Sitting of 1 October 1841

MINUTES.
New Member. The right hon. G. L. D. Damer, for Portarlington.
Bill. Read a third time. Poor-law Commission.
Petitions Presented. By Sir H. Fleetwood, from Preston, and by Mr. Cobden, from Trowbridge, and New Sarum, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Colonel Acton, from sir Harcourt Lees, for the Expulsion of the Jesuits.—By Mr. Litton from Richard Harpur, for inquiry into the cause of his dismissal from the situation of tide waiter in Dublin.— By Viscount Sandon, from Miramichi, against an alteration in the Timber Duties.—By Mr. Gladstone, from Charles Miller, for an alteration of the Tithe Commutation Act.—By Mr. Wakley, from Finsbury for the construction of Public Walks on the north side of the Thames.

COMMISSIONS IN THE NAVY.
On the Order of the Day for the bringing up the report of the Exchequer Bills Funding Bill being read,
Lord Ingestriesaid, he had intended moving for a return of all the Commissions (with the names attached) signed by the Board of Admiralty since the 4th Day of June last, up to the issuing of the patent of the present Board of Admiralty, distinguishing those Commissions signed after the 30th day of August; also, return of the ships put in commission during the same period making the like distinction, and of the probable date of each ship being ready for service; but if the Secretary to the Admiralty had any objection to grant it, he would not press the motion.
Mr. S. Herbertsaid, it was not usual to grant such returns, and it might create an inconvenient precedent.
Lord Ingestriewould not press his motion.
Motion withdrawn.

POOR-LAW COMMISSION.
On the motion that the Poor-law Commission Bill be read a third time.
Mr. Fieldenrose to oppose the third reading of-the bill, and to move that it be read that day three months. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had distinctly told the House that he is pledged to the principles of the new Poor-law. A dogged perseverance in adhering to the new law had overthrown his predecessors in office, and the present Government might rest assured that if they imitated the example of the last, they would not long hold office. To hear from a Cabinet pledged to govern on constitutional principles, that they will hold to the principle of a despotic law was what he could not understand. The delegation of extraordinary and undefined powers to a board of commissioners was declared by many learned persons on the passing of the bill through Parliament to be unconstitutional; and Mr. Scarlett, now Lord Abinger, stated distinctly, that—
" The clause by which the affairs of the poor are to be placed in the hands of delegates or commissioners, who are to exist as a sort of central board, appeared to him to establish such an imperium in imperio, that he thought the people of England would never consent to it."
He hoped the people never would consent to it. The continuance of these powers were considered so despotic that Lord Althorp consented to limit the term of the commissioners to five years. But with this limitation the bill was thought so bad, that many attempts were made to stop it, and Lord Althorp, after having been repeatedly desired to postpone it to another Session, because it was not understood out of doors, uttered these remarkable words: —
" He trusted that they would not lose the opportunity they now possessed of passing the bill; for if it were postponed to another Session, he must be a bold man who would then undertake an amendment of the Poor-laws."
The country now understood it and detested it. The electors, backed by the non-electors, had at the past election

1067
marked their displeasure of the Whigs,; and given the Tories a large majority in that House, who might, if so disposed, repeal that law. If they lost the opportunity they would show themselves under serving of confidence. In the petitions on; the Poor-law we had the most conclusive evidence of the nation's dislike to the law. j In two successive Sessions, in the latter of which he had moved for a repeal of it, the signatures to the petitions for repeal, numbered nearly half a million. Those petitions came from all parts of the country, and the letters he received on the subject, from persons in all parts, whom he had never known before, or seen at all, were very numerous. The petitions in the last Session, after the noble Lord, the Member for London, had given notice of his bill to amend the Poor law, were worthy the notice of the House. There were 6 petitions in support of the Poor-law, with 130 signatures to the whole; 21 petitions, with 247 signatures attached in favour of the bill then under consideration; 44 petitions, with 66 signatures, against any clause for out-door relief; for repeal of local-acts, 1 petition, with 24 signatures —in all 72 petitions, to which were annexed 467 signatures, somewhat in favour of the Poor-law. But what petitions were presented to that House against the law? There were 185 petitions, with 48,300 signatures for repeal; 86 with 11,621 signatures for alteration; 2 petitions, with 1,026 signatures for repeal of the Poor-law and the County Constabulary Act; 264 petitions, with 135,290 signatures, against the bill then under consideration; 281 petitions, with 61,375 signatures, for alteration of the bill; 73 petitions, with 28,717 signatures, for provision for freedom of religious instruction and attendance at places of worship; 4 petitions, with 317 signatures, against the proposed clause relative to casual poor. In all 895 petitions, with 286,646 signatures attached, against the New Poor-law and the bill to amend it. Here were a host of petitions to that House from those who did not understand the matter when the bill was before the House in 1834, but whose experience had brought them to beseech them to repeal it. The petitioners thought, and he (Mr. Fielden) agreed with them, that they were capable of distributing the sums raised for the relief of the poor amongst whom they lived in a manner more satisfactory to both
1068
parties than could be done by any directions of the central board at Somerset-house, and that involved the whole question. He knew that much was said about the abuses that had prevailed in the administration of relief to the poor, that they were lazy, profligate, and would eat up the rental of the land. If the administration had been bad, that was not the fault of the old law. When abuses did exist, it was the effect of either inadequate wages or want of work, and why punish the poor for that? It was the fault of the; owners of property, and only just that they should suffer. Property was forward enough to claim its privileges; let it perform its duties. But it was a libel on the poor to say they would not work. Look at your roads, canals, railroads, buildings, and the labour they performed in the fields and in factories, in mines, and elsewhere, all of which bore testimony to the unrivalled industry of the people, and gave the lie to their traducers. Much had been said of the principle of the new law. If it had any principle, it was the 15th clause which enacted the hoard of commissioners, and gave them the powers which the bill before the House proposed to continue for six months longer. That principle the Home Secretary told the House he would maintain. If it were really intended that the central hoard should be permanent, which it must if the principle were maintained, why not make it so at once, and cease to trifle with the House? Now, what had the commissioners done to entitle them to the confidence of the country? They formed unions almost everywhere complained of—they directed immense workhouses to be built which were a disgrace to the country—they had issued peremptory orders to refuse relief to the able-bodied \ out of the workhouse, and required the separation of husband and wife, and parents and children, on entering those dreary; abodes—they had obtained force to compel obedience to their orders—they had fixed and persevered in dietaries that had caused death—they had promoted emigration and emigration schemes, and had obtained acts for disposing of parish property, the conveyances of which amounted to upwards of 3,900—they had caused a reduction of wages—deaths of mothers in childbed—suicide of widows and others, whose relief was withdrawn—they had so well succeeded in exciting a terror of their workhouses that death by starvation was

1069
constantly suffered rather than resort thither for relief. Even that morning he had received a letter from Manchester, accompanied by the Manchester Advertiser of the 18th ult., in which was given a letter detailing the particulars of two deaths by starvation, caused by horror of the workhouse, in one of which the verdict of the coroner's jury was, "Died of disease of the lungs, accelerated by starvation;" and the second was, "Died of the want of the common necessaries of life." They had increased the number of vagrants to an alarming extent. In a table published in the sixth annual report of the commissioners there was a column containing the number of vagrants and paupers relieved, not belonging to any parish of the union, and it gave the number in the Christmas quarter of 1838, and the number for the Christmas quarter of 1839, in fourteen counties of England and Wales, arbitrarily selected, as was said. In the county of Nottingham, in 1838, the number who received relief was 197, and in 1839, 328, being an increase of 131. In Sussex, the number relieved in 1838 was 236, and in 1839, 302; increase 66. In Bedford, the number relieved in 1838 was 64, and in 1839, 158; increase 94. In Kent, the number relieved in 1838 was 821, in 1839, 1,254; increase 433. In Leicester, the number relieved in 1838 was 291, in 1839, 789; increase 498. In Salop, the number relieved in 1838 was 96, in 1839, 280; increase 184. The total relieved in these six counties in 1838, was 1,705, and in 1839 it was 3,111 —increase 1,406, or 82 per cent. It was to be observed, that that table by no means showed the number of applicants. If a table of all who applied could be obtained, he had no doubt that the result would be an awful development. The increase of beggars was remarked by almost every one, and he had drawn attention to this fact to show the working of the Poor-law and the poverty of the people. The increase of crime was not less alarming, as shown by returns on the Table of that House. He must again express his regret at the determination of the Home Secretary to continue the commission, and he hoped the country would send up their petitions to that House early next Session in number sufficient to induce a change of that determination, when the House was promised a consideration of the whole sub-
1070
ject; for the people might rest assured, that they had no weapon so effective for good as the constitutional exercise of the right of petition. The hon. Member concluded by moving as an amendment that the bill be read a third time that day three months.
Sir C. Douglaswished to state the reason why he could not support the present motion of the hon. Member for Oldham, in order to protect himself from misconstruction. The occasion appeared to him scarcely a fit one for the speech of the hon. Member, because the question before the House did not involve the general merit of the Poor-law Amendment Act, but only the continuance of the commission for a given period. When on former occasions, votes of a similar nature to the present had been brought forward, he had felt it his duty to oppose them, because they had been introduced under different circumstances, having emanated from a Government that had bad ample opportunity of acting on the official information which they had been able to collect. Last year the noble Lord, then at the head of the Government in that House, proposed to continue the commission until the end of the then next Session of Parliament; but the proposition being vehemently opposed by him and other hon. Members, the noble Lord gave way, and fixed the end of the present year for the duration of the commission, upon which he said, that the noble Lord had better have named some time of the year when Parliament usually separated, such as August or September. The proposition of the right hon. Baronet to continue the commission only until July next, showed a disposition to afford an opportunity for considering the principle of the measure; and he (Sir C. Douglas) only feared that he might lay himself open to a factious opposition, and whether his (Sir C. Douglas's) suggestion of last year might not be adopted by him with advantage. In opposing, as he had done by his vote, the proposition of the hon. Member for Rochdale, the other evening, he had not been actuated by any less strong opinion against the refusal of out-door relief, but he had done so because he did not think it necessary then to vote on such a subject as he would otherwise have done, when the proposition of the right hon. Baronet was only to continue the commission for five months, and because he thought it would have been wiser

1071
not to have brought the subject forward at a time when there was likely to be so slight an attendance. He hoped the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department would inquire into the management of those unions where complaints had arisen. There were many cases in which the boards of guardians had acted in opposition to the rules of the Poor-law commissioners. He knew one union in particular where out-door relief had been given, where there had been no separation of the sexes, and where the food was such that no better could be given. During the four years he had sat in Parliament he had never heard of a single complaint from that union, though a strong feeling existed there when the act first came into operation, and he felt quite sure that some expression of that feeling would have reached him, had not the guardians acted as they had done in violating the rules of the commissioners.
Captain Pechellhad never made this question the subject of party feeling, and on the present occasion he had quite sufficient reason for opposing the bill to relieve him from any such necessity. He alluded, among other things, to the manner in which the powers of the commissioners affected the parishes incorporated under Gilbert's Act. He could speak as to one parish, where the commissioners had issued rules and regulations which went to forbid the poor from going to church on Sunday and to prevent their being trusted out of the workhouses. Thus, the power of the guardians only extended to giving out-door relief to persons whom they might not think it necessary to send into the workhouses; and the Poor-law commissioners, though they had not the power to dissolve the union, nevertheless, could make such rules and regulations as produced the utmost dissatisfaction to the guardians, to the rate-payers, and to the receivers of the rates. This fact afforded to his mind a very strong reason for limiting the powers of the Poor-law commissioners. In the town which he represented (Brighton) the commissioners had not the power to make these regulations, and they had not attempted to introduce them, because they knew there was a watchful constituency who would prevent them, but they had succeeded in appointing a paid chaplain to the union, though the public refused to pay him a salary. He
1072
considered this power of the commissioners to interfere in the Gilbert unions, a sufficient reason for opposing the third reading of this bill, and also for opposing every similar proposition, in whatever shape it might come.
Mr. Borthwickfelt it his duty to those constituents who had with unexampled generosity elected him in his absence without any pledge, to state why he could not now vote with the hon. Member for Oldham. At the same time he would say, that were the question before them simply one of principle, he should have had no hesitation in supporting the hon. Member. The objection of the hon. Member for Oldham, did not apply to the present measure only, but also to the general principle of the Poor-law Act—a subject that was not now under discussion. Hon. Members did not seem to agree as to what the principle of the Poor-law Amendment Act was. The hon. Member for Finsbury declared the principle to be that of centralization—to gather up the power from the local authorities, and repose it in the commissioners; and he maintained that all the other principles of the bill were subordinate to this. The commissioners, however, declared the great principle of the measure to be to train the poor to a love of independence; and the hon. Member for Droitwich, adopted the same principle. To such a principle every one must cordially assent; but at the same time the operation of the present Poor-law was calculated to offer to it the most formidable opposition. The principle of the old Poor-law of Elizabeth was, that every member of the community, so long as he was industrious, was entitled to eat and to be clothed; but the kind of independence the commissioners seemed to contemplate was of a very different character. They seemed to desire to invest relief with so much of the character of harshness, as that the poor man would rather prefer independence, even if accompanied by actual misery. To such a principle he must offer his most strenuous opposition. He did most solemnly entreat the Government not to adopt the interpretation put upon the principle of the measure by either the one side or the other, and particularly not to adopt that of the hon. Member for Halifax, but that they would apply themselves to the consideration of it without being influenced either on the one side or the other. He (Mr. Borth-

1073
wick) objected to the power of legislation with which the present law invested the Poor-law commissioners, as being contrary to the spirit of the constitution. So extraordinary were their powers that their control over certain subjects, and for certain purposes, was as absolute as that of Queen, Lords, and Commons, over the general interests of the country. The reason why he should vote against the hon. Member for Oldham on the present occasion was simply this:—The Government had come down to the House and solicited a conditional confidence, to enable them, with the advantage of ripe experience, to mature a measure for the amendment of the law which should give satisfaction to the country. He should give them his confidence for the period and to the extent required for this purpose, but he reserved to himself the full liberty of considering the subject when brought before the House in the course of the next Session. In the meantime he hoped that Ministers would not yield unduly to the opinions either of the hon. Member for Oldham, or the hon. Member for Finsbury, but would leave the country to look to themselves for such a measure as they should consider just and effectual for the relief of the poor.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, as he had called on the Government on a former occasion, for some expression of their opinions, he wished to take this opportunity of mentioning that the declaration of the right hon. Member for Dorchester, made two or three nights ago, was to him perfectly satisfactory. Such a declaration was necessary to enable the commissioners, who were intrusted with the superintendence of the Poor-law, to discharge their duty in a manner fitted to give confidence to the public. Before the intimation to which he had alluded, it was generally thought that Government were shrinking from the general support they had given to the principles of the law. That impression had now been entirely removed by the declaration of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department, with which he, for one, was perfectly satisfied. He thought it would be exceedingly unreasonable to ask the Government to pledge themselves to anything more, or to expect that they should not leave themselves perfectly unfettered for the consideration of any amendments which might be proposed next Session.
1074
It appeared to him, that hitherto, anything that there might be to find fault with, had arisen more from defects in the Administration of the law than from defects in the law itself. He did not stand there to say that no amendments might be introduced into the law with advantage to its operation. It would be perfectly absurd, with the experience they had had of its working, for any one to say that it was not susceptible of improvement. He was not prepared to say that there might not be equally grave errors in the administration of the new as there had been in that of the old law. He would without hesitation say, that he should be glad to have it administered in the most considerate and kindly spirit towards those persons who might have the misfortune of becoming the objects of its provisions. That was the spirit in which he was most anxious that it should be applied. He would even say, that so far as his experience went, that was the spirit in which he had always seen it administered. He observed, from the returns laid before Parliament, that in the West Riding of Yorkshire, the expense to the rate-payers had lately been increased one-fifth in some parts, and one-sixth in others. He considered that there was the best possible security that the law would, generally speaking, be so administered, because, independent of that feeling of humanity which, he believed, pervaded almost universally, with rare exceptions, those who were intrusted with its administration, there was this additional security, that while under the old law, abuses might take place which it was worth nobody's while to bring before the public, every one could see that throughout the whole of England the most vigilant inspection was exercised over the whole conduct of the commissioners and guardians. In that House, also, there were many who were not indisposed to bring forward every particular case that might appear to them to call for public notice. He would not say that they were disposed to exaggerate, but the true facts at least, in their full extent, were sure to be brought under the consideration of the House.
Mr. Baldwinsaid, he was going neither to support nor oppose the measure. He had objections to several provisions of the New Poor-law; but he would not go into the detail of them, because he was fully persuaded that hereafter there would be

1075
opportunities of expressing: an opinion on the question. But he could not sit down without stating his anxious hope that the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, would introduce such a measure next Session as would entitle the Government to his cordial support.
Mr. Hindleywas aware that it was not regular to allude to what had passed in a former debate; but, as the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had, on Monday night, made an attack upon him in his absence, he trusted he might now be allowed to say a few words in his own vindication. He would not complain that the right hon. Baronet had made that attack upon him in his absence, or that he had read a letter from an anonymous magistrate who had not ventured to give his name; but he would simply state to the House what be believed the circumstances of the case to be. With respect to the Poor-law, although, as the right hon. Gentleman in the chair well knew, he had opposed it in all its stages, yet he had never agitated the subject out of doors, and if the right hon. Baronet wished to have a proof of it, he could tell him that the Tory candidate who had opposed him (Mr. Hindley) at Ashton, was pleased to post on the walls a placard bearing a portrait of himself with an immense plum-pudding under it, and the motto, "If you wish this, vote for Harrop; if you wish for starvation in a bastile, vote for Hindley." Being in the country at the time when the right hon. Baronet made his statement, he had thought it his duty at once to go to the house of the family, and examine them as to the amount they had been receiving from the overseer, which he had stated at 1s. 6d. a-week. He found that they had not been in the regular receipt even of that sum. The woman told him she had been cursed by the overseer repeatedly. Whether that was true or not, he could not tell. Her husband had gone, when out of work, to the overseer, who had relieved him at various times, to the amount, he believed, of 9s. During the last six weeks the man had been about five weeks out of work, and had received about 15 d. a-week. The woman had had a month's employment at reeling, but last Saturday the man with whom she had latterly been working failed, and now both of them were entirely out of work. The woman assured him, and her aunt, who was in the house at the time, confirmed her statement, that she had been
1076
at work the whole day at reeling, and from leaving the house in the morning to coming home at night she had never tasted either food or drink, and came on Thursday to potatoes and salt. On Friday she was in the same condition, and when she came home there were neither potatoes nor salt. The grocer who sold them articles had no potatoes, or, perhaps, did not wish to trust them. She, therefore, borrowed a shilling from a person in the neighbourhood, and bought some meal and buttermilk. He went to the grocer's and spoke to his wife, who told him that the whole money that the family had received during the last three weeks would not amount to 14 s. 7d. Their chief food was potatoes; very little bread or articles of any other kind had been used by them. He was also told by a person who visited the grocer, that such was the condition of the latter, that while a few years ago he was worth a very considerable sum, he was now in such destitution as to be brought almost as low as his neighbours. He had also sent a person to inquire as to the amount of animal food the family had had, and he found that for two months they had not had more than 2s. worth of butcher's meat in the house, which was bought from the slink-butcher's on Sunday morning. He had, besides, written a letter to his solicitor, who wrote to the chairman of the petty sessions requesting him to examine the woman herself. His solicitor wrote to him in answer, that the case had been brought before the board, in the presence of Mr. Mills, a well-known reverend person, who, he supposed, wrote the letter which the right hon. Baronet had quoted in the House on Monday, The woman appeared, and was at first very reluctant to answer; she was very severely cross-examined by the overseer. It appeared, that on the 7th of April, the overseer gave her 4s., on the 16th 3s., on the 24th 2s. That was the last application, and for these small sums of money this person had to travel ten miles. The board was applied to to grant a copy of the depositions, which was refused. He (Mr. Hindley) thought it would have been but common courtesy on the part of the board to enable him to lay copies of the depositions before that House to-night. He could assure the House, that neither there nor out of doors, did he wish to exaggerate any statements of the distressed condition of the poor. He had in his hands letters from individuals, who were surprised that

1077
such a statement as be had made should excite astonishment in the House. He did not make these statements to increase the anti-corn-law cry. He had his own opinion about the propriety of altering the Corn-laws, but, at the same time, he never should endeavour to increase the feeling abroad, respecting public distress, to procure the alteration of any law whatever. He wished the Corn-law and the Poor, law to stand entirely on their own merits, and while he had a seat in that House, he never should lend himself to any exaggeration whatever.
Captain Polhilltrusted, that when the bill came again before the House, it would be of such a nature, that opposition to it would not be called for. If it did contain the objectionable clauses of the present one, the House would then have full time and opportunity to discuss those clauses, and, if the majority thought proper, they might be thrown out. For these reasons, he should oppose the motion of the hon. Member for Oldham. He gave credit to that Gentleman for kind and humane intentions, and he would say in that House, as he had said out of it, that the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had the cards in his own hands, and he had not the slightest doubt, he would play them judiciously. At the same time, he was of opinion, that some alterations, and very material ones, must be made in this bill to satisfy the country at large. Hon. Members, on the other side of the House, had taunted the Conservatives with endeavouring to create agitation at the late elections, by bringing forward the Poor-law; but, with respect to himself the could safely assert, that the only way in which he had mentioned the subject in his canvass was one which he considered perfectly constitutional—viz., asking his constituents whether they approved of the votes he had given on the Poor-law in the previous Session of Parliament, and to his satisfaction, they expressed their full assent to those votes.
Mr. Cobden,being a young Member, and not having, therefore, had an opportunity of delivering his opinion on this subject, wished to state why he should vote for the amendment. In common with a great number of individuals, he was persuaded, that the nature and effects, if not the object (for he did not wish to attribute improper motives) of this law, was to avert the consequences arising out
1078
of legislation, in another direction. He alluded to corn and provision laws. He should give a short extract from the debates of 1815, to show, that it was not for the purpose of mounting his hobby of the corn and provision laws, that he had said the abuses of the present system of poor-laws arose from our legislation on the former subject. The main objection to this bill was, that it refused relief to the able-bodied. That was an important invasion of the statute of Elizabeth. It was justified on the ground, that this part of the community should be thrown on their own resources. He had no objection, and he was sure, that the able-bodied labourers of the country had no objection to be thrown on their own resources; but it did appear to him most unjust to raise the price of food, and restrict the demand for labour, and then tell the able-bodied men throughout the country, "the time is arrived, when you must rely on your own resources." The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 13th May, 1814, said;—
" Other countries differed very materially from this, with respect to the consumption of corn. In other countries, when corn was high there was a much less consumption; but here, the price of labour rose generally in proportion to the rise of bread; and the poor-laws also enabled the poor to consume the same quantity, whatever the price was; as, if they were unable to purchase, the parish was obliged to provide for them."
Mr. Calcraft again said:—
" If you render the purchase of the poor man's means of subsistence beyond what his wages will afford, you must revert to the system followed during the war, of paying the wages of the agricultural labourer out of the poor-rate."†
Here be might, he hoped, be allowed to notice the manner in which a noble Lord took him to task for mentioning the "Corn-law," as if no change had been effected in that of 1815. Now, taking into account the depreciation of the currency, and the increase in the number of the people, he looked upon the Corn-law of 1828 to be as stringent, mischievous, and injurious to the people, as that of 1815 was to that race. The New Poor-law, however, broke the contract which was entered into with the neighbouring classes under previous laws. He did not mean to say, that the
* Hansard, vol. xxvii. p. 875
†Hansard, vol. xxix. p. 1018.

1079
scheme of Elizabeth was a very enlightened one, or that the prophecies of Mr. Calcraft and other enlightened minds, as to the working of the old system, were not fully realized. In a period of twenty years, in some places, the greater part of the rental, in others, the whole was eaten up by the Poor-law. What, was the conduct of the Legislature? Did they retrace their steps? Did they give access to the boundless field of employment which a foreign trade would open? No; instead of meeting the just demands for relief, they dissolved partnership, and left the whole consequences of their mislegislation on the shoulders of the people. He put it to the right hon. Baronet whether it would not be wiser, and more worthy of his high intellect, if during the recess, he took into his consideration the policy of opening the markets of the world to our industry, and, therefore, secure food to the people as the reward of their honest industry, instead of being doled out to them under the Poor-law.
Mr. C. Hamiltonwished to state the reasons why he should vote for the third reading of this bill. He had not offered any opposition to the progress of the bill, neither did he intend to do so, as the question was merely "for a renewal of the present act for a limited period;" but his objections to many of its provisions were in no degree removed. He had not changed his opinions with his seat in that House, and treated with perfect indifference and contempt the insinuations that had been thrown out from the other side, that the late Opposition had used this as a party question, and were now prepared to support the measure they had so lately reprobated. Though a very humble Member of that House, he had ventured to express his opinion on this subject, and would do so again, knowing that he had every opportunity since the commencement of the New Poor-law Act, of observing its practical effect upon the condition of the labourer in the agricultural districts. He was not insensible to the crying evils of the old system. He could enumerate as many scenes of moral degradation produced by the old law, as had been depicted by the hon. Gentleman opsite, and to that system he never wished to return; but was this to render him blind and insensible to all the evils of the present bill? Because he was willing to admit that the New Poor-law Act had
1080
been of infinite service, and had proved a great boon to the agricultural interest and the master manufacturer, was he not to raise his voice against, or point out the evils which he knew existed? He gave utterance to his opinions with great sub-mission, but if he did not know by this time the effect produced by the present law, who ought? for he had been chairman of one of the largest unions in the kingdom for several years, ever since the commencement of the act, and had closely watched its operation. He admitted, and was glad to state, that many good results had been produced, but there were many points, such as, in many instances, compelling aged or infirm persons and widows to be relieved in the workhouse, and the entire system of medical relief, to which he should never agree, He was not, of course, going now to propose any alterations; but, most assuredly, he should reserve to himself the power of doing so at a future period. He supported the principle of the bill, but he objected to many of its provisions, as inflicting unnecessary hardships on the poor man, and which, if persisted in, would eventually dissolve the connecting link between the landlord and his poorer tenantry. One effect of the bill had been to lower wages [No, no];he repeated that, and could prove it; and those who maintained to the contrary could know very little of the working of the workhouse test, which caused the labourer to accept any terms rather than go there. He had never used this question as a means of agitation; on the contrary, he had on all occasions declared, that he gave the Whigs, who had conceived and carried out this measure, every credit for good intentions. He had never treated this as a party question, though he should follow precisely the same course that he had done now, were it so. He placed the same confidence in the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government as he did when he followed him as his leader in opposition; but he reserved to himself the right to use his humble judgment in this and every other question affecting the interests of the community. He differed from many hon. Gentlemen near him, for he did support the principle of the bill, and wished to see it fully and efficiently carried out, but he required justice to be meted out to the labourer as well as his employer. He was convinced both might

1081
be done, but not by "the bill, the whole bill, and nothing but the bill." He knew that some relaxations had taken place in the orders from Somerset-house, and did not undervalue their importance; but those relaxations were exceptions, and not enforced. They did not say to the boards of guardians "You must afford such and such relief," but, "that in certain cases you may do so." He could not agree with those hon. Gentlemen who thought the services of the Poor-law commissioners might be dispensed with. As long as they had a Poor-law at all there ought to be a ruling power; but, whether the authority given the commissioners was too great, or their powers too undefined, he could not then undertake to argue, but, at all events, the House of Commons were bound to institute the most searching inquiry into this most important subject; they were the guardians of the rights of the people, as their representatives, and on the House of Commons would rest the odium of perpetuating imperfections in a law which might prove most injurious to those it was intended to serve. He was no advocate for Parliamentary reform or universal suffrage, but he would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they would have voted for this bill in all its bearings and for all the clauses if the paupers' names had stood on their poll-books? Let them not then afford this pretext to the unrepresented to say, that it is owing to their not having the elective franchise that you have passed such a bill so deeply affecting their happiness. There was a strong and growing feeling in the country on this subject, and he trusted that when a new bill was brought forward, without lessening its efficiency, it would be deprived of the appearance and the reality of many of those harsh and stringent features which then disfigured a measure good and praiseworthy in itself but rendered apparently odious and revolting by these acknowledged defects.
Mr. Renniesaid, his impression was, that the effect of this bill was gradually undermining the good feeling which ought to exist between the poorer and the upper classes of society. If the administration of the bill as at present constituted were persisted in, ere long the lower classes would feel they were so unjustly treated by the Government of this country, that he very much feared the consequences that might ensue. But, in his opinion, the chief
1082
objection to the measure was one which he had not heard before stated to that House. He objected to the centralization system, not merely with reference to this bill, but he objected to it as bad in itself, as tending to despotism, and because he did not see where it would end. He could not see why the same principle might not be applied to all provincial institutions, and these institutions he had always considered as the bulwark of the constitution.
Mr. Wakleywould detain them but a very few moments from more substantial enjoyments. He did expect a long debate, and that he should have had the satisfaction of hearing many hon. Members who had not spoken, express their opinions on the Poor-law bill. But the time was past; the die was cast, and the Government had resolved what course to take. The principles of this bill were to be upheld, but the power of the Government would not be sustained. It might be expected from him, situated as he was, unpleasantly situated in many respects, that he should state the course his party was going to pursue. It was usual in times like these, that persons having some influence over a party, should state the course they intended that party should take. In that respect, he was following the example of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, and in one respect his case resembled that of the right hon. Baronet very closely, for his was a perfectly united Cabinet. He was not in the slightest degree troubled by his Colleagues; they entertained the most perfect unanimity of opinion on all the great questions of state; and he, like the right hon. Baronet, had resolved most firmly not to bring forward any measure into the House, unless he conscientiously approved of it. He should not produce any measure there, whatever might be the entreaties or exhortations of any of his Colleagues. But, after all, it was amusing to be situated as he was, for he believed that no man had been more misrepresented; certainly none within so short a space of time had been more cordially abused. And why? Because he had not changed his place on the Benches in that House; not because his principles were unchanged, but because he had not changed his place. In former times, an adherence to a place indicated an adherence to principles; but now it seemed it indicated that some change of mind had been undergone. He hoped that, at least,

1083
the House would do him the justice to recollect, that when he entered the House of Commons, he took his seat on the Opposition side, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth being then in office. That was in February, 1835. Three months afterwards, the right hon. Baronet resigned, and the Whigs of that day went over to the Ministerial side of the House. Did he go with them? No such thing; he had remained on the Opposition side of the House, where Mr. Hume had remained, along with Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey and Mr. Roebuck; and so late as the month of June, in that year, he had made a motion from the other side of the House for the recall of the Dorchester labourers. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government would recollect that he had asked him for a private view of the letter from one of the Love-lesses. Under these circumstances, it was unfair that a charge should be made against him, of having abandoned his principles, on account of his not having changed his seat. Now, what was the state of the case? The right hon. Baronet had declared it the intention of the Government to adhere to the principles of this, in his opinion, most odious and detestable law, a law which he believed to be hostile to the very principles of the religion they professed, and one which, if carried into effect—if carried out according to what had been declared its "principles,"—would endanger the constitution and the institutions of the country. He firmly entertained these opinions, and believing them, he did consider it his duty to oppose every Administration which should uphold the principles of such a law. The tactics of the Reformers—this was what he wished to refer to for a moment, if the House would permit him— the tactics of the constitutional Reformers were now clear. They had long contended, and the history of the country had proved, that the people of England had been long persecuted by the conflicts and the contests for power of the two great aristocratical factions, the leaders of whom had possessed talent and ingenuity enough to make the people the instruments of their purposes, and the means whereby they had obtained power, place, profit, and distinction. One of these factions, by the misconducts, most serious misconducts of ten years, having come into power with a majority in that House of about
1084
500, had been laid prostrate before public opinion in the country. One of those factions, he repeated, had become—so far as regarded political power, and he thanked God for it—extinct. Consequently, in that respect, the Reformers (and the Conservatives had so far helped them) had gained a great, a signal victory. Should he, therefore, endeavour, as a Reformer, as a sincere Radical Reformer, devoted, earnestly devoted, to the cause of the people—should he contribute by any act of his to restore to power that party which had lost public confidence? No. He declared he would take no such course. On the contrary, he exhorted the people of England—he exhorted the Reformers of England to use every means in their power to keep that faction in its present impotent position. What would become of that faction, he might he asked? Why, their shattered forces—for they were now indeed a broken legion, might conflict in small parties as they pleased. At all events, let not the people of this country have two aristocracies to contend against, and if there was to be a contest for the public good let it be waged fairly and openly between aristocracy and democracy. That was the view he entertained of the matter; and that had been his reason for not going across the House, and making common cause with the Whigs, who, he hoped, trusted, and prayed (and would do so as long as he had life) would never, as a Whiggish party, acting on Whiggish principles, be restored to power. What then, he might be asked, was to become of the present Administration? Why, his answer was a short one—turn it out as soon as possible. [Loud Laughter, and Hear, hear.] To be sure—he repeated it— turn it out as quick as possible. But in the mean time, the public good demanded that they, the House of Commons, should fairly, honestly, and candidly, consider every subject that was brought before the House, and if the right hon. Baronet proposed a good measure—he had told him before he was a Minister, and he repeated it now—that he would view that measure, and consider it, precisely as though it were brought before them by the party to which he was most attached. This was a duty which the House owed to their constituents—a duty which they owed to the great national interests of the country, on subjects of this sort especially. To offer a factious opposition to any Ministry was

1085
paltry, was mean, was contemptible, was disgraceful. And whatever might be his opinions, his position, or his conduct, he trusted that no man, in the position of a Minister, would ever have reason to complain of a factious opposition from him. He thanked the House for having afforded him this opportunity of vindicating his conduct, which had been exceedingly misrepresented.
Mr. Callaghansaid, he felt himself in a peculiar position, seeing that in the late Parliament, upon the passing of the Irish act, he had been in perfect ignorance as to the administration of the Poor-law. He had, therefore, given his consent to the institution of a commission, without at all anticipating the evils which had since resulted from it. He would read an extract from a petition which had been presented from his constituents, and which should be his justification of the vote which he meant to give on this occasion. This petition was signed by the mayor and many of the respectable inhabitants of Cork. In the part of it to which he referred, it was said,
" Your petitioners beg, further, respectfully to remonstrate against the power given to the Poor-law commissioners—a power exercised without any consultation with the guardians, and in a way detrimental to the interests of each union; and your petitioners do think, that when it is considered that these officers are largely paid, and that the guardians are the real practical administrators of the law without payment, it would be found advisable to allow the influence of the said guardians a more extensive scope, while that of those overpaid officers might be judiciously curtailed."
When he found these the universal sentiments of those whom he represented, he felt warranted in changing the opinion he once held, that this commission might be found beneficial. He thought he was called on to announce this opinion, because he saw it had been stated in that House that the Poor-law bill worked well in Ireland. He could only aver that in his part of the country the discontent with it was almost universal. Nobody appeared to be satisfied with it. The petition, an extract from which he had just read, distinctly stated in what respects it was inefficacious. The emigration clauses were quite useless; and the Duke of Wellington's amendments introduced he greatest possible confusion into the meetings of the guardians. The whole of
1086
the law of settlement had been altered in England: it was practically created in Ireland by the amendments of the Duke of Wellington. On these grounds he felt called on to vote against the continuance of the commission.
Mr. S. Crawfordwished to explain for a moment in reference to what had been said the other night by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, as to his constituency of Rochdale not having been brought under the Poor-law, that they were under the greatest dread lest the local act, under which they were at present, should be set aside, and lest they should be brought under the New Poor-law. He might be permitted to add, he was pleased to find the Government bent upon inquiring carefully into the condition of the poor, and he hoped sincerely that during the recess the subject would not be lost sight of by the Home Secretary.
Mr. Hardywished to explain what might appear an inconsistency at first sight in his having voted for the motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale, and his now voting, as he felt bound to do, against the hon. Member for Oldham. The reason was, that the former motion did not, and the present did, involve the total abolition of the commission, to which he was not prepared at present to agree. He considered that in now voting for the bill he was merely voting for the continuance of the act till (as he understood the Home Secretary to pledge himself) the provisions of the act could be fully considered.
The House divided on the question that the word "now" stand part of the question—Ayes 133; Noes 18: Majority 115.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Captain

Buller, C.

Acton, Colonel

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Adderley, C. B.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Antrobus, E.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Chapman, A.

Baird, W.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Clements, Viscount

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Cochrane, A.

Beckett, W.

Colvile, C. R.

Beutinck, Lord G.

Corry, rt. hn. H.

Bodkin, W. H.

Damer, hon. Colonel

Borthwick, P.

Darby, G.

Boscawen, Lord

Dawney, hon. W. H.

Botfield, B.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Bowring, Dr.

Duncan, G.

Broadley, H.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Egerton, W.T.

Browne, hon. W.

Eliot, Lord

Bruce, Lord E.

Escott, B.

1087

Estcourt, T. G. B.

March, Earl of

Ferrand, W. B.

Marsham, Viscount

Fitzroy, Captain

Martin, J.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Martin, C. W.

Forster, M.

Martyn, C. C.

Fuller, A. E.

Masterman, J.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Mitchell, T. A.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Morgan, O.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Morris, D.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Mundy, E. M.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Neville, R.

Granger, T. C.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Greene, T.

O'Brien, A. S.

Grogan, E.

O'Connell, M. J.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Hamilton, W. J.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Peel, J.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Philips, M.

Harcourt, G. G.

Polhill, F.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Pollock, Sir F.

Hardy, J.

Pringle, A.

Hawes, B.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Hayes, Sir E.

Rawdon, Colonel

Henley, J. W.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Henniker, Lord

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Hinde, J.H.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Hodgson, R.

Sandon, Viscount

Hogg, J. W.

Scott, hon. F.

Hope, G. W.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Jermyn, Earl

Smith, A.

Johnson, W. G.

Smythe, hon. G.

Jehnston, A.

Somerset, Lord G.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Stanley, Lord

Jolliffe, Sir W. G.

Stuart, H.C.

Jones, Captain

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Kemble, H.

Tennent, J. E.

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Knight, F. W.

Trollope, Sir J.

Larpent, Sir G. de H.

Trotter, J.

Lawson, A.

Vere, Sir C.

Layard, Captain

Wakley, T.

Lincoln, Earl of

Ward, H. G.

Lindsay, H. H.

Wood, C.

Litton, E.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Lockhart, W.

Wyndham, Colonel

Lowther, J. H.

Lyall, G.

TELLERS.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Clerk, Sir G.

Manners, Lord J.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Brotherton, J.

Hollond, R.

Callaghan, D.

Humphery, Mr. Ald.

Cobden, R.

Napier, Sir C.

Collins, W.

Rennie, G.

Crawford, W. S.

Walker, R.

Dick, Q.

Williams, W.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Yorke, H. R.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Harford, S.

TELLERS.

Heath coat, J.

Fielden, J.

Hindley, C.

Pechell, Captain

Bill read a third time and passed.
Adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bill s. Read a first time:—Population Payments; Poor-law Commission.—Read a second time:— Expiring Laws.—Read a third time:—Administrationof Justice (No2).; Lunatics; Navy Pay; Frogmore Lodge; Royal Gardens.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of Radnor, from New Sarum, and other places, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.

THE CORN LAWS.
The Earl of Radnor,on presenting some petitions which had been sent to him from New Sarum and other places, praying for the total repeal of the Corn-laws, said, he would take that opportunity of expressing his deep regret at finding that Parliament was about to be prorogued without entering into the consideration of that most important subject—the state of the Corn-law s. Ministers, be thought, incurred a fearful responsibility in allowing the two Houses to separate without entering into some inquiry on that question, to which he considered the Government pledged by what fell from the noble Duke (Duke of Wellington) opposite in the discussion on the amendment to the address on the first day of the Session. The noble Duke had given what he had considered a pledge on that occasion, that the question should be referred to a Committee, by saying that he should not object to an inquiry in the usual way. But now it seemed that the Government intended to postpone any consideration of the subject until next Session. He presumed that the Parliament would not meet before February. He therefore looked upon this as virtually a postponement of any measure on the subject for a year, or perhaps a year and a half, for the experience which their Lordships had had of the very tardy manner in which the proceedings of Committees were conducted, would tell them that it was probable the inquiry, even if it should

1047
commence early in the next Session, would not be brought to a conclusion when the Session should be at its close. So that any measure which the Committee might recommend, could not be brought forward until the Session following. Was that the way in which this great subject was to be left, at a time when the people were suffering great distress in many parts of the country? Their Lordships had seen that the sliding scale was a most unsafe system, for it kept the price of corn most oppressively high in some instances, and in others it did not afford that security to the home grower which it was intended to give. If corn was at 66 s. the quarter, foreign corn could not be imported at less than 20 s. per quarter duty, thus making it 86 s. to the consumer. By the last averages, the duty had come down to 1s. per quarter duty, and at that duty about 1,700,000 quarters of foreign corn had come into the country. Now, according to the returns made by several of our consuls abroad, wheat could be grown there, and sent to this country at 40 s. 10¾d. per quarter; and if this were correct, what, let him ask, was the actual sum paid by the consumer on each quarter of this 1,700,000 quarters? Why, it amounted to not less than 31 s. 6d. per quarter. This sum, he need not say, did not go to the Government in the shape of duty. No, but it went into the pockets of the foreign growers, to the grievous oppression of the poor consumers at home. But he did not believe that the returns of the consuls were quite correct. Taking, however, the price of foreign corn here at 12 s. more than this 40 s., still the consumer here would have to pay 20 s. per quarter more than the 52 s.; that was, he would have to pay 72 s. for every quarter of corn he consumed. Was this a price to which the poor people could reach, suffering as they were in the greatest possible degree throughout the country? He was in the country at the opening of Parliament, and on looking at the votes he saw, amongst the first objects of its attention, a Committee appointed on the ventilation of the two Houses of Parliament, and a bill for uniting Frogmore Lodge to Windsor Castle. Could he have done otherwise than turn from the perusal with disgust, when he found no mention made of the distresses of the people, or of any measure calculated for their relief? The distresses of the people were not denied, yet nothing was done, or even pro-
1048
mised, for their relief, if it were only to show them that Parliament did not turn a deaf ear to their prayers. He could not give any more fit name to such a course than the height of folly and of cruelty. When the noble Duke was in office before, there was great distress in the country, and nothing was done to relieve it. The result was, that the greatest discontent prevailed. He would not detain their Lordships longer, but would conclude by again expressing his deep regret that Ministers should have advised her Majesty to prorogue Parliament without entering into the consideration of the distress which prevailed, with the view of providing some relief.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he would not follow the noble Earl into any discussion on the Corn-laws on the present occasion, for the reason which he had assigned on a former evening—that it would be impossible to enter into any inquiry at the present period which would lead to any practical result. He did not mean to deny, that there was distress in some parts of the country, but it was not arising from want of food. There was a large supply of corn in the country, though it might be somewhat dear. The noble Earl had referred to what he had stated on a former evening, as implying a pledge for an inquiry.
The Earl of Radnor: What he said was, that the noble Duke had said he would not object to inquiry in the usual way.
The Duke of Wellington: What he said on the occasion referred to was, that if the subject (of a change in the Corn-laws) were to be considered as a measure of finance, it should be considered in a committee; but by that he did not pledge the Government or himself, or anybody, to take that particular course, and most certainly he should not be understood as being favourable to an inquiry at the present time, which, he would repeat, could lead to no practical result. Under these circumstances, he was ready to take his share of the responsibility of advising her Majesty to prorogue Parliament until the measures were ready, which would be submitted for its consideration; and until due time could be afforded for that consideration. It would be impossible to consider the subject to which the noble Earl referred at this time, or to get that attendance of Members which would be de-

1049
sirable; and let him add, that he had no reason to believe, that the public would be in any degree inconvenienced by post-poning the question till full time should be given for its discussion.
The Earl of Radnorfelt sure, that if important measures were brought under the consideration of the Houses of Parliament, there would be found no deficiency of attendance.
Petition laid on the Table.

MANSFIELD MAGISTRATES.
The Duke of Portlandrose to submit a motion founded on the papers which recently had been laid before the House, containing the correspondence between the magistrates of Mansfield and Lord John Russell, the Marquess of Normanby, the Duke of Portland, and others, on the subject of an action brought against one of their body, who was defendant in an action brought against him for trespass in the discharge of his duty. The noble Duke was understood to say, that the magistrates of Mansfield had received information, that on August 12th, 1839, it was probable there would be an eruption of Chartists into the town. The magistrates had met, and a Mr. Unwin, one of the body, had told them that he had certain information, that in many houses there were arms concealed for treasonable purposes; and that if those houses were searched, they would find them. Now, the magistrates had great doubts as to whether they possessed any authority to search for arms, and the clerk to the magistrates gave it as his opinion that they had no such authority. The apprehended meeting of Chartists took place. They were dispersed without difficulty, and some of them were taken up; but in the evening, constables, under the super-intendance of Mr. Unwin, a magistrate, went to the house of Joseph Broyan, in order to search for arms. No arms were found; but many letters signed Pitkeithley, which Mr. Unwin considered to be of a treasonable nature, were seized, copies of which he forwarded to Lord John Russell; and Mr. Phillips, by the desire of Lord John Russell, acknowledged the receipt, thanked the magistrates for their zeal, but stated that the noble Lord had no directions to give them. Not one word was then said against the perfect legality and order of the proceedings taken by them. Two months after that, Broyan
1050
gave notice of action against Mr. Unwin for trespass, and that gentleman applied to Lord John Russell to undertake his defence. The Government declined. Mr. Unwin was now dead; but there never was a more active magistrate. He certainly was no partizan of her Majesty's late Government; on the contrary, he was strongly opposed to them; but, had he been their warmest adherent, he could not have done more to repress Chartism. The answer given to his application by the Home-Office, was a letter from Mr. Phillips, by command of the Marquess of Normanby, in which the noble Marquess regretted, that the magistrates had proceeded to the search of any house without having had a sworn information before them, or without previously communicating with the Secretary of State, as it was at variance with his previous instructions to the magistrates. Before that period, not one word had ever been said against the conduct of the magistrates. In his opinion, it was the duty of the Secretary of Stale at all times to support the magistracy; but in this case, the noble Marquess had gone out of his way, and had invented facts, in order to cast blame upon them. This was a most extraordinary case, and one which, he thought, deserving their Lordships' attention. The noble Duke concluded by moving—
" That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be pleased to take into her Majesty's gracious consideration the case of the late Edward Unwin, Esq., of Sutton, in Ashfield, in the county of Nottingham, late a magistrate of the said county, and the defendant in an action for trespass, brought against him by one Joseph Broyan, of Sutton, in Ashfield aforesaid, for acts done in the discharge of his public duty, as a magistrate, in obedience to the instructions contained in a circular letter of the 7th May, 1839, from the right hon. Lord John Russell, then one of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, and in furtherance of the purposes of her Majesty's Government."
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he could not help regarding the motion of the noble Duke as an unprecedented one —that, upon an ex parte statement, without the knowledge of the facts before the executive Government, their Lordships should be called upon to take upon themselves the responsibility of advising the Crown to indemnify a party. The noble Duke knew that he was most unwilling that this case should come before the

1051
House. One reason was, that he should have to speak of the conduct of a person now no more. The noble Duke had stated that everyone of Mr. Unwin's acts had been founded on the letter of Lord John Russell. If that noble Lord was to bear the responsibility of the proceedings of Mr. Unwin, why was he not informed of them? [The Duke of Portland; He was.] He begged the noble Duke's pardon. He was not informed that there had been a search for arms till Mr. Broyan brought his action. The House was not searched under a warrant; it was distinctly admitted on the trial that there was no warrant. Mr. Unwin, a magistrate, was present at the search, but there was no warrant, although the letter of Messrs. Parsons and Benn stated, that "a copy of the warrant, under which the search and seizure of papers was made," had been forwarded to him (Lord Normanby.) If Lord John Russell and the Government were to bear the responsibility of the proceeding, at least the magistrates should have stated all the circumstances under which it took place. It had been the opinion of the jury at the trial, under the direction of the judge, that Mr. Unwin had not been justified in the seizure. He had told their Lordships that no communication had been made to Lord John Russell at the time; but he went a step further; no communication had been made to him for two months after. This was a period of considerable anxiety, when there was more of organization for purposes of unlawful violence and for illegal acts than he ever recollected; and amongst other sources of disturbance of the peace, those who lived on the outskirts of the seditious districts propagated unfounded reports. The information respecting the collection of arms was of this description: many of these statements were founded upon mere hearsay—a person saying, "I should not wonder if there were arms in such a place." In the instance before their Lordships, the magistrate had acted on insufficient information; a house was searched, and no arms were found there. The letter of Messrs. Parsons and Benn, the clerks to the magistrates, dated the 15th November, showed they felt that Mr. Unwin had acted wrong.
" Although it may appear," they said, "under the peculiarly difficult situation in which the magistrates have been placed, they may have exerted a rigour beyond the law,
1052
yet, as their determined resistance to the Chartists has obviously secured the peace of this county, they trust that your Lordship will favour them with your counsel and assistance on this trying occasion."
In reply to this application, he had acquainted the magistrates with his opinion regarding the conduct of Mr. Unwin, and he had declined to take any part in the business, or to offer any advice. Now, if the magistrates had expected that the Government should bear the responsibility of their acts, was it not extraordinary that they should not have stated that they had acted in conformity with the directions of Lord John Russell? But no such a thing. The notice of action by Joseph Broyan was to this effect.
" For having on the 12th of August last, illegally and with force of arms broken and entered the dwelling-house of Broyan, and illegally searched the rooms, drawers, and presses, and seized and detained certain papers."
He had directed the magistrates to be told that
" He regretted very much that before Mr. Unwin issued his warrant for entering the house of Broyan, and for the seizure of arms, information was not given to the Secretary of State, in which case Mr. Unwin would have been informed that such a course was not to be justified in point of law, and dangerous."
Messrs. Parsons and Benn referred to the warrant under which the seizure had been made, but the search was not made under that warrant. It had been distinctly admitted by the counsel on both the trials that there had been no warrant, and the judge had commented upon that fact. [The Duke of Portland. It referred to other houses.] The noble Duke was in error; it did not refer to other houses. The information on which the search was made merely stated, that
" Ephraim Sills, hath good cause to suspect, and doth suspect, that certain fire-arms and other offensive weapons had been collected for treasonable purposes by John Tomlinson, Thomas Hunt, Benjamin Brandreth, Joseph Broyan, and others."
It did not state where collected. The warrant stated that Sills had given information upon oath, that they were concealed in Broyan's dwelling-house; but these important words were not in the information.
Lord Wharncliffe.—That was sufficient to justify the search of the house. The warrant set forth the information.
The Marquess of Normanby.—The warrant says, "concealed in the dwelling-house;" but the information stated no such words, and it was upon the information that the search was made. The noble Duke objected to the letter he had sent on the 19th of November; but he was ready to justify it under the circumstances of the case. In that letter Mr. Phillipps said—
" Gentlemen—I am directed by the Marquess of Normanby to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, with its enclosures, and to inform you that Lord Normanby regrets very much that before Mr. Unwin issued his warrant for entering the house of Joseph Broyan and for the seizure of arms, information was not given to the Secretary of State, in which case Mr. Unwin would have been informed that such a course was not to be justified in point of law, and dangerous, and that it would be contrary to the course which the Secretary of State has recommended, and at variance with the opinion which he had generally made known among the magistrates.
" Under these circumstances Lord Normanby cannot take part in this business, nor offer any advice with reference to the action of which Mr. Unwin has had notice; but in case an action should be brought, and the party should proceed to trial, Lord Normanby will be ready, after the conclusion of the proceedings, to take the matter again into consideration, upon a review of the whole of the evidence which shall have been laid before the court."
Everything that had since occurred had convinced him of the propriety of that letter, and that Mr. Unwin had acted rashly, inconsiderately, and illegally, and not, according to the words of the noble Duke's motion, "in conformity with the instructions of the Government." The letter of the 25th of January, to which also the noble Duke alluded, established an additional ground for confirming him in the view he took of this case. He never saw Mr. Unwin but once in his life, and that was towards the end of December or beginning of January, when Mr. Unwin came late in the evening to his office, and entered into details of the alarming state of his district; to all which his reply was, that this was all very serious, provided it was authentic; but that it was to be regretted that much of the information from that part of the country was derived from sources to which no credit ought to be attached. A few days after that he received a letter from the noble Duke, stating that he could not learn anything more about the fire-arms.
1054
This was after the riots at Newport. On the 25th of January, 1840, he directed Mr. Phillipps to write the following letter to Mr. Unwin:—
" Whitehall, Jan. 25, 1840.
" Sir—Lord Normanby directs me to inform you, with reference to a statement made by you as to the fact of a large number of arms being kept in the house of a person, who has been in the habit of attending Chartists meetings, (to which statement the Duke of Portland has called his Lordship's attention), Lord Normanby advises, in case you can obtain information upon oath that a large number of arms are kept in the house of such a person for an illegal use and purpose, as the informant believes, that a warrant should be issued for searching for the arms; and that the arms, if found, should be taken possession of, and kept safely by the magistrates."
To that advice he still adhered. But nothing was done in consequence of that letter; Mr. Unwin found that he had been deceived, and no steps were taken. The noble Duke had also alluded to the charge of Mr. Justice Littledale at the trial, but he had not said one word respecting the charge of Lord Chief Justice Denman at the other trial. The noble Duke called upon their Lordships to assent to the motion, because the act had been done in conformity with the directions of Lord. John Russell; but Lord Chief Justice Denman said:
" It has been stated that Lord John Russell's letter had been acted upon; but Lord John Russell's letter was not the law, and if it had been, it did not go to the defence of Mr. Unwin. The information did not state that the arms had been seen. It was a mere suspicion on which the magistrates acted, and this fell far short of what was required by Lord John Russell."
This was Lord Denman's language, and it fully confirmed him in his opinion of the propriety of the course which he had pursued when he promised to reconsider the case after all the facts should have been laid before a jury. No doubt Lord Denman and Mr. Justice Littledale said there were circumstances in the plaintiff's case which were not above suspicion, and which might have been and which ought to have been explained; but Lord Denman observed also:—
" It excites surprise in my mind, that the man who gave this information is not here today. This appears to me to be the result of management,' and that the object was not to search for arms, but for papers."

1055
It was sworn on that occasion that Mr. Unwin, on seizing some papers, said: —
" This is what I all along wanted."
Circumstances came out on the second trial which corroborated the suspicions arising from this transaction. A Doctor M'Neish, who was examined for the defence, on being cross-examined by the plaintiff's counsel, said that he lived in Sills's house, and that he could not believe him (Sills) on his oath; and that Mr. Unwin had told him that his reason for not calling Sills on the first trial was, that he feared he would only injure the defence and disgrace himself (Sills). What did Mr. Justice Littledale say on the first trial?—
" The defence set up is, that the country was in an excited state. It appears that warrants were granted for searching other houses, but that no warrant was granted for searching Broyan's, and that Mr. Unwin reserved that for his own personal search; for what object does not appear."
Some stress had been laid upon the documents found in Broyan's house, and particularly on the copy of the address from the general convention. But it was evident that this latter document was not much prized, when it was used to wrap round stockings. It had been also said, that Broyan had attended meetings of riotous persons. But surely this could not be a justification for breaking into his house to search for arms. The noble Duke wanted the House to address the Crown to do that which had never been done before. It was not the fact, that Mr. Unwin's conduct was in exact conformity to the rule laid down by their Lordships and Lord John Russell. No one could say, that the dignity of the Bench was improved by what came out on the trial about Mr. Unwin searching the drawers of this man's daughter. When he coupled with that, that Mr. Unwin acted on his own authority without warrant—without having taken the opinion of the Bench, that other houses were searched upon warrants by magistrates, and that Mr. Unwin took away not what he was instructed by Lord John Russell to search for; all these circumstances combined, justified him in maintaining that this was an exception to the invariable practice. He was not inclined to throw suspicion on Mr. Unwin's motives. He happened at one period to live in Mr. Unwin's neighbourhood, and
1056
he knew that his character was, that he had a constitutional infirmity of wishing to take the law into his own hands, not that he perverted the law, but he liked to execute it. Mr. Unwin would much rather take the poacher himself than commit that duty to any other person. He considered all these to be irregularities. There was no instance in which a magistrate, under such circumstances, had been indemnified. It was, however, open to his noble Friend to make an appeal elsewhere for the revision of his decision. If his appeal was successful, he should think that he was wrong. He was satisfied with having discharged his duty in the situation which he then filled. As he was obliged to proceed to the country after to-day, he was anxious that Government should consider whether it was fitting that they should annul an appointment which, under the circumstances of the case, he had felt it right to make. He felt that any person who should come to the decision of the question whether there should be a legal adviser to the Home Office, from a view of the present state of the business, would form a very inadequate idea of the business at the time to which he alluded. He thought he could prove that, at all times, it would be an economical thing. The Home Office had most multifarious, numerous, and important business to transact. They should have ready access to legal advice. He was only expressing Mr. Phillips's opinion when he staled, that, at the time this correspondence passed, he felt his hands overloaded with business of this description. Business increased during the latter part of the year. The trials at Monmouth took place, and circumstances occurred which convinced him (Lord Normanby) that it would be good policy to have a solicitor for the Home Department. He was satisfied that he did right in making the appointment. As to some charges he had made considerable saving. The reference to the law-officers was conducted in a much more satisfactory, efficient, and speedy manner. He regretted very much that the noble Duke should have felt it his duty to bring this matter before the House. He considered the state of the country now to be different from what it was at that time. He had the consolation to think that the law was vindicated without any violation of the regular march of the constitution. Misguided men were brought to justice, and juries throughout the

1057
country performed their duties in the most exemplary manner. From the noble Duke and the magistrates of Mansfield, he appealed to the magistrates of the rest of the country. This circular was addressed to all the magistrates; all had acted on it, and none of them had got into this scrape except Mr. Unwin.
Lord Wharncliffewas far from denying that his noble Friend opposite had always shown himself ready to attend to the business of the Home-Office, and that he showed every disposition to perform his duty; but he could not help thinking that his noble Friend had in this country been influenced by the same sort of feeling which he manifested in Ireland, namely, a disposition against the country gentlemen and magistrates, rather than an inclination to look favourably and kindly upon their actions. Now, he conceived that it was the duty of a Secretary of State to put himself, in the first place, upon a footing of confidence with the magistrates of the country; but it was impossible for him to perform that part of his duties, if, upon every occasion he was betrayed into a leaning against them, and in favour of every one who thought proper to complain of their conduct. To betray a feeling adverse to the country gentlemen and the magistracy, was, in all respects, inconsistent with the character and duties of a Home Secretary, and no country could be well governed where such a state of feeling and the practice consequent on it could be suffered to exist. His noble Friend, the noble Duke near him, had said, that Lord John Russell's letter gave no authority for the seizure of arms; now, he (Lord Wharncliffe) distinguished between the seizure of arms and the seizure of papers. It was true that no warrant had been issued in the case for the seizure of papers, but if the magistrate made a bona fide search for arms it was clearly matter distinct from the search for papers. Was he laying down the law upon this subject unsupported by sufficient authority? He could show from the words of Mr. Justice Littledale that the law was clearly with him; and here he must take the liberty of saying that the noble Marquess ought not to place implicit reliance upon the statements of newspapers known to be the organs of the party opposed to that to which Mr. Unwin belonged. In districts so circumstanced as those to which the present conversation referred it almost
1058
always happened that the newspapers on both sides went great lengths; their reports even of the summing-up of a judge might not be strictly impartial, they might be distorted; he had known such things done, and he believed done for party purposes. To return, however, to the position which he sought to sustain, he had said, that if the magistrates possessed any information which gave them good grounds for thinking that any individual was unlawfully in the possession of arms, they might go to his house and make a search for such arms, and that a magistrate might go without a warrant, and might in his own person make a search for arms. He would show their Lordships that in saying this he was supported by the authority of the learned judge who tried the cause. As their Lordships knew, the judges in such cases were accustomed to state the evidence pro and contra, then to give a general view of the question at issue, and to conclude with a statement of the law as applicable to the case. Now, he should quote the charge of the learned judge, not from the reports of any country or any party print, but from a report transcribed from the notes of a professional short-hand writer, who had been employed to take down the proceedings:—
" Now, Gentlemen," says Mr. Justice Littledale," it will be material for you to consider the question about the arms and the question about the papers. With regard to arms, it appears there had been a regular information laid before Mr. Unwin, (the defendant), that there was reason to believe arms would be found in different people's houses, and accordingly warrants appear to have been granted, and several houses were searched, and nothing found in them; but as to the plaintiff, Mr. Unwin thought he would take the responsibility himself, and, instead of granting a warrant, he would go and execute the duty himself, and that he certainly had a right to do. Then, gentlemen, they find no arms in the House; well, but had he a well-grounded reason for supposing the plaintiff had arms? You see information is laid before him, and it is the duty of a magistrate, when information is made, to consider whether that information is sufficient for him to act upon; if the information is slight, or if it does not look like the truth, he ought to discard it; he ought to watch the information he receives well before he grants a warrant. However, he goes for arms, but no arms were found. Still you will recollect it is in evidence that on Broyan's being told there was a report abroad there was to be a search for arms, and being advised to get any arms he might have

1059
out of the way, be said he had already taken that precaution, that he had already got them out of the way; therefore it does appear there was reasonable ground for supposing there had been arms in the house. Now, any man may keep arms in his house if they are kept for lawful purposes, there is nothing illegal in that; but he is not entitled to have arms if he means to use them for illegal purposes, but the question is whether he did. If a man have arms in his house, meaning to use them for legal purposes, the magistrate would not he justified, I imagine, in taking them away; but if he had grounds to suppose he intended net to use them for legal purposes, but that his purpose was to join with others to subvert the Government and constitution of the country, and to banish all good order—then, in that case, it would be lawful to seize them. It appears that Crabtree and Pitkeithley came to the house of the plaintiff, and Crabtree produces from a bag, this dagger and two knives, which he said he was going to take to the convention. Now, gentlemen, these knives, and this dagger are not such as could be used for common household purposes, or for cutting sticks or bushes or anything of the sort; they are evidently arms of force. You will look at them and judge for yourselves, and see whether they could be used for common purposes, or whether they are not arms of an offensive nature. Gentlemen, you see, as to arms, it will be for you to consider whether the defendant had good reason to believe the plaintiff was concerned in these proceedings of the Chartists and to act as he did, and that he acted bonâ fide in going into his house."
Their Lordships must now see very clearly that the judge distinctly laid it down that the conduct of Mr. Unwin was according to law. He asked, did he act bona fide? [Lord Brougham: He left it to the jury to say whether he had done so or not.] He clearly told the jury, that if his search for arms was not used as a pretext with a view to the accomplishment of some other subject, but was abona fide search, that in such a case his conduct was perfectly legal. It might be doubted, perhaps, whether he had a right to institute any search for papers, but there could be no sort of doubt that upon the information he had received, he was fully entitled to search for arms; he might not have had a strict right to search for papers; but let their Lordships look at the state of the country, and especially at the state of that district, during the time to which those proceedings had reference. It was well known that there existed a dangerous conspiracy; that numbers of men were in the habit of assembling, armed in an illegal manner,
1060
and for illegal purposes; that they carried on correspondence with other parts of the country; that the magistrates believed that the person whose house they searched was one of the leaders of that conspiracy. Mr. Unwin went most certainly for the purpose of searching for arms; and being engaged in that duly he found certain papers of which he took possession, and if in the search for arms he took possession of those papers, some of which belonged to other parties, he might perhaps have done that which rendered him amenable to the courts of law; but he (Lord Wharncliffe) took upon himself to say that no magistrate could be considered to have done his duly who neglected the opportunity of taking possession of papers on which the peace of the country depended. The lives and properties of our fellow-subjects were at stake, and were they to be told, that under such circumstances the magistracy of the country must be tied down by the strict rules of a severe and unchangeable system of law? In such circumstances the Government ought to take the consequences upon themselves. It would not do in times of such difficulty and danger as those in which the circumstances in question took place to withdraw support from the magistracy. If in such times the magistrates went beyond the strict line of their duty were the Government to say, "We will take away all protection from you?" The noble Marquess opposite seemed to think that the instructions of Lord J. Russell formed no sufficient defence for the conduct of the magistrates; but to him (Lord Wharncliffe) such a letter did not so appear. If he, as a magistrate, received a letter from the Secretary of State desiring him to do certain things, he admitted that he should do them on his own responsibility, for, as had well been said, "the Secretary of Slate could make no laws—thank God, he could not." Here, however, was a case in which the magistrate had not adhered strictly to the law; but, yet, if he had done so, he must have transgressed his duty. There were times in which magistrates could not do so, for an over-scrupulous observance of forms would destroy the efficiency of the magisterial office. Now, he begged the attention of the House to the language held by Mr. Justice Littledale upon this point:—

1061
" Now, with regard to papers, nothing is said in the information about them; but, when he gets there, on looking into various drawers, it appears there is a letter in which is the name of a person, who says ' has been going about the country inciting people to acts of rebellion and treason, and who ought to have been hanged long ago, this is what I want and I shall take them all away.' Now, I do not know whether he had a right to take them all away. Now, what are the letters? There is a letter which alludes to—
" Mr. Serjeant Adams.—There are eight letters, and there is one which talks of ' Bloody butchers.'"
" Mr. Justice Littledale—(having read the letters given in evidence)—Gentlemen, I have pointed out the distinction as to arms being kept for legal and iilegal purposes; and, as to these letters, you will say whether the defendant was justified. If you are of opinion he is not, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation if the defendant has acted illegally. You will say, upon the whole, whether you think the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict, and if so, then to what damages. Gentlemen, I have pointed out the distinction to be observed between arms kept for legal and illegal purposes. Every man has a right to have arms in his house, but if there is reason to believe such arms are kept for an illegal purpose, for the purpose of aiding and assisting in the overturning of the Government, and that this gentleman had an honest, just, and reasonable ground that arms were kept by the plaintiff with some such evil design, then he was justified in going to the House as he did, and either taking a constable, or granting a warrant to a constable. Then, gentlemen, with regard to the papers, that stands upon a different ground, because these papers, you see, cannot of themselves be used for any purpose; it is only that they are there, and that they may chance to afford information of what the plaintiff's proceedings are. I must own I have great difficulty in saying he can be justified in seizing papers, whatever he may do about aims. I do not know that a magistrate having a suspicion, has a right to go, upon a mere suspicion, and take away papers that may have a tendency to j overturn the Government. You see the magistrate acts entirely on his own head; he docs not go to search for papers, and he finds no arms: but, on looking over some papers, he finds the name of a person, and his attention is thus directed to them, and he takes them away. Now, I have great difficulty in saying that a magistrate, whatever notion he may have of acting bona fide, has a right to take away letters. You do not find that the plaintiff had j taken any steps in consequence of these letters, or corresponded with the persons? it is merely that he receives some letters; it may be a ground for proceeding against Pitkeithley, but I have great difficulty in saying, upon the whole of this case, that with regard to these letters, the magistrate was justified in taking
1062
them away, though I have no doubt, with regard to the arms, he had the power, if he had reasonable grounds for believing the plaintiff had arms for the purpose of being used in an improper and treasonable manner; he would have no right to seize arms kept in the house for the purpose of poaching, it must be for an illegal purpose, having a tendency to overturn the Government. With regard to the papers, the defendant had no information as to them; it was merely that he sees some person's name, and then he takes them away; he did not find what he went for, but having seen an allusion made in a letter to a person, who, he said, ought to have been hanged years ago, he takes them away. In my opinion, he is hardly justified in seizing the papers: however, the matter is for you, and you will consider your verdict.
" The jury thereupon consulted, and after conferring together for a few minutes, one of them addressed his Lordship as follows:—
" Juryman.—The jury wish to know, whether a magistrate, while searching for arms, finding treasonable papers, has a right to seize them?
" Mr. Justice Littledale.—I cannot say he has such a right; only see, if he comes to search for arms, it cannot give him a right to go into the house and seize papers; it seems to me to be exactly the same thing as if he suspected there were treasonable papers, and while searching for them, he finds arms. He did not go for arms, it has nothing to do with it. So, if he was searching for arms, that would not give him a right to search for papers.
" Juryman.—But if he discovered such papers, was he justified?
" Mr. Justice Littledale.—I do not think, he had a tight to take away these papers; it seems to me, Gentlemen, he had no such right.
" The jury having conferred together very shortly,
" Juryman.—My Lord, we find for the plaintiff, with nominal damages."
He had now read to them the words of the judge, he had stated to them the result of the trial, and he must be permitted to say, that it did not appear to him to be a case in which the Government should show the sort of feeling which the Home Office had manifested in the course of this affair. It was true that Mr. Unwin went for the purpose of making a search for arms, and it was equally true, that, technically, he went beyond the law. His noble Friend opposite had said, that Mr. Unwin was in the habit of going beyond the law. [The Marquess of Normanby: I said that Mr. Unwin liked to take upon himself the execution of the law.] His noble Friend had spoken of

1063
Mr. Unwin as being much in the habit of executing the law himself, and being active in the pursuit of poachers. His noble Friend had not, perhaps, sufficient practical acquaintance with these matters. That mode of disparaging the magistracy was very common; their supposed activity against poachers was often used as an ad captandum argument. Counsel frequently took advantage of it in the examination of witnesses; they were in the habit of saying, "Oh, he is a magistrate very active against poachers, is he not?" Now, it was really not worthy of his noble Friend's situation that he should by means such as these, try to catch a little approbation, and join those who endeavoured to make it appear that the magistracy of England occupied themselves principally with the prosecution of poachers. He presumed that very few noble Lords then present could have forgotten the events of the 12th of August, 1839, the violent assemblages which then took place, the consequences of those assemblages, the apprehension of a great number of persons, and the fact that seven persons were tried, convicted, and punished. In such a state of things he was sure their Lordships would agree with him, that the conduct of Mr. Unwin constituted no very grave offence, and therefore ought not to be taken out of the pale of all protection; at the same time, he could not support the motion of his noble Friend near him, and he thought that no appeal ought to be made on such a subject to the Government now in office. Such proceedings would take from the stability of the executive power in this country; what had passed, however, ought to satisfy his noble Friend. For his part, he was clearly of opinion, that in some cases, magistrates could not discharge their duties, if they were to be confined, with undeviating precision, to the strict letter of the law.
Lord Broughamobserved, that what had fallen from the noble Baron who last addressed their Lordships, relieved him from the necessity of stating the objections which he entertained to the motion then before them. The noble Baron talked of "protection for the magistracy." No one knew better than he did the ample protection which they enjoyed. It was well known, that if they acted bonâ fide, their errors were very lightly visited; but under all circumstances, they were
1064
largely protected. If an action were brought against them, that action must be tried in the county where the occurrence took place. It must be brought within six months, a month's notice must be given, the defendant might plead the general issue, and under that, all evidence justifying his conduct might be let in. Yet now their Lordships were called upon to say, that if the magistrate loses his cause, the Crown should pay the expenses. That, with him, would be a sufficient ground for objecting to this motion, if there were no other ground. But he must say, that Lord John Russell did not appear to him to have misstated the law in any degree; it must also be observed, that the report of what had fallen from Mr. Justice Liltledale 'at the trial was probably incorrect, because it made that learned judge mis-state the information. However, the information omitted to state, and he (Lord Brougham) believed designedly, that the arms were collected in the dwelling-house of Joseph Broyan; then it did not say when, it did not say where those arms had been collected for illegal purposes. This information, therefore, would hardly give the magistrates the right to search for arms; but it was absolutely silent about papers. Mr. Unwin, therefore, was not entitled to search for papers; and although the whole gist of Mr. Unwin's defence was, that he did what he did by warrant of the Secretary of State's letter, yet that letter did not say one word about searching for papers. But if it had been otherwise, and Lord John Russell's letter had commanded a search for papers, it would most clearly not have been a justification of such search, still less surely was it a justification when it did not command any such thing. Then the judge and jury had declared the magistrates to be wrong. In every view, therefore, it was evident that this motion ought not to be agreed to, and this address to the Crown, which he believed to be perfectly unprecedented, ought not to be sanctioned by their Lordships. From accidental circumstances, he had had an opportunity of knowing Mr. Unwin, and he could bear testimony to his great ability and zeal, and it could only be through an over zeal that he had been led into this error of judgment. He should be most sorry, especially now that Mr. Unwin was dead, if anything he had said J could be supposed to bear hardly upon that Gentleman.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad not intended to say anything against the character of Mr. Unwin.
The Duke of Portlandwould act upon the suggestion which had been thrown out by his noble Friends, and withdraw the motion.

POOR-LAW COMMISSION.
Messengers from the Commons brought up the Poor-law Commission Continuance Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that if the House were to sit to-morrow, it would be for the public convenience, as he could then move the second reading of this bill, so that they might go into committee upon it on Monday, with the understanding, that any discussion which noble Lords might wish to go into upon the measure might betaken on going into committee on Monday.
Agreed to.
Adjourned.