Sitting of 26 July 1842

Preamble
MINUTES.) BILLS. Public.-2o. Tobacco Regulations; Western Australia; Dublin Boundaries.
Reported.—Parish Constables.
3o and passed:—Bonded Corn (No. T); Assessed Taxes (No. 2); Colonial Passengers.
Private.-1o. Streets Divorce; Hele's Charity (Loves) Estate.
3o and passed:—Bishop of Derry's Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From the Ward of Bridge Within, London, for Redemption of the Tolls on Waterloo and the other Metropolitan Bridges.—From R. S. Wilkes, in favour of the Poor-law Amendment Bill.—From J. Minter Morgan, for adopting his plan to Employ the Poor.

BIRMINGHAM SCHOOL.
Sir E. Wilmotmoved the third reading of the Birmingham School Estate Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Mr. Wyserose, pursuant to notice, to move the addition of three clauses to the bill by way of rider. The clauses which he meant to propose were most important, their objects being greatly to extend the benefits of the institution. It was intended by the first clause to give a different and a more liberal character to the governing body, by admitting five members to be elected by the town-council of Birmingham to act as governors; the second clause provided for a more satisfactory mode of furnishing and auditing the accounts; and the third empowered the governors to increase the number of schools for the elementary education of the children of the poorer inhabitants of Birmingham. As this appeal on behalf of the charity was made under an Administration that professed itself to be favourable to the
632
general diffusion of education, and the head of which had declared his anxiety to remove proved abuses, he trusted that he should have the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The following were the clauses

" 1. That the governing body of trustees of the said charity shall be increased by the addition of five governors, and that the five additional governors, being persons qualified as the governors are now required to be qualified, shall be elected by the town-council of the borough of Birmingham; and that whenever a vacancy shall occur in the number of such additional governors, such vacancy shall be filled up in like manner by the said town. council. "

" 2. That the accounts of the said governors shall be annually audited by the bailiff of the said charity, and by the auditors of the borough of Birmingham.

" 3. That the governors of the said charity shall be, and they are hereby empowered to increase from time to time the number of schools for the elementary education of the male and female children of the poorer inhabitants of the borough of Birmingham, in any part of the borough, whenever such increase may be conveniently made."

Clauses read a first time.
On the question that clause 1st be read a second time,
Sir E. Wilmotopposed it. He argued that there was no necessity for altering the constitution of the governing body, which included amongst its members three or four magistrates of the county and several clergymen. It was altogether composed of persons of the highest respectability.
Mr. Brothertonwas in favour of the three clauses brought forward by the hon. Member. Under the provisions proposed by the hon. Member facilities would be given for the education of the poor, by means of this charity, which did not now exist. Charities of this nature throughout the country had been much abused. In them the aristocracy, and not the poor, for whose benefit they were intended, were educated. By educating the rich instead of the poor at these institutions, the intention of those by whom they had been founded were grossly violated.
Sir C. Douglasopposed the clause. In his opinion, the constitution of the school required no alteration.
Mr. Protheroewas of opinion that the proposed clauses ought to be agreed to The first clause was very important and ought to command support, inasmuch as it was better to have an elective governing

633
body than one that was entirely self-elected.
Sir R. Inglisdefended the present constitution of the charity. To show that it was not conducted upon exclusive principles, it was only necessary to state that 450 children of Dissenters derived benefit from it. As the select committee to whom the bill had been referred, and to whom the House had delegated its powers, had negatived the propositions of the hon. Member, it would be unparliamentary to interfere with their decision.
Mr. W. Williamssupported the clauses, and ascribed to the select committee some degree of political bias in deciding with reference to these propositions as they had done.
The House divided on the question that the clause be read a second time:—Ayes 41; Noes 96: Majority 55.

List of the AYES

Aldam, W.

Napier, Sir C.

Barclay, D.

O'Connell, I).

Bowring, Dr.

O'Connell, M. J.

Brotherton,

O'Conor, Don

Bryan, G.

Pechell, Capt,

Clements, Visct.

Philips, M.

Cobden, R.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Duncombe, T.

Tancred, H. W.

Easthope, Sir J.

Thornely, T,

Ebrington, Visct.

Tufnell, H

Ellice, right. hon. E.

Villiers, hon. C.

Forster, M.

Wall, C. B.

French, F.

Wawn, J. T.

Gibson, T. M.

Williams, W.

Hastie, A.

Wilshere, W.

Hawes, B.

Wood, G. W.

Hindley, C.

Wrightson, W. B.

Hume, J.

Yorke, H. R.

Mangles, R. D.

TELLERS.

Morris, D.

Protheroe, K

Morison, Gen.

Wyse, T.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Burdett, Sir F.

Acland, T. D.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

A'Court, Capt.

Burroughes, H. N.

Allix, J. P.

Chelsea, Visct.

Arkwright, G.

Chute, W. L. W.

Astell, W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Baring, H. B.

Collett, W. ft.

Beckett, W.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Blackburne, J. I.

Courtenay, Lord

Blackstone, W. S.

Cripps, W.

Boldero, H. G.

Darner, hon. Col.

Bradshaw, J.

Darby, G.

Broadley, H.

Dawnay, hn. H.

Broadwood, H.

D'Israeli, B.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Douglas, Sir H.

Bruce, Lord E.

Escott, B.

634

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Knatchbull, rt. h. Sir E.

Farnham, E. B.

Knight, F. W.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Knightley, Sir C.

Fitzroy, Capt.

Lefroy, A.

Flower, Sir J.

Litton, E.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Lowther, J. H.

Forbes, W.

Lyall, 0.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Fuller, A. E.

Maclean, D.

Gaskell, J Manes

Masterman, J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Meynell, Capt.

Gladstone, T.

Mundy, E. M.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Norreys, Lord

Gore, W. R. 0.

Packe, C. W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Pakington, J. S.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R

Greene, T.

Pollington, Visct.

Grimston, Visct.

Pringle, A.

hardy,

Richards, R.

Hawkes, T.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir 0.

Henley, J. W.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Hodgson, F.

Sandon, Visct.

Hodgson, R.

Sheppard, T.

Hogg, J. W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hope, hon. C.

Stanley, Lord

Hughes, W. B.

Stewart, J.

Hussey, T.

Taylor, J. A.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Thornhill, G.

Irving, J.

Young, J.

Jermyn, Earl

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

TELLERS.

Jones, Capt.

Wilmot, Sir E.

Kemble, H.

Douglas, Sir C.

Other clauses negatived.
Bill passed.

SIR SYDNEY SMITH— PUBLIC HONOURS.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, he bad given notice of a motion for calling the attention of the House to the propriety of erecting a testimonial to the great merits and services of Sir Sydney Smith. On a former occasion when he was about to introduce that subject it had been announced to him by the noble Lord the late Secretary for the Colonies, that her Majesty's Government were fully aware of the important services rendered to the country by that distinguished officer, and that they were ready themselves to adopt measures for carrying his object into effect. He need not say how great his disappointment had been that no steps had yet been taken in pursuance of that engagement; at the present period of the Session he could scarcely hope to be enabled to bring forward the subject, and, therefore, he wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, felt in common with the late Government upon this matter, and whether he felt disposed to redeem the pledge given by his predecessors in office?
Sir R. Peelsaid, that nothing could be more becoming than the conduct of his hon. Friend in this matter, which he was induced to take up from his respect for the memory of a gallant officer in her Majesty's service. In the last Parliament his hon. Friend had given notice, that he should move the House to present an address to the Crown, praying that a testimonial, should be erected to the memory of Sir Sydney Smith; and he was induced to forego that intention solely by an assurance given by the noble Lord, the Member for London, on the part of her Majesty's Government, that they would themselves undertake to propose 'to Parliament that such a testimonial should be erected. The noble Lord added in his place in Parliament, that her Majesty's Government had considered whether other claims of a similar nature might be preferred; that on reviewing the different claims which on such a precedent might be brought forward, they felt that the services of Sir Sydney Smith, Lord Exmouth, and Admiral De Saumarez were equally entitled to commemoration; and therefore it was their intention that a testimonial should be erected to each of those gallant officers. He certainly felt himself under obligations to fulfil an engagement, undertaken under such circumstances by the noble Lord at her Majesty's representative in that House; and he had no difficulty in assuring his hon. Friend that he would propose an address to the Crown with that view. In his opinion, the discretion exercised by the late Government had been a wise one; he did not mean to go beyond the limits they prescribed.
Mt. Brothertonentered his most decided protest against any grant of public money for such a purpose.
Mr. Hawesasked, whether it was the intension of the Government to propose a vote for these memorials in the course of the present, Session? If so, he should also move that the claims of Herschell and Watt be considered. It was time that some monument should be erected to men who had performed civil services, as well as to warriors.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that after the delay which had taken place, and after the public assurance given by the late Government, he was unwilling to allow any further delay to occur.
Mr. Humeinquired what public assurance had been given by the km Govern-
636
ment? All that he recollected was, that Lord J. Russell said he would take the circumstance into consideration, as there might be other individuals entitled to memorials as well as Sir Sydney Smith.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that if the hon. Member did not know what public assurance had been given by the late Government, he would inform him. A question similar to that put to him was put to Lord J. Russell on the 18th of June last year, and this was the public assurance given by the noble Lord:—
" It was understood that some description of monument should be erected to Sir Sydney Smith, and the expenditure defrayed out of the public funds; but, upon taking the matter further into consideration, the cases of some other officers who had also been in engaged the service of the country were brought before the Government; and there were two of those cases, which seemed to be of sufficient importance to induce the Government to consider whether, in those instances, as well as in the instance of Sir Sydney Smith, it would not be proper to erect monuments at the public expense- He alluded to Lords Exmouth and De Saumarez. If the session had proceeded in the ordinary manner, it was his intention either to have taken out of the civil contingencies a sum sufficient for the erection Of the proposed monuments, or to have obtained the amount by a separate vote in the miscellaneous estimates. The hon. Baronet was, however, aware that an interruption had occurred in the ordinary proceedings of public business: and, for that reason, Government had thought it better not to bring forward any supplementary estimates, but merely to take those which were necessary for carrying on the public service. But it was the intention of the Government to ask for a grant for the erection of monuments to the gallant individuals he had named. Sir F. Burdett.—Then I still understand the noble Lord to be of the same opinion as to the propriety of erecting a monument to Sir Sydney Smith? Lord J. Russell.—I am. Sir F. Burdett.—That intention is not given up or abandoned? Lord J. Russell.—It is not."
This was the public declaration made by the late Government of their intention to erect monuments to those distinguished individuals.
Subject at an end.

ANGLO-PORTUGUESE LEGION.
Mr. Labouchereinquired whether there was any hope of the officers and soldiers who had served in the army of liberation in Portugal, receiving the amount of their claims under the mixed commission?
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the Government had, in their communications with foreign

637
countries to contend, in more than an ordinary degree, against the disadvantages resulting from the changes in the governments of those countries during the progress of negotiations. This was the case with respect to Portugal; but he had the satisfaction of stating, that he believed the new Ministry had made arrangements for the payment, in half-yearly instalments, of the sum due to the individuals to whom the hon. Member had alluded. Of course, it would be a question in what proportion the money should be applied to the payment of those whose claims might be adjudicated on. This was matter for consideration; but it appeared most equitable and just to provide for those whose demands were of the least amount, and the settlement of which might, therefore, be presumed to be of the greatest importance to the parties. Nothing, however, upon this point was decided on; but he had every reason to hope, that the Portuguese Government had made a final arrangement for the acquittal of the sums due.

DONEGAL GRAND JURY.
Lord Clementshoped that he should meet with the indulgence of the House in bringing before it a matter of a personal nature, and one which not only touched his character, but also that of the learned Chief Remembrancer of Ireland. In answer to statements that he had made on the 30th of June, relative to abuses which had taken place in the county of Donegal in the administration of the grand jury laws, the learned Recorder of Dublin had taken upon himself to contradict statements he had made relative to a forgery he had alleged to have been committed, and the learned Recorder stated that he did so upon the authority of the Chief Remembrancer, Mr. Blake. He, therefore, thought it his duty to write to that learned gentleman to know if this was correct, and he would by the permission of the House read these letters. The first was from him to Mr. Blake:ߞ
(Copy.)
" London, July, 13, 1842.
" Dear Mr. Blake—I hope that you will excuse me for again troubling you. But Mr. Shaw stated in the House of Commons words to the following effect Mr. Shaw wished only to say in corroboration of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Donegal, and in justice to the gentlemen who were attacked, that Mr. Blake had expressed to him the
638
greatest astonishment that the noble Lord should have designated the transaction he had so long dwelt upon as a forgery; there was au irregularity in the act of the public officer, but it was neither a fraud nor a moral offence; under these circumstances, he saw not justification for the noble Lord in the strong terms that he used.' You will oblige me very much by informing me if this be true, or if you said anything to Mr. Shaw which could authorise his making the above statement.
"Believe me your's very faithfully,
" CLEVENTS.
" The Right Hon. Anthony Blake, &c. &c. &c."
To this Mr. Blake sent the following reply—
(Copy.)
Dublin Castle, July 16, 1842.
" My dear LordߞI have received your note of the 13th instant. There appears to be a misunderstanding as to the conversation which I had with Mr. Shaw. It took place, I think, casually after dinner at the Queen's Inn, where he and I had been dining as benchers. He mentioned your having spoken of the secretary of the grand jury of Donegal as having been convicted by or before me of forgery, and it was at that that I expressed in surprise. I stated that I had no jurisdiction over the secretary of the grand jury; that I could only examine him with reference to the county treasurers account; that I did examine him with reference to it, and that he admitted before me having put a man's name to a receipt, having drawn the amount without his authority, and having applied it for some time to his own purposes, but that he afterwards paid it to the person entitled to it; that I thought these circumstances ought to be brought wider the notice of those to whom he was amenable for his conduct, which he was not to me; that I had called their attention to it; that as I had no right to try him for any crime, and did not, it would have been very improper in me, particularly when speaking judicially, to declare him guilty of forgery, or fraud, or any moral offence, and that I accordingly abstained from doing so. This, I am certain, is the substance of what I stated. It corresponds with the original minute which I made in the matter, a copy of which has been printed by order of the House of Commons, and from which the following is an extract Mr. Spence admitted that the mark of Owen M'Daid was put to the receipt, not by M'Daid, but by him. He admitted that M'Daid could read and write, and had given him no authority to sign his name, or put his mark to the receipt. He stated that the money was payable, not to M'Daid, but to John Dogherty, who had done the work for which the presentment had been made That after Spring Assizes, 1840, he (Spence) delivered the receipt to the treasurer, and received a draft from him for the amount drawn in favour of M'Daid, or order; that he endorsed the draft in M'Daid's name, and drew the

639
amount from the county bank; that he applied the money to his own purposes; and that he paid the amount, after Summer Assizes, to John Dogherty, who had done the work. I examined M'Daid, who admitted that he authorized Dogherty to receive the money. I also examined Dogherty, who admitted that he had received the money after Summer Assizes from Mr. Spence. Mr. Spence stated that the treasurer was not cognizant of the circumstances. As the money payable to M'Daid has, with his privity and consent, been paid to Dogherty, I have suffered the credit which I gave the treasurer for it to stand; but I deem it necessary that the attention both of the court and the grand jury should be called to the subject at the ensuing assizes.' With this minute fresh in my recollection, I could not have intended to exculpate Mr. Spense. I meant only to exculpate myself. I do not think any person, in the exercise of judicial functions, should ever declare any person guilty of a crime, unless bound to do so upon that person's being tried for crime before him. The notion that Mr. Spence had been convicted of forgery by, or before me, might imply that I had pronounced him so. It was against this supposition I was anxious to protest, without meaning at all to express surprise at your designating the act as forgery, or to pronounce on Mr. Spence's conduct. It was the opinion of the late and present law officers of the Crown, and it was mine, as you are already aware, that after M'Daid had adopted the acts of Spence, a prosecution for forgery, with intent to defraud, could not be maintained, but it was competent to the judge and the grand jury, and to them only, to go into the case with a view to Mr. Spence's continuance or dismissal from office or being mulct of his salary, and to them I left it, as it was my duty to do.
(Signed) " A. R. BLAKE."
He need only add that it will be in the recollection of the House, that the time of his making use of the word " convicted " was not in his speech on the 30th of June, but at the time of his putting a question to the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, to know if it was the intention of the Government to prosecute Mr. Spence in con. sequence of what had taken place before Mr. Blake. The noble Lord understood his meaning, and answered his question to his satisfaction. He admitted that the word "convicted " might imply more than he intended should be understood; but it was made use of only in the question to the noble Lord, and not in his speech on the 30th of June. Therefore he could not admit that the learned Recorder of Dublin was in any way justified in making the statements he did, or deny that a forgery had been committed, when there was not
640
a shadow of a doubt that such had been the case.

THE REV. MR. MELVILL.
On the first Order of the Day being moved,
Mr. Kemblesaid, he hoped that he might be allowed to vindicate the character of a near and very dear relative, upon whom he conceived an aspersion had been thrown by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. M. Gibson) in the speech which he had made upon his motion inquiring into the distress of the country the Rev. Henry Melvill. He did not believe that the hon. Gentleman meant to say anything prejudicial to the character of that gentleman, but, at the same time, he thought his views might receive an unfavourable construction. It might appear, from the hon. Gentleman's speech, that he was a mere political person, whose object it was to ingratiate himself with the Government by supporting their measures. In the course of his speech, the hon. Member quoted very largely from a sermon of the rev. Gentleman, which had been reported in a publication called the Pulpit. Now it was not fair that a clergyman should be made responsible for certain expressions reported to have been used by him, and published without his sanction. At the same time there was no man more capable of defending himself, or less likely to shrink from the responsibility of any expression he might have uttered, than that rev. gentleman. The allusion to the Corn-laws which had been quoted was merely used by Mr. Melvill incidentally in the course of his sermon, and addressed to his hearers in the ordinary discharge of his duty, and they had occurred in a sermon preached on the occasion of the Queen's letter, when he undertook to advocate the cause of the distressed manufactures. That the House might see there was no want of sympathy or warmth in the cause on the part of the preacher, he might mention that the collection after the sermon in question was no less 'than 230 l. The hon. Member opposite in the course of his speech had represented his rev. friend as a gentleman in connection with the Government. If that were the case, he did not know that that was any discredit, but upon that point he might say he knew not what was alluded to. The rev. gentleman had received no favour from the Government. If the chaplaincy to the

641
Tower was pointed at, the rev. gentleman had received that appointment from the Duke of Wellington, not as a Member of the administration, but as constable of the Tower, and before the present administration came into office. Mr. Melvill certainly placed great value upon that appointment, receiving it as he did, unsolicited, from the hands of that illustrious individual. The hon. Member had appeared to insinuate that the clergy had a pecuniary interest in supporting the Corn-law. [" Order.]
The Speakerintimated that the hon. Member was out of order in replying to what had been said in a former debate.
Mr. Kemblesaid his object was not to answer generally, but to show that the observation could not have reference to the Rev. Mr. Melvill, and that that gentleman could not be influenced by pecuniary motives in regard to tithes, as his income arose from pew rents. It was not for him then to express any opinion whether or not the clergy should interfere with politics; but at all events, no man could be less liable to such a charge than Mr. Melvill, who had never attended any political meeting, nor had in any way made himself conspicuous in politics. The character of that gentleman, however, was too well known to need any defence from him. Wherever Mr. Melvill was known he was most highly esteemed.
Mr. M. Gibsondeclared, that in what he had said he had not been influenced by the slightest wish to cast any reflections upon the personal character of the Rev. Mr. Melvin. On the contrary, the language he had held was rather eulogistic than otherwise, for he had described him as a distinguished and talented clergyman, enjoying the confidence and respect of his congregation. With regard to the publication in the Pulpit of the sermon alluded to, the only question was, as to the accuracy of the report. He believed that the sermon as quoted to be as nearly as possible verbatim the sermon of Mr. Melvill, and it did not appear that the hon. Member disputed the accuracy of the report. As a Member of Parliament he had a right to express an opinion upon the doctrine propounded in the pulpit by a clergyman of the Established Church. The Established Church rested upon the foundation of an act of Parliament, and Parliament, he conceived, had something to do, if not with the religious doctrines, at least with
642
the doctrines of political economy, which a clergyman of that church might think proper to promulgate. If the clergy were to teach political economy, the House ought to take some steps by which a sound system should be taught. He appealed to the hon. Member for Oxford—that hon. Member would tell them that one of the advantages of an Established Church was uniformity. If it were intended that the clergy should teach political economy, there ought to be articles of the science drawn up, and a standard of faith established. [" Order."] If a discussion was revived and allusion made to what had fallen from an hon. Member in a former debate, surely it was but just and fair that an opportunity should be given to him of reply. He appealed, then, to the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford, whether, if the clergy were to teach political economy, it was not necessary that articles of that branch of political science should be drawn up, and a standard of faith established, so that something definite might be communicated to the people through the medium of the clergy. He spoke of Mr. Melvill with respect; but when that gentleman was in his pulpit be was public property, and was responsible to that House and to Parliament for the doctrines he chose to disseminate from thence. What, then, became of the connection between Church and State? Much had been said of that connection, and here was a point at issue between the Church and State. He contended that it was a misapplication of the funds of the Church, if not of the public estate, and a misuse of the functions of the clergy, to make the pulpit the vehicle for supporting the Corn-laws, or particular views of political economy. The Anti-Corn-law league, when they employed lecturers, subscribed and supported them. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite do the same if they pleased; let then) employ and pay lecturers out of their own private funds; but they must not sanction the dissemination, by the clergy of the Established Church, of particular views of the Corn-law question. He adhered strictly to the opinion he had before expressed with regard to the sermon of Mr. Melvill. He had not said that that rev. gentleman had individually a pecuniary interest in supporting the Corn-law; but what he had said was this;—that if the clergy, mentioning the Corn-law, said,

643
as Mr. Melvill bad, that it vas essential for the support of the national piety that that law should be maintained, their congregations might put to themselves this question—Had not the clergy a pecuniary interest in the support of this law? was it certain that they taught that doctrine with motives perfectly disinterested and pure? That was the view he had taken. The hon. Member for Surrey had said that Mr. Melvill did not generally meddle in politics—that he was not a leading political partisan. If that were the case, his opinions were the more likely to have weight and influence, and the consequence a his preaching such sermons as that in question was the more to be apprehended, on account of his influence with his congregation. He therefore protested against this system of upholding the Corn-laws by Means of the pulpit of the Established church, As to Mr. Melvill being in close connection with the Government, he agreed with the hon. Member for Surrey that things would have come to a pretty pass, if that circumstance was to be considered as a slur upon the character of a respected and venerated clergyman. So far from thinking it a slur, he thought that, agreeing with the Government in politics, it was an honour to the clergyman that he was known to have their confidence; and he viewed the appointment of Mr. Melvill to the chaplaincy of the Tower by the Duke of Wellington, who was known to have great influence in the Cabinet, although he held no particular office, as a testimony that Mr. Melvill did enjoy the confidence of her Majesty's Government. He should not have occupied the time of the House had he not been called up by the speech just delivered; but he wished it to be understood fully that he did not throw the slightest personal imputation upon Mr. Melvin, and he desired to say nothing that could by possibility wound in the least degree the feelings of the lion, Member who was his relative.
Sir R. H Inglis, in answer to the question that had been asked him by the hon. Member, whether it would not be better that articles of political economy should be drawn up for the use of the clergy, would, in return, ask that hon. Member whether those articles must not be framed by that House, and whether, in that case, as the House stood at present, it was very likely that the articles would be approved
644
of by the hop. Member and his friends, and what advantage would arise to them from the articles so framed?
Subject at an end.

COLONIAL PASSENGERS.
The ColonialPassengers Bill was read a third time.
Mr. Hawesrose to move that part of the 8th clause be struck out. He hoped to have not only the consent of the House, but o many of the Members of her Majesty's Government to that motion. Last year a similar clause had been proposed by the then Secretary to the Colonies in bringing forward a measure on this subject, and that clause had been opposed by the noble Lord the present Secretary for the Colonies, by the present Secretary to the Board of Control, b) the present First Lord of the Treasury, by the Secretary to the Treasury, by a right hen, Gentleman now absent, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who had all been anxious to avail themselves of the casual assistance of those who differed from them in political opinion, to oppose the then Government as far as regarded that measure. The objection then taken to the measure was that there had been no definite plan for regulating the transportation of these Hill Coolies, and that was precisely the objection he took to the present measure. He could not but contrast the conduct of the former Secretary for the Colonies (Lord J. Russell) with that of the present Secretary (Lord Stanley). The former Noble Lord had not introduced his measure until Parliament had had a full opportunity of discussing the subject; while the present Secretary for the Colonies had introduced the measure without any explanation, and had it not beep that certain papers had been moved for, the bill, under the title of the Colonial Passengers Bill, might have passed without notice. The noble Lord had objected to the measure of Lord John Russell, that there was no definite plan for regulating the deportation of the Hill Coolies, and that was precisely his objection to the measure of the noble Lord, and he would ask the noble Lord what plan had been propounded on that subject since the mea- sure of Lord John Russell? Had the noble Lord any plan—had be indicated any? Certainly not. The noble Lord had certainly written a most remarkable despatch on the subject, and that was all he had done. It would have been wise to have

645
submitted to the House the regulations the Indian Government had made as reasons for passing the hill, and they had a right to know whether those regulations, had been carried out. He thought the noble Lord ought to wait till he had the assent of the Indian Government and the Government of the Mauritius to the measure. In these statements he was not saying a word against a system of emigration conducted upon proper principles, If they could accomplish justice to parties emigrating to the Mauritius, he should not object to the emigration of Hill Coolies, bet he contended that so desirable an end could not be obtained. He did nut make that statement solely upon his own authority, because he found Lord Normanby stating, in 1839, that the Government was decidedly hostile to any project for removing emigrants from the Mauritius; and again, Lord Auckland had stated, in a despatch, that he feared such a system could not be carried out without inflicting grievous injustice and fraud on a helpless people. Lord Auckland had said that no police regulations would ever he sufficient protection to the Hill Coolies in the Mauritius, The negroes there were not provided with hospitals, and their living was extremely bad, and they were generally very badly treated, and their corn-plaints about the non-payment of wages were often passed by without notice. It could not be said that it was necessary to send labourers to the Mauritius with a view to the increased production of sugar. There had been no falling off in the production of sugar in the Mauritius, and there could not, therefore, be any necessity for the importation of labourers into the colony. He contended that if they passed the present measure, the) would run the risk of a renewal of slavery, that they could not adequately protect those poor people from fraud and oppression. He entreated the House, therefore, to pause before they passed the bill, and to wait at least until they should receive further information on the subject. The hon. Member concluded, by moving the omission of part of the clause.
Mr. G. Bankesthe bill. He was persuaded that the time was come, when they should provide for a fresh supply of labourers in our West-India colonies; and he believed there was no quarter from which that supply could be so conveniently or advantageously de-
646
rived as from the East Indies. There were but two sources of immigration to which the West Indies could look for a supply, and those sources were, the one the coast of Africa, and the other the East of Asia. They had had the evidence of Sir Charles Metcalf, who had passed many years of his life in high office in the East Indies, and who had subsequently been Governor of Jamaica, and who, consequently, was well acquainted with the social position of both countries, to prove that there could be no objection to the introduction of labourers from the East Indies into the West Indies, except the length of the voyage, and that difficulty the Legislature would speedily remove. The present bill, it appeared, did not provide for a supply of labourers to the West Indies, but he hoped that a bill would be introduced for the! purpose early in the next Session of Parliament. As respected the Mauritius, he was not so qualified to give an opinion; but as respected Jamaica, he thought he might venture to say that the result of all their inquiries was, that these was no fear of oppression to persons of this description. When they were introduced as labourers they would be in the immediate enjoy merit of equal rights and privileges with those freed men who did not work more than they thought fit, which, in point of fact, was inadequate to the cultivation of soil so fruitful, and of so extensive a colony.
Mr. r. Smiththought the report of the committee would prove as useless for purposes of legislation as any one of the " blue hooks," which the noble Secretary for the Colonies was in the habit of mercilessly ridiculing. His reason for voting with the noble Lord was this, that he thought the experiment proposed to be tried by the bill was one which ought not to be left untried. Considering the bill merely in the light of a measure for facilitating the transfer of the surplus population of India to the island of Mauritius, lie should vote for it; at the same time he must observe, that the noble Lord did not in the mauler in which lie brought for.. ward this bill show that consideration for the House which he was sure the noble Lord would upon reflection feel that he ought to have shown. He must further add, it was with great reluctance he agreed to any measure which invested any Minister of the Crown with such large discre-

647
tionary powers, and yet, if any one were to be so intrusted, he thought that the noble Lord opposite, the Secretary for the Colonies, ought to be that person, when it was recollected that it was he who introduced and conducted through the House of Commons that measure by which the abolition of slavery in the West Indies was effected.
Sir A. Grantrose to do an act of justice to the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies. He formed one of a deputation to the noble Lord from the great body of the West-Indian proprietors, calling upon the noble Lord to sanction the appointment of a committee to inquire into the state of the West Indies; and the noble Lord consented to the appointment of that committee with considerable reluctance. When the report of the evidence taken before that committee was published, it would afford a complete refutation to the assertion of the hon. Member for Lambeth, that a West-Indian proprietor could not do justice to an emancipated slave.
Mr. Bingham Baringcomplained that the hon. Member for Lambeth was too apt to impute unworthy motives to those who differed from him in opinion. He had on a former occasion reluctantly voted against permitting those persons to emigrate, and he had been induced to do so because the hon. Member for Beverley had given it as the opinion of the Court of Directors, that some delay was necessary in order to institute an inquiry before legislating on the subject. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that unless security was taken that all the abuses which had been complained of should be put down, that it would be improper to permit the immigration of Hill Coolies into the Mauritius; but he contended that by the precautions adopted, a proper administration of justice in the Mauritius was secured, and the recurrence of abuses rendered impossible. The system of contract and bounty had been done away with, and the labourer on his landing in the island was free to engage with any master he liked. If a man were a bad master he would get no slaves. [Mr. Hawes: " Hear, hear."] The hon. Member was very willing to take advantage of an inadvertent word. Under the former system those bondmen were slaves; under the present system, however, they were free labourers. The magistrates in the Mauritius were impartial, and the comfort of the labourers would be
648
secured. It was not the object of the Indian Government to encourage emigration from India to the Mauritius, but merely to permit and regulate it, and whenever wages in India should be higher than they were in the Mauritius that emigration would naturally cease.
Mr. Mangles, knowing how firm a friend to free-trade was his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. V. Smith), had been surprised at hearing his speech in opposition to this measure, which was founded on the principle of allowing the labourer to carry his labour to what market he pleased. His right hon. Friend's speech consisted of very broad assertions, which were not supported by the evidence before the House. He rested his support of the measure on the right of every free man to take his labour where he pleased; and when he was answered that these Hill Coolies knew not where the Mauritius was, and were indeed little better than the monkies, he could only say that the House had abundance of evidence before it to show that if they went to the Mauritius monkeys they went hack to India men, and intelligent men too, so that the longer that House prevented them from going to the Mauritius, the longer it kept them in that ignorant and unenlightened condition which was alleged as the reason for not allowing their removal. The hon. Member quoted many passages from the evidence taken before the commission on the subject, to the effect that in almost every instance the Coolies, on their return from the Mauritius, were greatly improved in intelligence and comfort, and stated that the Mauritius was a very good place. The right hon. Member was also quite mistaken in saying that the Coolies could not have a fair administration of justice in the Mauritius; for the evidence of Sir Lionel Smith, and many other persons, was conclusive to show that since the appointment of the special magistrates in the Mauritius none of their grievances went unredressed. With the safeguards introduced by this bill against the abuses which existed under the former system, he was satisfied that the natives of India might be allowed the privilege of freemen of choosing the market for their labour. He would, however, suggest in addition the propriety of establishing two offices, one in the Mauritius, and the other in India, so as to secure the regular delivery of letters and remittances of money from the Hill Cool-

649
ies in the Mauritius to their wives or friends in India.
Mr. Hoggsaid, that though not opposed to the principles of free-trade, he was not disposed to go the length of his hon. Friend who preceded him, and who seemed prepared to extend them to the exportation of human beings. The question had been introduced and discussed as if the revival of the trade in Coolies depended upon the vote of the House. He begged to tell the House that such was not the case, and that the course adopted by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, had rendered idle and fruitless, all discussion on the subject. At the very moment he was speaking he thought it probable, that the prohibition had been removed by the local government of India, and that the traffic was again in full operation. He wished the House to know distinctly the situation in which they had been placed, and that if the amendment of the hon. Member for Lambeth should be carried, and the clause struck out, still the views of the noble Lord would be carried into execution, despite the opinion and the vote of the House. The noble Lord did not think it his duty to take the opinion of the House, nor did he let the matter rest on his own responsibility. He carried into execution his own views by means of an order in council, and instructions to the local government in India; and then came to this House to require them to give Parliamentary sanction to his acts, and to embrace the responsibility of a measure they had never an opportunity of considering. Let facts and dates speak for themselves. A few days before Parliament met, there appeared in the Gazette an order in council pregnant with prognostications of divers probabilities. That order in council, in all its hypothetic pomp, went forth over the waters of the Atlantic, and must have reached Calcutta early in April, and he asked any hon. Member who had read that order whether he could doubt for a moment that Lord Ellenborough would consider himself justified in acting upon it, and annulling the prohibitory law. The noble Lord, in his own letter to the corn - missioners for the affairs of India, regards the matter as settled. He says,
" It is of course not without sufficient reason that her Majesty in Council has assumed that the Governor-general in council will thus far relax and modify the existing prohibitory law."
He (Mr. Hogg)drew attention to this,
650
to show how entirely the contemplated measures were concocted by the noble Lord, who seemed to have regarded India as part and parcel of cola, possessions under his control. But he (Mr. Hogg) was sorry to say that the proceedings in Nita would not rest exclusively on the order in council. That order and the letter to the Board of Control were sent to the Court of Directors, who at first declined forwarding them, stating that they could not authorize the withdrawal of the existing prohibition, without the sanction of Parliament. That opinion the Court of Directors often expressed; but he (Mr. Hogg) regretted to say, that sympathizing in the change which had shed its influence on her Majesty's Ministers, that body concurred in the letter lately laid on the Table of the House, and which virtually ordered the annulling of the prohibitory law, without even noticing the frightful mass of evidence that had been submitted to them, or intimating their own opinions and views on the subject. That letter went out by the overland of the 30th March, and would reach the shores of India in May, so that the legislative enactments consequent upon its receipt would, in ordinary course, be completed and carried into execution months before the result of that night's debate could be known in India. He therefore repeated, that for all practical purposes the present discussion was idle and useless, except perhaps that it might tend to render the House and the public more vigilant in future. Considering that this subject had repeatedly occupied the attention of both Houses of Parliament, and had baffled all attempts at legislation, and considering the interest which it had excited in the public mind, he (Mr. Hogg) should have thought that the noble Lord would have considered it right to take the opinion of the House upon the measures he contemplated. The noble Lord, the late Secretary for the Colonies had distinctly pledged himself to do so; and added, that unless he did do so, he did not think he would be acting with becoming respect towards the House. It might be asked, is a pledge given by one government binding upon another. He would reply that the pledge to which he had alluded was almost extorted from the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, and he thought lie had a right to contend, that the Government were bound to respect a pledge thus given in their own requisition.

651
He contended further, that the Home authorities for the government of India were not justified in authorising any relaxation of the existing law, until they had submitted to Parliament, and through Parliament, to the country the measure they proposed to prevent a recurrence of the atrocities that had been perpetrated, and which had excited such feelings of horror anti indignation in the mind of every humane man. What! thirty or forty thousand of the natives of India torn by force, or beguiled by fraud from their homes, transported to a distant island, where, from the nature of the soil labour in the field is severe in the extreme, there, handed over to taskmasters who extorted from them work beyond what their frames were physically capable of enduring, while their families, abandoned in India, were languishing in misery and destitution. And the system which induced these frightful calamities to be again resorted to, without the specification of a single precautionary measure (at least as regarded India), that had not before been tried and found unavailing. As a Member of that House, and speaking only from that information which was open to all, he (Mr. Hogg) had a right to complain that the Court of Directors had deviated from that course which they led the public to believe they would pursue, as indicated by their despatches, and their petition to the House. In the letter ordering the prohibition, the Court expressly advert to measures pending in Parliament. Again, in September 1841, the Court say that they cannot authorize the Government to withdraw the prohibition without the sanction of Parliament. The same view of the subject was taken by the court of proprietors, with whom the directors acted in concert. At a general court of proprietors held the 17th July 1840, a petition was unanimously agreed to against the clauses proposed by the noble Lord the late Secretary for the Colonies, to be added to the then pending Colonial Passengers Bill. He had the honour to present that petition, and he believed that a petition from so influential a body as the East India Company, aided by the eloquent remonstrance of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, went far in influencing the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to abandon his intended provision. He was aware that the petition only prayed for delay till the report of the committee that had been assembled on the subject should be received.
652
It was true that report had now been rescinded, but how was their position altered? They then acted on vague rumour, but they had now before them a report signed by three gentlemen of the highest character, and a mass of evidence depicting atrocities and sufferings far exceeding what had ever been apprehended; and yet they were called upon to sanction the withdrawal of the prohibition, without having submitted to them any means of preventing a recurrence of the abuses. He wits very reluctant to oppose any measure introduced by those with whom it was his pleasure almost invariably to act, but no change had come over his opinions and views, and he could not support on one side of the House a measure which he had opposed when in the other. Upon a former occasion, the noble Lord near him (Lord Stanley) bad undertaken to defend his right hon. -Friend (Sir J. Graham) from the imputation of inconsistency, and there could not be a more able or accomplished advocate. But so sorely was the noble Lord pressed, that he fled for refuge to the perilous sanctuary of confidence. He contended that the confidence reposed by his right hon. Friend in the present Government fully explained any alteration in the course he pursued. Surely the present question was not one when any Member could be influenced by feelings of party. His own acts in that House had hot evinced any great political confidence in the late Secretary for the Colonies) but he felt a pleasure in stating, that in any question involving the great interests of humanity, that noble Lord should command his entire and unqualified confidence. His hon. Friend, the Member for Guildford, had contended for the right of the Indian labourer to carry his labour to the best market. He (Mr. Hogg) had never opposed that principle. He was ready to admit that the natives of India had a right to emigrate to the Mauritius or elsewhere, and all he required was to be satisfied that their emigration was voluntary. He must say that, under the circumstances, the announcing of these propositions of abstract right had very little to say to the matter before the House. The papers before the House, and this very discussion, sufficiently proved the helplessness of the Indian labourers, and that they needed protection, and the only question was, the expediency of the course pursued by the noble Lord and the Court of Directors. It was admitted by all; that the grossest abuses

653
had been perpetrated in India under the cow aestivation, alleged to be voluntary, and his hon. Friend had not attempted to show how these abuses could be prevented. He would not venture to weary the House by referring in detail to the evidence, but he would beg their attention to the facts which the committee stated to have been distinctly proved. They state that it was proved beyond dispute, that the Coolies and other natives of India, exported to the Mauritius, were generally induced to come to Calcutta by misrepresentation and deceit, practised upon them by native crimps called duffadars, who received a considerable sum per head for each Cooly. That if the Coolies had been made aware that they were to go beyond the sea, very few, and probably not one, would have entered into the engagement. That they were induced to leave their home, under the belief, that they would find employed in Calcutta under the Company. That many of them, particularly the Hill Coolies, were incapable of understanding the nature of their contracts. That in despite of the local regulations and the interference of the police, an impression was created and maintained, that they would be liable to penal consequences if they expressed dissatisfaction at being sent on board ship. That kidnapping prevailed to a very considerable extent, and that the Coolies, when brought to Calcutta, were detained there in a state of close imprisonment. They add, that local legislation, with all the advantages of local knowledge, had entirely failed to remove, or even materially to check the abuses. And they deliberately state their opinion, founded on a knowledge of the country and the natives, that no legislation could prevent a repetition of the evils, and they deprecate a renewal of the trade. It had been urged, that only three out of the six Members named by Government had signed the report, and much importance had been attached to the dissents of Mr. Dewson and Mr. Grant. Mr. Dewson had himself been extensively engaged in the trade, and whatever might be his opinion as to the expediency of continuing it, he (Mr. Hogg) thought the evidence given by that Gentleman, when examined before the committee, was the very strongest in support of their report. Mr. Dawson, when examined, stated, that being desirous to crush the system of crimps or & drawlers he had sent a respectable agent, Mr. Carapet, to the district which
654
supplies the Coolies, with orders to explain to them fully the nature of their engagement, and that they were to leave their country for five years. Mr. Carapet, to aid him in his mission, was furnished with letters of introduction to the Governor-general's agent, and other influential persons; and what was the result? Mr. Carapet did not succeed in obtaining a single Cooly; while at the same time, and in the same districts, the duffadars, under the old system of fraud and misrepresentation, were obtaining them by hundreds. He believed he had adverted to this evidence on a former night, but he thought it right to mention it again, when the dissect of Mr. Dewson was relied upon. His hon. Friend the Member for Guilfdord had laid great stress on the minute of Mr. Grant, and he (Mr. Hogg) was ready to admit the ability of that gentleman, and the attention to which his opinions were entitled. But Mr. Grant, though differing from the conclusion of the committee, does not differ from them in their opinion as to the evils and abuses that existed. He says, when adverting to themߞ
" In these particulars, so far from objecting to the opinions of the majority, if I had agreed in the great conclusion of their report, and so been competent to sign it, I should have felt it my duty to move for a more pointed expression of opinion in certain respects."
It seemed admitted then by all, that evils and abuses of a frightful character existed in India, and that legislative enactments had failed in preventing them. Lord Auckland states in his minute, that he has no faith in the validity of regulations, and declares the inutility of what he designates the cumbrous machinery of inspectors and protectors. He adds his opinion, that if the law should be relaxed, not more than ten or twenty Coolies, according to the size of the vessel, ought to be permitted to embark together. Much importance had been attached to the examinations of the Coolies who had returned and to the proportion of deaths that occurred at the Mauritius. He confessed he did not attach much weight to these examinations. Many of those examined had obviously been sent back for the express purpose of decoying more. Others were under the apprehension that they would incur the displeasure of the authorities if they expressed any dissatisfaction at the treatment which they had received; and the number of those examined (being he believed under 200) was insufficient to

655
justify the forming of any opinion. Why had not more been examined? Where, he would ask, were the statements of the thousands referred to by Lord Auckland, whose contracts were to expire in the course of last year? But now supposing that a great number of the Coolies did declare themselves reconciled, or at least habituated, to their wretched lot, did that alter the character of the fraud and violence that bad been first practised upon them? As to the number of deaths, there was no statistical information that could be relied upon. The report of the chief commissioner of police at the Mauritius states the number of Indian labourers introduced into that colony from August 1834 up to the end of 1838 to be under 13,000; while Mr. Anderson, who came to this country as the agent of the Mauritius planters, states, that up to the beginning of 1829 about 25,000 labourers had been introduced from India, which number had been reduced by deaths and expiration of service to less than 18,000. What, he asked, had become of those 7,000? If they had returned to India, where were their examinations and the report of their return? If they had died at the Mauritius, how frightful must have been the mortality! Mr. Anderson, while advocating emigration, admits with great candour the evils that existed, both in India and at the Mauritius. He states that the emigrants were deceived and misled by the duffadars and robbed of their advances in India; that at the Mauritius they were prevented by fear from complaining of the bad usage they received; that no attention was paid to their comforts, and no consideration shown for their prejudices; so that under the name of transfers, daily sales were made of their services. With such facts and opinions before the House, he would ask if they were prepared to sanction the renewal of the trade? He admitted, that the provisions of the noble Lord went far to prevent the abuses which had occurred on the passage, and at the Mauritius, and to secure to the Indian labourers comfort during their voyage to the Mauritius, and good treatment and fair wages after their arrival there. He thought, that with some modifications which he would venture to suggest before he sat down, the provisions regarding the Mauritius, were all that could be desired. But where were the provisions for India? And he begged the House to bear in mind, that total prohibition had not been resorted to until after
656
local legislation had failed. Nothing could be more meagre and unsatisfactory than the despatch from the Court of Directors to the Governor-general. Why was it that the proceedings of Parliament and the Court of Directors had been suspended until the report of the committee and the opinions of the Members of Council should be received? He presumed it was for the purpose of considering these documents, and passing some enactment, or offering some suggestions on the subject. But now, after the required report and opinions had been received, the whole is bundled back to the local Government, with instructions containing some vague generalities, but nothing intelligible or practical. The despatch of the Court of Directors might have been sufficient when the subject was first mooted, but it was not such a despatch as ought to have been written, after the exposure of the atrocities of the system, and the failure of all the remedies that had been tried. He (Mr. Hogg) would' not object to the cautious and partial relaxation suggested by Lord Auckland, but he felt fully satisfied, that voluntary emigration could never supply the wants of the Mauritius, the reality of which he admitted and lamented. If the system proposed by the noble Lord was adopted, the expence entailed upon the Mauritius would be so great, that the colony would sustain a grievous loss, and would have just reason to complain, if not supplied with a sufficient number of Coolies. There would be a kind of obligation to supply labour commensurate to the expense, and emigration, instead of being voluntary, would inevitably be coerced to the extent of the funds advanced by the island. How could it suit the purpose of the Mauritius to pay hosts of inspectors both in India and in the colony, unless there was some organised plan that insured to them the number of Coolies they required? To any such organised trade in Coolies, he (Mr. Hogg) bad insuperable objections. To free and voluntary emigration he had none. He had already admitted, that as regards the voyage and treatment at the Mauritius, the provisions introduced by the noble Lord were most considerate, and tended to remove many of the existing evils. There were some suggestions which he would venture to submit for the noble Lord's consideration. It was provided, that the Cooly need not enter into any contract for forty-eight hours, after his arrival, and that during

657
that period, he shall be maintained. Thus, after the expiration of forty-eight hours, the Cooly would be absolutely destitute, and compelled to accept any offer that might be made to him. It could not be expected, that a Cooly, arriving in a strange country, could inform himself in so short a time, as to the rate of wages and the character of the: planters who might wish to engage him. He (Mr. Hogg) thought, that instead of forty-eight hours, a period of five or six days should be allowed to the Cooly after his arrival, and that during that time he should be supported, unless he earlier entered into service. Again, the lodgings assigned to the Indian labourers were of the most wretched description. Mr. Anderson states, that he had rarely seen anything but the bare floor provided for them, and that they were crowded together in a manner that seemed to render respiration almost impossible. He also thought, that there ought to be some arrangement for district hospitals, and that the Coolies ought not to be dependent on the accomodation provided for the sick at the private establishments, which Mr. Anderson states was more calculated to increase disease, than to alleviate its sufferings. There was no provision for the accurate report of any deaths, or to secure for the relatives of the deceased any arrears of wages that might be due. It was stated in the despatch of the court of directors, that it was provided, that the emigrant should have the means of returning whenever he was desirous of doing so, He begged to say, that there was no such provision or suggestion in any of the documents before the House. The only provision for the return of the Cooly was after the expiration of five years, when he was entitled to demand payment of his passage back to India. He felt there could be little use in offering any suggestion several months after the instructions had been forwarded to India, but still he considered it his duty to mention what occurred to him. He would now proceed to state the suggestions which he would have wished to have been embodied in the despatch to the Governor-general, and which he had already urged unsuccessfully in his place in the court of directors. He would, in the first place, strike at the root of the evil, by adopting measures to prevent the duffadars or native crimps, who now infested the interior of India, deceiving and defrauding the natives, from any longer pursuing their vocation. He would not
658
permit one of them to enter any district for the purpose of procuring Coolies. If Coolies were required for the Mauritius, from any district, he would direct the magistrate and collector to give every possible publicity to any notification on the subject, and to desire the attendance before them of such persons as might wish to avail themselves of the offer. But not a single Indian ought to be withdrawn from his home, until he had appeared before the European authority of the district, and in his presence, had stated his willingness to emigrate, having had fully explained to him the nature of the employment, the terms of the contract he would be required to enter into, and above all, that he must leave his country, and proceed over the sea. It was a mockery to talk of examining him in Calcutta, after he had abandoned his family and his home, and felt irrevocably committed to the wretch who had inveigled him from his native bills. Was he likely to seek redress when thus flung for the first time into a mighty metropolis, and bewildered by all that surrounded him? The protection to be of any avail, must be afforded before he left his home. With regard to the disparity in the sexes, he was aware, that if the natives of India were prevented from emigrating, unless accompanied by their wives and families, such a regulation would be equivalent to an absolute prohibition of all emigration; and he would not sanction any proceeding that was indirect. The objection of the natives in India, and indeed throughout the East, to remove their families from their home, particularly over the sea, was almost insuperable. Throughout the Eastern Archipelago, where the natives of China abounded, scarcely a Chinese woman was to be met with, and the laws of that empire equally prohibited the emigration of men and women. He was further aware, that if such a provision prevailed, the natives who might wish to emigrate would leave their wives at home, and would provide themselves in Calcutta with abandoned women to accompany them. He, therefore, would not render it imperative on the Indian labourers to take their families with them, but would afford them every facility and inducement to do so. He also thought that arrangements ought to be made to secure to them the means of easy and frequent communication with their families, and of having paid to them, during their absence, a part of their wages. Indeed,

659
considering the misery and destitution that prevailed among the families of those who had hitherto emigrated, he thought it ought to be imperative on the emigrant to make an adequate provision for his family. The time for leaving India ought also to be regulated. It ought to be limited to the Monsoon, when a passage could be made in a few weeks, while at other periods of the year it would occupy several months. To prevent the clandestine ship, ping of Coolies, which had taken place to a great extent, there ought to be an examination of the vessel at the last place of anchorage as well as at the port of embarkation. The last suggestion he would venture to offer, and by far the most important in its principle, was the necessity for some arrangement with the foreign European powers who had possessions in India. Lord Auckland was of opinion that such arrangements could only be made by the authorities at home. and he distinctly, arrangements we should not be justified in re-opening emigration, even to the Mauritius. He was sorry to observe the manner in which this all-important subject had been slurred over in the dispatch. Already were our motives subjected to undue suspicion by those states who were unwilling to co-operate with us in the great and good work, in which we had so long been engaged, and for which we had made such sacrifices. Our acts were jealously watched, and contrasted with the principles we professed and inculcated; and he earnestly entreated the House, not from any pressure of expediency, to incur the risk of having it imputed to us, that we permitted in India that which was too similar to what we deprecated in Africa. He begged pardon of the House for having occupied 80 much of their time, but he felt the deepest interest in the subject, and feared It would hereafter appear that it had not received from Parliament the attention which its importance demanded. If the proposed measure should receive the sanction of Parliament and become the law of the land, he most earnestly hoped that it would realise all the benefits that had been anticipated, and in every situation in which he might be placed, he would afford it his best and most anxious support. But, if on the contrary, he should have occasion to lament its failure, and the recurrence of those evils which all must deplore, it would be a Consolation to him to reflect, that however feeble his voice and ineffec-
660
tual his efforts, he had throughout afforded it a sincere, an hones, and a conscientious opposition.
Lord Stanleythought it was desirable, that the House should fully understand the state of the case on which they were now about to legislate. Soon after the passing of the Slave Emancipation Act, in 1835, some merchants of the Mauritius finding that a great diminution of labour took place, partly in consequence of the unwillingness of the negroes to work, contemplated, and carried into effect, a plan for enlisting in their employment, by means of private agents, a number of, the natives of India. He did not hesitate to express his belief, that in many instances, these Indians were led by fraudulent pretences and promises to go to the Mauritius, where they were induced to enter into agreements to serve certain masters for a period of live years. This system gave extensive abuses; and in 1837, it was found necessary by the Indian government to adopt measures for regulating the deportation of these labourers. In 1838, it was deemed requisite absolutely to prohibit the departure of labourers from India to the Mauritius, or the West-Indian colonies; and it was this law which the hon. Gentleman was desirous of perpetuating, while the object of the present bill was to permit the emigration of labourers under certain restrictions. In 1838, the year in which the law to which he had just referred was adopted, a commission was appointed by the Governor-general of India in council to inquire into the abuses alleged to exist with respect to the exportation of Hill Coolies and labourers from Bengal to the Mauritius. In 1840, the noble Lord, the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, called Upon the House to rescind the prohibitory law, and to permit the exportation of Indian labourers to the Mauritius. He gave his vote silently, though reluctantly, against that proposal. A right hon. Friend of his, who also voted against the proposal, stated that the grounds on which he rested his opposition were these. That a commission had been appointed to inquire into the Subject, and that before that House was called upon to legislate, the report of this commission ought to be placed in their hands, and he also suggested, that the Government should communicate with the Governor-general, and consider during the recess the adoption of

661
measures which might remedy the grievances complained of. These were the grounds, also, on which he had given his vote on the occasion to which he alluded. Now, however, the House was in possession of ample information on the subject, and a plan maturely considered, was submitted into the judgment of Parliament. The Government had proceeded to legislate, by Order in Council, which had been sent out to India, to regulate the passage of the Hill Coolies to the Mauritius, and now they came to that House to regulate the trade between India and the Mauritius. He wished to take up this case not for the benefit of the Mauritius alone. He knew, that without the importation of Hill Coolies their sugar-growing would fall off, and there would be much distress; but, with all the advantage of this importation of labour to the Mauritius, he would not bring forward this bill if he were not satisfied, that the importation of Hill Coolies would not only be beneficial to the Mauritius, but that it would be also for the permanent advantage of India itself. He celled on the House, then, not from a species of indolent humanity to say, " There are abuses in the system of exportation of labour from India which we have not time to see into, and the Indians shall, therefore, not improve their circumstances, nor shall that country relieve itself of its starving population." If he proved that remedies had been applied to these abuses, he trusted that the House would not continue longer a bill which violated all the principles of sound policy and legislation. The alleged grievances of the exportation of Hill Coolies might be comprised under the following heads. Firsts that the Coolies were deceived, and entered into engagements of which they knew nothing. Next, that they were kidnapped at Calcutta; that there were great frauds by advancing money to them, and getting them into debt, and into the power of those who supported them; that the contracts they entered into were disadvantageous to them; and that their families were left unprovided for. This system arose from individual merchants having paid agents, to whom they gave so much per bead for inducing the Coolies to enter into these contracts. The committee appointed to inquire into this subject, re-rimed on the operation of the bill to prevent the exportation of Hill Cooliesߞ
"That this law, not content with getting rid
662
of the whole of the abuses complained of, imposes strange and servile restrictions on the liberty and means of livelihood of many of the Indian people.
"The only abuse of moment related to the people getting under contracts to serve for a term; but this law prohibits all persons going of their own accord unfettered by any contract to other portions of the empire where their labour may be advantageous. That to justify such a law, a case of necessity must be made out, there needs no argument."
Mr. Grant statedߞ
" No such case of necessity can be made out, I have never heard it seriously argued, that any evil could arise from the spontaneous emigration of labourers from India unfettered by any contract. The kidnapping arose from individuals paying so much a-head for labourers, and getting them to work under contracts."
But that system had already been done away with. The present system gave no benefit to any individual by the introduction of any exclusive labour. No individual planter was empowered to send out to collect labourers, but the colony was empowered to vote a sum of money to pay the expenses of the emigration of the labourers, and when those emigrants arrived, they were free to choose masters and go where they pleased; but they had the advantage of having their passage paid free, and they might then compete for wages with the freest men there. The whole system was altered, from the very root, the moment they substituted a public grant individual speculation. The temptation for kidnapping ceased at once. What was the language of the committee on the system of money advances to the Coolies, and getting them into debt?
" The system of nominal allowances to the Coolies was one of fraudulent gain, and it is certain, if advances were prohibited the main stay of the Hill Cooly trade, as carried on heretofore, would certainly be at once removed."
All advances were positively prohibited by the system now brought into operation, and in the most certain manner fat there was now no means of recovering a debt so lent. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hogg) said the Coolies were kith napped—they were cooped up in houses, false passports were given them, they were placed under the control of the police, there was no security against their being changed and shipped off for the benefit of the exporting merchant. All this was

663
altered. There were now placed under a Government agent, whose duty it was to muster them and deliver them their passports and keep a descriptive catalogue of each person, and no one was permitted to emigrate till the Government agent had explained to him the condition into which he was going, and the life he was to lead. It was again said that as the vessel dropped down the river, other persons were taken on board, and there was protection against this. The protection taken was this: the shipper was paid for the safe import of so many persons, checked by the Government agent at the Mauritius; and if he brought one more than his complement, he was fined 5l.; and if in any particular he had altered, changed, or increased the number beyond this, he forfeited the whole of his freight. It was then said that the contracts were unfavourable. He knew they were. Under the contract system, the net wages of the Hill Cooly at 8s. a month amounted to 4l.16 s. per annum, whilst the wages of the free negro at half a dollar a day, amounted to 36 1. 10 s. The hon. Member for Beverly said this system had been unaltered; but that was not the case. The Hill Cooly was now capable of earning 361. 10s. per annum, that being a sum some hundred times as much as he could ever by possibility earn by his labour in his own country. The only difficulty the Hill Cooly would have would be to choose amongst his employers, and how he should most advantageously sell his services. Many of them under, the late contract system had returned to India with considerable Rums of money. The hon. Member said they were but decoy ducks, but at any rate, they had earned money under all the disadvantages of the contract system. They, must not talk of the Cooly being unable to take care of himself. The chief inconveniences of the old system arose from the Coolies perpetually making frivolous complaints in order to break their contracts, because they saw free men earning double and treble their wages. No doubt, in some cases under the former system, they had been treated as slaves, but under the present system the labourer, being bound by no tie or contract, would leave the master who ill-used him, and find a hundred others ready to take him. Nay, more, by a short-sighted policy some of the masters were constantly endeavouring, by offering higher wages, to induce the
664
labourers to break through their engagements and go over to them. In the event of the Hill Cooly becoming dissatisfied, there was nothing to interfere with his return, for by common industry he might, in the course of a year, earn fifty rupees, a sum amply sufficient to enable him to return to his native country. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Northampton, he believed, on a former night, when this bill was under discussion, objected to the protection of the Hill Coolies being left to the superintendence of the special magistrates; but what said Sir Lionel Smith—no mean authority—on that subject? Sir Lionel Smith, in the Mauritius, said,
"Let the Governor-general of India make such protective regulations that the labourers may emigrate, and I will undertake to provide for their full and efficient protection here."
Now, he had no wish to speak in disparagement of the late Sir Lionel Smith, but he would say, there was no man in whom more implicit reliance could be placed than in Sir W. Gomm, the present governor of the Mauritius. Upon his high and honourable feeling the House and the country might safely rely for a vigorous and impartial administration of justice. But again, other objections which had been urged were met by the provisions which this bill contained for the services of medical attendants, and to enable the emigrant Hill Coolies to remit to their wives and families such portions of their earnings as they could spare, and if any emigrant desired to take his wife and family with him, the ship owner or his agent was bound to take them, and the colony was bound to pay for their passage out. On the whole, this measure in all its details had received, notwithstanding the opposition of the hon. and learned Member for Beverley, the sanction of the Court of Directors of the East India Company; and that decision had been affirmed by the Court of Proprietors, on a division, he believed, of fifty-four to twenty-two. Thus the sanction of the popular body had been added to that of the governing body. The refusal to assent to the particular clause which had been referred to would indicate on the part of the House a disapprobation of this measure, which he should deeply regret, and though he could not anticipate the House would sanction the permanent continuance of so injurious a law against the opinions of the Court of

665
Directors, of the Court of Proprietors, and of the Governor-general of India, he bad now boldly had plainly stated the whole case, and he confidently left it in the hands of the House.
Mr. Hastieinquired whether the bill contained any provision for the maintenance of the wife and family of the Hill Cooly. during his absence in the Mauritius?
Lord Stanleyreplied that, as he had already stated, the Governor-general would have power to compel the shipowners, or their agents, to take out the wives and families of such emigrants as desired to accompany the husbands. He, by this bill, did not profess to make any provision for the wives and families that remained in India, more than already existed, with regard to the families of Hill Coolies who came from the country, and engaged for three or four years with a master in Calcutta.
Mr. Hastieobserved, that, when a man engaged as a servant in Calcutta, he had means of transmitting his savings for the support of his wife and family; but, if he were transported to the Mauritius, a considerable time must elapse before he could remit anything to those he had left in his native country. With regard to the provision to enable the wife to accompany the husband, he thought it would be useless, for it was well known that, sooner than go to the Mauritius, or anywhere else, the women would rather drown themselves in the Ganges, and think they were going to Heaven; while, if they went to sea, they would be of opinion they were going in a contrary direction.
Sir R. Ingliscould not but regard with suspicion the export of labour which he could not consider to be free. On this question, therefore, he could not give that support to the Government which he usually afforded.
Mr. Humesaid, that the principle of the bill was one which the House were, every day, allowing to be carried out, with reference not only to the colonies, but to this country, and therefore he did not see why an exception should be made in the case of the Mauritius. He supported the bill on the general principle of free-trade in labour, and he thought that the objections to it equally applied to the system of emigration which had been so long acted on in this country.
The House divided on the question that
666
the words proposed to be left out stand part of the bill:—Ayes 118; Noes 24: Majority 94.

List of the AYES

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hodgson, R.

Acland, T. D.

Hope, hon. C.

Allix, J.P.

Hornby, J.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Hume, J.

Astell, W.

Hussey, T.

Baird, W.

Hutt, W.

Baldwin, B.

Jermyn, Earl.

Bankes, G.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Barclay, D.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Baring, hon. W. B,

Jones, Capt.

Bateson, R.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Beresford, Major

Knight, H. G.

Blackburne, J. 1.

Lincoln, Earl of

Boldero, H. G.

Litton, E.

Bramston, T. W.

Lockhart, W.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Lowther, J. H.

Bruce, Lord E.

Lyall, G.

Burdett, Sir F.

Mackenzie, T.

Burroughes, H. N.

Mangles, R. D.

Campbell, A.

Martin, C. W.

Chute, W. L. W.

Masterman, J.

Clerk, Sir 0.

Meynell, Capt.

Clive, hon. It. H.

Milnes, R. M.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Mitchell, T. A.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Mundy, E. M.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Neville, R.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Newry, Visct.

Courtenay, Lord

Nicholl, right hon. J.

Cripps, W.

Northland, Visct.

Curteis, H. B.

Pakington, J. S.

Dalmeny, Lord

Palmer, G.

Douglas, Sir H.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Philips, M.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Plumridge, Capt.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Pollock, Sir F.

Eliot, Lord

Praed, W. T.

Escott, B.

Pringle, A.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Fielden, W.

Sanderson, R.

Fitzroy, Capt.

Sandon, Visct.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Scott, R.

Flower, Sir J.

Seymour, Lord

Follett, Sir W. W.

Smith, rt. hn. R. V.

Forbes, W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Fuller, A. E.

Stanley, Lord

Gaskell, J. M.

Stewart, J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Stuart, H.

Gladstone, T.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Taylor, J. A.

Gore, W. R. O.

Thompson, Ald.

Goulburn, rt hon. H.

Tollemache, J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Trotter, J.

Greene, T,

Vivian, J. E.

Grimston, Visct.

Wall, C. B.

Grogan, E.

Wilshere, W.

Harcourt, G. G.

Wood, Col. T.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Young, J.

Hardy, J.

Hawkes, T.

TELLERS.

Henley, J. W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Herbert, hon. S.

Baring, H.

667

List of the AYES

Aglionby, H. A.

Kemble, H.

Ashley, Lord

O'Brien, J.

Bowring, Dr.

O'Connell, D.

Broadley, H.

O'Conor Don

Brotherton, J.

Pechell, Capt.

Duncan, G.

Thorneley, T.

Eaton, R. J.

Villiers, hon. C.

Ebrington, Visct.

Wawn, J. T.

Ewart, W.

Williams, W.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Wood, B.

Hastie, A.

Heathcoat, J.

TELLERS.

Lord M.

Hawes, B.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Hogg, J. W.

Bill passed.

CONSTABLES— PUBLIC MEETINGS.
On the motion that the report of the Parochial Constables Bill be received,
Mr. Pakingtonurged the postponement of the bill till the next Session. He admitted that the mode of appointing parish constables under this bill, would be a great improvement; but still he believed that the class of persons who would be appointed would be found totally inefficient, either for detecting vagrancy or repressing the disorders in beer-shops. There certainly ought to be some efficient superintending officer in each county, to control the district force, and for this the present bill did net at all provide. The state of the law, with respect to high constables, was very unsatisfactory. They had nothing to do but to collect the county-rates and issue precepts, while the expense they entailed upon every county was between 500 l. and 600 l. per annum. The collection of the county-rates ought to be transferred to the boards of guardians, and the saving thus effected might fairly be made available In promoting the efficiency of the police staff.
Mr. T. Duncombeobjected to the hill, on account of its appearing to sanction certain dangerous doctrines as to the duties of the constabulary, enumerated last night by the Secretary for the Home Department. These doctrines had created very great surprise and alarm in the public. The clause which enacted that the constables, under this bill, should possess all the powers or privileges supposed to be possessed by constables at present, was; too vague and indefinite, he thought. to vest authority so extensive as that contended for, on behalf of the constabulary, by the right hon. Gentleman. Those
668
powers, as he had described them last night, were most unconstitutional; and a case had occurred that very night, at Deptford, in which the arbitrary doctrines there declared, by such high authority, had produced most pernicious fruit. A meeting, to consider the Corn-laws, had been convened, and, according to common practice, adjourned for want of room to another and larger locality. A " Dr. M'Douall," a Chartist orator, thereupon commenced addressing the meeting, on which he was seized by some policemen—who, no doubt, had acted upon the principles so unconstitutionally laid down by the Minister for the Home Department—they declaring the meeting an illegal one. The doctor said that he would certainly obey their mandate to depart, and was about to do so, when they told him that he must come a different way, and took him to the station-house. Some of the people then said, " Let us see what becomes of the doctor." [A laugh.) Ay, it was very well to laugh; but the people would not stand this sort of thing; so they looked after the doctor, and, for following him and the officer, several of them were arrested; and some five or six persons were now in custody, in consequence, as he firmly believed, of the doctrines laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, Bail, too, had been refused most unlawfully, so that these persons were kept in close confinement, and would be brought up tomorrow morning, when it would be seen what would become of the affair. Meanwhile, he doubted the wisdom of assenting to this bill, extending, as it did, vague and dangerous powers alleged to be possessed by the existing constabulary; and he, therefore, moved that the debate be adjourned.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, last night he had opposed, successfully, the attempt of the hon. Member to erect that House into a court of unconstitutional appeal from the verdicts of juries and the judgments of courts of justice, He had now to resist the attempt of the hon. Member to forestall and injure the administration of justice. The hon. Member, in his anxiety to make out a charge, had brought down the particulars of a case of which nobody in the House knew anything but himself; and he, the patriot stickler for that pure and impartial administration of law, violated the first principle of justice by hastily dragging before Parliament, and making matter of

669
public discussion, a case about to come before the ordinary tribunals of the country. It would he on his part a gross betrayal of his public duty to countenance for a moment this strange course, by adverting to the case in the slightest degree. No doubt law would be conformed to, and justice fairly administered; and, certainly, not till law had been violated, and justice denied, should the House of Commons interfere with the customary course of judicature. The hon. Gentleman had adverted to some declarations that had fallen from him, and had said, that to these declarations might be ascribed the circumstances he detailed. If so, and if the police had acted on those opinions, they bad done so at their own peril. The law was their guide,—the written, settled, certain law of the land. They had no business to take their guide from any opinions that might be expressed by any Member of the House or any Minister of the Crown in Parliament. As to the bill itself, the hon. Member, in his haste to tell his tale, had quite neglected to read the clauses, for he had spoken of one clause as extending power "supposed to be possessed by the constabulary." The bill did no such thing; there was nothing whatever of supposition in the case. The bill confirmed all the powers and privileges actually and legally possessed at this moment by the constabulary—it did no more. There was no vagueness here; the law on the subject was quite settled and distinct; the bill altered it not, but merely extended its application. Equally ignorant of the bill would any Gentleman prove himself who should talk of the constabulary under this bill being appointed by the magistrates. No such thing; it was the rate-payers, who had power to provide for their payment, not the magistracy. The present bill, he believed, would fully answer the intentions with which it had been framed;—he would recommend it as an experiment that was worth being tried, and which would establish an improved system of parish constables.
Mr. Aglionbyagreed in what bad fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury yesterday evening, and he regretted that anything should have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman that would have the effect of inducing the police to interfere with public meetings. But with respect to the present bill, he agreed with
670
the right hon. Baronet, and saw no objection to the principle of-the bill.
Captain Pechellsaid, that the principle of the bill, as stated by the right hon. Baronet, was a very good one; and he thought, if the permissive principle was applied to the Poor-law Bill, it would give very great satisfaction.
Mr. Humesaid, if the right hon. Baronet would suffer the constables to exercise a power which they might abuse, he might be sure, whatever instance of such abuse took place would be brought under the notice of Parliament.
Mr. T. Duncombewithdrew the amendment, observing that he performed his duty as a Member of Parliament in bringing these cases of grievance under the notice of the House.
Mr. Bankesthought it a hardship that counties which had adopted the rural police should have to be saddled with the expense consequent on the operation of this bill. He suggested that the allowances given to constables when on extra duty, should be charged, not on the parish to which the constables belonged, but to the county generally; otherwise it would be anything but an advantage to a parish to possess an active constable. With respect to the commitment of young persons to gaol, considering the contamination to which they were thereby subjected, he would suggest the adoption of a clause
" Empowering magistrates to commit for trial young persons who are charged with criminal offences to lock-up houses instead of the county gaol."
Mr. Darbyopposed the clause and the suggestion. If payment out of the county rate was introduced into a Parochial Constables Bill, it would lead to endless confusion. He also opposed the clause for providing lock-up houses for criminals before trial, as, if they adopted it, they would be bound to create two sets of prisons and prison officers.
Mr. Bankeswould leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Government.
Mr. Burroughesmoved a clause to enable the justices in session to abstain from carrying out the provisions of the bill in consequence of the police force.
Sir J. Grahamopposed the clauses, as being at variance with the general purpose and spirit of the bill.
Clause negatived; clauses added.
Bill ordered to be read a third time.
Adjourned at half-past cue o'clock.

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.—1a Stamp Duties; Game Certificates (Ireland); St Briavel's Small Debts; Grand Jury Presentments; Joint Stock Banking Companies.
2a Poor Law Amendment; Double Costs; Rivers (Ireland); Municipal Corporations; Election Petitions Trial; Wide Streets (Dublin); Fisheries (Ireland).
Committed and Reported.—Customs Acts Amendment; Exchequer Bills Preparation; Licensed Lunatic Asylums; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.
Reported ߞDrainage (Ireland); Mines and Collieries.
3a and passed:—County Courts (England); Linen Manufactures (Ireland).
Private.2a. National Floating Breakwater Company.
Reported—Lord Dinorben's Estate; Mersey Conservancy. 3" and passed:—Southwark Improvement (No. 2); Hele's Charity (Lowe's) Estate; Street's Divorce.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Galloway, from Schoolmasters of Jedburgh, Dunoon, Wigtown, and Hamilton, for better Remuneration.—From Rate Payers of Todmorden, Heworth, St. George the Martyr, Southwark, and Guardians of the Henley Union, against the Poor-law Amendment Bill.—From the Dean and others of the Diocese of Tuam; and from Inhabitants of Rathcorney and Tuney, for the Encouragement of Schools in connection with the Church Education Society.—From Inhabitants of Sunbury, to be heard by Counsel against the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill.

AMENDMENT OF THE POOR-LAW.
Duke of Wellingtonin rising to move the second reading of the Poor-law Amendment Bill said: My Lords, I was one of those who supported the Poor-law as it was introduced some years ago by my noble and learned Friend, and I did so on ascertaining the inconveniences and evils which attended the system of working under the old Poor-law up to that period; and being sensible that the only remedy which could be found for those evils and inconveniences was in the measure proposed by my noble and learned Friend. My Lords, I have since had the satisfaction of contemplating the working of the measure, which then became the law of the land, and I must say that I have been satisfied with its results. It has undoubtedly improved the condition of the working classes, and it certainly does place on a better footing the relations between the working classes and their employers. It has enabled those who had the care of them to provide better for the aged and destitute than has been hitherto the case, and it has in general given satisfaction throughout the country.
620
My Lords, I don't mean to say that I approve of every act that has been done in carrying this bill into operation. I think that in many cases those who had charge of the working of the bill have gone too far, and that there was no occasion whatever for constructing buildings such as have acquired throughout the country the denomination of bastiles, and that it would have been perfectly easy to have established very efficient workhouses, without shutting out all view of what was passing exterior to the walls. I say, then, that in some respects, the system has been carried further than it ought to have been, and I shall also say, that its features have assumed a harsher character in some parts of the country than was necessary; but this has been owing, I must admit, in a great degree, to the adoption of another law by Parliament, I mean what is called the Dissenters' Marriage Act, the regulations depending on which were connected with the execution of the Poor-law Act, and rendered necessary the establishment of unions in many parts of the country which were not yet ripe for the formation of those unions. But notwithstanding the circumstances to which I have just now alluded, I must in general state my approbation of the working of this act. I have paid great attention to the subject. Wherever I have resided, I have attended the meetings of guardians of unions in my neighbourhood; I have visited several workhouses in different parts of England, and I must say I never visited one in which the management was not as good as could be expected in such districts of the country, and which did not give universal satisfaction. Under these circumstances I have great pleasure in moving the continuance of the existing Poor-law, particularly of the commission for five years longer. My right hon. Friend in the other House intended to propose at the same time the continuance of the commission and some provisions of a larger nature than those embraced in the present bill, for applying a remedy to many evils which required amendment in the original law and in the existing system. But as the Session is near its close, and the determination of the commission is approaching so nearly, it has been found impossible to carry the provisions I have alluded to during the present Session of Parliament. Therefore, the original amendments of many parts of the law have been struck out from that measure, which contains no-

621
thing but the continuance of the commission, and some few clauses for which it was deemed indispensable to provide. The first clause, as I have said, provides for the continuance of the commission for five years. The next provides that the number of assistant-commissioners shall be nine, and, at the same time, enables the commissioners, if they find it necessary, to appoint persons to make special inquiries. By the act of 1834 the commissioners were required to lay before the Secretary of State, and eventually before Parliament, any general rules they should make for carrying on the system of management of the poor throughout the country. Many rules laid down by the commissioners had been special rules, and, consequently, could not come within the knowledge of the Secretary of State and of Parliament. But this has since been prevented, and this bill contains a special enactment that those general rules should not be altered by special rules without the consent of the Secretary of State. It does not appear necessary to draw attention to any other parts of the bill. It embraces some important provisions for enabling the commissioners to act in accordance with the wishes of Parliament as intended in 1834. Any further steps that may be necessary for this purpose, will be submitted to Parliament in the next Session. The noble Duke concluded by moving the second reading of the bill.
Earl Stanhopesaid, that, as had been stated by the noble Duke, the present bill was only a fragment of that larger measure which the Government were either unable or unwilling to carry through in the present Session. It was hoped by many, and he was of the number, that a short bill continuing the power of the commissioners for one year, until the whole subject could be brought fully under the consideration of Parliament, would have sufficed, but it appeared, that Government must have the unconstitutional powers of the commissioners extended to five years—powers which, if asked for in the better time of constitutional freedom, would not have been allowed to be exercised even for a single day. It must be well known to their Lordships, that many of those who gave to Ministers a temporary and reluctant support on this occasion, had been returned to Parliament on their solemn pledge to oppose the renewal of the bill, as it had previously passed the Legislature. With respect to the Government, he must
622
say, that though he was not prepared to expect, that a much greater share of relief would be given by them to the poor, than had been sanctioned by the previous Ministers, yet he owned he did not expect, that the present men in office would be prepared to bring on themselves a larger share of public odium than had belonged to their predecessors, The present were strange times, when men were called on to prove questions which heretofore required only to be stated, in order to receive a ready assent. Who would have thought, in the better times of our constitution, of deeming it necessary to prove, that the union in the same persons of such powers as were placed in the hands of the Poor-law commissioners, was not only unconstitutional, but illegal? As he was forced to do it, he would offer a few quotations from high authorities in support of his argument, Locke said, thatߞ
" The Legislature is empowered only to make laws, and not to make legislators."
Blackstone, speaking of the executive and legislative powers, observed,
" Whenever those lieu powers are to be found together, there is an end of public liberty."
But he would go back to a more ancient and more venerable authority. Coke, in his reports, saidߞ
" When an Act of Parliament is against right or reason, or repugnant or impossible to be performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge such act to be void."
He would now come to modern authority, and he could not quote a higher than that of his noble and learned Friend, whom be regretted that he did not see in his place on the Woolsack. His noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) had said, in speaking of the powers which the Poor-law Amendment Act gave to the commissioners,
How is this system to be worked out? By investing with absolute power three commissioners. My Lords, this is a new mode of; whether it is a wise cue or not I leave to your Lordships-, consideration, but it is one which may lead to the most inconvenient practical results. To invest a certain number of individuals with an absolute authority to carry such measures into effect, however convenient they may be to the Government of the day, is, in my opinion, an unsound and indefensible system of legislation. Mark, my Lords, the extraordinary powers which are to be intrusted to those commissioners. In the first place, they have the power to pass these laws. I do

623
not say they have the power themselves alone, but they can do so with the assistance of the Government for the time being. Nothing can be more objectionable. They have the power of enacting laws for the undisputed government and control of the people in the various workhouses, for the unlimited control, too, of the guardians, and for the entire management, in short, of every thing connected with the workhouses which it is proposed to establish, and, finally, they are empowered to pass such laws as they may think expedient; and for what purpose? Why, to carry this bill into effect.'
The next opinion on this subject, which he would quote, was that of the noble and learned Lord, the Chief Baron of the Exchequer, who saidߞ
" With respect to the commissioners, he was decidedly opposed to the union of the legislative and executive power which it was proposed to repose in them. This was a delegation of authority—a sort of imperium in imperio, which he would never bring himself to allow. It was a new system of legislation—a species of despotism which it was his solemn conviction the country would never be brought to submit to."
He would next quote the opinion of a noble and learned Lord (Wynford), late the Chief Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, who must be held a very competent and high authority on all great legal questions. That noble and learned Lord, whose absence he regretted, had expressed himself very strongly on the power proposed to be given to the commissioners, and he had reason to know, that he was still of the same opinion which he expressed, when he delivered the speech from which he was about to read an extract; and he begged the attention of their Lordships to the graphic foresight with which the noble and learned Lord had predicted what would be the condition of the poor, if the bill then pending should pass.
" It is impossible." said the noble and learned Lord, "to contemplate a more complete system of grinding slavery than this bill would subject the poor of this country to. They must eat, drink, sit, sleep, or work at the bidding of the commissioners; they will hardly be allowed to breathe the air or enjoy the light without their permission."
And he added,ߞ
" Pass this bill, and the poor of this country will become more complete slaves than were the villeins who formerly existed in England, or than the slaves in the West Indies."
To those quotations he would add the high authority of one whose death he
624
should never cease to deplore—one whose attachment to the great institutions of his country was too well known to require comment from him,—he alluded to the late Lord Eldon, who described the Poor-law Amendment Bill as the most infamous law that had ever been enacted in any Christian land. He would entreat their Lordships to consider well the principle which they were upholding in enacting this law, Let them look at the manner in which it had been supported. It had had the support of many who were sent into Parliament on a pledge to oppose it, and who in violating that pledge had covered themselves with ignominy and disgrace. It was said, that the commissioners were to be continued only for five years, but their Lordships would find that the object aimed at was to render those powers perpetual. Was there, let him ask, any argument which could be used for continuing them which would not be equally applicable at the end of five or six years hence? The bill before them was, and was intended to be, an act for continuing and confirming the power of the dictators without any attempt to mitigate the system in its influence on the poor, or any effort made to appease their just resentment; and under what circumstances, let him ask, had the Ministers of the Crown the hardihood to bring forward this measure? It was in a period of distress the most awful and extensive which had afflicted the country for many years—distress so alarming in its character and effects, that if it were to extend much further, it would tear up all those bonds by which society was held together, and bring about revolution, bloodshed, and anarchy. This measure was brought forward at a time, too, when the distress already existing was aggravated by the Corn-law, and by what might be fairly expected to be the result of the new tariff, a measure which there was little doubt would drive hundreds—nay, thousands, out of employment. Accounts were every day received from the manufacturing districts of the increased and increasing numbers moving about destitute of work and of food—of many who had actually perished through want of food. Did their Lordships disbelieve or doubt any of those statements? Had any one of them been denied? It had been said, that none of this distress was caused by the Poor-law. That he denied. It was caused by the Poor-law, because many who had claims for relief would, and did, forego

625
their claims rather than be relieved on the terms laid down by the Poor-law commissioners. The great object of the Poor-law seemed to be to render the grant of relief as odious as possible in the minds of the people. If there were any one subject on which the great majority of the community seemed to agree it was on the propriety, the justice, and humanity of not withholding out-of-door relief from the really destitute. On that subject the bill before their Lordships was as silent as the grave. Not a word was said about it; so that if distress extended—and it would extend, no doubt—the relief must be at the will and pleasure of the dictators of Somerset-house. No matter what the cause of the distress, whether it arose from improvidence or idleness, or whether it was caused by circumstances over which the poor man had no control,—it was treated in the same way by the commissioners. What was this but treating poverty as a crime, no matter what its cause? All were to get relief only by consenting to be immured in those prisons or workhouses which the noble Duke had admitted had acquired, and very properly acquired, the denomination of bastiles. [The Duke of Wellington: No, no.] He had understood the noble Duke to use the word " bastiles" as applying to the union workhouses.
The Duke of Wellington: No, no, no. My Lords, I must set the noble Earl right. When I said, " acquired the denomination of bastiles," I referred to the term as being given to them by the noble Earl himself.
Earl Stanhopewould take the fact to be so, but from some cause they had acquired the denomination of bastiles. They were, however, worse than bastiles. They were not erected for confining political offenders. No lettres de cachet sent a man there for any state offence. The crime for which men were sent to these modern bastiles was that of being poor. It would be well for the poor if these were bastiles in the French sense of the term, but he repeated, that in the mode of confinement, in the restriction of liberty, in the quantity and quality of food, the treatment of the poor in the union workhouses was worse than that of any bastile. The commissioners stated in their reports that the great object of the new law was to abolish out-door relief. In 1835 it was proposed to discontinue out-door relief altogether, but if that had been adopted, the Poor-law would long have ceased to exist, and the two
626
Houses of Parliament also. It was singular to observe to what inconsistent arguments those persons were reduced who were driven to find apologies for the continuance of this bad law. He conceived it to be admitted—he spoke with all doubt—by his noble Friend the illustrious Duke near him, that the system had been carried too far and extended too rapidly. It was not denied by its most eager advocates that some of the regulations of the union workhouses were as unnecessary as they were revolting to our feelings; but it was said at the same time that they furnished a good test of destitution, the existence of which could not be ascertained without workhouses. When the opponents of the law, on the other hand, represented the intolerable injustice of forcing people into these workhouses, his noble Friend the Lord-lieutenant of Cambridgeshire told them that they were comfortable asylums for the poor, the aged, and the helpless. If that were true, how could they serve as tests of destitution? Again, the refusal of out-door relief was stated to be the chief feature of the Poor-law Amendment Act, and yet, after all, they were told that outdoor relief was still granted to a very considerable extent. That was undoubtedly the case, but what did it prove? That the authors of the plan found it impossible to carry into effect the principles which they themselves had adopted, and shrank from carrying out the workhouse test in its full extent. He knew it had been said, among other apologies for the measure, that it had tended to exalt the character of the labouring poor. Let their Lordships look to official documents, and they would find, that since the enactment of this New Poor-law, there had been an enormous, a most melancholy, a most fearful increase of crime. He was grieved to hear it said by his noble Friend, the noble Duke who moved the second reading of the bill now before their Lordships, that it had tended to improve the condition of the labourers. The situation of the labourers must, of course, vary to some extent in different districts; but he must say, that they were now, except when fully employed and earning full wages, in a more lamentable state of destitution all over the country than they ever had been before, so far as his recollection extended. As to the economy of the measure, he would say nothing of the state of the agricultural districts, for in them there was no proper standard of comparison; but he knew a parish in the county of Surrey,

627
in which, at the passing of the act, the poor-rates stood at 3s. in the pound, the same as they had been for sixty years previously, but now they were at 11s. in the pound. They were told, that it was a principle of English law that no wrong could exist without its remedy; but what redress were the poor of this country allowed against those who inflicted wrongs on them? It was adding insult to injury to tell the poor man whose attention was absorbed by providing the means of daily sustenance, that he might move the Court of Queen's Bench for a writ of certiorari. He did not think that such a writ could issue If it were proved in any case that the guardians had acted in strict conformity with the rules, orders, and regulations received from the Poor-law commissioners, which, according to the words of the act, were to have the force and authority of law. Repeated cases of misconduct on the part of those functionaries had come before the public; and what in that case had been the conduct of the commissioners? They had been judges in their own cause, which had been investigated by the assistant-commissioners, and by the very boards a guardians against whom complaint had been made. He was aware, that, as had been pointed out by the noble Duke, a clause in this bill declared that no assistant-commissioner should, in future, be so employed. That was true enough; to employ an assistant-commissioner would be too glaring, but the commissioners might employ any person whom they chose to select, not being an assistant-commissioner, with the assent of the Secretary of State. Their Lordships must be aware, that not a few, but innumerable cases had occurred, in which petty offences had been committed in order that those who committed them might find refuge in a gaol. A gaol, with all its terrors, appeared to them to be preferable to the comfortable asylum provided by the commissioners. Such was the injustice of the New Poor-law, that it made mental and physical distress, moral degradation, and political disaffection, equally penal and productive of the same consequences. Under the operation of that atrocious statute, which Lord Eldon properly termed the most infamous act ever passed in a Christian country, injustice hail been inflicted, cruelties and crimes had been committed, which it was out a human power to remedy. The Legislature might regret their proceedings, they might wish to retrace their
628
steps, they might even repeal this law, but they would not be able to recall to life those who had been murdered in those new prisons. He spoke not unadvisedly, he used not rashly, or without due consideration, the term " murder." In order to be guilty of murder, it was not necessary to administer a deadly poison, or inflict a mortal wound. That crime was committed when any human being placed another, knowingly and willingly, in circumstances in which death must be the inevitable consequence. It was said last Session by the first Minister of the Crown, that this system was to be considered in the light of an experiment. It was, indeed, an experiment on the patience of the people, but one that would probably fail. Human patience and endurance had their limits; there was no animal so senseless which a long succession of ill-treatment might not drive at length to act in self-defence. The most dreadful and atrocious cruelties, the most flagrant and intolerable enormities, had been perpetrated under this act— oppressions which infinitely exceeded that of ship money, which led to the great rebellion, and brought Charles 1st to the scaffold. What were the ordinances of Charles 10th of France? They were undoubtedly a violation of the constitution granted to his subjects, but no practical evil had yet been found to flow from them, when the monarch was hurled from his throne, driven with his family into exile, and his heirs excluded from the succession. Could it be supposed, in the face of these historical facts, that the dictators of Somerset-house would be allowed to continue in the enjoyment of the power which they had unjustly, and, he thought, illegally acquired, and which they exercised with so much tyranny and oppression? If that power was destined to continue, then let nothing more be said of the British constitution being the envy and admiration of surrounding nations; let it be rather considered in its present state as a constitution which necessarily required an extensive and organic reform. Whatever calamities and convulsions might ensue, and convulsions must follow. The Duke of Wellington: Hear.] He rejoiced that the noble Duke ha heard it, for he could not hear it too frequently or too forcibly declared. [The Duke of Wellington: I admire it.] The noble Duke will hear it in a voice of thunder from the people. Before sitting down, he would implore their Lordships

629
to consider well what would be, what must be, and what ought to be, the fate of that House, of their Lordships, individually and collectively, and of all-the institutions of this country, it being weighed in the balance they should be found wanting. It was unnecessary for him, having so fully delivered his sentiments on this subject on former occasions, to trespass longer on their Lordships' time. He would move, that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Lord Broughamquite concurred in the last observation of the noble Earl, and would be disposed to adopt the course which it pointed out. He had had so many opportunities of discussing this question, and of meeting his noble Friend on the grounds on which he had so long carried on his opposition to this bill — he had so repeatedly urged similar answers to the repeated and similar arguments of the noble Earl, that he did not think that it would be necessary for him to go, at present, into the general question. It would have been incumbent upon him, as a friend of the measure before the House, as originally a promoter and ever after a supporter of that measure, on the grounds of the general good which it had, on the whole, effected, and the highly beneficial results it had produced towards those whose condition was the main object of its enactments—the labouring classes — it would have been incumbent upon him, as such a promoter, and as such a supporter, if the noble Earl had brought forward anything new, if he had varied those charges which they had so often heard proceeding from him, if he had even materially varied the language in which those charges were couched, if he had spared a few epithets, and abstained from a little vituperation, or replaced it with new reasons—if he had brought forward facts, or specific charges founded upon fact, either against the provisions of the measure, or against the conduct of those by whom those provisions were carried into practice—if such had been the course taken by the noble Earl, he too might have been bound to enter now at large into the question. But their Lordships would suffer him to observe, with respect to the lack of specific charges and statement of facts, on former occasions, that, when the noble Earl was reminded of this lack, and when, pressed for particulars, he at length did, bring
630
forward specific charges, they were met, readily and at once to the entire satisfaction of their Lordships; and now, after having answered the particular charges then brought against the measure —after having defended it to their Lordships' satisfaction, they were only met with a repetition of wholesale, undefined attacks, and all the former vague generalities, without the former specific charges, and facts. With reference to the latter part of the noble Earl's speech, it was not, for him, unusually immoderate. Such speeches were supported by precedent, but it was he who had furnished, and he alone who had followed this precedent—who had pursued the system of making appeals to the passions of the people, by advancing such charges as that of murder, and enunciating such anticipations as those of impending rebellion; a species of prophecy which, more than any other, tended towards its own accomplishment. The noble Earl talked of both Houses of Parliament being exposed to the highest risk from the excited state of the feeling in the country upon the subject of the Poor-law; but while the noble Earl advanced such opinions, he certainly took no pains to allay that feeling which he affected to deplore, and possibly did dread. He would appeal to their Lordships—he would appeal to the noble Lord himself, whether, in his calmer moments, if, indeed, upon this subject, who was visited with calmer moments, whether he would not lament having ever used the expressions which he had just uttered. But he did not believe that the good sense of the people, or the feelings of the most suffering portion of the people, would so far be led away by such declamations, as to make them forget, as others had forgotten, their duty to the peace of the country — their duty to the law of the land—their duty as good subjects to the Crown, as good citizens to their families, and as prudent men to themselves.
Original motion carried without a division. Bill read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Thursday.

COUNTY COURTS.
The Earl of Shaftesburymoved the third reading of the County Courts Bill.
Lord Campbellobjected most strongly to some of the provisions of this bill, but, in consequence of the absence of his noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor,

631
he should not do further than enter his protest against certain parts of it.
Lord Broughamapproved of the bill, as a step in advance in the right direction, and a very important and valuable step; but lamented, with his noble and learned Friend, that it did not go much further, retaining his decided preference for the principle of his (Lord Brougham's) Local Courts Bill of 1833.
Lord Cottenhamthought that, so far as this bill went to establish county courts it was good, but he feared that the machinery which would be established under it would tend to prevent or impede other most important improvements in the administration of the law.
Bill read a third time and passed.
Adjourned.