron gangs in the gaols of New South Wales, not one single person was appointed by Government as chaplain. Was it, then, to be wondered at that such a harvest of crime should have been the result of such a state of things? In Sydney, Government gave 50 l. a-year to the rev. W. Cowper for looking after the gaol; but, as minister of St. Phillip's parish, he had also the care of 5,000 or 6,000 souls to attend to. The sum of 50 l. was also given to a Roman Catholic chaplain. In the neighbourhood of Sydney, the iron gangs had no other sort of spiritual superintendence. Another clergyman, to be sure, who had gone out to Sydney without any specific employment, had been temporarily engaged by the Bishop of Australia. That, however, was only temporary, and would only last till a permanent appointment was made. The evil was so great, that strong representations had been made to the Government at home, by persons whose representations were entitled to the greatest weight. In June 1837, representations were made from the judges of the colony, deploring the want which existed of spiritual instruction. Their Lordships, no doubt, expected to hear that the representations proceeding from so high an authority, had met with immediate and respectful attention, and that if nothing had been done at the moment, it was only because persons could not be immediately found to dispense the spiritual instruction of which there was so much need. Their Lordships would of course conclude that if no immediate measures were adopted promises of instant attention had been given, and that the venerable judges had been assured that the Government was deeply indebted to them for having pointed out the evil which existed. Not so, however, the year 1838 passed away without any answer having been returned, and the

303
year 1839 had also passed away in the same manner without answer. Either the governor of the colony, if he had made no representations to the Government at home, or the Government at home if it had received information of the evil from the highest authority without ever noticing the communication, had incurred a heavy responsibility. Where the fault lay he knew not, but he hoped their Lordships would have the matter explained to them by some Member of her Majesty's Government. He admitted with the noble Marquess the Secretary for the Home Department, that while all must honour the motives by which the most rev. Prelate was actuated in bringing forward this subject, the most rev. Prelate's proposal that transportation should cease absolutely, finally, and immediately, must be considered as asking rather more than the grounds which had been stated would warrant. He (the Bishop of Exeter) would not enter into a discussion upon the general question; he wished merely to advert to the representations that had been made by the most rev. Prelate as to the state of morals prevailing in New South Wales; and, indeed, but for those representations he (the Bishop of Exeter) should Dot have troubled their Lordships on the present occasion. The most rev. Prelate was, of course, convinced of the accuracy of the statements which he had made, and under such an impression, that he should have felt that holy indignation which he had expressed that evening, could occasion no surprise to their Lordships; it would have been a matter of surprise if the most rev. Prelate could have expressed himself with coldness, believing, as he did the truth of those statements. But unless he (the Bishop of Exeter) was grossly misinformed, the real facts of the case were exceedingly different from the account given by the most rev. Prelate. The most rev. Prelate spoke of the colony of New South Wales as a nation of criminals and executioners, and as the most corrupt population that the sun ever shone upon. Was that the real state of things? Were there no authorities on the other side of the question? It might be said that statements proceeding from the colonies themselves would be partial, but still there were functionaries in those colonies who could not be induced by partiality to make a false statement of facts passing under their own eyes. What account did the Bishop of
304
Australia give of the state of morals in the colonies? The Bishop stated in his report of the Diocesan Committee, January 23, 1837.
"This spirit (regard for the interest of religion) is not confined to a single district, but I have found it pervading all which I have visited with a degree of unanimity as remarkable as it is gratifying. The circumstance of so many churches being at one and the same time in progress in such distant parts of the colony is unparalleled, so far as my observation extends, in any country containing a tenfold population; and the amount of subscriptions raised in every such instance, without reserve or difficulty, proves how becoming a sense is generally entertained by the settlers of their duty to make a liberal offering to the service of God in acknowledgment of the bounties He has bestowed upon them. In addition to this I cannot forbear to observe, that having held confirmations in every part of the colony which I have visited, where a becoming place for the celebration of that rite could be provided, the attendance, with perhaps one single exception, has been numerous and gratifying beyond my expectation. The appearance and demeanour of the young persons who have come forward on these occasions—their unaffected seriousness, their evident marks of attachment to the Church and its ordinances, and the piety with which they have pledged themselves to fulfil the solemn engagement which they undertook in my presence, have filled with satisfaction and hope, not my heart alone, but the breasts of all who truly desire the welfare of this colony, and whose persuasion is, that it can be secured only through the establishment of true holiness and righteousness among its inhabitants."
This then was the solemn attestation of the Bishop of Australia addressed to his clergy. Judge Burton, who had published a work upon the state of religion and education in New South Wales, was another authority to the same effect. But the statement did not rest merely upon the opinions of the Bishop of Australia or judge Burton, but was proved by facts altogether at variance with the information upon which the most rev. Prelate proceeded. While the criminals in the whole colony convicted before Mr. Justice Burton was nearly 900, the number of native colonists convicted before him in six years was only thirty. Supposing the number convicted before the other two judges to be equal to the former, ninety of the native colonists only were convicted in four years. Yet this portion of the population was about 30,000; therefore, only 1 in 2,000 of them annually was convicted of crime. Was this a very de-

305
praved state of morals? If it were he should be very sorry, for England was almost incalculably worse, the proportion in England being one in every 800. The number of convictions in England during the last year was, he believed, 17,000, and taking the population at 14,000,000, there would result the proportion which he had stated, of one in 800. Yet New South Wales, where the degree of crime was not half so great, was to be called the most abandoned country which the sun ever shone upon. The most rev. Prelate had said, that the means which had been taken to improve the state of these colonies had proved ineffective, and he (the Bishop of Exeter) was ready to agree that one expedient which had been resorted to had utterly failed—he meant the expedient of sending over a ship load of women. It had been stated that the women who had been sent were respectable persons, and had certificates to that effect from the ministers of their respective parishes. If this were true, he regretted that the ministers of those parishes had been so easy in granting certificates, for he had heard from one who had been an eye-witness of the conduct of these women at the Cape, that anything more horrible could not be conceived; that their vices were perfectly notorious, and that several persons were assailed by them in language too shocking and disgusting to be described, The most rev. Prelate had said that public opinion in these colonies was on the side of vice. That was a strange statement; for really all the opinions given by the best authorities led to precisely the opposite conclusion, and showed that what might be expected to be the case actually took place in the colonies. In a country consisting of a population composed of such different classes as those of which society was composed in those colonies, it was natural to imagine that there would be a greater jealousy and a higher tone of morality among the respectable part of the people rather than that public opinion would be on the side of vice; and there was evidence that such was actually the state of things. The most rev. Prelate had been misinformed when he was told that the most respectable inhabitants of the colonies wished the system of transportation to be put an end to. What was the fact? He would read to their Lordships an extract from the votes and proceedings of the Legislative Coun-
306
cil (No. 15), dated July 17, 1838, relative to the petition for inquiry into the systems of transportation and assignment, unanimously agreed to, there being present, the Governor, the Chief Justice, the Bishop, and other members:—
"Resolved, that in the opinion of this council, the great extension which has latterly been afforded of moral and religious instruction, the classification which may in future be made in the numerous gaols now in progress of erection upon the most approved principles of inspection and separation, the more effectual punishment and classification of offenders in ironed gangs, according to their improved system of management, the numerous free emigrants now eligible as the assignees of convicts, and the accumulated experience of half a century, form a combination of circumstances which renders the colony better adapted at the present than at any former period to carry into effect the praiseworthy intentions of the first founders of the system of transportation and assignment, which had no less for its object reformation of character than a just infliction of punishment. Resolved. That in the opinion of this council, no system of penal discipline or secondary punishment will be found, at once so cheap, so effective, and so reformatory, as that of well regulated assignment, the good conduct of the convict, and his continuance at labour being so obviously the interest of the assignee, whilst the partial solitude and privations incidental to a pastoral or agricultural life in the remote districts of the colony (which may be made the universal employment of convicts), by effectually breaking a connection with companions and habits of vice, is better calculated than any other system to produce moral reformation, when accompanied by adequate religious instruction."
He need not call the attention of their Lordships to the respectability of the individuals who composed the Legislative Council, but he must say that this document was altogether inconsistent with the information which had been given to the most rev. Prelate as to the sentiments entertained by the respectable inhabitants of the colony. There was one more particular of great moment in the consideration of this subject, and that was the course taken by her Majesty's Government in diminishing the assistance which was afforded to free emigration. A few years ago, when a noble Earl, not now in his place (the Earl of Ripon), presided over the Colonial Department, Lord Howick, by his direction, wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, in which were the following words:—
"Lord Goderich is of opinion that it would

307
not be wise so to burden the colony as to check the progress of improvement and the development of its resources for the sake of a small immediate saving to this country; and he would more especially call the attention of their Lordships to the impolicy of applying to the ordinary current expenses of the colony that portion of the territorial revenue which arises from the sale of land. The funds derived from this source should be looked upon, not as forming a part of the income of the colony and available for the purpose of meeting its annual expenses, but as capital, which should not be permanently sunk, but invested so as to produce a profitable return."
Here, then, was the principle laid down of employing the produce of the sale of land in the encouragement of free emigration. Now, what had been the course actually pursued? Why, it appeared, that in ten years, from 1831 to 1840 inclusive, 800,000 l. would have been invested in land, while the expenditure of the Government on account of emigration, could not have amounted to 400,000 l. Some of their Lordships might think this a large sum to be so employed, but he thought the principle laid down by the noble Earl was a wise one, and that the whole of the proceeds ought to be so applied. This was not so much a question of expediency as of justice, for the expenses which pressed most heavily upon these colonies, were the judicial and civil charges arising from their convict burden, and were consequently incurred in enabling us to get rid of our inhabitants. The population of New South Wales, which hardly exceeded 100,000 souls, paid indirectly, by means of customs and other modes no less a sum than 240,000 l. per annum. It was no more than just that the Imperial Government should pay the expenses of the police, which was rendered necessary by its own system. He would not detain their Lordships further than by merely expressing a hope that means would be taken for supplying adequate spiritual instruction to those unhappy beings who stood so much in need of spiritual comfort and consolation.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, this was a subject of great importance, and one, the difficulties of which were much increased by the contariety of opinions that had been expressed upon it. After having perused, with all the attention he was able to give to it, the evidence that was taken be-
308
fore the committee of the House of Commons, it was with great surprise he had heard the statements which had just been made by the right rev. Prelate, because he could not understand how a committee which sat for so long a period, and heard such a variety of evidence, could have formed an opinion so directly against that of the right rev. Prelate. He must also say, that it appeared strange to him, that the opinion expressed on this subject by the Bishop of Australia should be so different as it seemed to be from that of several of the governors and judges of the colony. The noble Marquess opposite had afforded no clue whatever to the extent of improvement that had already taken place, or that was in contemplation. True, he had stated, that one part of the former system of transportation, namely, that of assignment, had been abolished, as the committee of the House of Commons had strongly recommended, but they had not vet had any information, and he imagined the noble Marquess was not aware of any, as to the result of that alteration. If, however, the committee had recommended the change on the ground of economy, most completely was that end destroyed by the abolition of assignment, for it was stated by Sir George Arthur, one of the witnesses who was examined before the committee, that the expense of the convicts under the system of assignment was about 4l.. per head, but that under any other system it would amount to 14 l. He should like also to know from the noble Marquess, whether the Government had already adopted the suggestions of Lord John Russell in his remarks on the evidence taken before the committee. If they had, then he said, that the way in which future transportation was to be conducted was entirely changed, and the expense would be increased to an extent which he believed this country would be little able to endure. If he understood the proposition of the noble Lord, it was, that not only the system of assignment should be abolished, but that the system of transportation either to New South Wales or Van Dieman's Land should be put an end to. The noble Lord proposed also to transport convicts in the first instance to Norfolk Island, or Tasman's Peninsula, those being the places to which convicts from New South Wales were now sent; but he admitted, that there was this defect in the proposition, that it left the

309
main evil of transportation in full vigour, for at the end of their transportation, the expense being too great for their return to England, the convicts would flock to the other Australian colonies, rendering them more foul then they now were. That was the proposition of the noble Lord, and it therefore appeared to him, that at this moment the Government, although thay opposed the motion of the most rev. Prelate, were not yet prepared to state what system should be adopted in future. The present expense of conveying criminals to New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land was about 28 l. per head, and the consequent expense on their arrival there was at least 54 l. more, making it in all an expense of 82 l. Now, that expense was to be increased under the alteration of the system which the noble Marquess had stated had taken place. With such an expense as that, it became absolutely necessary for them to include it in the consideration of the subject. As he had understood the noble Marquess, and Lord John Russell, it was in contemplation eventually to adopt pretty much the same system as that proposed by the most rev. Prelate. It was, therefore, now only a question of time. But if so, all that had been stated by the right rev. Prelate went for nothing, because it was in direct opposition to the principle which he had been advocating. The right rev. Prelate had said, that the most rev. Prelate had stated it as the opinion of all the good men in the colony, that the system ought to be discontinued, but that it should be considered, that that opinion was not given with reference to the morality or immorality of the colony, but with respect to their own individual interests. And, according to the statement of the right rev. Prelate, he wished for a continuation of the system; and indeed went further, for he wished also for the system of assignment which had been abolished. Now, he must say, he could not think that the recommendation of those to whom the right rev. Prelate had alluded ought to have much weight. But let their opinions be as different as they might on this subject, it was impossible for the population now in New South Wales and Van Die-man's Land not to be one of the grossest immorality, for, independent of the circumstances stated by the right rev. Prelate there was an enormous population comprised of felons or emancipated felons. It
310
was impossible, too, that there should not be a system of the grossest vice and immorality, considering the great disproportion there was of the sexes, according to the statement of the right rev. Prelate, for it appeared, that in the towns, the proportion of men to women was as five to two, in the agricultural districts as seven to two, and in the most distant parts of the country as seventeen to one. That must produce evils of the worst kind, and if so with regard to the male population, what must be its effect with regard to the women who were transported to the distant parts of the country? That state of things ought not to be allowed to continue, there should be a change, and it was the duty of the Government of this country, when these matters were brought to their notice, to do all in their power to remove those evils. His most rev. Friend, in using the word "immediate," did not mean to say, that transportation in a moment should cease in every part of the world, but that it should be incumbent on that House to express its feeling, that the present system should be put an end to, and such other system adopted as might be thought necessary. He would suggest, that the islands of Bermuda should be made use of as a place of transportation until penitentiaries were established in such parts ns the Government might determine on. The question really was, whether the suggestion of the committee was to be attended to or not? If it were not, then the Government were bound to say so, and to say why they were not satisfied with it; and it was their duty to let the country know what system was in future to be pursued with respect to transportation.
The Bishop of Exeterexplained. It was very far from the opinion he had expressed that transportation to New South Wales should go on. He distinctly avoided giving that opinion, but he certainly had not expressed a contrary opinion: for, surrounded as the question was with difficulties, he was not yet competent to form an opinion. What he said, was, that in his opinion, there might be a better system of transportation adopted, which might accompany or be subsidiary to colonization.
The Bishop of Norwichsaid, he must express his satisfaction and gratitude to the most rev. Prelate for having brought this most important, and he might say,

311
most religious subject, before their Lordships. And he also felt thankful to the noble Marquess for the statement he had made, because it had shown the extreme interest the noble Marquess took in the colony, and the anxiety there was in his mind to promote its welfare and renovation by every means in his power. With respect to transportation, he doubted very much whether any country, under any circumstances whatever, had a right to scatter and disseminate over the wide world the scum and refuse of its population. It might be said, that they were carried to distant parts where there were none but barbarian tribes; but was it right that they should make those tribes worse, and inoculate them with the vices and immorality of their own country? He doubted the policy of any country doing that. But no matter; for transportation was, nevertheless, carried on. He differed, however, from the most rev. Prelate as to its immediate abolition. He thought it could not be immediately. But he looked on this as the dawn of better things, as the opening of a desirable change, and that in a very short time, transportation would cease. He wished that some noble Lords, who appeared not to be as fully sensible as facts would warrant them in being of the great value of early education, would take the trouble to observe the civilizing and Christianizing effects produced upon the children of the poor in the union houses. To him it appeared that one of the great advantages arising from the total abolition of transportation would be that such a change must have the effect of turning the minds of the responsible advisers of the Crown to the necessity of a soundman effective, and an extended system of early education. It must be evident to any man of the least reflection that it was impossible to improve the population of New South Wales so long as there existed within that territory such an accumulation of sin and crime as must necessarily prevail in a penal settlement. How could virtue or piety flourish in a condition of society such as prevailed in a country to which the worst and most hardened criminals were sent? But he hoped it was not yet too late to stop the course in which our management of secondary punishments had unhappily involved us, and he hoped, that he might yet see a very material improvement effected.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that
312
the noble Earl opposite appeared to think, that there was some inconsistency in his noble Friend's saying that there had been an inconvenient accumulation of convicts in some parts of New Holland, while, at the same time, he intimated the intention of her Majesty's Government to confine and limit transportation to those particular parts. Now, the inconsistency was merely apparent, and not real; for, though it was intended to limit transportation principally to Norfolk Island and Tasman's Peninsula, yet, on the whole, every effort would be made to diminish the aggregate |amount of transportation and in that manner, lighten the pressure upon those particular places. He believed, that he correctly represented the sentiments of his noble Friend when he stated that it was intended to advise her Majesty to discontinue transportation for life in a great many cases, as means and opportunity permitted. It was intended gradually to diminish the number of transports until they were brought within such limits as would insure perfect accommodation at the point to which they were sent, He fully agreed with those who thought that the Govern-of this country should do all in their power to encourage judicious emigration to New South Wales; it was their duty to do all in their power to repair the injury which the presence of a penal settlement must of necessity inflict upon a new state of society like that which existed in Australia. He agreed, that it was the duty of the Government to stimulate emigration amongst persons of a superior class, but he thought it right briefly to notice the causes which in some degree at present retarded the measures that, under other circumstances, it would be their duty to adopt. The House was aware, that the funds arising from the sale of lands were to be applied to the encouragement of emigration; but so strong was the indisposition of the colonists to defray, not the new, but the old expenses of the colony, that the Government found it necessary to defray those expenses out of the fund which under a different state of things would have been applicable to the great and important object of inducing respectable persons to settle in Australia. It had been found impossible to provide for the usual demands of the public service in those colonies without imposing new

313
taxes, and thence the fund created by the sale of land had been exposed to undue encroachment. Neither the administration of justice nor the interests of religion could have been maintained, had not the fund in question been rendered available. There could not be a second opinion as to the necessity of providing religious instruction for a colony circumstanced as New South Wales had for some time been, and at first, perhaps, due precautions had not been taken, but of late he rejoiced to say, that successive Governments had done much to provide religious instruction in that part of her Majesty's dominions. Upon the general question he should say, that he agreed with the most rev. Prelate, and with the report of the House of Commons in thinking that it was highly desirable to apply in many cases some other punishment in lieu of transportation. It was the intention of her Majesty's Government to adhere as closely as they could to the recommendation given by the committee, but they could not pledge themselves to the immediate or the total abolition of the practice. The House must recollect, that from a practice in which the frequency of capital punishments were carried to excess, they had recently adopted a much more mild, humane, and beneficial course. Capital punishment had now become rare, at least comparatively infrequent, and it, therefore, became the more difficult and unsafe to part with the power of transportation for life; they could not part with a punishment which, by reason of the great distance at which it was inflicted, as well as from other causes, operated most powerfully upon the feelings and imaginations of men. That which was unknown naturally presented itself to the excited mind of the criminal in an exaggerated form. It was said, that criminals might be more economically employed upon public works at home than in a distant colony; but how much better was it that when their term of punishment expired they should find themselves in a community where labour was in demand, than in a highly civilized state of society, where there was a surplus population and the prices of labour comparatively low? Surely the convict who had conducted himself well in New South Wales would find himself in a much better condition on being released than on coming out of a
314
penitentiary at home. He had heard the discussion of that night with great satisfaction—he hoped that it would have the effect of enlightening the public, but he at the same time hoped that nothing would be done to fetter the Executive, or to interfere with the due execution of the laws.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that to several of the gaol and iron gangs, perhaps to all, some spiritual instruction was offered, but that it was given most inefficiently—namely, by employing in this office only three clergymen, who had other and populous charges. None of them had a chaplain.
The Archbishop of Dublin replied.*
The previous question, that this question be now put, was then put, and negatived without a division; and their Lordships adjourned at a quarter past ten until Thursday.