Sitting of 8 March 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Marine Mutiny; Mutiny.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Hunt, from places in Derbyshire, against the New Poor-law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. W. Duncombe, Sir J. Y. Duller, Mr. H. T. Hope, and others, from Bradford, Halifax, Devonshire, and other places, against the Poor-law Amendment Act.—By Mr. Easthope, from the Corporation of Leicester, for relieving the Jews from Civil Disabilities, and in favour of the County Courts Bill; from Inhabitants of the town, for the Improvement of the Irish Registration, and against Lord Stanley's Bill; and from the Village of Stocker, in Lincolnshire, and a place in Leicestershire, for the Abolition of Church Rates, and Ecclesiastical Courts.—By Mr. Alderman Copeland, from Stoke-upon-Trent, not to extend the power of the Poor-law Commissioners for more than three years.—By Sir C. Styles, from Inhabitants of Donegal, against Lord Morpeth's Irish Registration Bill.—By Mr. Parker, from places in Buckinghamshire, for Church Extension.—By Mr. Ormsby Gore, from Salop, for a Declaratory Act to define the items subject to Church Rates; and from the Deanery of Marshara, in the Diocese of St. Asaph, for a perfect system of Tithe Commutation.—By Captain Pechell, from places in the County of Sussex, against the abolition of Gilbert Unions.—By Mr. W. Evans, and Mr. Scholefield, from a place in Derbyshire, and Birmingham, for alterations in the Poor-Law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. H. T. Hope, from Gloucester, in favour of Church Extension.—By Sir W. Somerville, from Naul, in the county of Meath, and other places in Ireland, in favour of Lord Morpeth's Registration of Voters Bill.

RAILWAY BILL.
Sir R. Peelreferred to the suggestion he had made to the right hon. President of the Board of Trade on Friday last, whether it might not be expedient to appoint a Select Committee, to take into consideration the discretionary power proposed to be given by the bill upon the Table respecting Railways, and the exercise of that power by the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman had undertaken to consider the matter, and to give an answer this day.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that since he had last addressed the House, he had consulted parties more immediately interested, and understood from them that they meant to confine their evidence within such limits as led him to hope that the inquiry would not prevent the passing of the bill in the present Session—a point upon which he was particularly anxious. Such being the case, he was willing to concede what was desired, and would this night

9
give notice of the names of the committee. It was his intention to re-appoint the committee upon railways of last year, and he was sure that he could not select a more impartial tribunal.

POOR-LAW COMMISSION.
Lord John Russellsaid, that it was Ins intention to re-commit the Poor-law Amendment Bill pro forma, in order to introduce into it certain alterations, some of which were so important that he would state the nature of them in the first instance to the House. He proposed that the blank respecting the duration of the commission should be filled up with the word "five" instead of the word "ten." Upon another part of the measure there had been a good deal of misapprehension and uneasiness: he alluded to that portion which related to the operation of local acts. He wished that, in future, the Poor-law Commissioners should have the same powers in places where local acts existed as they possessed at present; such places (as we understood) were to be exempted specially from the other clauses of the bill before the House. Another clause in the bill gave power to draw different unions together, for the purpose of providing for and managing the insane and infant poor. The word "infirm" had been introduced, and was intended to apply to persons totally helpless, such as the deaf and dumb, and others in a similar state; but as it; was thought that that term might receive-too general an application, it was meant to leave it out. He proposed that receptacles should be constructed chiefly for idiots, or persons: whom it might be dangerous to leave more at large. The same power would be conferred for the regulation and management of the infant-poor; but that no expense should be incurred for any such establishment if one-fifth of the Poor-law guardians in any union refused to accede to the arrangement. It would thus be in the power of one-fifth of any body of guardians to prevent the operation of this clause of the bill. His attention had been called to another part of the measure by the right hon. Member for Tamworth: he meant the clauses which related to the poor having burial grounds, merely belonging to the workhouses. He (Lord John Russell) did not propose that such clauses should remain. At the same time, it was necessary to say, that complaints bad been made by clergymen and
10
others, not on account of the burial of paupers belonging to the union, but of casual paupers dying in the workhouses. He proposed to remedy the evil, by making the unions contribute, in certain cases, to the expense of enlarging churchyard. This was a general sketch of the more important amendments he intended to introduce when the bill was recommitted pro formâ to-night, in order that the report might be taken into further consideration on Friday se'nnight.
Sir R. Peelhad heard, with great satisfaction, that the noble Lord intended to limit the existence of the commission to five years instead of extending it to ten years. The noble Lord had left the matter a little doubtful in what he had said respecting buildings for the education of idiots and infant-poor. The expense was not to be incurred if one-fifth of the guardians objected. Did the noble Lord mean that if the proposed structure were for three unions, and one-fifth of the guardians of any one of the unions objected, that in that case the plan was not to be carried into effect?
Lord J. Russellreplied, that it would prevent the extension of it to that union.
Mr. Wakleyalso expressed his satisfaction that the noble Lord had abandoned his first plan; as far as they went, he approved of the amendments, but he hoped the noble Lord would go one step farther, and would adopt the suggestion he had thrown out of dividing the present measure into two bills; one to continue the commission for five years, and the other, apart from the commission, to regulate the working of the Poor-law, so that people might feel satisfied that it was not intended to make the commission perpetual. What the people most earnestly desired was, that the law should be so constructed as at the end, at all events, of five years to work itself without the assistance of the Poor-law commissioners. The commission at present was made the excuse for every species of abuse. He would also remind the noble Lord that he had received several deputations from medical practitioners respecting that department of the Poor-law Act; but the noble Lord had not intimated his intention to introduce any change in that respect. Several proposals had been submitted to the noble Lord with reference to clauses of great importance, and he trusted that the interests of the poor, as regarded the medical depart-

11
merit, would not be forgotten. The medical profession was ready to come forward with their propositions, and would be supported by an influential body in the House, to which he hoped the noble Lord was ready to give due consideration.
Mr. W. Duncombeasked if the Gilbert unions were to be exempted.
Lord J. Russellreplied, that he meant to include the Gilbert unions.
Mr. Ormsby Goreinquired whether incorporations under local acts were to be exempted.
Lord John Russelladded, that as to local acts he meant to reserve to the commissioners the powers they now possessed, but to exempt districts included in local acts from additional powers. As to the first part of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury, that was fair matter for discussion and consideration; but with regard to medical provision for the poor, the boards of guardians had introduced some alterations and improvements, and it was better to leave the matter as it was than to make any special enactment on the subject.
Mr. Grimsditchbegged to know whether the noble Lord intended to reduce the size of any of the unions?
Lord. J. Russellanswered that he did not.

LORD KEANE'S ANNUITY.
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell moved the order of the day for the third reading of Lord Keane's Annuity Bill.
Mr. Humesaid, he felt it to be his duty to resist the motion by a direct negative. He could assure hon. Members that when such a bill as the present—one that was so objectionable—was introduced, it ought to be marked in every way that was possible by the disapprobation of the House. He felt that he had a duty to perform, and whether it was pleasing or displeasing to hon. Members, he would perform it. He should say, that the reward was disproportionate to the service. Creating a Peer, and rendering it necessary to support the rank of a Peer by a pecuniary grant, was a measure highly improper, particularly in the present state of our finances. The amount voted in the present instance would maintain one hundred poor families for fifty years to come. Under these circumstances, he must say that the present bill ought not to meet with the support of the House. He hoped that
12
the number of Members in the last minority on the subject, seventy-seven, would teach Ministers not to bring in a similar measure in future to that House. He moved that the third reading of the bill be put off for six months.
The House divided on the original question—Ayes 128; Noes 40—Majority 88.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Harcourt, G. G.

Alston, R.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Harland, W. C.

Archbold, R.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Ashley, Lord

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Baillie, Colonel

Hodgson, R.

Baines, E.

Hogg, J. W.

Baldwin, C. B.

Hope, hon. C.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Howard, hn. E. G. G.

Barnard, E. G.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Barron, H. W.

Hurt, F.

Barry, G. S.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bassett, J.

Irving, J.

Bethell, R.

Jenkins, Sir R.

Bodkin, J. J.

Jermyn, Earl

Bramston, T. W.

Johnstone, H.

Broadley, H.

Jones, J.

Broadwood, H.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Busfield, W.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Chichester, Sir B.

Lennox, Lord A.

Childers, J. W.

Lowther, J. H.

Clay, W.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Clerk, Sir G.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Clive, E. B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Macnamara, Major

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Mahon, Viscount

Copeland, Alderman

Marton, G.

Corry, hon. H.

Maule, hon. F.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Miles, W.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Milnes, R. M.

Darby, G.

Morgan, O.

Davies, Colonel

Morpeth, Viscount

Denison, W. J.

Neeld, J.

Dick, Q.

O'Ferral, R. M.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Packe, C. W.

Eaton, R. J.

Paget, F.

Egerton, W. T.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Egerton, Lord F.

Perceval, Colonel

Eliot, Lord

Planta, rt. hn. J.

Estcourt, T.

Pollock, Sir F.

Evans, Sir De L.

Ponsonby, C. F. A. C.

Evans, W.

Praed, W. T.

Fitzalan, Lord

Protheroe, E.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Rae, rt. hn. Sir W.

Freshfield, J. W.

Richards, R.

Gladstone, W. E.

Roche, W.

Gordon, R.

Rolleston, L.

Gore, O. W.

Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.

Goring, H. D.

Round, C. G.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Grattan, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Greene, T.

Sandon, Viscount

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Seymour, Lord

13

Shaw, rt. hn. F.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Smith, A.

Villiers, Viscount

Smith, G. R.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.

Smith, R. V.

Wilbraham, G.

Somerset, Lord G.

Wood, Colonel T.

Stanley, Lord

Wrightson, W. B.

Stuart, W. V.

Yates John A.

Style, Sir C.

Young, J.

Sugden, rt. hn. Sir E.

TELLERS.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Stanley, E. J.

Turner E.

Grey, Sir G.

List of the NOES.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Pattison, J.

Brodie, W. B.

Philips, M.

Brotherton, J.

Pryme, G.

Dennistoun, J.

Rundle, J.

Duncombe, T.

Salwey, Colonel

Easthope, J.

Sheppard, T.

Ellice, E.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Ellis, W.

Stewart, J.

Ewart, W.

Strickland, Sir G.

Gillon, W. D.

Strutt, E.

Grote, G.

Tancred, H. W.

Hall, Sir B.

Turner, W.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Hindley, C.

Wakley, T.

Hollond, R.

Wall, C. B.

Humphrey, J.

White, A.

Hutton, R.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Langton, W. G.

Wood, B.

Lushington, C.

Marsland, H.

TELLERS.

Morris, D.

Hume, J.

O'Connell, D.

Williams, W.

Bill read a third time.
On the motion that the bill do pass,
Sir R. H. Inglissaid, that as the Queen bad conferred honours, and as the House had attached pecuniary rewards to those honours, on a gallant officer who had conquered a province for the sake of protecting an empire threatened with danger from hostile intrigues without; it ought not to be forgetful of the ease of another gallant officer who had successfully defended another province from treachery within, and from treacherous allies without. That gallant officer had not as yet received any mark of respect, regard, or sympathy from his fellow-countrymen. With these feelings to the province, and to the gallant individual who had protected it, he could not but take this opportunity of expressing thus publicly a feeling, which he knew was shared by many, and which he hoped most of all was shared by her Majesty's Ministers, because, if it was shared by them, he should not have done injury to the object which he wished to promote, by not bringing it forward on an earlier opportunity. That object was to obtain some mark of
14
sympathy and reward for services which had been pre-eminently useful in preserving a province which was essential to the safety, glory, and integrity, of the empire. The hon. Baronet then sat down, but in consequence of a loud cry of "Name, name,' rose again with some warmth, and said," I did not mention his name, because I believe that there is not a single Englishman present who forgets that England owes the preservation of Canada to Sir F. Head."
Bill passed.

SUPPLY—YEOMANRY.
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell moved, that the House resolve itself into a committee of supply.
Mr. Bramstoncalled the attention of the House to one of the estimates not yet voted, he meant the estimate for the volunteer corps; and he knew that it was impossible to move for an increase. The cast td which he wished to direct the attention of Ministers was that of the county of Essex, where there was no local yeomanry force, although the population was 317,000, whilst Hertfordshire, with not half the population, had six corps. It could be said, as an excuse for not appointing yeomanry in Essex, that it was in the neighbourhood of London, and that it was possible to send the household troops because that reason would apply equally to Middlesex itself, and in that county there were two troops in the neighbourhood of Uxbridge. He would content himself now with calling the attention of the House and of her Majesty's Ministers to the subject, and at a more convenient time be would take the sense of the House upon the propriety of an increase, unless he should find, that Government were disposed to apply a remedy.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, that as the subject came more immediately under the control of the department in which he had the honour to hold office, than in that of his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War, whose duty was limited more especially to the matter of accounts, he thought it right to answer as shortly as he could the complaint which had been made. In 1838, the yeomanry generally in this country consisted of a large force, and it seemed expedient to the Government, with a view to economy, that this force should be in some respects reduced. The hon. Gentleman seemed to insinuate that the reduction had been made more from partiality than from

15
any just principle, and though no complaint had been heretofore made, the hon. Gentleman desired now to found upon this a charge against the Government. The principle on which this reduction had been made, was because it appeared to the Government that when some reduction could be made, there was no better principle that could be applied than to save the pockets of the people when you can, and they on their parts would then be more willing to give pecuniary assistance when it was really required for the protection of the public tranquillity. With this view, his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) had considered the state of the yeomanry force, and wherever he had found that the corps had rendered little service, or where the regiments had not within a certain period been called out for active duty, his noble Friend, without disparaging or doubting the excellent sentiments, or the loyalty of the officers or men, had made a reduction. Such was the case with the county of Essex, respecting which there had been no remonstrance made at the time. But his noble Friend had sanctioned the continuance of yeomanry corps where they defrayed their own expenses, and if the Lord-lieutenant of the county thought fit to retain their services. One corps in the county of Essex did volunteer still to serve, paying their own expenses; they thus served for a year, but at the end of that period they made application for pay, and were informed that it was directly contrary to the understanding on which they had served, and that it could not be granted. The hon. Gentleman had not now any right to complain that when they applied for pay, after it had been distinctly understood that they should serve without, their further services should be dispensed with. He, therefore, thought that he had said enough to justify the step that had been taken for saving money to the public.
Mr. Goulburnbegged leave to refresh the recollection of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The hon. Gentleman had stated, that there were no complaints of partiality when the reductions were made. He would beg to call to the hon. Gentleman's remembrance, that cases were stated at the time—whether justly or unjustly he did not mean to say—in which partiality was imputed; and the hon. Gentleman might, perhaps, remember, that a comparison, or rather a contrast, was made between the services
16
of the forces employed at Waltham Abbey and those stationed at Hungerford. It might also be in the memory of the hon. Gentleman, that it was said, that a corps which had been reduced in Hertfordshire, was replaced on the recommendation of a gentleman who was favourable to the existing Government. He recommended at the time, that the Essex yeomanry should be maintained on pay, on the ground that they had been appointed at the request of Lord Melbourne, when Secretary of State, to protect the Ordnance stores at Waltham Abbey; yet the Government thought fit to reduce those forces. He was, however, happy to say, that the corps served free of expense. In his opinion, it would not only be wise, but in the ordinary course of courtesy, to retain these men on pay.
Lord John Russell'srecollection certainly was, that complaints as to this reduction had been made at the time on the ground that this corps would be of use for the Ordnance stores, but, on referring to the Ordnance Department, they held, that it would be quite unnecessary to keep up the corps for that alleged purpose, and it was on that reference to the Ordnance, that it had been thought right not to retain the services of this corps. There were at the time certainly complaints of partiality in making the reduction, but these complaints were not confined to one side of the House, for he believed, that there were more complaints from his own Friends than from Gentlemen opposite. With regard to the county of Hertford, the corps were under a noble Lord connected with that county. Yet, after all the reduction that had been so much complained of, there were 3,000 or 4,000 more yeomanry now kept up than at the time when the Duke of Wellington was in office; and he said, that it must be a great satisfaction to the House, as it was to the Government, that there had been no extraordinary charge during the last year on account of any yeomanry having been called out.
Sir Hussey Viviansaid, that application had been made to the Ordnance to know whether it was necessary to keep up this corps, for the protection of the Ordnance stores, and the reply was, that it was not necessary.
Sir Henry Hardingehad heard, that there was a correspondence in which it was said to be desirable and necessary to keep up this corps for the protection of

17
the works which might require defence in half an hour.
Sir Hussey Vivianwas not aware of any such correspondence, and must observe, that there were always workmen ready for the defence of the works on an emergency.
Subject at an end.
Question again put, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply,

SUPPLY—THE EARL OF CARDIGAN —CANADA—CATHOLIC SOLDIERS.
Mr. O'Connelldid not mean to detain the House with any discussion as to the yeomanry corps, yet be could not but regret, that almost the last vote of these estimates should be proposed without the attention of the House having been more decidedly down to the conduct of the Horse Guards with reference to the Earl of Cardigan, and to the conduct of that person towards his regiment. He believed the public opinion was excited to such an extent, that be was convinced if one of the officers bad not written a letter which had put him without the pale of their sympathies, the House would have been compelled to enter into an inquiry as to the conduct of the Horse Guards. Still he felt bound to make some observations, because, when the conduct of Lord Cardigan had been impeached upon the court-martial of Major Wathen, who was found to be entitled to a most honourable acquittal, and when Lord Cardigan was also condemned with out any chance or opportunity of entering upon a defence, he (Mr. O'Connell) had commented upon the proceedings as deserving all reprobation. But the conduct of the court-martial upon Captain Reynolds was infinitely more to be condemned. They had the decision of what the sentence was to be within their own breast; they had sedulously excluded from consideration every ingredient that should ester into the judgment, and cause the heaviest sentence to be commuted; they had not considered the provocation which he had received before he had violated the commands of his superior officer. The nature of the sentence ought to have depended upon the provocation. If the disobedience were without any provocation no sentence could be too severe, but if, on the other hand, so strong a case of provocation could have been made out, the lightest possible censure was the utmost punishment that ought to be apportioned. He
18
took it that it was impossible lo defend the course adopted in this matter. Let them, however, see what protection Lord Cardigan had received from the Horse Guards—a protection and a promotion that would not have been given to any inferior. Then there was the case of the other Captain Reynolds, who was ludicrously called," Black Bottle Reynolds;" he was imprisoned three or four days most illegally. Yet these days of false imprisonment were slurred over. He (Mr. O'Connell) had hoped, that some person of more influence in the House than himself would have already called for inquiry into these cases, and be still hoped, that the Session would not pass by without some person pressing it. He confessed, that he had looked with great regret at the heavy estimates which the Government had thought it necessary to bring before the House. His hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, had complained of the expenses with respect to Canada, and of the misconduct of the House towards that colony on the proposition of her Majesty's Ministers, and he had been answered in a way, that was not at all satisfactory. Now that the rebellion in Canada was a matter of history, and now that they could not be accused of encouraging rebellion by making observations, it was their duty to look to the cause of the civil war; and he was bound to say, and he must express his thorough conviction, that upon the origin of that civil war, the Government were entirely in the wrong. They had provoked the insurrection. This country was not justified in the vote to which the House had come at the instance of the Government, for the application of money belonging to the people of Canada, without the sanction of their representatives. In his opinion, it was a most unconstitutional vote; it was against first principles, and it was not justified by the circumstances and necessities of the case. This was no palliation or excuse for the insurrection. That was worse than a crime—it was a folly. M. Papineau was at the head of a large constitutional party in Canada; he had an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives; he had, therefore, constitutional means at his command to force his proper and fair claims, it was wickedness, it was a folly, to enter upon an insurrection. That rebellion had been deservedly crashed, but his country had

19
suffered for his crime. The Imperial Parliament had passed a bill for the union of Canada, which was based on injustice. It gave as many representatives to Upper Canada as to Lower Canada, although the population was much less in the upper than in the lower province. When in the course of the discussions on the bill, he had objected to this, he was met by the noble Lord by a statement that it was probable that the relative proportions of the population of the two provinces, would probably alter? That was a matter of prophesy: it was no answer to the fact of the disproportion. If the relative population altered afterwards, it would be easy to remedy the disproportion of the representatives. But there was another more important grievance. Lower Canada owed no debt, and yet it was saddled with a portion of the heavy debt of Upper Canada. This injustice would fester in the public mind, and probably, at some future time, when it would be most inconvenient to us, we should hear of it again. What was the period selected for the change? It was when Upper Canada, indeed, was protected by her own Parliament, but when Lower Canada had no representatives, and was under a Governor appointed from England. They had better be cautious how they proceeded further. He did not happen to know what had passed in the other House, but he had read speeches which were said to have been delivered in debates, not of course, spoken in Parliament, for every body knew, that it was not permitted to publish speeches delivered in either House of Parliament. But he had heard, that there had been debates, in which the Bishop of Exeter had attributed to him in the public prints a speech, for which he ought to bring an action for libel, because it advocated the perpetration of the grossest injustice; it advocated the taking away from the Seminary of St. Sulpice its property, and it was advocated on the excellent pretence, that the violation of property would be favourable to the Protestant religion in Canada. In a great public debate, too, one of the highest personages in the realm had said, that the possession of this property was contrary to the principles of the Reformation. A pretty explanation of the principles of the Reformation, to say that spoliation would be in accordance with the principles of the Reformation! Take away the property from
20
a community which had not only been exonerated from all blame, but had been greatly praised! The mode in which they spent their revenues was charitable in the extreme; the number of persons they educated was considerable; there was not a blot upon their character, nor a tarnish on their name. But they were robbed, forsooth. They had enjoyed possession of the property for eighty years. So long ago as 1763, the French seminary of St. Sulpice made over all its property to the present seminary at Montreal. The Canadian Act of 1774 was one which was based upon a principle of wisdom, because its object was to conciliate the people. The effect of that act had been highly advantageous, for while all our Protestant colonies had revolted, this Catholic colony had remained with us, because they saw a chance of justice being done. In 1775 a general ordinance was sent out, pointing to this property in the hands of the seminary, and the seminary had enjoyed the property ever since, under circumstances which showed how advantageously its members had been entrusted with it, but some inconveniences had been felt, and the seminary had offered a compromise so fair and mitigated in its nature, that it was at once acceded to by every one interested in the property. A new ordinance had now been passed, turning the seminary into a corporation, and that which before might have been deemed to be only an equitable title, was now, by the effect of this ordinance, clothed with the importance of legal right. The ordinance had effected this, but no more. The seminary had no deeds to produce, it was true, but they had had possession of the property for eighty years, and the House would be aware, that after so long a possession much would be presumed in favour of their right. Cases had occurred where an act of Parliament had been presumed, and where gifts or grants from the Crown had been presumed and, the law would favour a right attempted to be sustained upon such grounds as here existed. But their equitable right was admitted, their possession for eighty years was admitted, and now they were to be turned round upon, and he was to be told by a bishop of the establishment, that because they were Catholics they were to be robbed of this property, and another grievance was to be inflicted upon Canada. But if that were to be done—if any part of the Le-

21
gislature here would submit to the infliction of such an act of injustice, he bid them prepare themselves for even higher estimates, for they assuredly would be brought upon them. From Canada he would take his flight to the last Indies, One half of the soldiers in the East Indies were Catholics—so a newspaper which he had received from Bengal said; and the same newspaper complained of the neglected state of the Bengal army on the subject of the measure of religious comfort afforded them. It was odd enough, that the first regiment which had been sent to China was the Royal Irish, two-thirds of the soldiers in which probably were Irish. He had had numbers of letters addressed to him by soldiers in our East Indian army, complaining most bitterly of the want of religious comforts, Every one knew that the Catholics required the assistance of a priest frequently, and in his dying moments more especially; and the aid which they received from such an individual was most constabulary. The same paper spoke of the Protestant and Presbyterian religions, and of the assistance which was afforded to this members of those churches. No men more cordially concurred in the propriety of affording every aid to such persons than he; but he said, that the aid which was tendered to such persons, contrasted most painfully with the total neglect which was exhibited of the Roman Catholic soldiery. The paper to which he referred was dated March, 1840, and he would read to the House that portion of its contents to which he alluded. The article to which he referred first complained of the neglect of the Catholic soldiers; and he was proud to say, that almost every commanding officer had striven to redress their grievances. It was said,
"All the commanders-in-chief, from the Marquess of Hastings down to Sir H. Fane, were favourably disposed to the claim of the Catholics in the array, to be provided by Government with British chaplains."
He believed that Sir H. Fane was sent oat by the right hon. Baronet opposite during his administration, and he was the man who had discountenanced this claim.
"This claim, however, though deemed reasonable by the Marquess of Hastings, was vehemently opposed by Sir H. Fane, who even refused to forward to Government a petition
22
on the subject from the Catholics of her Majesty's 13th Regiment."
"The late commander-in-chief peremptorily refused to lay before Government a petition for British pastors from the Catholics of her Majesty's Thirteenth; but did they, for that reason, exhibit any back wardness at the storming of Ghuzni? That they were not indifferent as to the practice of their religion, may, I think, be safely inferred from the fact of their having contributed, from their scanty means, about 6,000 rupees towards the erection of a chapel at Kurnaul. They were fully aware that in Afghanistan they would find no chapel nor priest to succour them, in sickness or death, with the helps and consolations of their religion, while they beheld the tender care with which their Protestant comrades had been provided with a chaplain. Nevertheless, on they went without a murmur."
"I have already mentioned the extent of provision made by Government for the spiritual wants of the majority of its European soldiers, before the passing of the New Charter Act. From the remarks which fell from the President of the Board of Control, during the discussion of that measure, Catholics were naturally led to expect that some suitable provision would be made for their religious necessities. This reasonable expectation has hitherto been grievously disappointed; for, with the exception of an occasional donation of the paltry sum of 500 rupees, towards the erection or repair of a chapel, nothing, absolutely nothing, has yet been done in redemption of Sir C Grant's (now Lord Glenelg's) pledge. Much importance cannot, I think, be justly attached to these parsimonious donations, which do not, in their aggregate amount, much, if at all, exceed two thousand rupees, when it is borne in mind that the poor Irish soldiers have to contribute from their slender resources nearly as many thousands as the Government give hundreds; and also that Protestant chaplains and places of worship are provided entirely at the public cost. Catholic soldiers, with the exception already mentioned, continue solely dependent on the nearest Catholic missionary for spiritual aid. The station of Hazareebaugh may, probably, be deemed an exception, inasmuch as the missionary there has, I believe, no charge but the soldiers. He, however, receives only fifty rupees from government, and his expenses beyond that trifle are, I presume, defrayed by the voluntary contributions of the poor soldiers." …. "With reference to the above observations regarding the Government expenditure on account of the Church of England and Scotch kirk establishments, I beg to annex the following items of information, which I have obtained from sources which leave no possible doubt of their accuracy. You will observe, that with the exception of the bishop, the clergy under the Bengal presidency only are included. I have no immediate means of ascertaining the payments made on account of those under the

23
Agra presidency. An allowance of 1,045 rupee;, paid monthly to the bishop as 'visitation allowance,' is not included, though I think it ought. I have struck out an item of 48 rupees for regulating the clock from the establishment of the kirk, because that is for public convenience. The government pays 853 rupees a month as rent for the site of the kirk!

Church of England salaries.

Rs. 19,552

9

1

Establishments

3,484

2

3

Expence to Government monthly*

Rs. 23,046

11

4

St. Andrew's Kirk, salaries of two Ministers

1,926

2

0

Ground-rent

853

5

4

2,779

7

4

The monthly expense to Government of the churches in Calcutta, not including repairs, is as follows:—

Cathedral, salary of two chaplains

2,627

5

3

Establishment

972

7

8

Total, Rs.

3,599

12

1

Mission Church salaries

1,600

0

0

Establishments

485

15

5

Total, Rs.

2,085

15

5

5,685

11

6

St. James's salary.

750

12

0

Establishment

405

4

5

1,156

5

0

St. Peter's Fort salary

900

0

0

Establishment

162

10

9

1,062

10

9

Monthly expense of Church of England in Calcutta

Rs. 7,904

11

3

Add expense of Kirk

2,779

7

4

Total, Rs.

10,684

2

7

"The handsome pensions to which chaplains become entitled must not be forgotten, nor the enormous expense of building and repairing churches, &c, the Kirk and St. Peter's, for example."
He submitted to the House, that if they wished to encourage the Irish population to enlist in the army, and so to render themselves liable to be sent to the East Indies, they must make some provision which should render it probable at least that when they arrived there they should
* The Church of England and Presbyterian establishments cost the East India Company upwards of ten lacs and a half per annum, independently of the expense of building and repairing churches.
24
obtain some spiritual instruction and assistance. With these observations he should sit down. The right hon. Baronet the other evening had been rather angry at his suggesting, that the system which was adopted by the party of which the right hon. Baronet was the head—if indeed he were the head of it—was impolitic, but there was not a day which passed which did not convince him more and more that he was right, and the intelligence of that day afforded him additional proofs of the error of continuing the present insulting system of policy towards Ireland. He would not enter into details of what had already been frequently before the House, and of what would be again brought under their notice; but was it not wise, he asked, at such a time as this, when they might wish to augment our military force, first to make their alliance with Ireland firm. Let not the right hon. Baronet suppose, that he could have the cordial co-operation of the Irish people without doing them equal justice with the people of England. He warned the House, as it was his duty, against the consequences of the policy which was now adopted, in case of the receipt of further such menaces as had been received from America that day; but no man, he thought, would be so reckless as to continue to persevere in the course of policy now adopted towards that country. These subjects, he thought, were apposite to the subject of the army estimates, because he thought that they might lessen their amount, by attending to the views of the country.
Sir George Greywould not enter at large into the questions which had been broached by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, but he rose for the purpose of saying a few words in reference to what had fallen from that hon. Gentleman, in allusion to the subject of the court-martial on Captain Reynolds. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in the observations which he had made, seemed to imply that the court-martial had excluded altogether the evidence which was proposed to be called before them upon the subject of circumstances which had occurred before the matter which was the subject of their immediate consideration. He thought it due to the members of that court to say, that was not the case, because they admitted evidence of the immediate provocation which Captain Rey-

25
nolds had received, and on which he had written the letter; bat in reference to the conversation which it was in the recollection of the House was alleged to have taken place, and on which a breach of discipline had arisen, he admitted that they had refused to take it into consideration, and in his opinion they had refused to receive evidence upon that point rightly. If they had received the general evidence relating to the whole provocation which was alleged to have been given, they must have gone into an inquiry referring to circumstances which had occurred months and years before, and which had no reference to the act with which Captain Reynolds was charged; and he must say, that he thought that the rule which they had hid down was perfectly consistent with the justice of the case, and with their duty. The court-martial, it was to be observed, was convened for a specific object, and its members had no right to go back to events of long standing, and they would have exceeded the bounds of their duty if they had done so. He felt bound to make these observations in justice to the members of the court, and he did not think that they could have adopted any other course than that which they had taken. He had been absent from town at the time of the court-martial, and had, therefore, been prevented from attending that inquiry; but he entirely concurred in opinion that the recommendation of the court-martial was strictly in accordance with justice.
Sir De Lacy Evanssaid, that he had the honour to be personally acquainted with several members of the court-martial, and undoubtedly he knew no men in whose honour he should place more reliance; but when he said this, he could not but express his regret that where a court was called for the examination of the conduct of a captain, so many of its members should be persons of the rank of commanding officers. The right hon. Judge Advocate-general had stated his opinion, and he did not question it with regard to the finding of the court, but although it was highly inconvenient that courts-martial should be prevented from expressing their opinion in many cases, yet this court-martial did assert an abstract principle, which it was difficult to carry out, which was, that no provocation at all could excuse disobedience to orders. He did not think that it would do to
26
countenance the belief that any circumstances could be altogether considered excusatory of insubordination; but he thought that it would have been better to have omitted the assertion of this abstract principle. He did not wish to go into this question now, because it was subject which was extremely disagreeable to military men, but he could not help making a few observations, and he confessed that he was rather surprised at the view taken by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, who had expressed his belief that the clamour which had been raised was to be attributed to the fact of the commander of the 11th Hussars being a noble Lord; and he was the more surprised, because he conceived that such a rank was of very great advantage in any profession whatever. It was much easier, in his belief, for a noble Lord to render himself popular and agreeable with thaw who were of inferior rank than other persons, and he could not but allude to the fact that many men, who had procured for themselves the highest popularity, were noblemen. There were few men who had been more popular than the Marquess of Anglesey, and he would venture to say, that no Commoner had attained a greater degree of general favour than the Duke of Gordon. The adoption of this argument by the noble Lord, considering his ingenuity and talent, afforded, in his opinion, a convincing proof of the weakness of the case. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at War, in the observations which he had made the other evening, had spoken of the Earl of Cardigan being placed upon the half-pay list, and of such a course being never adopted in cases where any species of punishment was intended to be inflicted; but he believed that if the right hon. Gentleman would inquire into the former proceedings of the army, he would find that officers who had fallen under the displeasure of the Commander-in-chief had been placed on the half-pay list without any discredit being attached to it. There were men now in the army of the highest honour, in reference to whom this had been done without discredit being by such a course cast upon the purposes for which the half-pay list was maintained. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin, had alluded to the subject of the great want of religious attention to the Catholic soldiers in the East-Indies. He was not so capable of entering into that question

27
as the hon. and learned Member, but he begged leave to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War, another reason why this subject should receive the attention of the Government, which, as affecting the maintenance of order in the army, was, he thought, worthy of attention. It was well known that the greater part of the want of subordination in the army arose from intoxication, and he could not point out any more effectual means of checking this crime, than that of creating new opportunities among the soldiery of religious worship.
Mr. Warburtonthought that there were facts enough before the House to leave room for great regret that the inquiry into the conduct of the Earl of Cardigan had stopped where it did, and that no further inquiry was to take place. What was it that appeared on the face of the documents Which were before the public? That Lord Hill wrote a letter which was to be communicated to the officers of Lord Cardigan's regiment, in which it was stated that the regiment was in that condition that was not fit for domestic purposes, nor to be trusted in the field. So the regiment was to be in the state in which it was described to be, and yet no inquiry was to be made into the causes which had produced the existing state of things. What had passed the other night in the debate upon this subject? The right hon. the Master-general of the Ordnance, had stated that there was that, though not in the matter, yet in the manner of the commanding officer which had led to the results which had taken place. What had been stated with regard to the officers? An hon. and gallant Officer opposite had said that there was a cabal Amongst them against Lord Cardigan. So there was to be that in the manner of Lord Cardigan so offensive as to produce these results, and there was to be a cabal amongst the officers against that noble Lord, and Vet no inquiry was to take place, although they were told that the regiment, in consequence of these circumstances, was unfit for domestic or for active service. He considered these matters not as reflecting upon Lord Cardigan or upon the officers of his regiment, but as reflecting on the Commander-in-Chief of the army, and unless the inquiry which was suggested was to take place, nothing could put a stop to the continuance of a state of things highly detrimental to the service.
Lord John Russellsaid, that it was not very regular for the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster, to answer arguments on that evening, which had been used in a former debate; but he could not regret that the hon. and gallant Member had, afforded him an opportunity of setting him right as to a misapprehension which he appeared to entertain, of what had on a former evening fallen from him. The hon. and gallant Member appeared to suppose that he had said that the clamour which had been raised in reference to this fact, was to be attributed to the circumstance of the commander of the 11th Hussars being a Peer. Undoubtedly the Earl of Cardigan was a Peer of the realm, and was a man of high rank; and he admitted to the hon. and gallant Member, that the fact of the Lieutenant-colonel of a regiment being a man of high rank was rather in his favour than otherwise, and that he was more likely, on that account, to conciliate the officers under his command. But what he had said, was, that disputes having arisen between such a noble individual and his officers, it was much more likely that any complaints which were made should be pushed before the public, and that public attention should be drawn to them, than if he were of inferior standing in society. In the case of a person of inferior rank in society, matters upon which disputes had arisen would have been referred, as in this case, to the Commander-in-Chief, and he would have declared his opinion upon them, and there it would have rested; but it was his opinion that, in consequence of the rank which the Earl of Cardigan held, there had been a great deal more made of the matter than there would have been in any ordinary case. He did not wish to enter into the details of the case; but if he were asked what were the merits of this question, he should say that they consisted of matters extremely frivolous in themselves, and he did not believe that if the same occurrences had happened with respect to any other officer, there would have been the same degree of public attention and excitement created. The hon. Member for Bridport, had urged that there ought to be a solemn court of inquiry upon this subject. It was the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief that these dissensions might be better composed by his stating his sentiments fairly and solemnly upon this subject, and he had sent the Adju-

29
tant-general, an officer of high rank, to declare his opinions. He thought that, having received such an admonition, both the commanding officer and the subordinate officers were more likely in future to attend to their duties and live in harmony, than if there had been a discussion from day to day, before a court of inquiry, upon which the public mind would be much excited. He did not now wish to go further into the question than to explain that which he had said the other night. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, he did not wish to enter generally into the affairs of Canada. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, truly that the origin of the disturbances in Canada was now matter of history, and to the judgment of history he was content to leave it. But, with regard to what he had said as to the seminary of St. Sulpice, he would take this occasion to express his opinion that the ordinance agreed to by the special council, with the concurrence of the officers of the Crown, and of the Secretary of State, was founded upon a principle of justice towards a most deserving body of men. He thought that that ordinance was likely to give general satisfaction concerning a question which had long been matter of dispute, and he could out but conceive that any interference with it would be attributed to the benefits which might arise under it to the Roman Catholics; but he should look upon an interference upon such a ground, considering what was the present slate of Canada, and that it was our policy as well as justice to the Roman Catholics of that colony, and of every other place, to afford them all the protection that was due to the loyal subjects of the Crown, as involving a serious mistake. With regard to the other subject to which the hon. and learned Member had alluded as to the insufficiency of religious instruction to the Roman Catholic soldiery in the East Indies, be knew not what might be done by the East-India Company or the Government in India; but he admitted that they required the presence among them of ministers of their religion. He thought that every measure should be taken which could be properly adopted to secure the object pointed out by the hon. and learned Member; and that men acting in a military as well as a civil capacity should have every assistance afforded to them which could be given.
Sir A. Dalrymplesaid, that having an intimate acquaintance with the neighbourhood of Brighton, in which the 11th hussars were quartered, he could slate, upon his own observation, that the men of that corps were as well-conducted men as toy he had ever seen in Brighton.
Sir H. Hardingedesired to add that he could state, upon his own observation, that the officers and men of the regiment were in the best state of discipline.
Mr. Humewished to put a question to the right hon. Judge Advocate General. He begged to ask whether, at the courtmartial held upon Captain Reynolds, evidence was not tendered of a long series of insults alleged to have been offered by Lord Cardigan, to show the degree of provocation given by the Earl of Cardigan to his officers, and whether it was not usual on such occasions to note down the evidence tendered, in order that, when the subject should be brought before a higher tribunal, it might become the subject of; further inquiry? Officers were men, and were not to put up with insults without possessing the means of redress. It was because there was a refusal of all redress to them that he had said on a former occasion that he blamed Lord Hill more than the Earl of Cardigan. But he blamed the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War also, for he thought that it was his duty to see that justice was done, not only to Lord Cardigan, but to every individual, On the face of the proceedings he thought that there appeared to have been a gross act of injustice committed, and he thought that Lord Hill should retire from the office of Commander-in-Chief, being unfit to perform its duties. He had long entertained this opinion on other grounds, and he candidly stated that it was his opinion, without meaning any offence to Lord Hill, that that noble Lord should never have remained one hour at the head of the army after Earl Grey assumed the Government, But quitting this part of the case, he could not sit down without saying, that he thought that an inquiry aught to take place, and that, notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War, public opinion was not to be set at defiance.
Mr. Macaulaysaid, that he would appeal to the House whether he had said that public opinion should be set at defiance. He had used no such words. But he had said, and he always should

31
say, that when he was satisfied that a certain course was required by his public duty on a case, the circumstances of clamour being raised, which was in a degree unjust and intemperate, was only an additional reason why a man of spirit and confidence should firmly do that which he considered himself bound to perform. No one respected the opinion of his countrymen more than he did, and he did so because he believed that they were willing to hear what was to be said on both sides of a question, because he believed that there was a disposition in this country to respect men who, even in opposition to a strong public clamour, should discover and act upon their conscientious feelings. He believed that the course which the Government had taken, was that which was just to the service, and which would really promote the true interests of the country, and, because he thought so, no clamour and no intemperate view of the case should drive him on. He had not intended to rise upon this occasion, and he had only addressed the House in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He believed, that he could make many corrections as to matters of fact which had been alluded to in the course of the evening. He would refer to the expressions attributed to him by the hon. Member for Bridport, which Were not such as he had used. He believed that the communication of Lord Hill was a general admonition to the regiment, to the effect that the dissensions between the commanding officer, and some of the other officers, had a tendency to render the corps inefficient. There was, on the other hand, abundance of evidence to show that Lord Cardigan, whatever might be the grounds of complaint against him, had brought the regiment into the highest state of discipline, and that this had occurred within an extraordinarily short time after its return from India. He could not sit down without adverting to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, on the subject of the condition of the Roman Catholic soldiers in the army. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member, that whatever opinions we might hold, or whatever measures we might adopt, as to our religious establishments at home, the recruit of the Roman Catholic persuasion who was taken up in Ireland and conveyed 15,000 miles off, into the midst of a Pagan country, ought to be provided by the State
32
with the comforts of his religion. Not only the happiness and virtue, but the discipline also of the troops would, he was satisfied, be promoted by such a course. The government of India had always acted upon the same view, but he would make it his duty to make a representation to the Court of Directors in order that it might be, if found necessary, more fully acted upon.
Sir R. Peelrose only because the hon. Member for Kilkenny had admitted that he entertained a strong prepossession against Lord Hill. It appeared from what the hon. Member said, that with him the original grievance was, that Lord Hill should have been continued in the command of the army on the accession of Earl Grey to office. These two admissions of the hon. Member unfortunately did lead to the inference that it was highly probable that the hon. Member's prepossession against Lord Hill had exercised some sway over his judgment with regard to the case of Lord Cardigan. He did not consider that the Government could have acted otherwise than they had done with regard to Lord Cardigan. It would certainly have been unwise to have placed him on half-pay. They had been informed that, according to the custom of the service, there was not sufficient in the case to justify a court-martial, still less was there ground for a court of inquiry. Indeed, he thought it a matter for grave consideration whether, under any circumstances, a course of inquiry should be instituted. He considered the Commander-in-Chief a much better authority, as to that matter, than the House of Commons. Where matters so vague as the manners, or looks, or casual expressions, of an individual, were to form the subject of inquiry, a satisfactory result was not likely to be come to, and he thought a wise discretion had been exercised in letting the case be decided by a man holding the station of Commander-in-Chief, whose public services entitled him to the highest respect, and whose private character exempted him from any suspicion of partiality. He was bound also in justice to say, that he could not see what motive the executive government could have to protect Lord Cardigan. He was not connected with them by political ties: on the contrary, it was quite evident that some temporary popularity was to be gained by making a sacrifice of Lord Cardigan. He did not think that

33
Lord Cardigan was entitled to any particular favour, but it was quite as inconsistent with fairness that he should, because he was a man of rank, be exposed to that injustice which he had met with from the greater portion of the press, from which a man of inferior rank would have been exempt. He hoped that the same sense of justice which had induced the Government to act as they already had done in this case, would induce them to continue in the same course.
Colonel Salweythought there was great inconsistency in the statements made relative lo the present condition of the regiment commanded by Lord Cardigan. The right hon. the Secretary at War had spoken of that corps as being in a high state of inefficiency, whilst on the other side of the House an hon. and gallant General (Sir H. Hardinge) had stated that a cabal existed among the officers of that regiment. That was, in his opinion, the most unfortunate expression that could have fallen from any gallant Officer in that House. He never heard it stated that any cabal existed in that regiment. Though he had not the honour of being acquainted with Captain Reynolds—better known as "black-bottle" Captain Reynolds—yet he believed that Gentleman would be the last to form any cabal against his commanding officer. He was sorry to hear such an expression from the hon. and gallant General opposite.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that the expression he had really used was, that the differences in the regiment partook of the nature of a cabal among a few of the officers—a statement he was quite justified in making, because the same expression had been used by the Horse Guards. So far from his being in a position to state that all the officers in the regiment were in a state of cabal, the fact was, that, with the exception of three or four, there did not exist any difference or misunderstanding between the officers and their commander. No doubt circumstances might have occurred which were magnified into undue importance. He did not mean to eater into a justification of Lord Cardigan, but he must say, he thought that he had been treated with undeserved severity, and that his conduct had not merited that severe censure which it bad met. It was admitted, that the regiment which the noble Lord commanded was organised and conducted
34
with the greatest propriety, and that it was in as good a condition as any regiment in the service.
House in committee of supply.

ARMY ESTIMATES—YEOMANRY.
Mr. Macaulayrose to propose a vote of 82,266 l. for the yeomanry corps. This was a considerable reduction upon the vote of last year, and when it was borne in mind that 13,000 cavalry were brought in aid of the civil power for a sum which, if applied to the organization of cavalry of the line, would not nearly produce a body of equal number, and if also it was remembered of what service the yeomanry cavalry had been during recent disturbances, he did hope that no opposition would be offered to the vote.
Mr. Humesaid, he rose, as he had done for ten years, to oppose this vote. His reason for objecting to the yeomanry cavalry was, that they had never come in contact with their fellow citizens, without engendering those unpleasant feelings which did not pass away with the hour. The same amount would very nearly establish three regiments of the line, which, in the present rapid state of travelling, would do much more service, and give much more satisfaction. He should divide the committee.
Mr. O'Connellbegged to observe, before the committee divided, that the same statement as that which had been recently make by the right hon. the Secretary at War, with regard to his determination to make representations to the Indian Government as to the condition of Roman Catholic soldiers in respect of their religious exercises, had before been made by Lord Glenelg. The complaint now made was of the disappointment of the hopes and expectations which that statement raised. He trusted, that the right hon. Gentleman would make a very strong representation to the court of directors.
Mr. P. Howardsaid, that there were many Roman Catholic soldiers in Lancashire and the Highlands who were quite as badly off in respect of their religious worship as those in India.
The committee divided. Ayes 49; Noes 15:—Majority 34.

List of the AYES.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Barnard, E. G.

Antrobus, E.

Bellew, R. M.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Blake, M.

35

Bodkin, J. J.

Morgan, O.

Bramston, T. W.

Packe, C.

Briscoe, J. I.

Palmerston, Viscount

Bryan, G.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Busfeild, W.

Pigot, rt. hon. D.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Plumptre, J. P.

Clay, W.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Collier, J.

Rutherford, rt. hn. A.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Somers, J. P.

Denison, W. J.

Thomas, Colonel H.

Egerton, W. T.

Turner, E.

Estcourt, T.

Vivian, Major C.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Vivian, J. E.

Grimsditch, T.

Vivian, right hon. Sir R. H.

Heathcoat, J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wilbraham, G.

Howard, P. H.

Wood, G. W.

Kemble, H.

Wood, Colonel T.

Lennox, Lord A.

Yates, J. A.

Lowther, J. H.

TELLERS.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T.B.

Parker, J.

Mackenzie, T.

Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Brotherton, J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Easthope, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Ellis, W.

Thorneley, T.

Evans, Sir De L.

Wakley, T.

Ewart, W.

Warburton, H.

Hutton, R.

Wood, B.

O'Connell, D.

TELLERS.

Salwey, Colonel

Hume, J.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Duncombe, T.

The vote was accordingly agreed to.

ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.
Sir H. Vivian, in rising to bring forward the Ordnance Estimates, said, that it would have afforded him sincere pleasure, as it would, he was sure, have gratified the Committee, if, like his right hon. Friend, the Secretary at War, he had been able to state, that there was a diminution in the estimates for the expenses of the Ordnance department for the present year, as compared with those of the last year. He regretted, however, to state, that the exigencies of the service required a very considerable increase, amounting, upon the whole, to 186,903 l., the cause of which he should endeavour, as briefly as possible, to explain, and, by stating the grounds of the increase against each vote on which any addition had been made, he trusted he should succeed in showing, that the increase in the expenditure was absolutely necessary, and he hoped also to show, that it had not been carried to too great an extent; he feared, indeed, there might be some who would be of opinion he had not carried it far enough. The first vote was for the
36
expenses of the Ordnance civil establishments at the Tower, Pall - mall; Woolwich, out-stations of the United Kingdom, and foreign stations. In this vote there was an increase of 2,757 l., which arose in a great degree from the increase of salaries in the department for length of servitude, as also from the appointment of two additional storekeepers at Montreal and Sierra Leone. In the second vote, for the royal engineers and sappers and miners, there was an increase of 2,688 l., which was occasioned by an additional company of sappers and miners to be employed at Bermuda, at the suggestion of the Governor of that colony, made through the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in consequence of the impossibility of procuring artificers, and labourers to perform the works without very great additional expense. In the next vote there was a decrease of 1,212 l., which arose from the fact of a larger quantity of clothing having been made up last year than was necessary for the service of the year, and consequently a less quantity was required for the present year. With respect to the royal artillery no alteration was made. The 576 men that had been added to that corps during the last two years, had enabled him to relieve the companies on foreign stations, with one exception only, shortly after the expiration of their period of service. To do this, however, he had been compelled to reduce the number of men employed in some of those stations, but he had not found it necessary to ask for any increase in the present vote for the royal artillery; but should the large number now employed in the colonies continue to be required there, he feared in a future year he should have to ask the House for an addition to the present force. In the fourth vote there was an increase of 96 l.; this was occasioned by some addition to the barrack establishment. The next vote was for the ordnance works and repairs of the United Kingdom and the colonies, building and repair of barracks, barrack expenditure, &c. In this there was an increase, which had arisen from the Ordnance having been called on to erect new barrack and ordnance works, or to add to those now existing. He would explain the items. At Waltham Abbey, to increase the means of manufacturing gunpowder, it is proposed to expend 11,000 l. in building and machinery. At Birmingham, also, in consequence of the

37
necessity for supplying the army with new muskets, an establishment had been formed at an expense of 5,000 l. It had cast 6,500 l. to repair the damage done by a late storm to the sea-line at Portsmouth; 14,800 l. to expedite the works at Halifax; 2,870 l. for the Cape frontier; 2,200 l. for the works at Gibraltar, on the re-commendation of the committee appointed to inquire into the state of the defence of the garrison, by the authority of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies. Complaints had, for a long time, been made of the defective state of the sea-line at that station; it had been from time to time patched up, but the application of steam navigation had occasioned so great an alteration in the circumstances of any fortification liable to attack from the sea, subjecting it to be approached with so much greater facility and certainty, that it had become the duty of the Government to provide against attacks under this altered system of navigation, both at Gibraltar and other important out-stations. Sir John Jones, the officer who had been so successfully engaged in reinstating the works in the Netherlands after the late war, was now employed in preparing estimates and plans for the works required at Gibraltar. Those estimates and plans were not completed, but a rough estimate had been submitted to the Government, and it was thought right to take a vote for 20,000 l., to enable them to carry on the works, without loss of time. The next cause of increase was for the erection of barracks on the Cape frontier. The expence here proposed to be incurred was 8,857 l. The next item was for the barracks in the central districts of this country, 20,000 l. In the northern districts it had been found necessary to have a greater number of troops there than there was barrack room for. Some troops there had been lodged in temporary barracks for eighteen years. Two years ago, he (Sir H. Vivian) went down and examined the barracks in that district; many of them were much out of repair, and in a very bad state. This was more particularly the case in Bolton and Bury, and he thought it was his duty, holding the situation he did, to take care, if it were necessary to continue so large a number of troops, beyond what there were permanent barracks already capable of accommodating, that they should be properly and comfortably lodged. 10,000 l. was proposed to be
38
expended in increasing the barrack accommodation at Brecon. When the disturbances took place in South Wales last year, in consequence of the want of barrack room the troops were lodged in public-houses, and afterwards in mills and other buildings, that were hired for the purpose. He had visited the stations in that neighbourhood, and found the troops, as far as a temporary accommodation went, very comfortably lodged, but at the desire of the Secretary of State, for the Home Department, he had directed an officer of engineers to go down and prepare plans, &c., for the erection of barracks, at different stations where it had been recommended barracks should be provided, but he hoped any great expense for that purpose would yet be unnecessary. No estimate was therefore now made except for the barrack at Brecon, and that expenditure, even, he hoped might not be required, he would endeavour to avoid it if possible. It was also proposed to take 10,000 l. for the erection of a fortified or defensible barracks at Pembroke. This had become a most important station, and the provision for the lodging of the troops there was found to be most incomplete. It was found, that at an expense comparatively small, a barrack might be erected that would afford accommodation to the troops, and be effective as a means of defending the town. In the sixth vote for military and civil contingencies, including surveys of the United Kingdom, and army extraordinaries, there was an increase upon the last year's estimate of 5,414 l. The next vote, which was for ordnance and military stores, was an important one. The increase here was 121,000 l. This increase had arisen principally in consequence of the necessity of supplying the troops with percussion arms. For many years great complaints had been made of the arms with which the soldiers of the British army were furnished; in many respects, no doubt, the musket was a good and a powerful arm, bat in others it was defective, the lock especially so, and the consequence was, a very large proportion missed fire, he might say as many as one third. Now he thought it was due to the British soldier, when sent out to fight the battles of his country, to place in his hands such arms as he could depend upon; his conduct at all times fully entitled him to this consideration. He now, therefore, proposed the large sum of 130,000 l. for supplying our troops with percussion fire-

39
arms. The subject of improving the firearms had been mooted, when he (Sir H. Vivian) entered upon his present office of Master-general of the Ordnance. He had taken very great pains on the subject, and had a musket of every description made, and when he had obtained what he considered to be a good one, he applied to his noble Friend, the Commander-in-chief, to name two experienced officers to serve on a committee to examine and report upon the fire-arms submitted to them; as president of that committee, he placed his gallant Friend the Storekeeper of the Ordnance, and he should not do them justice if he failed to take this opportunity of expressing his sense of the pains they took in investigating this most important subject. They decided in favour of a particular musket as a pattern and also upon a carbine and a rifle, and he immediately ordered a certain number of each to be made up and sent, some to the troops in Canada, others to those in England and in Ireland, for trial. He had, at the same time, requested Lord Hill to direct, that a report should be sent from the officer in command of the different regiments to which these arms were sent, the reports were in the highest degree favourable. New arms it is well known are supplied to the troops once in every twelve years, and at the present time in consequence of there being a doubt as to the description of arms to be supplied. No less than twenty-six regiments are in want of arms, these then will have at once or at least as soon as possible, to be supplied with percussion arms, therefore it is, that a very large sum is required in order to provide them. He had obtained from Lord Hill reports of the opinions of those regiments which as yet have received the new muskets, and all agreed, that "the arms which had been then supplied to them were far more useful and better calculated for the service than those with which they had been previously furnished." The right hon. and gallant General then read the opinions of the officers commanding the grenadier guards, the 7th dragoon guards, the 13th and 14th light dragoons, the Coldstream, the 72nd, the rifle brigade, and other regiments, all of which spoke of the arms as most excellent, and decidedly superior to those previously in use. He therefore considered it his duty as fast as possible to go on with the manufacture of these arms, and this was absolutely necessary, inasmuch as if occasion should arise for
40
calling the troops into the field, it Would not only be most injudicious, but it would be unjustifiable, to send them out with flint locks against an army provided with percussion locks. In proof of this, he might mention, a circumstance which occurred whilst he was in the command in Ireland, when at a review, during a violent shower, the pans became so wet, that not a single musket in one of the regiments would go off. There was also an addition of 15,000 l. for other stores, and a further addition in the military store branch of 10,000 l. The unprovided list amounted to 5,579 l. Of that sum, 100 l. had been laid out for the purchase of the land on which the tower of Bagenbon, near Fethard, in the county of Wexford was situated, and the remainder was for the purchase of some ground necessary to the completion of some of the new works, at Kingston in Canada. The whole amount of the votes was 186,903 l. more than last year. If any hon. Member was desirous of further explanation he should be most happy to give it, when the vote was proposed on which it might be required. The right hon. and gallant General moved:—
"That a sum not exceeding 119,631 l. be granted to her Majesty for defraying the salaries of the civil establishments at the Tower, and Pall-mall, Woolwich, the out-stations in the United Kingdom, and foreign stations, for 1841–2."
Mr. Humeobserved, that as the House was determined to keep up a large standing army, it was certainly desirable that they should have an efficient artillery. It was desirable that this branch of the service should be placed on the best possible footing, and also, that the arms that should be given to the troops should be as good as possible. On this ground, he, for one, should not object to the proposal of the right hon. and gallant Officer for arming the troops with guns with percussion locks. He had no doubt but that the right hon. and gallant Officer made every possible inquiry, and examined the subject fully before he adopted these new arms. He was not at all surprised at the increased expenditure for ordnance stores, when he recollected the recent proceedings on the coast of Syria, where such large quantities of them had been uselessly thrown away. He should not trouble the House to divide on these estimates, but he protested against the large scale of our military establishments.
Colonel Thomaswished to know whether the troops in India were to be armed with the percussion guns.
Sir Hussey Vivianreplied that the matter was then under consideration.
Vote agreed to, as were several other votes.
On the vote of 525,521 l. for ordnance works and repairs, and storekeepers' expenditure, building and repair of barracks, &c. in the United Kingdom and the colonies,
Sir A. Dalrymplesaid, that he observed in this vote a charge of 10,000 l. for the enlargement of the barracks at Brecon. He wished to know whether the principle of enlarging the central barracks of a district was to be acted upon in South Wales as it was in other districts, instead of having detached barracks at various places?
Sir H. Vivianreplied, that a number of plans had been submitted to him for the erection or enlargement of barracks in other places in South Wales; but he did not intend to make any proposition on the subject until it became absolutely necessary to do so. He had received communications from officers stationed in South Wales, who told him, that although it was found necessary for the present to distribute the troops in a number of places in that district, yet, that they, generally speaking, were comfortably quartered.
Mr. Hodgesasked what steps had been taken respecting the repair of the barracks at Hythe; and also whether it was at all necessary to keep up the barracks there?
Sir H. Vivianhad made inquiries on the subject of the commanding officer of the district. It appeared that last year the roof of the barracks in question was in a bad state, and the officer to whom he had alluded had received instructions to have it repaired. He had entered in to a contract for this purpose, with a person who, it turned out, was not competent to complete it. The repairs, therefore, had not yet been finished. On this subject he bad sent down one of the best officers connected with his department, namely, Captain Pasley, who reported that a new roof was necessary for these barracks, and that the expense would not be very great. With respect to the continuance of the barracks at Hythe, he had no hesitation in saying that they were absolutely necessary in case of war. If, therefore, the
42
present building were abandoned, they would, very probably, in a few years, have to rebuild it at a greatly-increased expense.
Mr. Humeregretted to find, that whenever any local or temporary disturbances look place, a demand was made in that House for the erection of large barracks. This was the case a few years ago with respect to Lancashire, and it was now to be acted upon in South Wales. If this was the principle that was to be acted upon, there would be no end to the expenditure. The truth was, that in case of disturbances, the Government would avail itself of the facilities of communication afforded by the railways. He did not mean to object to any particular vote, but he rose to protest against the system of studding the country with barracks.
Sir Hussey Vivandenied that the Board of Ordnance or the Home Office acted upon the principle of having barracks built in a place whenever an emeute occurred. The greatest caution was used, and they were never erected unless after the most mature consideration, and until they were deemed to be absolutely necessary.
Mr. Humeexpressed a hope that the charge of admission to the jewel-room, in the Tower, would be reduced. The principle had been tried with respect to the armouries, and had been attended with the greatest success, and he now trusted that the charge would be reduced still further. He found, from a document, which he had in his possession, that in the year 1837, when the charge of admission to the armouries in the Tower was three shillings, 10,500 visited them, and the sum received was 1,030 l.; in 1838, when the charge was reduced to one shilling, they were visited by 41,000, and the sum taken was 2,040 l. In the twelve months, ending January, 1840, during which time the charge was sixpence, they were visited by 80,000 persons, and the sum received was 2,000 l.; and in the year ending January 1841, the number of persons visiting the armouries was 91,897, and the amount received was 2,297 l. 8s. 6d. Was not this a satisfactory proof of the advantage of making reduction in charges? For his own part, he should like to see all public places thrown open to the pubic free of all charge, as there were thousands who; could not afford to pay sixpence. As this, however, was not very likely to be assented

43
to, he trusted that the right hon. and gallant Member would consent to reduce the charge of admission to three-pence, or a four penny piece for each person. He hoped also that before long the armouries would be thrown open to the public, free of all charge, for at least one day in a week. The principle which he had just alluded to should also be applied in the levying of duties; and he was satisfied that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to reduce the duties on tea and sugar, and other necessaries one half, that there would be no defalcation in the revenue while the benefit conferred on the public would be very great.
Vote agreed to. Resolutions ordered to be reported. House resumed. Committee to sit again.

POOR-LAW COMMISSION.
The House then went into committee on the Poor-law commission continuance and amendment bill, pro formâ.
Captain Pechellasked whether the Gilbert unions were exempted from the operation of the act?
Mr. F. Maulereplied in the negative.
Mr. T. Duncombehad on a former evening stated to the House, that he thought the recommendation of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, that the duration of the commission should be reduced to five years, and that the poor should not be thrown into those places behind the workhouse called workhouse churchyards, but should be buried in the parish churchyards, or, to use a more expressive term, in the poor churchyards, would be adopted by the Government in their amendments to the bill. He hoped also, that the Gilbert corporations would be excepted, and that the noble Lord would think twice before he attacked the local acts of the metropolis. Now, they had been often told, that the Poor-law commissioners had exercised the greatest discretion in the performance of their duties; but he did not think much discretion had been evinced in uniting the large parish of Kensington with that of Chelsea. Having done that, they afterwards got in Paddington, for the purpose of trying the Poor-law system. And what was the consequence? The greatest possible confusion was produced, and now there was a local act before the House for the purpose of dividing Kensington from Chelsea; or, as it were, to divorce
44
them. But they had of course done away with the local act so that when Chelsea was separated from Kensington, that parish would be left with all the horrors of the Poor-law. He would advise all persons who were interested in the local acts not to halloo before they were out of the wood; for, though they might escape this year, the Gilbert corporations would be attacked, and in the next year the local acts would follow in the same course. It was proposed also, to divide large parishes into wards. Now, that was the most objectionable clause ever introduced into any bill, for it would produce divisions of the ratepayers of a parish. At present a ratepayer had as many votes for guardians as there were guardians forming the board; but would that be the case if this clause were adopted? He should like very much to know whether, if parishes were divided into wards, a ratepayer would have as many votes as he had at present, or only for the guardians of his particular ward?
Mr. Fox Maule: The hon. Member would see the clause when it was printed.
Mr. Duncombe: This point was a matter of deep interest, and unless he received a satisfactory explanation upon it, he should move that the chairman do leave the chair. The hon. Member concluded with moving that the chairman do report progress.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, the hon. Gentlemen refused what, he believed, had never before been refused to an individual, much less to a Member of the Government—namely, the right to move that a bill be committed pro formâ, for the sake of introducing amendments. It was a matter of ordinary courtesy to grant this to any hon. Member having a bill before the House. His noble Friend had stated, that he did not mean to take any step in the bill that evening-, but that he should ask permission to introduce certain amendments in committee, for the sake of having them printed, and placed before hon. Members, in the exact shape in which it was proposed to carry it Out. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press his motion, but allow the bill to be amended and reprinted.
Mr. T. Duncombethought he was called on to explain after what had fallen from the hon. Gentlemen. It might be unusual for an individual to object to a Member altering his bill as he liked, but it was much more unusual dud uncourteous

45
when such a Gentleman was asked a question respecting the amendments he proposed to introduce, to turn round and say you will see when they are printed. When he was treated in that manner, he should certainly move that the chairman do report progress. No Secretary of State in the higher department, and much less one in the lower, should so treat an independent Member, or give, what he should consider in any other situation, a most impertinent answer. He had put a question respecting a certain amendment, and the answer was, that he would find it in the bill when printed. He did not regret the course he had taken, because the reply was uncourteous and unusual.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, the answer was one made in, perhaps, an unusual mode. He had answered from his seat without addressing the House, and meant it as from one Friend to another sitting at the same side of the House. The hon. Gentleman had chosen to consider it as an answer in his place. If the hon. Gentleman pressed his motion he should oppose it.
Lord John Russellsaid, it was a very usual coarse for a Member, and particularly an official Member, bringing forward a bill, to take that bill through committee pro formâ, for the sake of having amendments printed, and that course was generally agreed to by the House. It was usual, as Well for private Members as for Members of the Government, to make amendments in that way, in order to place the bill before the House in the state in which they wished it to go into committee. He (Lord J. Russell) had done more. He had stated certain amendments which he wished to put in the bill, and the hon. Member said because you have done more than is usual, in stating certain amendments, I ask you to do more still, and state every item and iota of the amendments you mean to introduce. [Mr. T. Duncombe: I did not ask that.] The effect of such demands would be, that a Member of the Government, in asking the usual indulgence, instead of doing more than he had done, would do less, and give no explanation at all.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, the noble Lord might explain as much or as little as he pleased, but he ought not to misrepresent him. He had not asked for every iota of the amendments, bat for a particular
46
clause—the clause respecting the division of districts into wards.
Lord J. Russellhad stated generally the amendments he meant to introduce, but had said nothing with regard to that part of the bill, and he had no amendment to propose in it.
The Chairmanwas sure that the hon. Member for Finsbury would be most unwilling to use any expression inconsistent with what was due to another Member. He had no doubt, therefore, that the hon. Member would see the propriety of withdrawing the word "impertinent," which must have been used in the haste and warmth of debate. The hon. Gentleman, the Under Secretary of State, had said, that his reply was not intended to be heard by the House.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, his question had been put publicly, and he therefore considered the answer public. He would not press his motion.
Colonel T. Woodthought there had been a good deal of warmth about nothing at all. The expression "impertinent" was too strong a one to be allowed to pass by the House. He did not think that the hon. Member for Finsbury could desire to persist in it.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that after the explanation of the hon. Gentleman, the Tinder Secretary of State, he withdrew it, of course.
Bill ordered to be reported as amended, and amendments inserted to be printed.
House resumed.

COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS.
Mr. E. Tennentsaid, that in compliance with a suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, he intended to comprise all the legislation on this subject into one bill. He should therefore move, before going into committee, an instruction to the committee to that effect.
Mr. Sheilsaid, as it was proposed to amend the law of copyright, with regard to linen, cotton, and wool, respecting which there were no less than five acts of Parliament, it had appeared to him that it would be much wiser to consolidate these acts, so as to bring the law of the subject within a small compass. He understood it was intended to extend the copyright of paperstaining to three years. With regard to metals, the copyright in designs extended at present to three years, but the copyright

47
for configurations and shape lasted only one year. It was proposed to make all three years.
Mr. Hindleyasked, whether the protection to be given was to dale from the registration, or the publication of the design?
Mr. Sheilthought that point would be better discussed in committee.
On the motion of Mr. E. Tennent, the House went into committee pro formâ .
Mr. Hindley having repeated his question,
M. E. Tennentsaid, the protection was to date from the registration.
Amendments agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported.—To be re-committed.

AMENDMENT OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.
Lord J. Russellrose to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the criminal law. An hon. Member whom he saw on the opposite side of the House had introduced a bill in the last Session of Parliament, and also in the present, for the important purpose of abolishing capital punishments. It was for the House to consider whether they would go further than the extent to which they had hitherto gone, in the mitigation of capital punishment, and if so, to what extent they would go. The hon. Gentleman stated last year that it was his opinion—and he (Lord John Russell) hoped he did not misrepresent it—that capital punishment might be abolished altogether. That was not the measure which the hon. Gentleman proposed to the House but he proposed a measure for abolishing capital punishment excepting in the cases of treason and murder. The principle on which the hon. Gentleman went was a very clear and distinct one. He proposed to abolish it by two steps; first, by the bill which he had already brought in; and secondly, by some measure which should abolish it altogether. He was not persuaded that it was necessary, or rather he was not persuaded that it was expedient, to abolish capital punishment altogether, because he thought there were certain offences for which it was necessary to retain it. At the same time, in forming an opinion on the subject, they must look to the changes which had been already made in the criminal law. They must see how far those changes had already operated well, and they must see whether public opinion would go along with them in the mainten-
48
ance of the present law; because the ultimate decision in each particular case being by a jury—that is, the persons who were ultimately to decide whether the life of a human being was to be taken away or not, being selected generally from the body of the people, it must depend very much on their opinions whether or not any capital punishment should be inflicted. If it was a general opinion, however erroneous, that capital punishment should be inflicted for certain offences; although you might say the punishment was excessive—although you might say there was nothing in the offence itself which required that extreme and irrevocable punishment; yet, so far as the prevention of crime, the great object of criminal law, was concerned—if the opinion of the great body of the people was in its favour, it did tend to accomplish its end. For instance, not a great many years ago, in a single circuit in the country, after the verdict of a jury had convicted fourteen persons of the crime of sheep-stealing, a judge had thought it right to leave all these men to be executed. That might appear excessive and extreme punishment. However, the judge had thought it his duty to inflict it—the jury had thought it their duty to find those persons guilty; and with regard to the crime of sheep-stealing, it was effective in preventing it for a certain time. But if the public opinion in this respect had changed—if the declaration of the law was, that certain crimes should be visited with death—and if the repugnance on the part of juries to its infliction was such, that although the indictment might be found by the grand jury, and although the evidence before the petit jury might be conclusive, yet that they should bring in a verdict of not guilty, in spite of the evidence, then such a law did not attain its object. Crime was not prevented, because the persons willing to commit crime would not be deterred by the fear of death; because, whatever was the declaration of the law, they would look at its operation by the verdict of the jury and to the sentence of the judge, and by the recommendation of the judge to the Crown; and finding that such sentences were scarcely ever executed, they would not be deterred by the mere chance of the punishment from committing offence. Therefore, omitting all other questions—all questions raised by many persons in the country, and by the hon. Gentleman opposite—as to the justice or lawfulness of executing the punishment of death in any

49
case, and looking only at what be thought was the object of society, namely, the prevention of crime, he thought they should consider how far the criminal law as it at present stood was suited to that purpose. They had made very great alterations in the criminal law; they had reduced the number of offences punishable by death, and, with respect to certain offences, there were laws in the statute book inflicting the penalty of death, but which were not in fact executed. The hon. Gentleman opposite had taken the whole question together, and proposed to make his alteration by one bill. He (Lord John Russell) did not believe that they could abolish the punishment of death altogether, and therefore be proposed to take a different course. He should propose to consider offences separately, with the exception of a certain number of offences, with respect to which there could be no doubt on the mind of any person whatever. They had abolished the punishment of death with regard to many grave offences. They had abolished the punishment of death generally with respect to the crime of forgery. Still there were certain offences of that nature for which the penalty of death was retained, either from the influence of certain parties, accustomed to place their security on the infliction of capital punishment, or because the legislature per incuriam had passed over those cases. They were certain crimes of embezzlement by the servants of the bank of notes, bills, and annuities, certain crimes; against the South Sea Company, and forgery of the stamps on gold and silver plate. When a principle had been established by the Legislature, there was no doubt what ever that they ought not to leave on the statute book announcements of the punishment of death, which no judge would inflict; for although he might conceive it necessary to pronounce the sentence, he would not think it his duty to allow it to be executed, but would send a strong representation to the Crown that such crimes ought not to be punished with death. Therefore, he proposed, in the first place, to bring in a bill to abolish the punishment of death for certain offences of embezzlement, fraud, and returning from transportation on this side of St. Helena. With regard to this bill, he did not imagine that any doubt could be entertained. He confined it to subjects of which be thought there could be no doubt, and he thought it might pass without hesitation, either on the part of that or the Other House of Parliament. There was
50
another subject with regard to which hi had stated that he differed in opinion with the hon. Gentleman opposite last year; not that he thought there should be no amendment with respect to it, but that he could not consent to the total abolition of capital punishment—which the hon. Gentleman recommended—he meant the offence of destroying or burning ships in the Queen's dock-yard. He conceived that when that offence was committed with a view to destroying the ships of the navy, or to destroying the naval stores of the country as collected in the dockyards belonging to the Crown and the public, that it was an offence of a treasonable nature. Such an offence might be rarely committed, but when it was committed, and with the intent to cripple the naval means of this country, and prevent her Majesty from using the force of the Crown against the aggression of foreign enemies, it was an offence of so serious a nature, and partaking so much of the character of treason, that they ought not to take away from it the severest punishment. At the same time, the act inflicting this punishment was drawn in such a manner as to involve cases in which there might be no destruction of naval stores, no treasonable intent, nor any view to cripple the resources of this country. He proposed, therefore, to amend the act in that respect, and to endeavour to confine capital punishment as much as possible to the greater offences he had mentioned. The next offence was certainly one on which the greatest doubt and embarrassment were felt, and on which the Government had come to a decision with very considerable difficulty: he alluded to the offence of rape. With regard to that, he felt no doubt in saying, that when it appeared in au aggravated form, when the circumstances accompanying it showed it to be an offence of violence, with nothing that could mitigate its character, it ought to be punished with the severest punishment that could be inflicted. But when they considered the offence as it was brought before courts of justice in this country, very great doubt and difficulty arose. Those who were charged with it were generally charged on the evidence of one person only, and that one not—as in cases of robbery or attempts to murder—a person against whom no suspicion could be entertained, but, on the contrary, persons who were in a certain degree subject to the doubt and suspicion that they were endeavouring to clear their own character

51
by bringing serious charges against another. These were matters that much affected the minds of the juries. When the question was brought before a jury, they sifted Very narrowly into all these circum-stances, and it very often happened that the statement of the prosecutrix, the manner in which her evidence was given, the circumstances with regard to the previous life of both parties—the circumstances that happened immediately before the offence was committed, were inquired into. When they found that all these circumstances were weighed together, they must consider that there was a repugnance to a verdict in those cases which would end in taking away life. When they considered that there was a general impression that nothing but the most certain evidence could induce a jury to bring in a verdict upon a capital charge they might very well conceive that there had been many verdicts of acquittal of persons who had really committed the offence, but against whom there was not that certain evidence that Would induce a jury to bring in a verdict that might end in taking the life of the prisoner. These were considerations that he had no doubt Very much affected the minds of juries; but he had returns that would show that where there had been capital punishments inflicted for the perpetration of the offence, they had a very powerful effect in producing Verdicts of acquittal subsequently for the same offence. In the administration of the criminal law, they must consider, that the judges had great opportunities in going their several circuits, of observing the impression produced upon gentlemen forming the grand juries, next on the class of persons on the petit juries, and next upon the barristers, and various officers in these courts of justice, as well as indifferent persons who attended these courts, as to what was the administration of the criminal law. Therefore it was, that the opinions of the judges—he did not say on any one case, but generally—were to be regarded as of paramount importance, and entitled to the greatest weight. He was unwilling to state the opinions of the government on this subject, when he referred to the judges, because he was anxious, when he heard what was the impression of an individual judge to ascertain if it should be confirmed by subsequent experience. He had found it so confirmed. When he had the honour of acting as Secretary of State for the Home Department, a case of tape had occurred in which
52
more than one person had been concerned. There had been three persons concerned, and, therefore, it was one of the cases of rape which was generally considered as an aggravated case, and in which the punishment of death might be inflicted. The judge before whom the case had been brought informed him, that if he did not make any objection as Secretary of State, he, as judge, would recommend that life should be spared. Finding this to be the opinion of the judge, and knowing him to be a person of great intelligence, ability, and learning, and he himself not being averse to spare life when a person of such high authority told him that he thought it would be proper to spare life, he stated to the judge, that if such a recommendation were made to him he would at once suggest its adoption by the Crown. The recommendation was made, and the life of the person was spared. Other cases had since occurred, and it had been found that judges generally agreed in the opinion which he had just mentioned, and they thought, with regard to cases in which there had been a conviction for rape, that the capital sentence should not be executed. He had referred to the state of opinion of the judges on this subject, and he now would refer to that of the juries. He would quote returns which bore upon this point; but he did not say, that they were such as that any one could deduce inferences as naturally depending upon them, but still they were very remarkable, as showing what had occurred upon this subject. The general result of them was this, that where there had been executions in one year for rape, the proportions of convictions in the next year, for the offence, were less; thus showing, that there was a feeling certainly against the execution of the capital sentence. The returns, however, he referred to were not to be taken as altogether accurate, as they were only taken for a very few years, and were not put forward by him as conclusive; but still they gave to the House these results;—
"In 1834 there were fifty-five prisoners acquitted; there were eight convicted, the total number tried being sixty-three; four of the eight convicted were executed, and four transported for life. The proportion convicted was one in eight.
"In 1835: acquitted, fifty-two; convicted, four, all commuted to transportation for life. Proportion convicted, one in fourteen; but the numbers convicted of the minor offence—the assault with intent to ravish—were increased one-fourth.

53
"In 1836: acquitted forty-six; convicted, nine; 1 executed, eight transported for life. Proportion confided, one in six; and a slight decrease in the minor offence.
"In 1837: acquitted, sixty-seven; convicted, six, all transported for life. Proportion convicted, one in twelve.
"In 1838: acquitted, thirty-two; convicted, seven; six of whom were transported for life, one imprisoned one year. Proportion convicted, one in five and a half.
"In 1839: acquitted, sixty; convicted, seventeen; all commuted—fifteen to transportation for life, one for ten years, one imprisoned one year. Proportion convicted, one in four and a half.
"In 1840: acquitted, thirty-eight; convicted, eighteen; all commuted—fifteen to transportation for life, three to fifteen years' transportation. Proportion convicted, nearly one in three."
The result, therefore, of these returns was this—at least it might be put in this way: that where there had been executions one year, the effect was, that the next year there was a leas proportion of convictions, and since it had become the practice in cases of conviction to inflict the minor punishment of transportation, the proportion of convictions had been greater. Now, if he thought that that was the general result, and without relying much on the returns, they might say that there was such a general tendency of trials for this offence, then it was of more importance for the purpose of preventing crime, that they should have a law by which there should be a greater proportion of convictions, than a law which would give but a small proportion of convictions. The great object of law was, that those who were guilty of crime should be punished; and whether the punishment be death or transportation for life, still if there was a certainty or something nearly amounting to a certainty, that punishment would be inflicted, it would be more likely to prevent crime than if they made it a matter of lottery, where one in ten, twenty, or thirty, might be executed; but the rest go scot free. The disposition of the human character was this—rather to take the chances of acquittal, with a chance of execution, than incur the probability, the very strong probability, of severe punishment, whether that was to be banishment or imprisonment, as the result of crime. It seemed to him, therefore, with respect to this crime of rape, that they ought to take away the punishment of death. At the same tine, it wag one of those crimes with respect to which, if they regarded particular instances of it, and considered the violence
54
and atrocity with which it was committed looking, too, at it as a conviction for a moral offence, it was not an offence, he was sure, that the House or the country generally, would consider as one for which an extreme punishment ought not to be inflicted. But looking at a question of this kind, with regard to the effect of their criminal law, they must, he said, consider what their criminal law was to be, and what it can be They could not make a criminal law, and they did not profess to make one, that could reach every moral offence, according to the degree of its moral guilt, and punish it in proportion to its enormity. They could not assume to themselves the Divine power, and affix to every moral crime the penalty that ought to be attached to it. This was beyond their power; but if it were not, in this instance, they would find that there were other offences to which they could not attach such penalties as would be adequate for the offences that had been perpetrated. For instance, there was the case of slander—the slander he would suppose, of a young and innocent woman by some disappointed person, and who attacked her reputation, by which her happiness would be for ever blasted, her whole life embittered, and gradually sapped, until she sunk into the grave; the peace of her family destroyed, the most flagrant wrong perpetrated upon the unoffending and the innocent: and thus the greatest injury, and from the most malicious motives, inflicted. And yet, if they came to the law, whet in such a case was the redress? That there must be some pecuniary damages, while they were conscious that their moral feelings could not be satisfied. Was it that the law was wrong in this respect? By no means; but it was because the offence was beyond the law and above the law. It was an offence that could only find its punishment in the feelings of mankind, its punishment must be in the conscience of the offender—its punishment was in the retribution of an eternity; but they, as men, could not attempt to assign to it its adequate punishment. With regard to rape, it must be admitted that there were certain cases deserving of the punishment of death; there were cases deserving of the most extreme punishment but then, when he asked persons engaged in the Administration of the law how they were to make the distinction, and where they were to draw the line as to the offence that was to be punished with death, and such cases as where

55
the offence should be declared not to be capital, he never was able to obtain a definition that was satisfactory to his own mind. It had been proposed, that where the offence was committed by more than one, and, as such, where no consent could be supposed, but where the offence must be regarded as accompanied with brutality and violence, that then the punishment of death should be inflicted. But then he did not think that they were able so to distinguish them, when they considered the vast gulf or chasm that separated the punishment of transportation for life from the punishment of death. He did not think they could make that distinction sufficiently marked when they said that there should be a certain offence of rape punishable with death and a certain offence of rape not so punishable. No definition could be so strongly marked as to fill up the chasm between the fact of taking away life altogether and any other punishment—at least, he could find none that could satisfy his mind that a certain offence should be punishable with death, and a certain other should not. He had stated this case as it appeared to him, and because it was not a subject upon which he had so much doubt, until he had seen the opinions of the judges, and not till he observed what was the result of convictions upon juries. Considering, then, the circumstances he had stated, and considering how desirable it was to effect the prevention of the crime for the future, he must say, that it did appear to him that the crime would, by the infliction of the punishment next to death, be more likely to be prevented than by preserving upon the statute-book the punishment of death, which, after the opinion of the judges, they would never feel justified in inflicting. At the same time, it was an offence for which he would not have a light punishment. He proposed, that it should be punished by transportation for life; or, in the lightest degree, for fifteen years. He believed he had now stated the nature of the three bills which he proposed to bring in. He did not propose to make any alteration with respect to the act of 1837, with regard to attempts to murder, or with regard to burglary with violence, or other offences stated in the 1st Victoria. He did not mean to say, but that there were some offences in which it might not hereafter be right to take away the punishment of death; but he did not propose to include them in the bills he now meant to bring in. He would rather reserve his arguments
56
on these matters when the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite proposed to bring in his bills. He had stated to the House, when he had formerly spoken on the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he thought it would be expedient that a general review should be taken as to the whole subject of criminal law, and particularly as far as the punishments of transportation and imprisonment were to be regarded. These were to be found in various acts passed at different times; and the consequence was, there was no uniformity in the distribution of these punishments. He found, upon looking over the acts of Parliament, so much complication in the whole subject, that he believed it would be very imprudent in them, without farther and more full consideration, to bring in a bill on this subject. He meant to bring in a bill on the subject of transportation at a future period of the Session. He meant, having brought it in, to leave it for full consideration, and then not to propose to pass it this Session. He thought it much better, with subjects of this kind, that when anything was proposed of so much importance, that it should be fully canvassed throughout the country, so that persons most competent to give an opinion should have the power, if they thought fit, of communicating with the Government or Members of Parliament, and that they should proceed with the utmost deliberation, to frame such a law. Much, he thought, had been done of late years, and great progress had been made in the mitigation of the extreme severity of the law, but at present the greatest evil was the general uncertainty of the punishments to be inflicted. He was of opinion, that they ought not to relinquish the power of inflicting capital punishments in certain cases. He thought, that the punishment of death ought to be retained for certain great offences, where persons guilty of them were duly convicted, and when they were without mitigating circumstances. In another great class of offences in which hitherto punishment of death had been awarded, they should retain the punishment of transportation. Both as regarded England and Ireland, it was expedient to retain that punishment; the punishment also of imprisonment, with hard labour, should also be retained. One most common punishment was hard labour in the dockyards in this country; and this was imposed in lieu of transportation. The Secretary of State maintained that punishment—it was one inflicted by him, and it

57
was his opinion, that it ought to be enacted by statute law. He did not think that they ought to leave it any longer to the office of the Secretary of State, that a person actually sentenced to transportation should be sent to the dock-yards. He thought the punishment a right one; but it was one that ought to be inflicted, not by the Secretary of State, but by Act of Parliament. The recommendation of the judge always decided the course of the Secretary of State; but he would not enter into the question further, and therefore moved for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the punishment of death in certain cases of embezzlement and fraud, and in cases of persons returning from transportation on this side of St. Helena.
Mr. F. Kellysaid, he should do great injustice to the noble Lord, and equal violence to his own feelings, if he hesitated for one moment to express his gratification at the statement which the noble Lord had just made, of his sentiments with respect to the present state of the criminal law; and if he were compelled to gay, that he had heard that statement with sentiments not unmingled with regret and disappointment, he did so with reluctance, and it was with great regret that he made the admission. Still he had experienced very great satisfaction on learning what the views of the Government were upon this important topic. The noble Lord, in adverting to his bill for abolishing the punishment of death, had said, that it went a great deal too far, and that he called upon the Legislature, not to do more than experience had shown they could do consistently with safety. But when the noble Lord declared his disapproval of it, and called upon the House to refuse its assent to it, because he, and others who thought as he did, looked ultimately to the entire abolition of the punishment of death, he must beg leave to say, that the noble Lord had taken an unworthy and imperfect view of a very imperfect question. It certainly was true, as the noble Lord had said, that he and others who thought as be did, looked to the abolition of the punishment of death as to one of the greatest benefits the legislature could confer upon the community, and he believed that posterity would look back on the punishment of death with the same feelings of horror that the present generation looked back upon the practice of torture. Nor let it be forgotten that in those
58
days when torture was practised there were men, bearing a good character for humanity and lenity, who were, notwithstanding, such was the spirit of the times, not reluctant to adjudge the torture to criminals. He called the attention of the House to his bill upon its own merits, and by those merits was the House to consider it and to judge it. If the bill was good, he hoped and believed it would be passed. If bad, and if it could be proved to be so, he would consent to its rejection. But in dealing with the topics which the noble Lord's speech had suggested to him, he felt that he might appeal to the noble Lord himself whether he had acted upon the principle which he had laid down for the guidance of the House in the rejection of his bill. Did the noble Lord, in bringing forward that great measure which he had promoted and successfully carried, act upon the principle which be had just laid down? Did he act upon the principle that because some of those who acted with him in promoting that great measure went much further in their views of reform than he had clone the bill itself ought to be rejected. Such was not the noble Lord's conduct on the Reform Bill, because if the noble Lord had shown such suspicions over the motives of those who acted with him, that great measure would never have passed either House of Legislature. He concurred in the other remarks of the noble Lord, he fully admitted the truth of his observation, that no act of Parliament could carry the weight or authority of a law, or could ever be generally prevalent with advantage to the community unless the people themselves gave it their voice and sanction. It was impossible to administer the law unless the jurors were convinced of its justice, and those who, like himself, were conversant even with the civil jurisdiction, were aware that this feeling was extended even to the civil courts. But in criminal law these prejudices rose to a much higher pitch, and unless the juries were entirely accordant with the law, they would not aid in carrying it into effect; and the point upon which he most relied, in bringing forward his measure, for abolishing the punishment of death, was, that the people at large out of whose number the jurors were chosen, did partake entirely the same sentiments which he entertained upon this subject. Agreeing, therefore, as he did, with the noble Lord, and gratified as he was with

59
the bills which he proposed to bring in, he could not do more than express his extreme disappointment at finding the noble Lord stop short of the mark, and that he Still continued to be unwilling to concur id his proposal to abolish death for setting file to stores in a royal dockyard because that crime partook of the nature of high treason. He must take the liberty of reminding the noble Lord that the principle upon which the bill of 1837 was founded was that of abolishing death in all cases where property alone was concerned; and he was not aware that any single exception was made to punish offences against property with death except in the case of setting fire to a royal dockyard. If the words whereby this exemption was made in favour of royal dockyards were examined they would be found, with all due respect to the noble Lord, to have no meaning. Was the distinction made because the dockyards contained royal property? If so, why was not the property of the Queen in |he royal palaces so protected? Why was the offence of burning a palace or that of stealing the crown-jewels, not still punishable with death? They were not so punishable because that species of property came under the general principle of the act of 1837, and to steal them or to destroy them by fire was no longer punishable with death by that act. If, therefore, the noble Lord would apply the great powers of his mind to the examination of what high treason consisted in, he would find that, in those cases where high treason did not affect life, it ought not, according to his own principle, to be visited with death under the bill of 1837. He might say that if there were any offences under the law, which those who committed them were of a class, who, under their peculiar circumstances, were less likely to be deterred from their commission by the punishment attached to them, they were those of attempts to destroy naval stores, or the bulk of property in her Majesty's dockyards. No subject could have any temptation to commit such an offence, unless an emissary fro in a foreign enemy. Put, considering all the circumstances of the present case, he would ask, was this a crime in which it was necessary to carry out an extreme punishment against persons guilty of it? The liable Lord should feel that this was an offence, which, though it might partake somewhat of a character of high treason, ought to come
60
within the scope of that measure, which was applicable to the destruction or stealing of property, under the bill introduced by the noble Lord in 1837, and which consequently ought to be exempt from the punishment of death. He had not heard the noble Lord, in the course of his observations that night, refer to the attempt to commit murder or burglary, or robbery of property with violence, which might endanger life. He understood that from the fact of the noble Lord's silence on these cases, he was disposed to maintain the system of capital punishments with respect to this class of offences; and if such was the case, he confessed he heard that impression of the noble Lord with great regret. He thought the application of a system of milder punishment might be used in those cases, even upon clearer grounds than upon those upon which the noble Lord had already consented to the abolition of such punishments. If it were considered expedient, with a view to secure a proper number of convictions by taking into consideration the feelings of juries, he thought those cases to which he then referred were much in favour of his argument. By taking away the idea of severe punishments, they left a jury more inclined to examine closely the evidence against a party than where a capital punishment was the consequence of a conviction. Formerly violence with intent to commit grievous bodily harm, whether attended or not with murder, was a capital offence. But of late years that had been changed, and he conceived that no public act to which the noble Lord opposite had been a party had reflected more credit upon him, had been more productive of general benefit, than that bill of 1837, by which an assault with intent to commit grievous bodily harm, was made only liable to the punishment of transportation for life. Subsequently to the passing of that act it had become customary in all indictments to charge the prisoners arraigned for murder, not only with the attempt at that crime, but also with intent to do grievous bodily harm. It was now the unvarying practice to introduce those two distinct counts, whereby juries had the opportunity of finding parties guilty of the offence subjecting them to the minor punishment, and for his part he did not then recollect one case where these two counts had been introduced in which the prisoner had been convicted of the capital offence. He was

61
alluding to this subject, not only in order that he might congratulate the noble Lord upon the course he was now pursuing, but that he might beseech him to bestow his attention, as they had not yet gone into committee upon the subject, namely—whether the conviction of the guilty would not be better secured if they, in the consideration of the present question, adopted; the principle contended for with regard to attempts at murder. They should consider that the law was not the less properly; administered if the next severest punishment to a capital one was attached to crimes which did not deserve the latter. He could not conclude the observations which he was then making, without again: pressing upon the attention of the House an argument which he had on former; occasions used,—if they did not seek to revenge a crime, if they did not wish to infringe upon that which was the attribute of a higher power, if they sought to prevent the commission of crime, they would do well not to make the same punishment attach to an attempt at murder as to murder itself. He conceived if they retained; the punishment of death for murder, they did all that the law could do; they afforded as much protection to the community as they could. Put so long as they punished the criminal who only attempted it in the same manner, they took away from him all indisposition to strike the final blow—to remove any witness that might appear; against him—and therefore they only held out an inducement to the guilty to perfect the crime which otherwise he might have left undone. He trusted, in conclusion, that the noble Lord would, before he proceeded further, take the matters, to which he (Mr. Kelly) had called his attention, into his most serious consideration; and he hoped the noble Lord would more extensively than he had yet proposed introduce a modification into our legislation which would be not only creditable to the noble Lord, but highly beneficial to the country. With respect to the question of secondary punishments he had to express that he felt very happy the attention of Government had been turned to this subject; and for this part he trusted, they should all see the time, for that it would come he did not entertain a doubt when capital punishments would be totally abolished, and a satisfactory system of secondary punishment adapted, which would be found more effectual in restraining crime.
62
and more beneficial to the community, than any other which might be suggested.
Mr. Shawagreed in much of what had fallen from the noble Lord; indeed he might say that he concurred in all the principles the noble Lord had laid down as applicable to the administration of criminal justice generally; but he thought that both the returns and the reasoning upon which the noble Lord relied, were in some degree fallacious as regarded the crime of rape. He admitted the general rule in criminal jurisprudence lo be, that punishment should be certain and moderate; and that the proportion of convictions to prosecutions was generally a safe criterion by which to test it. In rape, however, he considered that it was otherwise, and that the policy of the law and real justice required that the convictions should be few in comparison with the charges brought, but that when there was a clear conviction, free from the possibility of a rational doubt, that then the punishment, should be extreme; in ordinary cases—such as robbery or attempt to murder—the prosecutor was influenced by no interested motive; he made the accusation under the sincere impression of the guilt of the accused party—while in rape, the charge was frequently made to hide the shame of the party preferring it—to force a marriage—or to indulge a revengeful feeling towards the person charged. In all such cases justice lay in an acquittal; but if the accused was really guilty, then whether you regarded the moral guilt of the offence—the heinous crime of the offender—or the injury done to the sufferer—an injury worse than death itself to an innocent and virtuous woman—no punishment which the law awarded for any crime could be disproportionate to that. When the doubt of the jury arose from a feeling that the punishment was more than commensurate with the offence, there the penalty should be mitigated—but where the doubt was sincere, from the difficulty of proof, as in case of rape, where the accusation was easily made, and extremely difficulty to rebut, be would not remove a single obstacle to the conviction; but if it was obtained under circumstances that left no room for doubt in the minds of either judge or jury, then he would not abate one jet from the just severity of the punishment. The returns to which the noble Lord had referred, might be accounted for by a real diminu-

63
tion of the crime and an increased number of unfounded accusations, both arising from the severity of the punishment, although it was not more than justly severe—and he apprehended some danger lest a relaxation of the punishment might lead to a less rigid caution in convicting where the evidence was not clear and satisfactory—where the consequence would be only transportation—while the noble Lord seemed himself willing to allow, that if the offence was conclusively brought home, then capital punishment was not more than commensurate to its aggravated and atrocious character. He was no friend to undue severity of punishment—he was in favour of its general mitigation, and of limiting the number of capital crimes; but he was persuaded with the noble Lord that the penalty of death could not safely be dispensed with in all cases; and he differed with the noble Lord in considering that the case of rape, clearly proved, was one in which it ought to be continued.
Sir C. Douglasconcurred, with the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw), and begged to congratulate his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Kelly) on the perseverance which he had shown, during the last and present Session, in bringing this important matter before the House and the country.
Mr. Ewarthad some years ago been anxious to direct the attention of the Government to this subject, and, therefore, he saw it taken up by his hon. and learned Friend opposite, who was so competent to the task, with much pleasure. With regard to the destruction of property in dockyards, consisting of naval stores, he did not think that juries would in general draw that fine distinction between the property of the Crown and that of private individuals which the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies required. If it was proposed to make offences of this description subject to capital punishments, he could not avoid thinking that jurors would feel some repugnance at subjecting men to them, and would, therefore, be most likely to acquit the prisoners. He objected to the power of committing punishment now vested in the Secretary of State, because he thought that all such powers ought to be exercised coram populo. It was true it might be said that the acts of the Secretary of Stale were open to public responsibility, but they were not
64
open to public inspection. With regard to outrages on females, he could see no reason why crimes of that nature should not be subject to the same proof as others, or why a severe rule should be applied to them alone. The noble Lord had most satisfactorily shown that, in proportion as punishment had been mitigated, crime had decreased, and he was happy to be able to confirm that statement of the noble Lord, and to refer to the crime of cattle-stealing as a proof. He could state from authentic documents that, since the mitigation of capital punishment, convictions had increased in the proportion of three to one. He was sorry that the noble Lord held out no hope of any definite period, for the total extinction of capital punishment. The noble Lord, on a motion of his last year on the subject, reminded him that in Tuscany, where capital punishment had been abolished, it had since been revived, but he was happy to be able now to inform the noble Lord, that no execution had taken place there for the last ten years. He congratulated the noble Lord on the support he received from the Gentlemen opposite, in his endeavours to mitigate the severity of the criminal code, inasmuch as the noble Lord might rely on those who professed the same political principles as himself, for they were great advocates of the abolition of extreme penalties.
Mr. Philip Howardthought that nothing but the dread of death would be sufficient to deter some men from crime, and if it was expedient to remove the punishment of death from outrages committed by one man, still it would be manifestly unjust to expose a female to be attacked by more than one, when no spirit or strength would enable her to resist the assault upon her honour. If the penalty of death were removed from burglary when murder was not committed, that was certainly an inducement to the parties not to proceed to murder; but here the House was about to remove the safeguard of female honour, and he must solemnly protest against such a proceeding, because if they deprived a female of her honour, what, in the name of HEAVEN, did they leave her.
Leave given, and the three following bills were brought in and read a first time, namely,
"A bill to abolish the punishment of death for certain offences of embezzlement and

65
fraud, and for returning from transportation out of St. Helena."
"A bill to amend an act of the ninth year of the reign of King George the Fourth, for consolidating and amending the statutes in England relative to offences against the person."
"A bill to amend an act passed in the twelfth year of the reign of King George the Third, for the better securing and preserving her Majesty's dockyards, magazines, ships, ammunition, and stores."

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of Fingall, from Leicester, for the Amendment of some of the Clauses of the Drainage Bill.—By the Marquess of Down-shire, from the Presbyterian Congregation of Omagh from the county Donegal, from the Congregation of New-toanrds, county Down, from the Presbytery of Coleraine, and from a Presbytery in the county of Cavan, against Church Patronage.—By Lord Redesdale, from a place in Northampton, against the Vaccination system.

THE UNITED STATES.—MR M'LEOD.
The Earl of Mountcashellwished to put a question to the noble Viscount opposite, respecting certain information which had just arrived from America, of great importance to this country and which had produced not only a great sensation in the city, but he believed had also had a material effect on the funds. He referred to the report made to the Congress of the United States, by the committee of foreign affairs, on the thirteenth February last, which, although it related principally to the affair of Mr. M'Leod, could not but have great influence in determining the other subjects of dispute between this
2
country and the United States. He would be the last person to say one word likely to produce a greater division of opinion between the two countries than what now unfortunately existed, but he thought, when such a report as the one alluded to had appeared in the public prints as an official document of great importance, they were bound to ascertain at once whether it was so or not. He could not believe it to be genuine; he was inclined to think that it must be an invention. It was no uncommon thing for the public prints in foreign countries to insert documents for the purposes of stock-jobbing, and he thought that the report in question had been inserted in the American newspapers with some such view. He had also great doubts of its being genuine, from the high opinion which he had of the practical good sense of the inhabitants of the United States. It was impossible, he thought, that they could be so blind to their own interests as to bring forward a document of that kind. He thought it unlikely that such a report could be adopted by a majority in Congress without some individual moving an amendment.

3
He was convinced that if the inhabitants of the United States considered their own interest—if they looked to the state of their own finances—if they would but recollect the three millions of negroes who would take part with England—if they recollected the great body of Indians whom they had driven from their lands, and who were ready at the first opportunity to take vengeance on them—, if they pondered well these things, he was sure they would see but little inducement to their entering; on a war with England. They ought also to take into account the loyal feelings of the people of Canada, who would certainly retaliate on the United States the injuries done to them, and revenge Mr. M'Leod should he be murdered. They ought also to consider the large body of regular troops which were now in the British North American possessions, and the large naval force which, now that the Eastern question was settled, could be brought to bear against them. If they considered these things, they would very soon find, even in their calculations of profit and loss, of which they were so fond, and by which they seemed in the present instance not to be guided, that they were more likely in such a contest to add to their loss, than to increase their profits. For these reasons he was of opinion that the document was not true, but as it had produced so strong an impression on the public mind, he thought it necessary and right to ask the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government, whether he had received any intelligence respecting the report, and whether he considered it an official document or not? If it turned out to be official, he should, at the proper period, feel it his duty to make some observations in regard to it, for a document more insulting o this nation had never been penned. He wished, therefore, to know from the noble Viscount whether any information had reached him on the subject?
Viscount Melbournewas unable to answer the question of the noble Lord, as no information had as yet been received from her Majesty's representative at Washington. He apprehended, however, that considering the form of the document, and the manner in which it had reached this country, there could be no doubt of its authenticity.
Subject at an end.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND).
The Earl of Glengallsaid, he was sorry so soon again to bring under the consideration of the House another motion respecting the appointment of the returning officer to the Clonmel union. His motion was rendered necessary in consequence of certain returns which had been laid upon the table of the House, and which, like those to which he referred on Friday last, had been falsified. When noticing the subject the last night the House met, he had made out what every noble Lord who heard him admitted to be a singular and very curious case, and he was compelled to-day to adduce another, which was to the full as extraordinary. In February, 1840, he (Lord Glengall) had moved for certain returns connected with the Clonmel union, together with copies of all the correspondence which had taken place between the Poor-law Commissioners and certain magistrates and others, respecting the election of guardians for the Clonmel union. That return was laid on the table, and in the month of May he had moved for the same return, together with other documents. On examining the two, he found there was a material difference—between that presented in February and the one presented in May; and although both purported to be copies of the same documents, yet the wording of the two were essentially different. He was quite aware that on reading and comparing both, noble Lords might say, that the difference was not material; but when he, who understood the case, and, as he believed, knew the reason why the documents had been falsified, the variation appeared to be important. From the manner in which the statement he had made on Friday, had been received by the House, it was manifest it was their Lordships' intention to have the matter fully investigated, and he had no doubt the House would come to a decision upon it, one way or other, very soon; and it was in order to make the case of falsification of the documents clear, that he brought the subject again before their Lordships on the present occasion. The return to which he meant first to draw their ordships attention, was that presented in February. The document bore no date, but it purported to be an extract from the letter of Denis Phelan, Esq., assistant Poor-law Commissioner, and was as follows:—
"I have been intimately acquainted with Mr. Butler for twenty-seven years; during

5
the greater part of that time he was extensively engaged in the woollen trade, and conducted that business very respectably. He was also occupier of a tolerably large quantity of land. His character in these capacities was respectable, and without the slightest reproach.
"Mr. Butler lately retired from business, and resided in Clonmel as a private gentlemen. When the poor law union was about to be formed there, he applied to me for an introduction to the assistant commissioners, with the view of obtaining the situation of returning officer. To this request I acceded, feeling satisfied that his general character, business-like habits, and intimate knowledge of the country around; Clonmel and his being otherwise unemployed, were good qualifications for the office; and I shall be greatly disappointed if one of such intelligence and capacity Will not discharge his duties faithfully.
"I have, &c.
(Signed) "DENIS PHELAN,
"Assist. P. L. Commissioner."
He would now beg to call the attention of the House to the document presented in May. It was also the letter of Mr. Phelan, and commenced thus t—
"I have been intimately acquainted with Mr. Butler for twenty-seven years; during the greater part of that time, he was extensively engaged in the woollen trade, and conducted that business very respectably; he mm also occupier of a tolerably large quantity of land; his character in these capacities Was respectable, and without the slightest reproach."
So far both the returns agreed. But what followed was totally different, as the House would see. The document presented in May proceeds thus;—
"Mr. Butler having applied to me for an introduction to the assistant commissioners with the view of obtaining the situation of returning officer, I acceded to his request, feeling satisfied that his general character, business-like habits, and intimate knowledge of the country around Clonmell, and his being otherwise unemployed, are good qualifications for the office; and I shall be greatly disappointed if one of such intelligence and capacity will not discharge his duties faithfully."
Now in the last document to which he alt allusion to this person "having retired from business, and having lived as a private gentleman," was altogether omitted; and although this sight doubtless seem of little consequence to many noble Lords present, yet to him who understood the case, and knew well why the alteration had been made, it did appear of very great importance. After
6
the return ordered in February had been kid upon the Table, and which he believed to be the true one, certain circumstances occurred to which he should presently refer, which might have been attended with awkward consequences to the parties concerned, if exposed under their own hands, and therefore to screen themselves the documents had been falsified. The House would recollect that, on Friday last, he directed their Lordships' attention to a letter written by Mr. Bagwell, on the 9th of March, 1840; and the commissioners' answer to that communication distinctly stated that, although Butler had been recommended to the situation by the assistant Poor-law commissioners, yet, that his appointment had not been made, although on the 19th February, preceding, they had, in a letter to Mr. Fennell (which they suppressed) as distinctly stated, that the person recommended by the assistant commissioners had been appointed. Now, in the returns presented in May, as well as those made in February, the date of Phelan's communication had been omitted. In the May return, letter No. 1 was dated the 16th February; and Phelan's letter, No. 2, followed, but without date. It was to be inferred, however, that being classed No. 2, and No. 3, which follows—it being dated the 15th February—that it was written previous to that date, whereas, in his opinion, it was not written for a month after that date, and ought to have been placed No. 8 in the correspondence, it having been evidently written in consequence of the complaint made by Mr. Bagwell against the meditated appointment of Mr. Butler. The documents were falsified for the purpose of showing their Lordships that Phelan's opinion bad been taken previously to the appointment having been made, whereas it had not been done until afterwards. With respect to this person having "resided in Clonmel as a private gentleman," it certainly would be news to the inhabitants of the town, that such had been the case. It was true, this person had been a retail woollen draper, and had retired from business, bat no one ever before heard that he had retired with any property. It was impossible that when the assistant commissioners recommended a man for office as being "a private gentleman," that it should not have weight. The assistant commissioners must have had a very extraordinary idea of what was

7
the qualification necessary to constitute an Irish "private gentleman" inasmuch as the salary attached to the office to which this "private gentleman" had been recommended, was just ten pounds. Every one knew, that according as the law stood at present, it required a 10 l. qualification to constitute a freeholder in Ireland; and if the bill before the House of Commons should pass into a law, he (Lord Glengall) made no doubt that the qualification necessary to give a patent of "private gentility" in Ireland would be reduced, in order to suit the spirit of the age, from its present standard of 10 l. to 5l. In conclusion, the noble Earl said, he should place both the returns on the Table, and on a comparison it would be seen that one or other was false. It was not for him to say, that in falsifying the documents, the commissioners had committed a breach of the privileges of their Lordships' House. The question was in their Lordships' hands, and there he meant to leave it. As it was important to ascertain the dates of these letters of Mr. Phelan, he should move that a full report of the proceedings connected with the appointment of Mr. Butler, he laid on the Table of the House, together with the dates of the letters from Mr. Phelan, as they appeared in the returns of February and May last.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he had no objection whatever to grant the return moved for by his noble Friend. Indeed, after the statement that had been made, and after comparing the documents, it became absolutely necessary that this mutter should be sifted to the bottom. It might turn out that the alterations made were of no material consequence; but this would not, in his opinion, exonerate those who falsified the documents. He felt, in justice to those whose characters were implicated, as well as also with reference to the maintenance of their Lordships' privileges, that a full and ample investigation should take place; because it was manifest that if any officer under the Government could, with impunity, make alterations in the correspondence of his department, and which had been ordered to be laid before Parliament, no information could be relied on, and it would be idle to act upon any so supplied. The sooner, therefore, an investigation was had the better. After what occurred on Friday night, he felt it to be his duty to write to Mr. Nicholls, and he directed him to come over forth-
8
with. That Gentleman would be in personal attendance on Thursday; and, if the explanation he had to offer through him was not considered satisfactory, he could be examined at the bar.
Motion agreed to.
Adjourned.