Sitting of 14 April 1842

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.—1° Church Patronage (Scotland).
2°. Australia and New Zealand.
Private.—3°. and passed:—Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway; Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway; Wakey hill Inclosure.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Bramston, Sir J. Trollope, and Mr. J. O'Brien, from Essex, Boston, Limerick, and other places, against the Importation of Foreign Cattle.—By Mr. Macaulay, from the Chamber of Commerce at Edinburgh, for the Rescinding of the Order which precludes the Presentation of Petitions upon the subject of any Tax or Duty under the consideration of the House.—By Mr. Murphy, and Sir G. Clerk, from the Leather Cutters and Shoemakers at Cork, Bristol, Kirkaldy, and Stamford, against the Reduction of the Duty on Foreign Boots and Shoes.—From Bradford, for the Exemption of Mechanics' Institutions from payment of Rates and Taxes.—From Kilcommon, and Crosspatrick, for Alteration of the present System of Education (Ireland).—From York, for the Repeal of the Stamp Duty on Attornies Certificates.—By Mr. Viliiers, from Working Men at Dukinfleld, Leek, Tunbridge Wells, St. Ronaldshay, Orkney, Nantwich, and several other places,

473
for the Total Repeal of the Corn-lawl.—By Mr. Borth-wick, from Notting Hill, and Kensington, for a Bill to compel Parishes to Light the Roads.—By an hon. Member, from Thirsk, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—From New Windsor, for an Alteration of the New Poor-law.—From the Port of Tyne, against the Imposition of any Export Duty on Coals.—From Newry, suggesting a Scale of Duties for Hydes and Skins, and for the Reduction of the Duty on Bark.

SUDBURY ELECTION.
Mr. Redingtonbrought up the report of the committee on the Sudbury election, as follows:—
"That Frederick Villiers and David Octerlony Dyce Sombre, esquires, were not duly elected Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Sudbury:ߞ
"That the last Election for the Borough of Sudbury was a void Election:
"And the said Determinations were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
"House further informed,—That the Committee had agreed to the following Resolutions;
"Resolved,—That Frederick Villiers and David Octerlony Dyce Sombre, esquires, were, by their agents, guilty of Bribery at the last Election for the Borough of Sudbury;
" Resolved,—That the Committee are of opinion, from the Evidence given before them, that gross, systematic, and extensive Bribery prevailed at the last Election for the Borough of Sudbury; and they also consider it their duty to express to the House their unanimous opinion that the Borough of Sudbury should be disfranchised, and that a new Writ ought not to be issued for the said Borough."
Report to lie on the Table.
Mr. Redingtonthen moved, and on his motion it was ordered,
" That the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee, and of the Evidence taken before the Committee, be laid before this House, and that Mr. Speaker do not issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Sudbury, before Saturday the 7th day of May next."

MR. M. BLAKE
Mr. M. J. O'Connellsaid, he was requested by the hon. Member for the county of Mayo (Mr. M. Blake) who was at present in custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, for not having attended when called upon to be sworn as a member of the Cardigan election committee, to state that the hon. Member had been in Ireland for more than a month, but hearing that his presence was likely to be required in the House, he left Dublin on Monday night, but unfortunately the steam vessel on board of which he was embarked, did not arrive in Liverpool
474
until a quarter of an hour after the departure of the mail train on Tuesday. He therefore did not arrive in London until yesterday evening. Mr. Blake was a young Member, and he trusted that the House, taking ail the circumstances of the case into consideration, would consent to the discharge of his hon. Friend, upon payment of the fees. He concluded by moving that Mark Blake, Esq. be discharged out of the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms on paying his fees.
Lord G. Somersetsaid, that in consequence of its having been necessary to send a messenger to Ireland, Mr. Blake's fees, upon this occasion, would amount to about 25 l. or 30 l. This might be considered a sufficient punishment to the hon. Member for his inattention, but if the fees had been merely a nominal sum, he should not have been inclined to accede to the motion. He thought that some regulation should be adopted for compelling Members, who in future might absent themselves when called upon to serve on election committees, to defray the expense which the parties to such petitions might incur in consequence of their absence.
Sir G. Greyconcurred in the suggestion thrown out by the noble Lord. The system of payment of fees operated unequally. In the present case Mr. Blake would have to pay 307. because he happened to live in Carlow. If he had lived near the House he would have had to pay only the ordinary fees, which were inconsiderable in amount.
Motion agreed to. Mr. Blake ordered to be discharged.

RIGHT OF PETITIONING.
Lord F. Egertonrose to submit the resolutions of which he had given notice, respecting receiving petitions. After the repeated discussions which the question had undergone, he would not detain the House by many observations. The object of his resolutions was twofold, namely, to open the doors of the House to petitions against taxes proposed for the service of the year, and, at the same time, to prevent that concession from giving rise to any undue interference with the conduct of that public business which was the main duty the House had to perform. The first five of his resolutions were of a formal nature, merely reciting the present practice of the House with respect to the presentation and reception of petitions. The sixth was framed

475
for the purpose of meeting the views of the hon. Member for Finsbury, and those which he himself entertained. He did not anticipate any opposition to the resolutions which he had framed, and which, having been printed with the votes, had doubtless already undergone the consideration of hon. Members. It had been suggested on a former evening, that he had unnecessarily put himself forward with reference to this question, as if he were desirous of sharing the honour, whatever it might be, which properly belonged to his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, for his exertions to obtain from the House an admission of the right of the people to petition against the Income-tax. He could assure the House and his hon. Friend that he had not the most remote intention of doing anything of the sort, and that he freely made over to his hon. Friend all the honour which was due to him. In the course which he had pursued, he had been influenced solely by a sense of respect for that House. He found the question in a state which was likely to exasperate the feelings of Members on both sides of the House, and he thought it one of those occasions, perhaps rare, when an individual possessed of no personal influence and authority, might, by bringing forward a proposition which had nothing to recommend it but its own merit, render a substantial service to the House. The noble Lord concluded by moving the following resolutions:—

"1 That every Member offering to present a petition to the House, not being a petition for a private bill, or relating to a private bill before the House, do confine himself to a statement of the parties from whom it comes, of the number of signatures attached to it, and of the material allegations contained in it, and to the reading of the prayer of such petition.

"2. That every such petition not containing matter in breach of the privileges of this House, and which, according to the rules or usual practice of this House can be received, be brought to the Table by the direction of the Speaker, who shall not allow any debate, or any Member to speak upon, or in relation to, such petition, but it may be read by the clerk at the Table if required.

"3. That if the petition relate to any subject in respect of which there is any proceeding before the House, or any notice given, it be referred to the committee on public petitions without a question being put.

"4, That if the question relate to any matter or subject which the Member presenting it is desirous of bringing before the House, and if such Member shall state it to be his intention
476
to make a motion thereupon, instead of such petition being referred to the committee on public petitions, such Member may give notice that he will make a motion on some subsequent day, 'That the petition be printed with the votes.'

"5. That, in the ease of a petition complaining of some present personal grievance, for which there may be an urgent necessity for providing an immediate remedy, the matter contained in such petition may be brought into discussion on the presentation thereof.

"6. That, subject to the above regulations, petitions against any resolution or bill imposing duties for the current service of the year, be henceforth received, and the usage under which the House has refused to entertain such petitions be discontinued.

"7. That the said resolutions be made standing orders of this House."

The question was put on the first resolution.
Mr. Wallaceprotested against making the resolution which prohibited discussions upon petitions, and which could be enforced only during the present Session, a standing order. He believed the old practice of debating upon petitions was, most advantageous, and hoped it would be again resorted to. The long debates which were now so much complained of were in some degree the result of the abolition of the practice of discussing petitions, for those Members who used to speak on petitions now spoke in debate. It was well known that, at present, the great guns never went off until ten o'clock, and the previous hours were occupied by the minor poets. He would divide the House upon the first resolution,
Mr. T, Duncomhesaid, that nothing had fallen from him which could indicate the slightest jealousy, on his part, at the interference of his noble Friend. On the contrary, he felt indebted to his noble Friend, first for the vote which be had given upon a former day in support of his motion, and secondly, for having again brought the subject under the consideration of the House, With respect, how" ever, to the resolutions proposed by his noble Friend, he must say, that he did not altogether approve of the manner in which they had been brought forward, or the terms in which they were couched. The concession which had been wrested from Ministers might have been made in a more gracious manner, in as much as he had never proposed, that petitions against the Income-tax should be treated in a manner different from other petitions. What was

477
the use of proposing a string of resolutions showing what had been the practice already adopted by a large majority during the present Session, when the question of having discussions upon petitions was raised by the hon. Member for Greenock? He was one of the minority who voted with the hon. Member upon that question. The existing resolution was tantamount to a standing order. He now came to the sixth resolution, which embodied the resolution which he had himself proposed the other evening. The sixth resolution of his noble Friend ran thus:—
"That, subject to the above regulations, petitions against any resolution or bill imposing duties for the current service of the year be henceforth received, and the usage under which the House has refused to entertain such petitions be discontinued."
What was the use of the words "subject to the above regulations? "He objected also to the phrase "for the current service of the year," which was quite unnecessary, and would only narrow the concession it once proposed to make. After all he must admit, that this was not much of a feather-bed for the right hon. Baronet, on the contrary, it let him down hard and heavily upon the bare ground. On a former evening, he had voted with his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock, and if his hon. Friend went to a division, he should certainly vote with him again,
Mr. Aglimbysaid, the resolution now proposed was a mere transcript of the resolution agreed to at the beginning of the Session. He wished to know whether a resolution could be put on. their records that was the same in substance as one that already stood there? The distinction between a resolution and a standing order he understood to be this—the one was the law of the Session, and the other was the law of Parliament. Was it competent for him, or for any other hon. Member, to move that a resolution similar in substance to the present be rescinded? [The Speaker: Certainly not.] It might be convenient for the House to treat the petitions of the people in the way it did, but he could not see the necessity of such a usage, nor could the people out of doors see the necessity of the usage. However low the abilities of hon. Members might be, they were sent to that House to speak for their constituents, and felt it their duty to do so. Not being allowed to speak on the presentation of petitions, they spoke during
478
the principal debate, which they would not otherwise do. The right hon. Baronet had already taunted the House twice with there being only forty-four Members in the House while the debate was going on, and from that thin attendance the right hon. Baronet inferred that not much interest was felt in the subject of the debate. The inference was not correct, however; the fact was, that hon. Members absented themselves till the more serious part of the debate commenced. He attributed this inconvenience chiefly to the discontinuance of the old practice of debating on petitions. If petitions were allowed to be presented at another part of the day, they would find that those Members who spoke at a particular period of the evening would then express their opinions on the discussion of the petitions, and leave the evening to the great authorities of the House. He for one would never consent to have this resolution converted into a standing order,
Sir R. Peelsaid, after he had fairly avowed that his opinion had been overruled, what occasion could he have for a feather-bed? He did not feel at all uneasy about his fall. He felt it of little importance how the resolutions were worded, and he could assure the House he had not suggested one single modification with a view to break his fall. He could not agree with the hon. Gentleman as to the disadvantages attending the practice which now prevailed. He thought that the rule which confined Gentlemen, who did not occupy a prominent political station, to debating on petitions, placed them in a much worse position than they were at present, when they took part in the general debates, The hon. Gentleman complained that the interesting speeches did not commence till a late hour in the evening. In that respect he could not agree with the hon, Gentleman. He had sat there, during the late debate, from the beginning of the evening, and he must say, some of the most interesting speeches which had been made during that debate had been made in that part of the evening. He had heard, for instance, the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds—a speech which displayed great ability, and contained powerful argument against his proposition. He had also heard the gallant Commodore opposite {Sir Charles Napier) make an excellent speech, and he had at the time observed to those who were sitting near him, that he had seldom heard a better speech on the sub-

479
ject, Or heard an hon. Gentleman state his opinions more fairly; and he would be glad to hear the hon. and gallant Commodore more frequently on subjects of that kind. Then there was, on his own side of the House, the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, one of the ablest speeches delivered during the debate. If the hon. Gentleman would only make the experiment of coming down there at an early hour of the evening, he could assure him that he would hear some excellent speeches. [Mr. Aglionby was scarcely absent a single evening.] He thought the hon. Gentleman could not have heard the speeches in question, when he spoke of the debates being without interest in the early part of the evening. Inconvenient, however, as the practice of adjournment was, a return to the old practice of debating on petitions would be still more inconvenient. If the morning was again set apart for the reception of petitions, and hon. Members were allowed to speak on them, the spirit of the debate would evaporate in the morning. The words of the resolution, "for the current service of the year," was perfectly in accordance with the present practice of the House.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that if the present resolutions were adopted, the popular party would lose a very valuable privilege, and, under the circumstances, he did not see why any compromise should take place. If the present resolutions were adopted and converted into a standing order, they would be in a far worse position than they were at present with regard to petitions. His hon. Colleague, after his motion was lost on the first night, brought up a petition contrary to the rules of the House, but if these resolutions were passed, and made a standing order, that could not be done any more. No discussion could take place, because the words of the second resolution were, that "No Member should be allowed to speak upon, or in relation to, such petition," and, therefore, no incidental matter could be discussed or noticed, because the Speaker would desire the Member to take his seat, and he would be obliged to do so. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Baronet, who frankly owned that he had not changed his opinion, but was over-ruled, to consent to the motion of his hon. Colleague, and that would be the frank and honest mode of action, and would give satisfaction to all.
Lord J. Russellagreed with his hon. Friend who had first brought this business before the House, that the first resolution which his hon. Friend had suggested would be the best to adopt, and that it would be quite sufficient. The only difference between the two courses was, that the series of resolutions proposed by the noble Lord would convert into standing orders the present resolutions of the House, which the Speaker enforced during the present Session, and which were binding on the present Parliament. But, although he thought that the resolutions might be liable to some objections, he did not think them of sufficient importance to induce him to offer any opposition to the noble Lord. The hon. Member for Greenock, and the hon. Member for Cockermouth, were for renewing the old practice of speaking on petitions. But he did not agree with them in that particular, and he could not vote against an innovation which he had himself been instrumental in establishing. It appeared to him that a return to the former usage would lead to great inconvenience. Let them suppose a case with respect to the new tariff. Petitions against the tariff could be received; but if the old practice were enforced they might have debates upon the presentation of petitions upon any matter contained in the tariff, and no man could say upon what point the debate of the evening might turn. An hon. Member for Worcester might bring forward the case of gloves—another hon. Member might bring forward the case of boots and shoes—another hon. Member the case of copper and tin ores; at the same time, none of those debates could come to any practical end, nor could any one say at what time the business on the paper would be likely to commence. Even on the day which the right hon. Gentleman might happen to fix upon for the consideration of the tariff, it would be impossible to say, whether the debate would commence before ten or eleven o'clock. In order to remedy that inconvenience, the House had fixed a certain hour at which the presentation of petitions would cease, and the business of the evening begin Well, that got rid of one inconvenience; that of occupying the time of the House till ten or eleven o'clock on petitions. But still there was another inconvenience. So much time was occupied by debates on individual petitions, that many Members

481
found they could not get their petitions presented at all. He could not, therefore, concur with those hon. Members who were for reviving the former practice of the House. He should certainly have wished that the noble Lord had contented himself with the sanction already given to the new rules relative to the presentation of petitions; but as the noble Lord thought that it would be desirable to put that resolution in a more formal shape, he should not oppose the course taken by the noble Lord; and he was, therefore, ready to support the noble Lord, and vote in favour of the resolutions before the House.
Mr. Jamessaid, that he entirely concurred with the noble Lord. If they were to return to the old practice of debating petitions, they would have to bid farewell to Sessions of five, six, or seven months, they would have to sit from the 1st of January to the 31st of December, all day and all night.
Lord F. Egertonsaid, in explanation, that in adding the words "for the current service of the year," of which the hon. Member for Finsbury had complained, it was his intention to meet the case, which had already occupied much of the attention of the House.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that it was clear the addition of the words for "the current service of the year" would narrow the proposition of the noble Lord. The more large the proposal the greater number of petitions it included, and of course narrowing the proposition meant bringing down the number of petitions. There would be a smaller number of petitions presented on questions affecting the revenue. The motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury being lost by one, the noble Lord comes forward with resolutions not confined to the question, whether such petitions be presented or not, but travelling back to a resolution of the House affecting all petitions whatever. The noble Lord and the House had found that petitions must be presented, but they declare that it is inconvenient they should be discussed. The noble Lord came forward to cover the retreat of his friends with a string of resolutions, granting them (the Liberals) the honour of their victory, but depriving them of its substance, thus reversing for Ministers the order of English proceedings, by which it was usual to gain the victory and lose its substance; and following the
482
course of foreign diplomacy by which it was usual to lose the victory and gain the substance thereof. In proving the right of presenting petitions to the House at present, he believed they were only fighting for shadows. If they placed the right hon. Gentleman in a minority to-night, they would gain nothing by it, for the right of petitioning had become a farce, or had passed away.
Viscount Howicksaid, if the right of petitioning had become a farce, it was through having been abused by speeches as utterly useless as that of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. The resolutions virtually included every petition that could be offered; and as to the right of speaking on their presentation, why, if the old practice were revived in that respect, the business of the House could never be got through. Nor could the evil be obviated by having, as was sometimes suggested, early sittings; for that only led to a greater evil—the introduction of a great many statements utterly without foundation into the House, when no one was present to hear and contradict them. Petitions now, by the rules of the House, received every attention that could be of practical utility; and when any petition was presented on which it was wished to raise a discussion, a most easy course was open for the attainment of that object. Any change in the practice could only tend to indiscriminate and useless speech making, which would waste the public time as much as did speeches like that just delivered by the hon. and learned Member.
Mr. C. Woodsuggested an alteration, to provide, on the one hand, for the reception of petitions on matters not before the House (as to which he thought there was a little ambiguity), and, on the other, for the rejection of petitions, nor irregular in form, but on matters of which the House positively declined to take cognizance.
Sir G. Clerkconceived the proposed amendment would add to the utility of the resolution.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, although he had a strong feeling that petitions were not done entire justice to, he felt as strongly that it would never do to permit a revival of the old practice of indiscriminate debating on petitions being presented.
Sir T. Wildewas at a loss to see why the House need be involved in a discussion of this nature, when they could get

483
rid of the difficulty by rejecting the first five resolutions. Those resolutions related to the question whether petitions should be debated or not. The other resolutions merely related to the question whether certain petitions should or should not be received? He thought the best course would be to declare that those petitions were to be received according to the rules of the House, and to give up the first five resolutions as superfluous. It was well known that any Member who thought proper might give notice of his intention to bring any particular petition under the consideration of the House; on those occasions there was, generally speaking, a pretty full attendance of Members acquainted with the subject, and this was a mode of dealing with petitions which appeared to him greatly preferable to the practice of suddenly bringing forward petitions at a moment when no person except the Member presenting them knew anything of the matter.
The House divided on the first resolution—Ayes 268; Noes 46: Majority 222.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Capt.

Buller, E.

Acton, Col.

Bunbury, T.

Adare, Visct.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Ainsworth, P.

Burroughes, H. N.

Allix, J. P.

Busfeild, W.

Antrobus, E.

Byng, G.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Campbell, Sir H.

Arkwright, G.

Campbell A.

Bagot, hon. W.

Cartwright, W. R.

Bailey, J.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Baillie, Col.

Chelsea, Visct.

Baird, W.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Baldwin, B.

Cholmondeley, hn. H,

Baring, hon. W. B.

Chute, W. L. W.

Barnard, E. G.

Clay, Sir W.

Barrington, Visct.

Clayton, R. R.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Clements, Visct.

Bell, M.

Clerk, Sir G.

Beresford, Capt.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Beresford, Major

Cochrane, A.

Bernard, Visct.

Cockburn, rt. hn.Sir G.

Blackburne, J. I.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Blackstone, W. S.

Colvile, C. R.

Blakemore, R.

Courtenay, Visct.

Bodkin, W. H.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Boldero, H. G.

Craig, W. G.

Botfield, B.

Cripps, W.

Bramston, T. W.

Currie, R.

Broadley, H.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Brotherton, J.

Damer, hon. Col.

Browne, hon. W,

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Bruce, Lord E.

Denison, E. B.

Buck, L. W.

Dickinson, F. H.

Buckley, E.

Dodd, G.

Buller, C.

Douglas, Sir H.

484

Douglas, J. D. S.

Hogg, J. W.

Drummond, H. H.

Holdsworth, J.

Dugdale, W. S.

Houldsworth, T.

Duncan, G.

Holmes, hon.W.A'Ct.

Dundas, F.

Howard, hon. J. K.

Dundas, D.

Howard, Lord

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Howard, hon. E.G.G.

Du Pre, C. G.

Howick, Visct.

East, J. B.

Hutt, W.

Easthope, Sir J.

Irton, S.

Egerton, W. T.

Irving, J.

Egerton, Sir P.

Jackson, J. D.

Egerton, Lord F.

James, W.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

James, Sir W. C.

Ellice, E.

Jermyn, Earl

Eliot, Lord

Johnson, W, G.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Johnston, A.

Evans, W.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Farnham, E. B.

Johnstone, H.

Fellowes, E.

Jones, Capt.

Feilden, W.

Kirk, P.

Ferrand, W. B.

Knatchbull, r. h. Sir E.

Filmer, Sir E.

Knight, H. G.

Fitzroy, Capt.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Lambton, H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Langston, J. H.

Fleming, J. W.

Law, hon. C. E.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Legh. G. C.

Forbes, W.

Leicester, Earl of

Forester,hon.G.C.W.

Lemon, Sir C.

Forster, M.

Lincoln, Earl of

French, F.

Lindsay, H. H.

Fuller, A. E.

Loch, J.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Lockhart, W.

Gill, T.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Gladstone.rt.hn.W.E.

Lyall, G.

Gordon, Lord F.

Lygon, hon. General

Gore, M.

Macaulay.rt.hon.T.B.

Gore, W. O.

Mackenzie, T.

Gore, W. R. O.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Goring, C.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Maher, V.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Mahon, Visct.

Granger, T. C.

Manners, Lord J.

Greenall, P.

Marsham, Visct.

Greene, T.

Martin, J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Martyn, C. C.

Grimsditch, T.

Master, T. W. C.

Grimston, Visct.

Masterman, J.

Guest, Sir J.

Miles, P. W. S.

Hale, R. B.

Miles, W.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Mitchell, T. A.

Hamilton, W. J.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Morgan, O.

Harcourt, G. G.

Morris, D.

Hardinge,rt.hn.Sir H.

Morison, General

Hardy, J.

Mundy, E. M.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Murray, C. R. S.

Hawes, B.

Napier, Sir C.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Neeld, J.

Heathcoate, Sir W.

Neeld, J.

Henley, J. W.

Neville, R.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Newry, Visct.

Hill, Lord M.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Hill, Sir R.

Norreys, Lord

Hinde, J.H.

O'Brien, A. S.

Hodgson, R.

O'Brien, W. S,

485

Ord, W.

Stanley, Lord

Owen, Sir J.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Packe, C. W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Paget, Col.

Stanton, W. H.

Pakington, J. S.

Stewart, J.

Palmerston, Visct.

Stuart, Lord J.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Stuart, W. V.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Strutt, E.

Philips, M.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Pigot, Sir R.

Thesiger, F.

Polhill, F.

Thornhill, G.

Pollock Sir F.

Trench, Sir F. W

Praed, W. T.

Trotter, J.

Price, R.

Turner, E.

Pringle, A.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Protheroe, E.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Pusey, P.

Verner, Col.

Reade, W. M.

Waddington, H. S.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Wall, C. B.

Rice, E. R.

Welby, G. E.

Rolleston, Col.

Whitmore, T C.

Round, C. G.

Wilbraham,hon.R.B.

Round, J.

Wood, C.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Wood, Col.

Russell, Lord J.

Wood, Col. T.

Russell, C.

Worsley, Lord

Sandon, Visct.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.

Wrightson, W. B.

Sheppard, T.

Wyndham, Col. C.

Shirley, E. P.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Sibthorp, Col.

Young, J.

Smollett, A.

TELLERS.

Somerset, Lord G.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Archbold, R.

O'Connell, D

Bernal, Capt.

O'Connell, M.

Blake, M.

O'Connell, M. J.

Blake, M.J.

O'Connell, J.

Blake, Sir V.

Pechell. Capt.

Blewitt, R. J.

Plumridge, Capt.

Bowring, Dr.

Powell, C.

Bridgeman, H.

Rainsbottom, J.

Butler, hon. Col.

Roche, E. B.

Chapman, B.

Roebuck, J. A.

Cobden, R.

Seale, Sir J. II.

Crawford, W. S.

Somers, J. P.

Curteis, H. B.

Strickland, Sir G.

Dennistoun, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Duncombe, T.

Thornely, T.

Ewart, W.

Wakley, T.

Ferguson, Col.

Wason, R.

Fielden, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Jervis, J.

Watson, W. H.

Leader, J. T.

Wilde, Sir T.

Marsland, H.

Williams, W.

Moslyn, hon. E. M. L.

Murphy, F. S.

TELLERS.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Aglionby, H. A.

O'Brien, C.

Wallace, R.

Resolution agreed to. The other resolutions to the 7th agreed to.
On the 7th resolution, "That the above resolutions be made standing orders of the House," being put from the Chair,
Mr. Aglionbysaid, this was the resolution to which he and those hon. Gentlemen with whom he generally had the honour to act objected most strongly. The hon. and learned Member for Worcester, to whom the House was indebted for the valuable observations he had made that evening, seemed to be at a loss to understand the reason why these resolutions should be introduced at all; it was a work of supererogation, and could have no other meaning than that the noble Lord and the hon. Gentlemen who supported him would not grant any concession of popular rights without at the same time doing all in their power to restrict those rights. ["Oh ! oh !"] He said that advisedly. Why had these resolutions been introduced if not to do away with those upon which the House had acted before? But why were they to be converted into standing orders Would that add dignity to them? Or was it not intended to make them more binding and stringent? Believing that to be the end in view, he must oppose this last proposition. The noble Lord had dragged the House into a second division on this subject by bringing forward these resolutions, and he believed that their object was, coupled with the last one, to prevent the people exercising some power which the noble Lord and his supporters thought they possessed. The rule upon which the House acted before was found to be sufficient; and he would venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, whether he had ever found any difficulty in keeping hon. Members within proper bounds? He had never seen any instance of an hon. Member, on presenting a petition and exceeding the rule, not stopping on the instant that he was apprised of his mistake by the Speaker. To persist in carrying this proposition would be to show the people that when Ministers were all but beatenߞas beaten they would have been if hon. Members had continued to present petitionsߞthen they would acknowledge the right which the people possessed. Although the right hon. 'Baronet did not give up his opinions, he acknowledged that a majority of only one was insufficient to enable him to carry the question in the long run, and that it would not be just or wise to continue a contest which inconvenienced public business. That feeling was largely expressed by the House, but more extensively still out of doors, by thousands and tens of thou-

487
sands. But why not acknowledge popular rights without fettering them with most obnoxious and unjustifiable conditions? Had a different course been taken the concession would have been gratefully acknowledged out of doors, but it was made in a way which would make it despised. It would be said that they had granted that which they could not withhold, but still they strove to repress the privileges of the people. He believed that many hon. Members who had voted in the majority on the last occasion would not vote in favour of these resolutions being made standing orders, and if many of them expressed a wish to go to a division he would not shrink from the responsibilty of taking one, but he would not suffer his feelings to force him into a useless division.
Mr. Curteissaid, he was inclined to go further than the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth, and would move, instead of the motion now before the House, "That the said propositions be made and considered resolutions of this House." If that was not the way to frame his motion, he would put it in any shape which would declare that the propositions already agreed to should be made not standing orders, but resolutions of the House.
The Speakerintimated, that they had already become resolutions of the House.
Mr. Wallacesaid, he thought he should not pursue the course he had declared he would, for it was quite evident to him that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, those who had been in office, and those who were now in office, were united in a wish to put a stop to the petitions of the people being received. He believed it, because he could easily conceive that it would be more convenient to official men to exclude those petitions, as they would then be able to fix the business for their own accommodation, so as to go away early to dinner; and not only that the believed, also, that they were glad to restrict the liberties of the people. The speech of the noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland proved it; and he was glad, that the noble Lord had spoken out that night, for if his constituents were of that character, which he supposed them to be, the noble Lord would himself be taken to task for that speech in the, proper place. Were he one of the noble Lord's constituents, he should be glad to have to execute that task, on the public hustings.
488
He was astonished to hear such a speech from an avowed Reformer. He knew to whom they were much indebted for that reform, which was now, it appeared, almost destroyed; and should regret exceedingly, if a noble Lord in another House should get up in his place, and give expression to similar sentiments.
Mr. Lambtonprotested against the unfair speech of the hon. Member against the noble Lord during his absence. [Mr. Wallace: I did not know the noble Lord was absent.] The character of the noble Lord stood too high to be affected by such observations, and his regard for public rights was too well known to be disputed.
Mr. Wallacerepeated, that he did not know the noble Lord was absent, or he would not, perhaps, have said what he had said; but he begged to adhere to every word he had said. He would not refrain from repeating his remarks at a proper opportunity.
Lord J. Russelldenied the existence of any such understanding between hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, as that to which the hon. Member for Greenock had alluded. That hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken in supposing that these resolutions would prevent discussion; and as to gentlemen in office going home to dinner when they pleased, he did not find it so when he was in office, nor did he think the right hon. Gentlemen opposite found it so now.
Resolution agreed to.

SEATS FOR MEMBERS.
Mr. Wakleysaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, relative to what he had always understood to have been the general practice of the House. He confessed, that he ought to apologize to the House for troubling it with so trifling a matter, which he should not do, were not the personal comfort of every Member of the House concerned. During the debate last night, a short time before twelve o'clock, he held some conversation with the hon. Member for Bath, relative to the motion and amendment before the House, and they were asking each other whether, if the first were put from the Chair, they would have an opportunity of coming back and voting on the second, or whether the doors would be closed, so as to prevent them from coming in. He had then been in the House more than three hours, and he left his seat for the purpose of inquiring

489
of the Sergeant-at-Arms what interval would lapse in the divisions. He was not absent more than two or three minutes, when, on his return, he found his seat occupied by an hon. Member, who very abruptly refused to give it up to him. At that time, he did not know that he had left his hat in his place, not under, but upon, the seat; but he had been informed by several hon. Members around him, at a later period of the evening, that his hat was upon his seat. This might appear a trifling and insignificant matter; but if a Member left his place for a minute or two, to go to the vote-office or journal-office, it would cause great inconvenience to have his seat taken from him on every such occasion. Now, his object was to inquire what was the usual practice, and what was the conduct which should govern hon. Members in this matter. He had always understood, that a Member secured a seat by being at prayers, and also by taking possession of a seat, and leaving his hat in it during a momentary absence. He wished to know the rule, in order that the regularity of the House might not be disturbed by an absence of proper conduct on the part of hon. Members. The hon. Member who did this—[Cries of " No, no !"J Yes, I will name him—it was the hon. Member for Leicester.
The Speakersaid, the rule of the House was, that any Member being at prayers had a right to the seat he then occupied, but if he left it and went out of the House any hon. Member might take it, and if it were given up it was as a matter of courtesy, not of right.
Sir J. Easthopewas very sorry that what had transpired should have taken up any time of the House. He had not removed the hat of the hon. Member for Finsbury, and until that moment he was not aware that the hat belonged to the hon. Member. A gallant Officer then present took up the hat, and in place of putting it on his head he put it under the seat. The real fact was that the application made by the hon. Member for Fins-bury was made in so peremptory and abrupt a tone that, much contrary to his wishes, he felt himself obliged to refuse compliance with it. He was sorry that the time of the House had been occupied with such a trumpery affair, but the tone used towards him was what he could not put up with.
Subject at an end.

EXECUTIONS FOR BURGLARY.
Mr. Aglionbyrose to put the question of which he had given notice to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department—viz., whether in the year 1841, there had been any executions for offences of burglary attended with personal violence, or whether, as in preceding years, sentence of death in such cases had always been commuted for transportation? Since the passing of Lord J. Russell's bills in 1837, by which our criminal code was materially mitigated, although by the strict letter of the law death was still the punishment for the crime of burglary, accompanied by riot or personal violence, yet he believed down to the year 1841, although several convictions for that crime had taken place, that the sentence in every case had been commuted to transportation for life. He wished to know whether the same practice had been continued during the last year.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, the hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct in his statement of the change which took place in our criminal code in the year 1837, by which the punishment of death was taken away from the crime of burglary, except when accompanied by personal violence. The following was an account of the number of convictions which had taken place since the alteration in the law. In 1838 there were three convictions for the crime of burglary accompanied by personal violence, in each of which the sentence of death was commuted to transportation for life. In 1839 there was one conviction, the sentence being commuted in like manner; in1840 there were thirteen convictions, the sentence in each case being commuted to transportation for life; and in 1841, to which year the hon. Gentleman's question referred, but the returns in respect to which had not yet been presented, there had been more than one conviction, but no execution had taken place for the offence. In short, since the passing of the law there had been no fewer than twenty convictions for this offence, but not one execution.

METROPOLITAN ROADS.
Mr. Borth-wickafter presenting a petition from Notting Hill and Kensington, complaining of the want of lights in the metropolitan roads, rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, for leave to introduce a bill to enforce the better

491
lighting of the metropolitan roads by the respective parishes through which they pass. He said, that he thought the present bill called for in consequence of railroads having diminished the tolls on the ordinary roads to such an extent that the commissioners had no longer the funds sufficient for repairing and lighting the roads. Accordingly the commissioners, on the 24th of May last, had given notice to the respective parishes that they would not continue to light the roads beyond the 29th of September following. Several parishes had taken the charge on themselves, but there was still a number of parishes in which two-thirds of the ratepayers had not come to the same agreement, and the consequence was that these parishes were left during night in a state of darkness and danger. In his opinion the parishes through which the roads passed, and not the passengers, ought to pay the expense, because the roads added considerably to the value of property in their neighbourhood. Not anticipating any opposition to his motion, he would merely state that he proposed to carry his purpose into effect by applying the pro visions of the act 3rd and 4th William 4th, ch. 90, making it compulsory on those parishes to light the roads according to the provisions of that act, and that the inspectors should be empowered to call on the overseers of the poor to make a rate for that purpose.
The Speakerasked the hon. Member if he proposed to levy a rate on the several parishes?
Mr, Borthwick: Uundoubtedly, under the provisions of the 3rd and 4th William 4th.
The Speakersaid, that the bill in that case would be partly of a public and partly of a private nature, and the hon. Member would therefore have to give the notice required to be given in cases of private bills.
Mr. Borthwickbowed to the decision of the Chair. With the consent of the House he would withdraw his motion, and give the proper notice.
Motion withdrawn.

POWER OF CORONERS.
Captain Polhillin moving for leave to bring in a bill to empower county and all other coroners to admit of bail in cases of manslaughter, said, that; if the respectability and legal knowledge of coroners were generally not such as
492
to justify the placing of such a responsibility into their hands, it would be a fair ground of objection against his bill; but as their respectability and legal knowledge were such as to justify him in seeking to give them that responsibility, he hoped no opposition would be offered to it. The hon. Member entered into a statement to show the great antiquity and respectability of the office, and the great consideration in which that office was held in former times. With respect to the crime of manslaughter, it consisted of various degrees of criminality. Manslaughter was defined to be the killing of another without malice expressed or implied. A case had come under his notice at the last Bedford Assizes, which he considered one of great hardship. It was the case of an individual who had committed manslaughter on his brother, and who had been in prison for seven months before his trial came on, because the coroner had not the power to release him on bail. Another case of the kind occurred at the Huntingdon Assizes, in which a man had been imprisoned for thirty-two weeks before his trial came on because the corner had not the power to take bail for his appearance. It might be said that there was a remedy for this, either by habeas corpus or certiorari; but his answer to this was, that that course was both inconvenient and expensive. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to introduce a bill to empower county and all other coroners to admit of bail in cases of manslaughter.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, it was not his intention to oppose the motion of the hon. and gallant Member; but he wished to call the attention of the House to the bill which the hon. Member proposed to introduce, and which involved considerations of great importance. The hon. Gentleman rested the necessity for his measure upon one or two particular cases of great hardship which he had mentioned. He must remind the House, that the offence to which the motion of the hon. Member referred was next in magnitude to a crime of the deepest dye; the distinctions between manslaughter and murder were extremely nice; and great discrimination was frequently required in distinguishing between the two offences. He did not wish to speak disparagingly of the office of coroner, or of the gentlemen by whom that office was held; but he certainty considered it a great advantage, as the

493
law now existed, that the coroner, whose duty it was to sum up to the jury the evidence adduced before him, and who might be influenced by a particular bias, should not have the power of granting or refusing bail in cases in which it might be demanded. As the law now stood, a person charged with murder or manslaughter could not obtain his liberty without hawing his case investigated by its removal by habeas corpus before a judge. He would not now enter into the question; hut he wished it to be understood, that although he did not oppose the introduction of this bill, he was not prepared in its future stages to give it his assent.
Mr. Wakleysaid, coroners did not ask for the power which the bill of the right hon. and gallant Member proposed to give them. It would, indeed, be attended with some convenience in a public view; but it would add considerably to the duties of coroners. By an act of William and Mary, coroners had the power of taking bail; but in 1824, when an alteration was made in the law-, this power was inadvertently lost.
Leave given.

POOR-LAW UNIONS.
Captain Pechellmoved for a return of the Poor-law unions, distinguishing the county of each to which no order has been issued by the commissioners prohibiting out-door relief to able-bodied paupers. In consequence of the silence of Government with respect to the period at which they proposed introducing the Poor-law amendment Bill, and to their intentions as to those place where the Poor-laws were administered under local acts and Gilbert unions, he was desirous of obtaining the returns for which he had moved, in order to show that uniformity of practice had not prevailed in the Poor-law unions. It appeared, that in many unions no order had, been issued prohibiting outdoor reliefs, and therefore there was an end to the assertion, that the laws had been fully; carried out in, those districts, and it was, singular, that there was scarcely an union in Cumberland where the prohibitory order was in force. The Poor-law commissioners had done all in their power to induce the guardians in parishes incorporated under the Gilbert Act voluntarily to dissolve their unions; and it appeared to be the intention of Government to provide in the new, bill for the repeal of that Act. He though, therefore, that the House
494
ought to be put in possession of all possible information on this subject. When he last addressed the House on this question, he had endeavoured to show, that the administration of the Poor-laws in parishes incorporated under the Gilbert Act, as well as in towns possessing local acts, had been extremely efficient; and he thought, that before the Government ventured to propose measures for the dissolution of the Gilbert unions, and for bringing them under the power of the Poor-law Commissioners, some good and valid reasons should be shown for such a change. When this question was formerly before the House, he bad referred to certain transactions that had taken place in the county of Sussex, and had created a great sensation in that part of the country, and which were not likely to induce parishes in which the administration of Poor-laws was conducted under the Gilbert Act to place themselves under the authority of the Poor-law Commissioners. He made his statement on the authority of Mr. Brooker, a gentleman well known in the county of Sussex, and who was now a candidate for the representation of Brighton. An hon. Member (Mr. Darby) said, that he ought to have ascertained the truth of Mr. Brooker's assertions; but, as he gave the House his authority, he thought such a course was unnecessary. The case to which he alluded was that of a man named Smith, 'who had been employed by the guardians of the Eastbourne union in breaking bones for the purpose of making manure; and he might here observe, that he would, on a future occasion, call for an account of the nature and produce of this system. The man Smith had, owing to the unhealthy character of the employment, been reduced to the last stage of illness; and the following was his own evidence on the subject:—
"Whenever there have been any bones, I have been constantly placed in the bone-house. The bone-house is seven or eight feet wide, by fourteen feet long. There was a dreadful smell, when the bones were broken. If I had stopped longer in the bone-house I should not have come out alive. My illness has, no doubt, arisen from it."
Mr. Brooker, in consequence, accused the guardians of the Eastbourne Union of rendering themselves open to the charge of moral and constructive murder; and called upon the guardians, if they thought his imputations libellous, to give him an opportunity of meeting them in a court

495
of justice. Mr. Brooker had instructed him to say, that he was quite prepared to support the assertions contained in his pamphlet, and that if it was deemed desirable to ascertain the truth of the charges he had made against the guardians, he was ready to meet such an investigation. Mr. Brooker said, that the accusation brought against him by an hon. Member of this House, of having grossly libelled the guardians of Eastbourne, was most unjust and uncalled for, as he had distinctly challenged the guardians to afford him an opportunity of proving the truth of the charges he had advanced. Mr. Brooker stated, that he did not wish to retract any of the assertions contained in his pamphlet; and he added—
"I now renew my charge of moral and constructive murder against the Eastbourne guardians,"
expressing his readiness to prove the accusations he had made. Mr. Brooker had addressed a letter to him, dated April 12, in which he stated, that he had just learned that the Poor-law Commissioners had transmitted an order to the guardians of the Eastbourne union, directing that an increased quantity of meat should be allowed to the paupers; and he was happy to think, that his allusion to this case might have led in some measure to the issuing of such an order. He considered, it was necessary that some investigation should be instituted in the Eastbourne case: for, with such instances before them, the inhabitants of parishes under the Gilbert Act would not be very willing to surrender their affairs into the hands of the Poor-law Commissioners. He hoped, that if the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham) made any observations on this subject, he would state at what period it was the intention of Government to introduce the Poor-law Amendment Bill. He was aware that considerable time must elapse before the Income-tax and the tariff passed through that House; but, as many hon. Members had given promises to their constituents to support very extensive and important improvements in the Poor-law, he thought it was desirable those hon. Gentlemen should have an early opportunity of redeeming their pledges.
Mr. Curteissaid, that he had recently travelled by coach with the chairman of the Eastbourne board of guardians; and in the course of a conversation respecting the statements made by the ho and
496
gallant Member on a former occasion, the chairman authorised him to say, that the board of guardians were most desirous that a searching inquiry should be instituted into their proceedings. He did not wish to be understood as giving any opinion on the pamphlet of Mr. Brooker; but he thought it was but fair to the guardians that a full investigation should be instituted into their proceedings generally, and especially into the case of W. Smith.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, it was not his intention to oppose the motion of the hon. and gallant Member, nor would he go into the subject of the unfortunate quarrel which had been brought under the notice of the House. With respect to the question put to him by the hon. and gallant Member, he begged to say, that it was his intention to ask for leave to introduce a bill for continuing the Poor-law commission, with certain amendments, and, as he thought, improvements; but he could not, at the present moment, name the precise time at which he would bring forward the measure. He would, as speedily as he was able, give the gallant Member a more specific answer. He begged to suggest, as an addition to the motion of the hon. and gallant Member, that returns be also made of those unions to which orders have been issued by the commissioners prohibiting outdoor relief to able bodied paupers,
Captain Pechellsaid, that he was very well satisfied with what the right hon. Baronet had just stated. He wished at the same time to observe, that he had made no charge whatever against these Poor-law guardians, but had only made the statement as he had heard it Mr. Brooker had placed the pamphlet he had referred to in his hands, and it appeared to him that if those practices did exist which were complained of, an inquiry should be instituted for the purpose of testing the truth of the whole matter. He had no doubt, that if an inquiry had been instituted, satisfaction would be afforded to all parties who felt themselves aggrieved.
Motion as amended, agreed to.

CHURCH of SCOTLAND.
Mr. A. Campbellmoved for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the exercise of church patronage in Scotland. As he understood no opposition would be offered to his

497
motion, he would not with any observations.
Sir J. Grahamcould not allow a bill on so important a subject to be introduced in perfect silence. Her Majesty's Government would not offer any opposition to the motion of the hon. Member, but he did not wish it to be supposed that Government were prepared to legislate on this important question. At the same time, when an hon. Member who had bestowed so much attention on the subject, and who was so competent to grapple with its difficulties, tendered a legislative measure to the House on a question in which the feelings of the people of Scotland were so deeply interested, it was not the intention of Government to oppose the introduction of the bill.
Sir A. L. Haysaid, after what had occurred previous to Easter, he was glad the Government was prepared to consent to the introduction of the bill of the hon. Gentleman.
Bill brought in and read a first time.
Leave given.

COLONIAL PASSENGERS BILL.
Upon the motion, that the House resolve itself into a committee upon this bill.
Lord Stanleysaid, that he took the liberty, inasmuch as there appeared to be only one question upon which any great difference of opinion was likely to arise, of asking the hon. Member for Lambeth, who had given a notice upon this subject, whether he would allow this bill to pass proformâ through a committee, and postpone the discussion that must arise upon his motion to the bringing up of the report. This course he was most anxious to have followed, as it would greatly facilitate the business of the House.
Mr. Hawesexpressed his willingness to accede to the proposition of the noble Lord.
Mr. Borthwicksaid, he had also given a notice of motion upon the subject, and he was equally willing to meet the noble Lord's wishes.
Bill then went into committee proformâ.
Lord Stanleysaid, he wished it to be generally known that the bounty on emigration to New South Wales was for the present suspended, partly because the last accounts contained representations that emigration had been over-done this year. A certain number of persons might yearly
498
be absorbed into the population of the colony, but no less than 25,000 persons bad emigrated this year, and the result was, that even of those who had already emigrated there might be considerable difficulty in some of them finding employment.
The House resumed.
Report to be received.

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND.
Lord Stanleymoved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Australia and New Zealand Bill. The noble Lord said, the object of the bill before the House was to regulate the sale of land in the Australian colonies, so that one general principle might be applied to all of these colonies, instead of leaving them in their present state of uncertainty. He had been asked why he did not apply the same doctrine to the Cape of Good Hope? He had stated that there were 34,000,000 of -acres of land at the Cape unappropriated, and had inquired why these were not sold and the proceeds applied to the purposes of emigration. He (Lord Stanley) believed that the total number of acres unoccupied, and belonging to the colony, was between forty and fifty millions. The hon. Member (Mr. O'Brien) did not, however, appear to be aware that there were immense tracts of barren land, which, for want of water, were totally unavailable for the purposes of cultivation, and the fertile land was scattered here and there in small patches. The total quantity of land in the colony was estimated at 83,000,000 of acres, and that of 43,000,000 or 44,000,000 of acres had been appropriated, and of the remainder there were not more than from 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 of acres of fertile land—there being nearly 40,000,000 of acres absolutely unavailable. Now, the attempt to undertake a survey of that land on the same principle as had been applied to Australia would be altogether futile. If such a system were attempted to be put into operation at the Cape, the result would be that the expense of the survey would infinitely more than cover the amount of the value of the land. He believed that the reports of those best competent to form an opinion upon the subject were, that the colony was altogether inapplicable to the purposes of emigration, and it certainly was not the intention of the Government to recommend it, so far as regarded the Cape of Good Hope. With regard to the principle upon which emigration was

499
regulated in the Australian colonies, the House was aware that the Government pledged itself to apply 50 per cent, of the proceeds of the land sales to that purpose; but it certainly was not their intention to give encouragement to those great projects which they heard of every day of raising one or two millions of money by absorbing the whole of the land fund for the next twenty or thirty years, for the purpose of forming at once a great stream of emigration, into the colony. The hon. Gentleman wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to draw any distinction between Protestants and Roman Catholics in their selection of emigrants for the. Australian colonies? Now, he, on behalf of the Government, begged to repudiate such an intention altogether, and so far as he had anything to do with the colonial emigration fund he should never, sanction any such distinction- What he looked to, alone, was the great want of labour, in the colony, and his object would be to select emigrants from that class whose habits of life, health of body, and age, would make them useful and valuable inhabitants of these colonies. He should look to their bodily qualifications and good character, but for one single moment he should never inquire whether the parties were Protestant or Roman Catholic, and repudiated such a principle altogether. With regard to, what had been said by the hon. Gentlemen respecting New Zealand, he should state in a few words, why the governor had not encouraged emigration to, the middle island and Banks' Peninsula. Although the French had made some small settlements in New Zealand, the Crown claimed sovereignty over the entire, and recognised no claim to sovereignty or right on the part of any other power. Some of the settlements had taken place, in the most| irregular and disorderly manner, and, it was that circumstance which had compelled the Government to, take upon itself the sovereignty of the entire colony of New Zealand, for the purpose, of adjusting these claims. The first thing to be done was to investigate these claims and, a, commissioner bad been, accordingly sent out, who was at the present moment engaged in, that investigation, and it was going on most systematically and sedulously. Under these circumstances, it was thought unwise to encourage what had been complained of over and over again, namely, the scattering of the colonists, over a great extent of
500
country, by which their labours would be to a great extent rendered unavailing. It was thought much better to confine the settlement to those districts where the claims had been recognised than to permit the occupation of distant and widely-separated tracts of land, involving the necessity of distinct establishments, and the governor had accordingly directed that the settlement should be confined to the northern and not to the middle island- It was true the New Zealand Company had settled their second colony on the middle island, but it had been done by no means under the directions or at the wish of the Government. With regard to the financial affairs of the colony of South Australia they were at present under the consideration of the Government, and it was his (Lord Stanley's) intention very shortly to move for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the civil government of the colony, and until that was done, while the question was under the consideration of the Government, he trusted the hon. Member would not press for any further information on the subject. He believed he had answered all the questions of the hon. Gentleman, and he begged to thank him for affording him the opportunity of explaining the views of the Government on the subject.
Mr. G. W, Woodgave his cordial assent to the second reading of the bill, which was founded on the report of the committee of last year.
Bill read a second time.

EXCISE DUTIES,
On the motion of Sir G. Clerk, the House went into committee on the Excise-duties (compounds and wasted malt). The hon. Baronet then proposed—
'That the several Countervailing Duties and Drawbacks now payable on the several Mixtures, Compounds, Preparations, and Commodities, made from or, with Spirits, after enumerated, when removed from Ireland into England or Scotland, or from Scotland into England or Ireland, or from England into Scotland or Ireland, do cease and determine and that in" lieu thereof, there be raised, levied, and collected on the said several Mixtures, Compounds, Preparations, and Commodities, when removed from Scotland or Ireland into England, the respective Countervailing Duties of Excise following, and that there be granted and allowed on the removal of the same from England to Scotland or Ireland, the respective, Drawbacks f0ollowing, that is to say,

ARTICLES ENUMERATED.

Countervailing Duties from Scotland or Ireland to England.

Countervailing Drawbacks from England to Scotland or Ireland

s.

d.

s.

d.

For every Gallon thereof moved:

Ether

10

5

10

5

Sweet Spirits of Nitre

6

3

6

3

Camphorated Spirits

Lavender Water and other Perfumes, being Spirits Spirits scented with Essential Oils, Plowers, or other ingredients

Compound Spirits of Lavender

Spirits of Rosemary

Spirits of Ammonia

Savolatile

Friars' Balsam,

Compound Tincture of Benzoin

Tincture of Assaftida

Tincture of Castor

Tincture of Kino

Tincture of Guiacum

Tincture of Myrrh

Tincture of Ginger

Spirit Varnishes

Other Tinctures and Me dicated Spirits

4

2

4

2

Made Wines

0

6

0

6

Resolution agreed to, as were these also:
Resolved, That the Laws regulating the removal of the said Mixtures, Compounds, Preparations, and Commodities, be amended.
Resolved, That provision be made for regulating the preparing and using Roasted Malt in colouring Beer.
Resolutions to be reported.
House resumed.
Adjourned.

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Amendment.Public—a. Law of Merchants Act Amendment.
Reported.-—Forged Exchequer Bills; Spirit Duties (Ireland).
Private.—1a Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway; Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway; Wakeyhill Inclosure.
2a Cheltenham and Great Western Union Railway: Birkenhead Improvements; West Stirlingshire Roads (No. 1).
3a and passed:—Mieville's Divorce.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Kilcornan, Chapel Russell, Ballycommon, and other places, for Encouragement of Schools in connexion with the Church Education Society (Ireland).—From the North Western Districts of the Metropolis, for the Redemption of the Tolls on Waterloo, and the other Metropolitan Bridges.—From the Guardians of the Wellington Union, for Alteration of the New Poor-law as regards the Duties of Commissioners and Guardians. —From Owners and Occupiers of Land near Basingstoke, Reading, and Newbury, against the proposed Alteration of the Corn-laws.—From Kincardine, Reading, and Newbury, against the Importation of Foreign Cattle. —From the East Essex Agricultural Society, from the Isle of Sheppy, from Long Sutton, and Chevening, for Protection to the Agriculturists.—From Monaghan, Grange, Ardfinane, and other places, against the Importation of Foreign Flour into Ireland.—From Canada, for the Repeal of the Import Duty on Canadian Produce.— By Lord Brougham, from Limehouse, and Kincardine, against the Income-tax.— By the Duke of Sutherland, Earl Stanhope, Lord Western, and Lord Brougham, from

457
Wick, Pulteney Town, St. Mary's, South Ronaldshay, Orkney, and Etruria in Staffordshire, for the Repeal of the Cora and Provision Laws.—From the Ministers and Congregations of Dissenting Chapels in Belfast, and Fet-hard, that all Marriages between Members of the Church of England and Dissenters, or Presbyterians, may be rendered Valid.—From Poolingford. Denston, Llanfan, Dyffryn, Clwyd, and Clare, against any further Grant to Maynooth.—From Great Yeldham, and Stambourae, for Inquiry into the course of Instruction at Maynooth.

CORN LAW.
Lord Western,in presenting a petition from the farmers of Essex, said, that the petitioners complained of the injury they should sustain from the proposed alteration of the Corn-laws, and stated this impost was to be considered as a tenant's tax, and not as a landlord's tax. They also complained of being deceived by the right hon. Gentle-roan at the head of the Government, and by their own representatives. The noble Lord said, he could bear his testimony to the fact, that the belief among the farmers was general, that they had been deceived by the present Government, and they knew, they had been deceived by their own representatives. The feeling which had been expressed on a recent occasion, that the Government measure had driven the farmers from the frying-pan into the fire, was universal in his county, and would be universally expressed, but that the Conservative landlords kept down the spirit of farmers to the utmost extent in their power. He did firmly believe, that he represented fairly what was the feeling of the farmers in the county in which he resided.
The Duke of Wellington:As a day is fixed for the discussion of this subject, I think it would be as well—probably more fair—if noble Lords would refrain from the use of such harsh expressions as that the country has been deceived by the right hon. Gentleman, at the head of the Government, in another place. I think these expressions ought at least to be avoided, until the House can come to a fair discussion on the question, and when the noble Lord may have an opportunity of stating how, where, when, and in what language, my right hon. Friend deceived the public on this question. I repeat, my Lords, that I think the noble Lord's candour should at least have prompted him to say how, where, and when that deception was practised, before he came down, and in set terms, on the mere presentation of a petition, pronounced a charge of this description. My Lords, I deny the imputation as formally and as distinctly,
458
as the noble Lord has made it. I say, it is not true.
Lord Western: The noble Duke says, that my assertion is not true. I tell the noble Duke and the House, that the tenantry of the county in which I reside, believe, that they have been deceived by the Government and by their representatives. The conduct of the right hon. Baronet, at the head of the Government, in 1838, 1839, and 1840, on the subject of the Corn-laws, naturally led to the conclusion, that he would take a similar course in the present year. Who could imagine, from the opinions formerly expressed by the right hon. Baronet, that he would introduce such a measure as that which he has now proposed? I don't say, that he has wilfully deceived the agriculturists; but his conduct led to the conception, on their part, that he would never have entertained the measures now before the country.
Petition laid on the Table.

EDUCATION AT MAYNOOTH.
The Earl of Kenyon,after presenting petitions against the system of Education at Maynooth, said, he concurred in the prayers of these petitions, and thought that if a committee were appointed, he should be able to show, that a Government grant ought to be no longer bestowed on the college at Maynooth.
The Earl of Cloncurrywas sure, that if the noble Earl succeeded in getting his committee of inquiry, it would be ascertained, that no institution could be better conducted than that of Maynooth, where the first minds in the country were employed in educating the priesthood. He was persuaded, that instead of the sum now given, five or ten times that amount should be granted, if it were desired, that the priesthood brought up there should be of the same class and description as those formerly educated on the continent. This grant to Maynooth was originally made as a compensation for the large sums vested in continental establishments for the education of the Irish priesthood, and lost or destroyed at the period of the French revolution, and also because there was great fear of the intercourse which then took place with the continent, and which the Government of the day wished to check. He must state to their Lordships that the present body of Catholic clergy in Ire-land constituted a very exemplary priesthood; but he was old enough to remember

459
the superior description of men as to learning and conduct amongst those who were formerly brought up on the Continent. The sum allowed for education was to small that persons of the humbler classes only would consent to take on themselves the charge of the sacred ministry. He recollected the time when the first families furnished the priests of Ireland. It would be seen on the slightest calculation that the sum furnished for their education was miserably small, and his only surprise was, the excellent conduct of the priests, considering their origin. He must do them the justice to say that, at periods of the greatest distress and agitation, the only persons who kept the country quiet and secured the enjoyment of liberty and property were the priests.
The Earl of Wicklowfully concurred in much of what had been said by his noble Friend. As to the prayer that the grant for Maynooth should be withdrawn, it appeared to him to be the height of absurdity. No person connected with Ireland would ever recommend such a measure. Parliament having sanctioned such a grant, he believed the best policy would be to increase it in such a manner as that the priests educated at Maynooth should be of the same description as those formerly brought up on the Continent. He believed that such a step would tend more to the tranquillity and permanent improvement of the country than any measure which could be adopted by Parliament.
Lord Kenyanasked the noble Lord whether he was aware of the course of instruction in Maynooth, and whether he had ever seen the class-books? If the noble Lord had, he would no doubt admit the necessity for a committee of inquiry.
The Earl of Wicklowhad not inspected the course of education at Maynooth; but if it were not such as it ought to be, that was the fault of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice, and other functionaries, under whose inspection Parliament had placed it.

FORGED EXCHEQUER BILLS.
The Duke of Wellington moved the committal of the Forged Exchequer Bills Commission Bill.
Lord Campbellhad no intention of opposing the progress of this bill; but unless counsel were heard at the discretion of the commissioners, on the side of the
460
public and the holders, he should move a clause to that effect.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the holders must make out their case the best way they could. It will then be for the Treasury to sift their claims, and he thought it would be best to leave it to the discretion of the Commissioners to provide such regulations for carrying on the investigation as they should deem suitable, without inserting any distinct clause in the bill for such an object.
Lord Broughamagreed that the discretion was wisely left with the Commissioners, but he hoped, with his noble and learned Friend, that the public would be duly represented.
Bill went through committee.

SPIRIT DUTIES (IRELAND.)
On the motion that the Spirit Duties (Ireland) Bill be committed,
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, he had no objection to offer to this bill. On the contrary, he approved of the principle of a high duty on spirits as far as that could be effected without risking the chance of an increase of an illicit distillation; but when he recollected the demoralising effects which had resulted from an extensive prevalence of illicit distillation, he owned that he looked with some alarm at any measure which had a tendency to produce it. He should, therefore, have felt it his duty to oppose the present measure on that ground, if he were not convinced that the Government, before introducing it to the Legislature, had examined the subject in all its bearings, and were satisfied that it would not be attended with the effects to which he alluded.
Lord Monteaglewas of opinion that this measure would prove a complete failure as to revenue, and that its operation must be attended with the most mischievous consequences. It was the last objection that could be fairly urged against the present Government, that their financial plan would bear hardly on Ireland; but he thought he could show, from facts which had come within the knowledge of noble Lords whom he addressed, that this part of the financial scheme of the Government Would not answer any of the purposes for which it had been proposed. In 1823, under Lord Liverpool's Government, a commission, at the head of which was Lord Wallace, was appointed to in quire into the probable effects of a reduce-

461
tion of duty upon Irish spirits. Those Commissioners stated that if a higher duty than from 2s. 4d. to 3s. was levied upon whiskey, fraud and illicit distillation would ensue. The commission, in its 5th report stated:—
"Our inquiries have satisfied us, and we think experience has fully proved, that in the remote parts of Ireland and Scotland it is impracticable to levy the high rate of duty at present charged on spirits. On carefully comparing the mass of information we have received, we are, after much reflection, led to conclude that if a higher duty than 2s. 6d. to 3s. is charged upon spirits, the licensed distiller cannot enter into successful competition with the illicit distiller, and we cannot therefore hesitate to recommend a reduction to that amount. We hope that the reduction will not be attended with loss, but that an augmentation may be expected."
Lord Liverpool's Government acted on the information just received, and in 1823 a reduction in the duty was made of from 5s. 6d. per Irish gallon to 2s. per English gallon. The increase in the quantity brought to charge consequent upon the reduction of duty was upwards of 3,342,000 gallons; the consumption in 1823, being 3,348,000 gallons, and in 1824, 6,690,000 gallons. But in 1826 an opposite course was adopted by the Government; the duties on spirits were increased to 2s. 10 d.. per imperial gallon. The effect was felt in the reduction which immediately followed in the quantity consumed; in 1825 the quantity consumed being 9,262,000 gallons, and in 1826 the quantity having fallen to 8,260,000 gallons. In 1830 an additional duty of 1s. per gallon was imposed by Mr. Goulburn, which was the increase of duty which was now proposed to be laid on. In 1834 a commission was again appointed which examined and reported on the spirit duties. Sir Henry Parnell was chairman. He would, with their Lord ships' permission, read extracts from the report furnished by that second commission relative to the effect which had been found to follow from the increase and reduction in the duties on spirits. The commission stated:—
"From the numerous examinations [of distillers and excise officers, it will be seen that there is> with very few exceptions, a complete concurrence of evidence that the practice of illicit distillation has almost uniformly kept pace with the advance of duty; that in 1823, When the great reduction of duty took place, the habits of the smugglers were nearly annihilated, and that the revival and subsequent increase of these practices have been nearly
462
contemporaneous with the consecutive increase of duty in 1826 and 1830."
And again at page 90,—
"It seems unnecessary that we should enter into any further description of the grounds on which we consider a reduction of the duty to the amount at which it stood under the recommendation of the former commissioners, as the only remedy for the evasions of duty which can be proposed with any prospect of success. A firm conviction induces us to urge the necessity of retracing the steps taken in increasing the spirit duty. From a repeal of the additional duty, we confidently expect a general suppression of illicit distillation and a full compensation to the revenue."
In consequence of these reports, his noble Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Earl Spencer) proposed to reduce the duty from 3s. Ad. to 2s. Ad. per gallon. His noble Friend stated that,—
" The Government had felt it their duty to consider the subject of the Irish spirit duties with a view of ascertaining whether it might not be advisable, by a diminution of the duty, to prevent illicit distillation, and, at the same time, not to expose the revenue to much loss. He felt confident that by reducing the duty from 3s. 4d. to 2s. 1d., very advantageous results would be obtained, and that the amount of spirits brought to charge would rise, from 8,000,000 gallons, to 10,000,000, and that in future years the revenue would suffer no loss whatever."
The consequence of this reduction as regarded the increase in the quantity consumed was even greater than had been anticipated. In 1834 the quantity consumed had been 8,136,000 gallons. In 1836 the quantity became 11,634,000 gallons. In 1840 Mr. Baring, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, imposed an additional duty of 4d. upon Irish spirits. To this imposition Mr. Goulburn strenuously objected, stating that he thought,—
" The result would be a loss of revenue, and that in his opinion the Government, in imposing the additional duty, had not profited by the experience which his own measure, in 1830, had furnished them with. He believed that it had been established that, in proportion to the reductions which had taken place in the duty on Irish spirits, the revenue had been augmented, and that the effect of increasing the duty had always been to diminish the consumption, and consequently the revenue."
The result fully confirmed this anticipation. The case, however, was even more serious at present than it had been at former periods when an increase in the amount of duty had been laid on. If illicit distillation should again be revived, the noble Duke opposite knew what would be

463
its probable effects on the troops who might be called out for the purpose of its suppression. The military force applicable for that purpose, was now on a very different scale from what it was formerly. It was formerly upwards of 20,000 men. It is now scarcely half that number. It would be borne in mind, that the service of suppressing illicit distillation had been found most destructive to the organization and discipline of the troops who had been engaged in it. He believed that a renewal of illicit distillation would have the effect of endangering the peace of the country, and that it would tend greatly to the encouragement of crime. Out of 16,000 commitments which had taken place in Ireland during one period, he found that upwards of 4,000 had proceeded from illicit distillation. The military power possessed by Government for checking illicit distillation was less than it had been, while the inducement to commit the offence was greater. Without wishing in any degree to anticipate the discussion of a question which would come in due course before the House, he could not doubt that there was less protection to be placed by the new tariff on barley and oats, relatively to wheat, than the protection given by the old scale. The effect, then, of the proposed additional duty would be, that crime would be increased, and that the military employed to suppress illicit traffic would suffer in organisation and discipline. A criminal connivance would, as in former times, spring up between those who violated the law and those who profited by that violation, alike irresistible and indefensible. Farmers, and those in the ranks of life immediately above farmers, would find that their best profit lay in joining in, or conniving at the practice of illicit distillation, A witness examined before Lord Wallace's commission in 1822 was asked where the smugglers found the best mart for their article? The reply was, that their best customers were the magistrates, the officers of the King's army, and the dignitaries of the church. He did not make the statement as a fact coming within his own knowledge; he merely gave the reply of the witness. The notion of deriving an increase of revenue to the extent of 250,000 l. from the proposed duty was the most delusive expectation that had ever entered into the mind of man. He had thought it his duty to make these observations with the view of showing the danger which would attend any increase
464
of duty on spirits in Ireland. He believed that the result of such a measure being carried into effect would be a great increase of illicit distillation, and consequently of crime; if, therefore a division should take place, he would be compelled to say, "not content" to this bill.
The Duke of Wellingtoncould assure his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Wicklow) that Government had made every inquiry as to the probable result of the proposed additional duty on Irish spirits. The result of these inquiries bad been, that the Government believed that the measure would not occasion that increase in illicit distillation which had been anticipated. Every security would be taken in order to prevent it, and he believed that the arrangements which would be put in effect would accomplish that result. He would take the opportunity of mentioning that the consumption of spirits in Ireland had increased in the face of the duty imposed by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Earl of Riponwished to notice one point of the subject, the inequality of duty upon Scotch and Irish spirits, the duty upon the former being 1s. higher than upon the latter, while the propositions before the House were intended to equalise the duties in both countries. The greatest inconvenience had been felt to result from the difference in duty at present subsisting, and it had been found necessary to establish the most inconvenient regulations with respect to the transmission of spirits between Scotland and Ireland, and it was most desirable that these inconveniences should be removed by the introduction of a measure equalising the duties. It would not be desirable that with this view the duties on Scotch spirits should be lowered to the rate of that on Irish spirits, and, therefore, unless it could be clearly shown, that the proposed increase of duty would be attended with those injurious effects of which his noble Friend seemed to be apprehensive; the best course to get rid of the inconvenience of the inequality of duty was that which the Government proposed. The noble Lord had drawn a comparison between the quantities of spirits consumed before the great reduction had taken place and after that period. But it would be recollected, that the duty from which that reduction was made, was higher than the point to which it was now proposed to raise it. The reduction in question was a bold attempt to put an end to the system of illicit distillation—a system which had

465
been the object of so many, and so very unsuccessful attacks, that it was deemed necessary either to give up the attempt at suppression in despair, or to make it effectual by a reduction of one-half the duty. He did not think, that in itself the measure was a desirable one, and so he said at the time. He adopted it, as it seemed to be the only mode by which it appeared possible to put an end to the evils of illicit distillation. But it did not follow, that when that system had been destroyed, and better means of preventing its renewal had been organised, it did not follow that they were not at liberty to attempt to raise the amount of duty to as high a pitch as it would bear. Indeed, the only grounds on which they could limit the amount of duty, was the risk of some quantity being consumed without having been brought to charge, and thereby not only was the revenue defrauded, but the consumer, in this instance, the unfortunate consumer, had the opportunity of easily obtaining large quantities of ardent spirits. But after consulting men of practical experience in the excise department in Ireland, well conversant with the working of the system, the Government had come to the resolution that it could safely propose the additional duty.
The Bill passed through committee.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL SCHOOLS.
Lord Duncannonrose to move resolutions, of which he had given notice, with respect to these schools; they had been established for the education of persons of the poorest class, who had not the opportunity of otherwise sending their children to school, principally with the intention of bringing them up for the naval service. He wished particularly to call the attention of the House to the last resolution which he should have the honour of proposing. From the published report of Admiral Fleming's letter to the Admiralty upon these schools in 1840, it appeared that
"At that time the schools were very far in arrear of the majority of such institutions— that more than one-half of the boys could not read; that when discharged from the establishment at the age of fourteen or fifteen years, few, if any, were ready to enter the sea service, still fewer were apprenticed to trades; and all being incapable of procuring a livelihood, were a burden to their friends, to the parishes, or were driven to dishonest means."
The Lords of the Admiralty applied, in consequence of this report, to the com-
466
mittee of the Privy Council on education, in order that the schools might be inspected by an officer of that board. The committee accordingly sent down Mr. Tremenhere, and his report had been laid on the Table of the House. By that report, it appeared that the state of the schools was very unsatisfactory, and that the moral and religious education of the children had been entirely neglected. In consequence of this report, the schools had been remodelled. It was arranged, that the superintendence of the masters should be extended to the boys out of the school-room as well as within its walls. Great opposition had been made to this arrangement by those in authority, but from what he had now heard from the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty, he trusted, that it was the intention of Government to carry out those schemes of improvement which had been already put into execution. It was not his intention or wish that these schools should not be under the control of the Admiralty, but he wished that they should be under the constant inspection of the Privy Council, in order to insure to the public a participation in the improvements lately made. A person being appointed by the Admiralty to act as inspector he did not think would be sufficient. He regretted to understand, that his noble Friend would not consent to have the schools under the inspection of the committee of Privy Council. The noble Lord concluded by moving the following resolutions: —

"1. That the schools connected with the royal hospital at Greenwich, were established for the education and maintenance of children of persons who have been employed in the naval service:

"2. That these schools had been for many years supported at an expense equal to two-thirds of the grants annually made by Parliament, for the promotion of education in Great Britain, and had been under the direction and management of the Admiralty exclusively, and had been inspected annually by that board:

"3. That the late governor of the royal hospital reported to the Admiralty in August, 1840, that the schools were 'very far in arrear of the majority of such institutions; that more than one-half of the boys could not read; that when discharged from the establishment at the age of fourteen or fifteen years, few, if any, were ready to enter the sea service still fewer were apprenticed to trades, and all being incapable of procuring a livelihood, were a burden to their friends, to the parishes, or

467
were driven to obtain it by dishonest means;" that in the minutes of the committee of council on education, presented to Parliament in June, 1841, it appears, that the discipline of all the schools were so defective, that it was necessary to dissolve and abandon the girls school, and send the girls home to their relatives; that the moral and religious education had been so neglected, that the greatest part of the children were in the lowest and most imperfect state of intellect on religious subjects; that the methods of instruction were defective, and the attainments of the scholars in the common rudiments of elementary education limited and unsatisfactory:

"4. That in the upper school many of the most obvious and necessary subjects of naval education were omitted, and the common rudiments of an English education neglected; and though the time of the boys was almost exclusively devoted to arithmetic and mathematics, the attainments of the great majority of the scholars were, even on these subjects, unsatisfactory:

"5. That the Lords of the Admiralty having submitted the case to the committee of Privy Council on education, the schools have been re-organised, an additional number of masters appointed, methods approved by the committee of council introduced, the course of instruction re-modelled, and other improvements made, which are in the course of successful development, but which require time and the constant superintendence of persons intimately acquainted with the discipline and management of schools for their complete success:

"6. That these improvements have been made strictly in accordance with the views of the committee of council on education, and grounded on the report of one of their inspectors; that in order to secure for the public the success of the improvements thus introduced, and for that purpose to obtain the Supervision of the committee of council on education, it is expedient that these schools should be visited at all times by the inspectors from that board, and that their reports on the condition of the schools should be annually presented to Parliament."

The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, whatever partial differences of opinion there might he between the noble Lord and himself, they agreed in this—both were extremely anxious to promote and perpetuate the naval schools of the Royal Hospital at Greenwich; the difference between them was, as to whether they should be perpetuated under the inspection of the Privy Council, thereby taking them from the control of the Board of Admiralty, or whether the same advantages might not be secured by the instrumentality of the existing system. With respect to the third resolution, he thought it likely to
468
produce a spirit of opposition, and that the statements would be denied by most respectable witnesses, and some of the facts would be found not to be so clear as the noble Lord supposed. The noble Lord said, that Admiral Fleming stated, that very few of the boys went to sea; but he found, that of 133 boys who left the school, from sixty to seventy went to sea direct from the school, and several more subsequently. Another ground of complaint against the third resolution was, that it sank all mention of the nautical school under a very able person, Mr. Riddell. There was no doubt, that the elementary branches of education in the schools were in a very defective state; some were omitted, and others were imperfectly taught; but there was as little doubt that the nautical school was eminently successful. Two gentlemen had been appointed to examine the success of Mr. Riddell's school, and from their report it appeared that nothing could be more successful; many boys from Mr. Riddell's school had distinguished themselves. He had had reports from naval officers, and in the Astræa, out of twenty boys on board that vessel, nineteen had turned out most promising seamen. In his opinion, no Parliamentary case had been made out for the interference of their Lordships, and the putting these resolutions upon their journals would tend to embarrass the working of the schools. At least, the Board of Admiralty should so far enjoy the confidence of their Lordships that it should continue to have the control and direction of the schools. It had been said, that this was a Government school; and no doubt, in a certain sense, it was a Government school; but it was a naval school, and it was, therefore, natural that it should be under the control of the naval department of the Government. He should meet the resolution of the noble Lord by moving the previous question, and he regretted much that the noble Lord should have thought it his duty (of which he had no right to complain) to raise this question. When he was first appointed to the office he now filled, the question of this school had been pressed on his attention; he had been urged to continue the labours of the committee, and told that it was an experiment from which would result a good system for the permanent management of the school; but he had not been long in office before he was assured by the report of the naval authorities that it was absolutely necessary to put an end to the state of

469
things, for that the insubordination and difficulties arising from conflicting authorities were so great, that the school would be ruined, and he accordingly put an end to it. He endeavoured to preserve all the spirit of the regulations of the committee, consistent with the character of the school. He proposed to leave the discipline within doors, and the education entirely to the master, with the exception only of the dormitories, which it was necessary to intrust to the authority of the lieutenants and sergeants. The noble Lord said, that the school was governed by the cane; he assured their Lordships that it would be the object, as it was the duty of the Board of Admiralty, to take care that no such means should be adopted to preserve discipline, and that there should be no punishment by a naval officer without the sanction of the governor. His opinion was, that there was no ground for the inquiry, and that their Lordships should leave it to the Board of Admiralty, on their own responsibility, to carry out the benefits and advantages of the school, which they were as anxious to do as the committee of the Privy Council. It was the intention of the Board of Admiralty to lay on the Table of the House, with the estimates, an annual report of the state of the schools. The noble Earl was about to move the previous question, but, at the suggestion of the Duke of Wellington, moved, "that the House do now adjourn."
The Marquess of Lansdowneremarked that the attention of the Committee of the Privy Council had been called to those schools by the Board of Admiralty itself, on the representation of the Governor of Greenwich Hospital. The Board of Admiralty was aware of its incompetency to investigate into the abuses of these schools, which had been carried to an alarming extent; and it was conceived by the Board of Admiralty that the Committee of the Privy Council had the means of instituting an ample inquiry into these abuses. The request thus made on them was immediately acceded to by the Privy Council —an inspector was nominated; that it was felt that inspectors well acquainted with the business of education were most essential to the success of public education, and especially in connection with such establishments, particularly when it was required there should be a searching inquiry into abuses. Much good was thus one, and he did not know why it was
470
now objected to, unless it was that his noble Friend was animated with that departmental spirit which frequently prevailed in public offices, which lurked at all times in every department which showed itself whenever one department was considered as encroaching upon the province of another; and brought in the aid of every individual in the department, from the "ministerial head, to the very lowest functionary in the establishment. This was a spirit that frequently prevailed, but which was very unjustifiable, and from which much inconvenience had often arisen. The material point, in his estimation, was that of inspection; it was the thing essential; for they did nothing for education in establishing a school, unless they provided an adequate system of inspection. If there was any one thing connected with education which was more important than another, it was that which he had had the honour to inculcate upon their Lordships some years ago, but which was now generally admitted, that you did no good by establishing schools, unless, at the same time, you provided an adequate system of inspection. And this applied with still greater force to great foundations abounding in wealth, and consequently presenting greater temptations to abuse. No one could read the statements of Admiral Fleming, the governor of the Board of Admiralty, and of the Privy Council, after they had sent their inspectors to visit the schools, without being convinced that in Greenwich Hospital, however splendid was the exterior of the structure, abuses had been perpetuated for a number of years, which it was most desirable to correct. It appeared that in the girls school the evil had arisen to such a height, not only in the absence of education but in positive depravity and contamination, that no other means of reform could be found than that of dissolving the school and sending the girls home to their parents effectually contaminated and vitiated in their habits, and that under the colour and guise of this magnificent establishment. What was proposed by the present and the former committee of the Privy Council was not to take the establishment from under the control of the Admiralty—not to provide for any interference in the details of education, but to establish a system of inspection independent of the Admiralty, the inspectors reporting to the Privy Council, and through them to the Board of

471
Admiralty, and subject to the ultimate control of Parliament. He had no doubt that the noble Lord would enter with zeal upon the system of inspection which he was willing to establish; but it should be recollected that such inspection had already taken place under men of very great ability and industry, and yet had failed, from the unfitness of the board properly to look into the question of education in detail; and the reports upon the present state of the establishment were to the effect that this, which ought to be at the head of all such establishments in the country, was placed very much in the rear of them; and instead of being a national honour was a national disgrace. The noble Lord lately at the head of the Admiralty, who held as much by naval privileges and naval habits as any man, had stated his concurrence in the propriety of a system of visiting inspectors. And here he might observe, that the inspectors employed by the Privy Council were peculiarly qualified for the duty, because they were men of experience; they were engaged in the practice of inspecting great public schools, and were capable of judging of their comparative merits. His noble Friend opposite said he saw no objection to inspectors coming to the schools, provided they reported exclusively to the Admiralty. There might be a convenience in that, but it would be less satisfactory to the public. The Privy Council had repeatedly declined to inspect schools of great magnitude connected with the church and others, unless the inspectors reported directly to them—liable, of course, to be communicated to the parties concerned. He should not enter further into any details connected with the subject, except to observe that it would be found essential to the prosperity of any school that the masters should be entrusted with the exclusive management and protection of the boys at all times both in and out of school hours. The attempt to establish a co-ordinate authority, by the appointment of Serjeants and mates, had had the natural effect of discouraging, and he believed that in some instances that discouragement Was felt in its greatest extent at the present moment. Whether his noble Friend persevered in his motion or not, he was glad he had called the attention of their Lordships to it, because he thought it one peculiarly deserving of consideration.
Lord Colchestersaid, that instead of the school being a national disgrace, as
472
stated by the noble Marquess, the opinion of Mr. Tremenbere himself, which the noble Lord (Duncannon) had read, gave a different impression. The letter of the governor to which the resolution of the noble Lord referred, in which he stated that half the boys could not read, applied only to the lower school. The letter of Admiral Fleming, which had been read at their Lordships' Table by the noble Viscount, distinctly stated that it was to the lower school only that the accounts of the defective state of discipline prevailingly applied. The report of Mr. Tremenhere stated, that the boys attending the upper school were in a considerably advanced state. The first class, which was said to be in the most backward condition, contained only one hundred boys out of 400. Although it was true that considerable irregularity had resulted from the nearness of the girls' school to that of the boys, Mr. Tremenhere had not recommended that the former should be discontinued, but that it should be removed to a greater distance from the latter. He knew that many men who had been sent out by this establishment had done themselves great credit, and he had heard of instances in which officers had manifested great anxiety to get their children admitted to the school. Many of those educated there who had gone into the merchant service had risen to be mates and masters of vessels.
The question was then put on the amendment, and which passing in the affirmative, their Lordships adjourned.