Sitting of 30 June 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public—1° Four Courts Marshalsea (Dublin).
2° Charitable Pawn Offices (Ireland).
Reported,—Stock in Trade.
3° and passed:—Justices Jurisdiction Act.
Private.—1° Birmingham School Estate; Bishop of Perry's Estate.
3° and passed:—Leeds Burial Ground Foxteth Park Paving and Sewerage (No. 2); London Bridge Approaches.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Ormsby Gore, from New Ross, Kilkenny, and Wexford, against Fisheries (Ireland).—By Mr. Serjeant Jackson, from Kilshannich, for Alteration of the Present System of Education in Ireland,—By Mr. Darby, from Hailsham Union, for Voting the Owners in Lieu of the Occupiers of Small Tenements—By Mr. C. Buller, from the Literary and Scientific Institution of Liskeard, for Exemption from Rates and Taxes.—By Mr. Redhead Yorke, from the Rational Society, Hants., for Inquiry into National Difficulties.—From Merchants, Warders, and Inhabitants of Belfast, against the Lagan Navigation Bill.

TEXAS BLOCKADE.
Sir R. Peelpresented, by command of her Majesty, the treaties which had been concluded by the late Government with the republic of Texas. He said that the present Government, acting on the almost uniform usage of public law, had felt it their duty—there being no question of an exceeding of their powers by the agents of the British Government—to ratify those treaties.
Mr. O'Connellwished to know whether it were true that the government of Texas had formed a blockade of the west coast of America to the extent of 700 or 800 miles, and whether the right hon. Baronet was prepared to give any information as to the capability of Texas to make such a blockade effectual? He thought it was generally understood that their fleet consisted of only two or three ships.
Sir B. Peelsaid, the mails came 60 fast, it was difficult to keep up with the information they brought. He could not say precisely what information had come by the last mail, but the last accounts he saw stated that there was no bona fide or effectual blockade. He could give no assurance on the subject, but he hoped there would
788
be no such blockade as Great Britain would be bound to recognise.

DUTY ON CEMENT STONES.
Mr. Laboucherebegged to put a question to the Vice-President of the Board of Trade on a subject on which great apprehensions existed. A trade had hitherto been carried on in the export of cement stones from the port of Harwich and its vicinity, which employed 200 ships. The new tariff imposed a duty of 6d. a hundred, or 10 s. a ton, on cement stones exported, whereas the value of the article was only about 5s a ton. Thus they had imposed a duty of 200 per cent, ad valorem on this article. He would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware of this when the tariff was brought in, and whether any representation had been made to him of the apprehensions which it had excited in Harwich and its vicinity.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, the tariff, containing the duty in question, was printed and before the public three months, but no remonstrance or observation of any kind on the subject had reached the Government till that day. It would appear that information on which the Government acted in the first instance was questionable, and he could only say that the subject would receive immediate and serious attention.

GRANT TO MAYNOOTH.
Colonel Vernerbegged to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland respecting a part of the Irish estimates, upon which many hon. Members felt anxious. He wanted to know whether it had been intimated by the Government to the Irish Roman Catholic bishops, as had been stated by their accredited organ, that it was intended by Government to give an increased grant to Maynooth College this year, if it were not for the financial embarrassments of the country?
Lord Eliot hadno objection to repeat the answer which he had given to the same question in an early part of the Session. He thought if the hon. Member would refer to the Irish estimates, which were now on the Table of the House, he would see that it was intended to propose precisely the same grant for Maynooth this year, which had been given on former occasions. Consequently no intimation such as the hon. and gallant Gentleman had referred to had been made to the Roman Catholic bishops.
Sir Robert Peeltook that opportunity to request of his hon. Friend to distrust statements that he might see in the newspapers with respect to the Irish Government. He had read accounts of dissentions and quarrels of which he knew nothing; and he took that opportunity of begging Members of that House not hastily to draw conclusions as to matters which were most positively asserted in the Irish newspapers.

A SILVER STANDARD.
Mr. Wallacesaid, that perhaps it would not be inconvenient if he now put the question which stood No. 17 on the motion list. The question which he wished to ask was, whether the great inconvenience and commercial distress which has been attributed more or less to the drain of gold out of this country of late years, and the consequent restriction in the issue of paper-money by the Bank of England, and by other banking establishments, coupled with the general stagnation of trade and want of employment among the working classes, together with the great trouble and positive loss recently inflicted on all ranks, by crying down the gold coin, which may have become light from the inevitable wear and tear to which a metallic currency is ever liable, will induce her Majesty's advisers, with a view to mitigate these evils and to stimulate trade by a prevention of their recurrence, to recommend to her Majesty and to Parliament the substitution of a silver standard of value in aid of or in lieu of the present golden standard.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that be could not help noticing that a practice was of late growing up of printing a summary of a speech, when notices of questions were given. The question of the hon. Member contained the summary of the argument in favour of the silver standard of value. He would not answer the argument then, but he would state it was not the intention of her Majesty's Government to propose any alteration in the standard of value in this country.

GERMAN COMMERCIAL LEAGUE.
Mr Monckton Milneswished to ask the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government a question upon a subject that had excited a great deal of interest in the manufacturing districts, and especially so in the borough that be had the honour to represent. It was with respect to the
790
report that the Prussian Commercial League were about to impose a large import duty upon the woollen goods of England. He wished to know from the right hon. Baronet whether any intimation had been received from the Prussian government on this most important subject, or if he could give the House any information with respect to it.
Sir Robert Peelreplied, that the report alluded to by the hon. Member had come to the knowledge of her Majesty's Government. It had come to them from Frankfort. It did not come in an official form, and it was not one on which reliance could be placed. He had received a most respectable deputation from Bradford, who stated to him that naturally there had been excited a great deal of apprehension. by that which had been referred to by his hon. Friend, the rumours that it was the intention of the Prussian government to raise the duties on articles of mixed cotton and wool. Assurances had been received from the Prussian government, intimating its satisfaction as to the alterations that this Government had voluntarily proposed, and without exacting any conditions whatever. These alterations were certainly favourable to Prussia; and he was happy to say that on the subject of these modifications in their commercial tariff he had received assurances—they were general, certainly—but still they expressed the satisfaction and the earnest wish of the Prussian government to meet them in a corresponding spirit, and the disposition to act with similar liberality. He knew that there was a great pressure upon the Prussian government on the article of iron, and it was in correspondence with the spirit that had been expressed that this pressure had been resisted. He could only state the assurances that had been given, and the conduct of the Prussian government with regard to this article of their manufactures. He attached very great importance to that subject, and he should indeed most deeply regret if such a determination were about to be acted upon by the Prussian government, and particularly at this time. He had had an interview that day with the Prussian minister on this subject; but the Prussian minister had received no intimation on the matter. He had heard nothing whatever of the intention of the Prussian government to propose to the Zoll-Verein to raise the duties on articles manufactured with mixed cotton and wool. He

791
had no guarantee as to the future: but this he could say, that the Prussian minister, whom he had only seen within the last few hours, had received no intimation on the subject, and had expressed with him the wish that it might not be true. He repeated that he could give no assurance as to the future; but this he said, that the country would have strong grounds to lament that such an article should be selected to impose upon it high duties, at the very time that so much was done by this country in favour of Prussia and other states on the shores of the Baltic; and it would have grounds to lament it too, unless what it had done was met in a corresponding spirit to that which had dictated our own tariff.

THE DRAMA.
Lord Mahonrose to call the attention of the House to the petition which he presented in the course of last month, and which was signed by all, or nearly all, the dramatic authors of the country. They stated in that petition that many of them were emulous of pursuing the higher branches of their art, but were deterred by the difficulties created by the laws relating to the stage, which they conceived to be opposed to the advancement of the drama. They also stated, that they heard with regret universal complaints of the decay of the drama; and that they despaired of its regeneration until the laws which regulated the stage were taken into consideration by the House, and adapted to the increased intelligence of the present age. He might not expect to obtain any efficient remedies in the present Session by thus introducing the subject to the House, but at any rate he thought it was a duty with a view to future legislation, to call attention to the grievances under which the drama laboured. The origin of the evil was to be found in the patents granted to Davenant and Killigrew, the managers of two of the principal theatres in the reign of Charles 2nd. These patents were granted as a mark of personal favour, and were not to be considered as charters; indeed, it was a remarkable fact, that up to the present time there was, as he believed, no instance of such licenses being pleaded in a court of law. But, whatever might be their other effects, these licenses had served as a foundation for the statute laws by which the stage was regulated. First, of those laws he might mention the
792
act 10 George 2nd., commonly called the Licensing Act, which provided that all plays should be licensed by the Lord Chamberlain, a provision very just in its principle, but, as he should hereafter show, subject to error in detail. By this statute it was also enacted, that a performer acting without a permanent place of residence should be treated as a rogue and a vagabond. They then came to the act 25 George 2nd., c. 36, by which in practice, or at least in theory, the stage was at present governed. Even the title of that Act might give an idea of the contempt with which it treated dramatic authors and actors, for it placed them in a kind of niche between thieves on one side and disorderly ladies on the other. The act was entitled,—
"An Act for the better preventing Thefts and Robberies, and for regulating Places of Public Entertainment, and punishing Persons keeping Disorderly Houses."
Such was the name of the law under which, even at the present day, the countrymen of Shakspeare and of Otway were willing that their drama should be ruled. This act also imposed a fine of 50 l. upon every actor performing without a license from the Chamberlain for each time of his performance, the poverty of actors in general had made this provision from the first a dead letter, it was now set at defiance on all sides, so that even at the present day nearly, if not quite, every actor who trod the boards of our theatres was performing under the risk of a penalty of 50 l. a-night. In like manner, unless when sanctioned by a license from the Chamberlain, theatres were held to be illegal in courts of law, and the consequence of this was, that a contract made with regard to a theatre was made with all the risk of a court of law considering it null and void. There were, indeed, several instances in which parties had been nonsuited in courts of law in consequence of those courts being unable to take cognizance of theatres. He might instance cases of persons who had advanced money on account of small theatres, of actors whose engagements with managers had been broken, and of dramatists who had been defrauded of the stipulated sums for which they had sold their works, in which either the plaintiffs pursuing had been non-suited, or incapacitated from proceeding in consequence of the loose state of the law. Thus it was clear that private as well as public in-

793
justice was perpetrated under the existing system, for the law was brought into operation to sanction acts of evident, and, indeed, acknowledged dishonesty and fraud. But these were not the only practical evils of the system. Another serious and sad consequence was that it failed in securing the power of salutary regulation over theatrical entertainments. In London at the present time it was very usual for public-houses to have what was called "saloons" attached to them for nightly dramatic entertainments in which the propriety of the performance was made a very secondary consideration to the consumption of the landlord's liquors. In the provinces the results were even worse. In many of the large towns minor theatres existed in which performances were given of the lowest and most debasing kind. The effect of these entertainments provided for the lower classes had been most grievous and appalling. Attention was especially directed to the subject by the prison inspectors in their sixth report, presented only a few months, back. The inspectors alluded to the existence of the number of minor theatres in Liverpool. They especially stated that the authorities of that town had no legal power of either regulating, restraining, or putting down such dens of infamy, and that children of the most tender years entered them by themselves, and could not lawfully be prevented. "The number of children frequenting the Sanspareil and other theatres of a still lower description were almost incredible." But further still the inspectors, not contented with this general view, most properly proceeded to examine separately some of the boys in the Borough gaol at Liverpool, and they found that several youthful criminals ascribed to these low theatrical representations their first initiation into crime. Here were one or two of the answers given to the inspectors' inquiries:—
"D. M., aged 12 years, states,' I have been at the Sanspareil, the Liver, and the Queen's. I have stolen the money to go with. It was at the theatres I was first introduced to bad characters. I have been three times in prison.' M. S., aged 18, states, ' I have been eight times in prison and twice discharged. I cannot tell how many times I have been at the Sanspareil, I have been there so often. I have seen Jack Sheppard performed, and am sure, if anything, it encouraged me to commit greater crimes. I thought that part the best where he robbed his master and mistress.' "
794
Now, it was clear that these evils arose from the want of a proper power of regulation, and in order to put an end to one very bad part of the system, he should certainly think it of the highest importance to enact in the first place that no fermented liquors should be sold or consumed in any places allotted to dramatic entertainments. This would in itself affect a great reform in all the lowest theatres. But he did not think that reform should be confined to these. The higher required it in a different dejection, but in an equal degree. Whilst our people were amongst the most moral in the world, our theatres were beyond all comparison and without any doubt, the most shameless. He thought, therefore, that a discretionary power of making regulations for order and propriety in theatres should be given to the magistrates in quarter sessions; subject, however, to the sanction of the Secretary of State. Up to this point, the grievances and evils he had considered were entirely independent of the monopoly on the part of the larger theatres, and with the permission of the House he would now proceed to consider how far that monopoly answered the purposes of public utility. Now, he was not prepared to say that the two great theatres of the metropolis were not entitled to some privileges, but at the same time he was quite clear that the mode in which the monopoly existed was entirely repugnant not only to the interests of the public, but to the interests of the very persons who enjoyed it. By the present regulations, the smaller theatres were debarred from, receiving pieces in the higher order of the drama, however anxious their managers might be to present such performances to the public notice. The consequence of this was, that the dramatic feeling of the people was debased, and that the public suffered by the representation of plays conveying a bad, or at least a loose moral impression. He knew it was often alleged that the existence of the patent theatres was favourable to the greater efforts of genius and necessary to the loftier walks of the art. But this allegation was scarcely to be reconciled with the facts. Nearly all the best dramas produced since the establishment of the patents had been brought forward irregularly or unwillingly. Johnson forced Goldsmith's She Stoops to Conquer into the theatre. Tobin died regretting that

795
he could not succeed in having the Honeymoon performed. Lille produced George Barnwell at an irregular theatre after it had been rejected by the holders of the patents. Douglas was cast back on Home's bands. Fielding was introduced as a dramatist to the public at an unlicensed house, and Mrs. Inchbald's comedy had lain two years neglected when by a trifling accident she was able to obtain the manager's approval. But he could produce no stronger testimony as to the evils of such monopoly than that of one who was a high authority on such points, and who, at least, could not be said to be prone to rash innovation of whatever he found established. He alluded to Sir Walter Scott, who had Written as follows:—
"Where are we to look for that unfortunate counterbalance which confessedly depresses the national drama? We apprehend it will be found in the monopoly possessed by two large establishments. It must be distinctly understood that we attribute these disadvantages to the system itself, and by no means to those who have the administration of either theatre."
But, whilst the effect was so detrimental to the interests of the public, what was the result upon those who held and exercised the monopoly? It was easy to prove that whilst the public had been suffering the monopolists had been far from gaining. In both the great theatres of London the lessees had for the most part, in former years at least, and not with standing much talent and industry, encountered great difficulties, which they were unable to overcome. It was recorded as a saying of Sheridan, that the only year in which he had lost no money by the proceedings of Drury Lane was the year in which that theatre was burnt to the ground. As to the present financial state of Covent Garden, they had a fall disclosure in the schedule Mr. Charles Mathews had lately filed before the Insolvent Debtors' Court. Mr. Mathews declared that during his first year of management, namely, 1839, the receipts were 48,673 l, but the expenses 52,903 l., leaving a deficiency of 4,000 l. In the second year, namely, 1840, the receipts were 49,227 l., but the expenses 51,440 l., leaving a deficiency of above 2,000 l. In the third season, namely, 1841, the receipts had fallen to 42,535 l., while the expenses bad risen to 55,691 l., leaving the enormous deficiency of 13,000 l. After this it was necessary to stop payment.
796
Were things very much better at Drury Lane? So lately as the 23rd of May last, in his address at the termination of the Season, Mr. Macready, the able and accomplished manager, was reported to have expressed himself as follows:—
"The receipts of the season had not been adequate to the exigencies, and great exertions most be made and greater outlays before the theatre will really be a profitable undertaking."
So that whilst, as he said before, the public suffered hardship and debasement, the monopolists themselves were only reaping bankruptcy and ruin. Was this then, he would ask, a state of things which ought to be permitted to continue? The necessity of correcting it was enhanced when it was considered that such temptations were held out to fraud by the present state of the law, which, by its operation, encouraged what it should repress, and repressed what it should encourage. There might be great doubts, as to the "nature of the remedy, but there could be no doubt at all as to the reality and extent of the evil. He hoped, therefore, that the House would take the subject into consideration; but he would tell them that no measure would prove satisfactory if some steps Were not taken to remedy the defects in the licensing department. He did not go the length of saying licensers awards, if unsatisfactory, should be open to revision by courts of law; he was willing to leave them final; but then the responsibility should be placed higher; no more in the Lord Chamberlain's Department, which in the present state of manners had only a fictitious connection with the stage, but in an officer named directly by the Minister of the Crown. The manner in which the service of the licenser was remunerated was also objectionable. He was at present paid by a fee upon each play to the performance of which he gave his assent. This was calculated in itself to bias the judgment. What would be the case if the salary of a judge depended on a verdict being given for the plaintiff? It would be far better to give the licenser such a salary as would insure the services of a man possessing ability and character, than to pay him in the present manner. He Was anxious to call the attention of the House to this subject, being desirous that his native country should be as eminent in arts as

797
she was in arms; and as in former years the stage was one of the boasts of Britain, he hoped some steps would be taken to secure it from its present degradation and decline. He knew that what they could do was but limited; they could not shape and body forth a good play by act of Parliament, they could not make a Shakespeare or an Otway; but they might do this—give such eminent men, if any such again rose amongst them, full scope for their own talents and exertions—free them from unworthy trammels, and bestow on them whilst we ourselves enjoy, the blessings of equal laws. The noble Lord concluded by moving—
"For copies of any communications which have been addressed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the course of the present year, complaining of the state of the law in reference to the drama."
Mr. H. Gally Knight: I have the greatest pleasure in seconding this motion, and I do so because, ten years ago, I served on a select committee appointed by this House to inquire into the laws affecting dramatic literature, and 1 feel obliged to the noble Lord who has brought forward this motion for now endeavouring to carry into effect very nearly the same conclusions at which that committee arrived, but which have never been acted upon from that time to this. We went very fully into the subject, and examined Several witnesses; and it was sufficiently proved that various obstacles are thrown in the way of the dramatic literature of this country—some of which obstacles cannot be removed, but others might be surmounted; and it was the opinion of the committee that the attempt ought to be made The irremoveable obstacles are the changes of fashion, the lateness of hours, and the conscientious objections to theatres in general of a portion of the community. Those which appeared to be capable at least of mitigation are—first, the Size of the theatres at which the legitimate drama is alone allowed to be performed; second, the state of the law with respect to the licensing of theatres; third, the laws which affect the copyright of dramatic works. With respect to the size of the theatres, it is much to be regretted that, as the population of the metropolis became more numerous, the theatres were not multiplied, instead of being enlarged; for, as it is, the two theatres to which the legitimate drama is restricted, are become
798
too large for anything but scenery and show. The minor theatres are restricted to what is technically called "the bur letta"—a species of composition not very easy to define; but the general understanding is, that burletta must always be accompanied by music, which, of course, places the legitimate drama out of the province of the minor theatres. In what way this difficulty was to be met, it was not easy to decide; but it was impossible not to see that the size of the theatres, in which the legitimate drama may be represented, had operated unfavourably on dramatic literature; and the committee came to the opinion that, with regard to this point, some improvement might be made if the licensing powers of the Lord Chamberlain, which are now limited to the city of Westminster, Were extended, and if the right of representing the legitimate drama were no longer confined to the two patent theatres. With regard to the copyright, the dramatic author, is certainly obstructed by peculiar and unnecessary vexations. In the first place, he must submit his works to a censor; but, after having fully considered that subject, the committee could not come to the opinion that the censorship could be dispensed with. But dramatic authors enjoy less protection than is granted to authors in any other branch of letters, and are exposed to hardships which others have not to encounter. They have to make the best bargain they can with the manager, and have often great difficulty in obtaining the payment of the moderate compensation which may have been allowed. The management changes before the payment is complete; the piece is considered a Stock-piece of the theatre, and no redress can be had from the new manager, Successful plays are often pirated by the provincial theatres, amongst which I include the theatres of Bath, Liverpool, Dublin, and Edinburgh; and, in this case, the author has neither compensation nor redress. In France, no play can be acted without the written permission of the author, which enables him to make his own terms. To relieve dramatic authors in this country, it was the opinion of the committee that the author of a play should posses the same legal protection as is possessed by the author of any other literary production, and that it should be made unlawful to represent his works at any theatre, metropolitan or provincial, without his express

799
and formal consent. I am anxious that dramatic authors should receive protection, because I consider a good acting play to be one of the most difficult and most admirable of all literary efforts. It is not only a vehicle for poetry of the highest order, but it discloses the secrets of the human breast, presents us with characters moulded from the lips, awakens the most generous feelings, inculcates the most lofty sentiments, and produces its effect upon numerous bodies of men in the most direct, immediate, and electric manner. Comedy shows us the ridicule of our follies and foibles. Tragedy pierces into the cell of the passions, and awakens our admiration for the sublimities of virtue and our abhorrence of the enormities of vice. Dramas are not only the mirror of the age, but may be schools of morality. Of what British literature have we more reason to be proud than the works of our dramatic writers? Are we not the countrymen of Shakspeare? and was he not succeeded by a long train of worthies, Massinger, Ben Johnson, Ford, Rowe, Otway? And if the obstacles of which I have alluded have, of late years, discouraged the drama, have we not still amongst us a Talfourd, a Lytton Bulwer, a Sheridan Knowles, and would not others arise, with proper encouragement, who would wake the tragic muse from her trance, and renew the triumphs of the British stage? May we not, therefore, justly call upon the Legislature to improve the laws which affect the dramatic literature of this country?
Sir James Grahamhad not heard the whole of the speech of his noble Friend, and he must also candidly state that he had not directed his attention to the subject under the consideration of the House. He would only remark, that although the noble Lord seemed to have devoted much attention to the subject, yet his information did not seem to have enabled the noble Lord to propose any specific alteration in the laws of the operation of which he complained. The noble Lord had stated that something must be done, but he was unable to collect the precise nature of the change which the noble Lord would wish to have carried into effect. Therefore, without pledging himself to any specific course, he would be most glad to enter into the consideration of any plan which the noble Lord might at any future time bring forward. At present he was
800
not prepared for any discussion, but to the production of the papers, for which the noble Lord had moved, he had not the least objection.
Returns ordered.

POLAND.
Mr. Gally Knight: In rising to bring forward the motion, of which I have given notice, I must begin by expressing my regret that the task has not fallen into abler hands than mine. I am fully sensible of my own inadequacy to do justice to so large and important a question; but, having long taken a deep interest in the destinies of Poland, and having, on former occasions, lifted up my voice in her behalf, I could not desert her now; and I throw myself on the indulgence of the House—an indulgence of which I always stand in need. I beg leave also to premise that, in thus coming forward, I take upon myself the whole responsibility of this motion. In this matter I am wholly unconnected with those I usually support; I come forward as an independent Member of this House to perform that part which is dictated to him by his own conscience and his own sense of duty. Neither do I come forward with any wish of keeping a sore open—of perpetuating a convenient annoyance; but rather for the sake of inducing Russia, if it may be, herself to close a sore, which, otherwise, must remain festering to her own great and lasting disadvantage. I stand more in need of the indulgence of the House, because I shall not have it in my power to relieve my discourse with any appeals to the passions, or any pungent denunciations. It is not my intention to heap invectives on a sovereign with whom this country is in alliance; my object is to assert a right, but not to give offence—to persuade, and not to irritate; and my belief is, that by adopting this course, I shall not only be acting in the most proper manner, but in that manner which is the most likely to lead to a practical and beneficial result. At the same time I feel persuaded that the sympathy which this House has ever felt for the Polish nation—that nation which at one time was the bulwark of Christendom—which at all times has been remarkable for talent and courage, and no less remarkable, I regret to say, for its great and unmerited misfortunes—will induce this House to listen with interest to any thing which relates to them, however imperfectly the statement

801
may be made by their feeble advocate. I should not here presume to occupy the time of the House with this motion, had the affairs of Poland remained in the same state in which they were when they were last the subject of discussion; but, unfortunately, new matter has arisen—new infractions of the treaty of Vienna have taken place; changes have been made, not only pernicious in themselves, but likely to lead to others of a still more deplorable character. But, in order to make the House more fully aware of the nature and tendency of these changes, and because there are many new Members in this House who were not present on former occasions, I must go back to the earlier stages of this sad history, and remind the House, in as few words as I am able, of the expectations which were originally held out to the Polish nation, and of the prospects which, at one time, opened before them. Let us see what they had reason to expect from the Emperor of Russia; let us see in what light they were regarded by the contracting powers of Europe. With respect to the first, we have the evidence of the letter written by the Emperor Alexander to the celebrated Kosciusko, dated Paris, March 3, 1814:—
"Paris, March 3,1814.
"I feel the greatest satisfaction in returning an answer to your letter. The wishes you have most at heart shall be fulfilled. With the aid of the Almighty I hope to accomplish the regeneration of the brave and respected nation to which you belong. I have taken upon myself a solemn engagement to effect this object; the welfare of Poland has long occupied my thoughts. Political circumstances alone have interfered with the execution of my intentions. Those obstacles exist no longer. Two years of a terrible, but glorious, struggle, have swept them away. Yet a little while, and, proceeding in a prudent manner, the Poles will recover their country and their name; and I shall enjoy the pleasure of convincing them, that he whom they thought their enemy, is the person who will crown their hope s——!"
Did not this letter give the Polish nation reason to hope every thing from the kindness of their new protector? With respect to the second consideration, we know that at the Congress of Vienna the question of Poland was considered to be of such vital importance, not only to Poland, but to Europe, that, on account of it, recourse was on the point of being had to arms. I need not remind the House that the absolute restoration of Poland as an
802
independent kingdom was then the object; and, when that project was interrupted by the return of Napoleon from Elba, let us see in what terms the British Plenipotentiary, the late Lord Londonderry, expressed himself, in his note addressed to the Congress in 1814:—
"Without giving up his former opinions on the subject of Poland, he would confine himself to the expression of a wish that the proposition made by Russia on that subject might never lead to any of those evil consequences with respect to the tranquillity of the north, or the equilibrium of Europe, which it was his duty to bear in mind; but that, in order to guard against those dangers as much as possible, it was of the utmost importance to lay the foundations of public tranquillity in those countries which formerly composed the kingdom of Poland, upon the liberal basis of consulting their common interests, by giving to all the inhabitants of those countries, however varied might be the form of their government, a system of administration with which they would have reason to be satisfied. It is not by going counter to the usages and institutions which they possessed as a nation, that the happiness of Poland and the tranquillity of that important part of Europe can be secured."
After pressing upon the Congress the necessity of preserving the nationality of the Poles, Lord Londonderry goes on to say:—
"That such a course would obtain for the different sovereigns the respect of their Polish subjects, and would dissipate any apprehensions with respect to the liberties of Europe that might be awakened by the union of Poland to the empire of Russia, which was always increasing in power; apprehensions which would cease to be chimerical, if, at any time, the military force of the two countries should be wielded by an ambitious and warlike prince."
These expressions, in the highest degree honourable to the British Plenipotentiary, not only prove that Lord Londonderry considered the Polish question to be a European question—that he considered the preservation of Polish nationality to be of the utmost importance to the tranquillity and safety of Europe—but that he frankly informed the Russian government of his opinions in all their bearings, and made Russia fully aware of the jealousy with which she could not fail to be regarded, should any other course but the one he recommended be adopted. About the same time Prince Talleyrand, the French minister, declared that the views announced by Lord Londonderry, were in exact conformity with those entertained

803
by France. The same sentiments were expressed by Austria and Prussia. And what was the answer of Russia?
"That the justice and liberality of the sentiments of the British Plenipotentiary had afforded the Emperor of Russia the most lively satisfaction, and that a just measure had been taken of the large and enlightened views of his Imperial Majesty. That, by favouring all the measures which were likely to ameliorate the condition of Poland, the Emperor trusted he had afforded a proof of the sincerity of his intentions; that he considered that the attachment of the Poles to the respective Sovereigns under whom they were about to be placed, earned by an equitable regard for the interests which they prized the most, would be the best safeguard of the security of the Sovereigns themselves, and the best guarantee of the repose of Europe."
Such were the views entertained and the sentiments expressed by the contracting powers, and by Russia herself, with respect to the destinies of the Polish nation, and the important bearing of that question upon the destinies of Europe. The Congress felt and acknowledged that the preservation of the nationality of the Poles was indispensable to the welfare of Europe, In conformity with these sentiments, that portion of the treaty of Vienna which has reference to Poland was drawn up. The principal articles were—

"1. That the Duchy of Warsaw shall be for ever united by its constitution to the Russian empire, under the title of the kingdom of Poland; that it shall have a distinct administration, a budget, and an army of its own. The Emperor reserves to himself the right of giving it the territorial extension which he may think desirable—(by which was intended that the Polish Palatinates, which Russia had acquired at the former partition of Poland, should be re-united to the new kingdom).

"2. That Prussia and Austria should give a representative form of government to the Polish provinces which they were to retain, and that all the Polish provinces should have such institutions as should preserve their nationality.

"3. That there was to be the most complete freedom of commercial intercourse between all the provinces which had constituted the ancient kingdom of Poland, previous to the partition of 1782.

"4. That Cracow, the ancient capital of Poland, should be a free and independent city."

It will be observed, that of such importance was it considered that the nationality of the Poles should be secured, that its preservation was not only required in the new kingdom of Poland, but also in the
804
Polish provinces which were to remain in the hands of other powers. It was even determined that, in those provinces, the Poles should obtain a representative form of government. The treaty defines the future form of government in those provinces with more accuracy than it does that of the new kingdom of Poland; but the reason was, that at the time of the Congress, in those provinces there was nothing of the kind—whilst the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, which was to form the new kingdom of Poland, was already in possession of a constitution which had previously been conferred upon it by Napoleon. The expression, therefore, of "parsa constitution," which has sometimes said to be vague, was not, in fact, vague, because it referred to the constitution which was already in existence. In 1818, in compliance with the treaty of Vienna, the Emperor Alexander gave a charter to Poland. By that charter the Emperor made some alterations in the constitution granted by Napoleon; but these alterations were of no great importance, and the charter of 1818 was accepted as the constitution guaranteed by the treaty of Vienna. Amongst the articles contained in the charter were—
"Article 86.—The legislative power shall reside in the King and the two Houses of the Diet. The Diet shall assemble once in two years at Warsaw.
"Article 29.—The public offices, civil or military, shall only be exercised by Poles.
"Article 11.—The Roman Catholic religion, which is the religion of the great majority of the inhabitants of Poland, shall be especially protected by the Government.
"The property with which the Roman Catholic Clergy, or the Clergy of the United Greek Church (which acknowledges the Pope as its head) are endowed, or shall be endowed, shall be inalienable."
If this charter did not confer liberties so extensive as are enjoyed in this country, it, at least, gave important pledges to the Poles and to Europe, it, at least, gave the Poles a government of their own, a distinct administration. The public offices were only to be exercised by Poles. The Polish language was to be employed in all public acts, and the nationality of the Polish nation was preserved. But it may be said, for it has been said, that the insurrection of 1830 sufficiently accounts for any alterations that may have been made. But, alas! a great change had taken place in the sentiments of the Em-

805
peror Alexander, a great change in the manner in which the affairs of Poland were administered, long before that unfortunate insurrection occurred. That change did not arise from any misconduct of the Poles, but from what was passing in other countries. Spain demanded a representative government—Naples followed her example—Germany was in a state of ferment—the monarchs were alarmed—Alexander himself was induced to see danger in free institutions. In this alarm, he forgot earlier and more rational sentiments; he forgot his letter to Kosciusko; he forgot that the most secure foundation upon which the throne of a monarch can be based, is the happiness of his people. From that moment, the Poles were treated in a very different manner from what they had been. Promises were not fulfilled—various infractions of the treaty took place, and the harsh government of the Arch-Duke Constantine filled the cup of Polish disappointment to the brim. I do not stand here to justify that insurrection. I do not stand here to say, that the Emperor had not a perfect right to put it down; but this I say, that Russia might have remembered of how much the Poles had reason to complain; this I say, that Russia might have remembered the generous and chivalrous manner in which the Poles suffered the Arch-Duke Constantine, who had used them so cruelly, to escape unharmed, and at a moment when it was obvious how important a hostage he would have been in their hands; above all, I say, that the insurrection did not give Russia a right to abolish the Polish constitution. She had no right to abolish the constitution, even had Poland and herself been the only parties concerned; for, according to all the laws of civilized nations, the misconduct of a part does not entitle a sovereign to file a bill of indictment against the whole—and not only to take vengeance on the offending generation, but also to punish their latest and blameless posterity. But on the occasion in question, there were other parlies concerned. The Polish constitution was as much guaranteed to the Powers who had signed the Treaty of Vienna as to Poland itself—and setting Poland aside, so long as treaties are binding, Russia had no right to abolish the Polish constitution, until she had previously obtained the consent of the contracting Powers to whom it had been conceded. But I need not occupy the time of the
806
House with further urging this point, for, upon this point, England has declared its opinion. Whilst the struggle was yet going on (for this House will remember, that Russia did not find it so easy a matter to crush the handful of brave men who ventured to resist an empire), it was intimated to Russia by the Government of this country, that if not a finger would be lifted in opposition to Russia, or in aid of the Poles, yet that this country expected that the conditions of the treaty of Vienna would be maintained; and when it was perceived that such were not the intentions of Russia, the British Minister at the Court of St. Petersburgh was directed to make representations on the subject. Russia replied by alleging that the insurrection had released her from all her obligations, and argued that Poland was now her property by the right of conquest. The right of conquest! Does any nation that pretends to be civilized assert that conquest confers the right of inflicting wound after wound? No. Does not the conqueror who has any sense of the duties of a ruler, or any respect for the opinion of mankind, rather seek to heal the wounds which he could not help inflicting, and secure his restored authority by acts of generosity and kindness? But the arguments of Russia were not allowed to be valid. The noble Lord, the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, expressly informed this House, in the speech which he delivered in 1833, that he had instructed the British Minister to rejoin that the insurrection had only conveyed the right of putting it down; that, in spite of the insurrection, the treaty of Vienna remained in full force; that if Russia had no compassion for Poland, she would not be released from the obligations into which she had entered with Europe; and that, in spite of all that had been advanced, the abolition of the constitution of Poland would only be regarded as a direct infraction of the treaty of Vienna. Lord Palmerston said, 9th July, 1833—
"The contracting parties to the treaty of Vienna have a right to require that the constitution of Poland should not be touched—and this is an opinion which I have not concealed from the Russian government previous to the taking of Warsaw—and when Warsaw fell, that opinion was again conveyed to the Russian government. The Russian government, however, took a different view of the question. They contended that, by the re-conquest of

807
Poland, the Emperor was placed in the same situation in which he stood after the treaty of Vienna, and before the granting of a constitution to Poland, and that he was at liberty, the previously-existing institutions having been swept away, as they contended, by the revolution, to determine by what sort of institutions they should be replaced. The reply of the English Government was to the following effect:—That having taken into full consideration all that the Russian government had stated in support of their view of the case, they still adhered to the opinion previously expressed, that the true and fair interpretation of the Treaty of Vienna required that the Polish Constitution should remain as before the revolution, and that Russia had no right to abolish it."
On the 19th of February, 1836, Lord Palmerston said,
"I stated on a former occasion, that the British Government had remonstrated against the change which was made in the constitution of Poland, and had expressed it as their opinion that it was not consistent with the treaty of Vienna."
England, therefore, through the mouth of her Minister, stands committed to the opinion that the insurrection was no justification of the violation of the treaty; and, in this country, every succeeding Government admits itself to be bound by the acts of its predecessor. If the representations of England, unsupported by Austria and Russia, did not obtain all that was desired, yet they had an effect; for in the very organic statute which Russia promulgated in 1832, and which is odious in the eyes of the friends of Poland as having been the first public act by which this constitution was abolished—in that destructive statute Russia felt it necessary to introduce pledges of an opposite character. If the organic statute violated one half of the treaty of Vienna, it respected the other half. If it abolished the constitution—if it substituted a Council of State for the Polish Diet, it preserved the distinct administration. If it deprived Poland of its independence, it preserved its nationality—and entered into fresh obligations to respect its religion,—its tribunals,—and its language. Thus it was that, in 1832, despotic rule was, by the organic statute, substituted in the place of free institutions. I will not here dwell upon the pains and penalties by which the new system was ushered in; the suppression of the Universities, the confiscations, the banishments to Siberia, the expatriation of
808
families and children. Of all these this House has heard before, and it might have been hoped that with them resentment would have been exhausted. Neither will I say a word about Cracow, for Cracow is a subject to itself. But I now pass on to the two recent Ukases, to the new matter, in consequence of which I feel myself authorised to call upon this House to express an opinion. After a lapse of nine years,—after an interval during which no new insurrectionary movement has appeared in Poland, during which, if many blows have been inflicted, no resistance has been attempted, Russia, without any communication with the contracting powers, as if to ascertain how much Europe would endure, has issued two Ukases which complete the violation of the Treaty of Vienna, by putting an end to the distinct administration of Poland. These Ukases were issued in September last, since the accession to power of the present Ministry. No room is left for doubt, for the Ukases are prepared with the following words,—
"Finding that a separate Council of State for Poland no longer suits the present posture of affairs"—
And the Ukase then proceeds to incorporate the government of Poland with the government of the empire. Instead of the Polish Council of State, the 9th and 10th sections of the senate of Petersburgh are henceforth to administer the affairs of Poland. The 7th and 8th sections superintend the administration of Moscow, so that the government of Poland is assimilated in every respect to that of every other province of the Russian empire. The Supreme Court of Justice of Poland is abolished, and the 9th and 10th sections of the senate of Petersburgh succeed to all its functions. These sections are to sit at Warsaw, but, component parts as they are of the Russian senate, they are under the same control which directs the senate of Petersburgh, and no longer possess any distinct character. They are to be composed indifferently of Russians and Poles. The emperor names the whole body in the first instance. These are the words nf the Ukase:—
"Finding that the existence of a separate Council of State for the kingdom of Poland is no longer suitable to the existing state of things, and as it is necessary to place the Supreme Tribunal of Justice upon a better basis, we have determined that the Council of State

809
of the kingdom of Poland, and the Supreme Court of Justice shall be suppressed, and, by these presents, we create at Warsaw, for the kingdom of Poland, two new sections of the senate of the empire, which shall be called the 9th and 10th sections. These two sections shall preside over all the affairs over which the Council of State used to preside; with the exception of the budget, which shall be a department to itself.
"Article 3.—The 9th section of the senate of the empire succeeds to all the functions of the Supreme Court of Justice The 10th section shall preside over criminal matters, and shall be regulated by a penal code which will be published hereafter.
"Article 7.—The sections shall, in the first instance, be composed of persons named by the emperor; afterwards they shall be chosen from a list presented by the Viceroy."
I need not remind the House that, next to the enjoyment of freedom, nothing is so essential to the well-being of a people as an administration of justice in which they confide. With what feelings, therefore, must the people of Poland behold their ancient supreme tribunal subverted, the administration of justice taken out of the hands of their countrymen, and a branch of the senate of Petersburgh installed in its stead? From the decisions of the 9th and 10th sections, the only appeal is to the Emperor himself, and an appeal which must be carried to Petersburgh, a distance of 1,500 miles, an appeal to which, an appeal from Dublin or Edinburgh to London would be a trifling inconvenience. The second Ukase makes the Russian money the current coin of Poland. But this is not all; for other Ukases have been issued which make it evident that Russia is acting upon a systematic plan of reducing Poland from a separate kingdom into an ordinary province of the empire, and nothing shows the deliberate intention more completely than the manner in which it is executed. All the changes are first introduced into the Polish provinces which Russia obtained by the first petition, and which, consequently, have been the longest habituated to their absolute control, and from those provinces they are gradually extended to the provinces of the kingdom. In the first place, with regard to the established religion of Poland, that religion of which Alexander declared the property to be inalienable, and which even the organic statute undertakes to respect. By a stroke of the pen, 4,000,000 of the united Greek church,
810
who acknowledge the pope as their head, have been converted into Russian Greeks, acknowledging the Emperor. Another Ukase dispossesses the Catholic clergy of all their landed property, and makes them dependent on the stale. Another reduces their stipends. A Greek bishop is established at Warsaw—a Catholic church is turned into a Greek cathedral—and obstacles are thrown in the way of erecting Catholic chapels in the rural districts. Do not these measures reveal a fixed intention of extirpating the established religion of Poland, and introducing the Greek church in its stead? In the same way a Russian superintendent is appointed to watch over the public education of Poland, and the Russian language is made a principal part of Polish education. It has already been shown what has been done with the courts of justice. The Polish uniform, the Polish colours, the Polish cockade, have been made to give place to the Russian. Russians as well as Poles are allowed to exercise public offices, both social and military. All the public acts are henceforth to be published in the Russian language. Another Ukase changes the Polish palatinates into governments, to assimilate them even the more with the other divisions of the empire. The Russian money becomes the current coin of Poland. The metamorphosis descends from the most important offices to the most minute. Even the weights and measures of Poland are henceforth to be Russian: even the year is not undisturbed, and the Poles are obliged to abandon the new style, and return to the old, because it has been persevered in in Russia—a petty annoyance, which will remind them of their yoke every day. It is a complete system of fusion—a settled intention of effacing the Polish nationality, the Polish religion, the Polish language, of leaving not a trace behind; so that, at length, no man shall be able to say this was Poland. And now I think I have made out my case. I think I have shown that promises of a very different nature were originally held out by Russia, that the independence of Poland was considered by the late Lord Londonderry to be essential to the welfare of Europe, that, in conformity with those views, a constitution and a distinct administration were guaranteed to Poland by the treaty of Vienna, and that now the last fragment of that treaty is scattered to the winds;

811
and allow me to ask what change has taken place in the position of Russia, which makes it more safe than it was in 1814, that Poland should cease to exist as a nation? The honour of this country, as well as the safety of Europe, is concerned. Would it be for the honour of England that she should take no notice of the final annihilation of the treaty, to which she was a party, and which was declared to be of such vital importance? I am told that lam calling upon this country to rush into a war, I declare that I have no such intentions. But I call upon this House to express its sense of the annihilation of the treaty of Vienna; and I call upon the Government to adopt the same course which was adopted before, and to make remonstrances and representations against the infraction of the second half of the treaty, and the abolition of the distinct administration. We might venture to hope that, on the present occasion, we should have the advantage of the co-operation of Prussia. If the only speck on the memory of the late King of Prussia was his subserviency to Russia in all things relating to the Poles, the present king, with whose high qualities this country has recently had the opportunity of becoming acquainted, has already evinced an intention of acting in a different manner. In proof of which, I need only read an extract from the speech of the President of the Diet of the Grand Duchy of Posen, addressed to that body, on the opening of their session in February, 1841:—
"The generous sentiments of his Majesty (Frederick William the Fourth) assure us, that the happiness of the inhabitants of the Grand Duchy of Posen is the object of his wishes and exertions. Already he has afforded us proofs of his sincerity. Our archbishop is restored to us. A general amnesty has been granted to the Poles accused of political offences. Our deputies at Kœnigsberg, on the occasion of his present majesty's accession, have received from the king his solemn promise that nothing shall be done to impair our nationally. His majesty has revoked the edict of 1817, which was a violation of our rights, and has decreed that the Poles shall be allowed to plead in their own language in the courts of justice."
May we not conclude, that the sovereign who is acting in this manner by the Poles within his own dominions, will be disposed to exert himself in favour of those whom, by the treaty, he is equally bound to protect? We may rely on the co-operation
812
of France—for though I am constrained to acknowledge, that at this moment there exists a feeling, with respect to this country, which I deeply regret; which I the more regret, because the real interests of both countries are the same, because I am well assured, that there are no substantial or sufficient grounds for the feeling to which I have alluded—yet, in anything relating to the Poles, we might rely on the co-operation of France, and such a cooperation would be more likely than anything else to lead to a renewal of that good understanding between this country and France, which is so much to be desired. If I am asked what is the use of making representations, I answer, that by so doing, we should preserve a right which, otherwise, will be lost; that, perhaps, we should obtain kinder treatment for Poland; that, at any rate, we should make it impossible for Russia to say—" we thought you approved, because you expressed no opinion to the contrary"—at any rate, we should discharge what appears to me an absolute duty—and never, I trust, will the hour arrive, that shall see England shrink from a duty, or descend from that moral eminence which has hitherto obtained for her the admiration of the world. I am well aware, that at the present moment, we have every reason to be satisfied with the conduct of Russia, except with respect to Poland, and that between Russia and this country the most amicable relations exist; but such a posture of affairs, far from making an appeal to Russia more difficult, should afford it facility; for, have we not a right to say, "if your friendship is sincere, prove it by fulfilling the treaty." And is there anything that should disturb amicable relations when we approach a friend with exhortations that are no less for his real interest than our own? Is it for the interest of Russia that she should prepare for herself a constant source of anxiety? Is it for the interest of Russia that she should make herself an object of jealousy to all the other powers of Europe? Is it better that the safety and tranquillity of Europe should repose on a sleeping volcano, or on Polish nationality? In order to prove that it is not for the real interest of Russia, that she should trample upon the Polish nation, we might point out to her the example of our own conduct to Ireland. Thank God, the time is arrived, when I may advert to that subject with-

813
out indiscretion. But we might tell Russia, that for centuries England treated Ireland as a conquered country; endeavoured to efface her nationality, and her religion; endeavoured to do to Ireland exactly what Russia is now endeavouring to do to Poland; that not only overwhelming force was employed, but that laws were introduced which have been admitted to be the most atrociously ingenious that ever were designed to torture and subdue a people? and what was the result?—that centuries of oppression yield us nothing,—that the Irish only clung to their customs and their creed with the greater tenacity—that they were not subdued, not extirpated, not changed—and that all that England obtained was weakness where she ought to have had strength, and abhorrence where she might have won affection. At last, thank God, the system of persecution was abandoned, and the experiment of kindness resorted to. I will not say, that it has, as yet, completely succeeded; we could not expect it, from our prolonged misconduct; but the good seed is sown, it has already begun to grow, and, in due season, will, I am convinced, produce a rich and abundant harvest. Surely, it cannot offend our august ally to be told that we find it more agreeable to begin to be loved than to continue to be hated; and if I am told that a state of which the nationality is respected, cannot be advantageously combined with a despotic empire, I will point to the analogous case of Austria and Hungary. I will recal to recollection the celebrated cry of "Morie mur pro rege nostro, Mariâ Theresâ;" a sufficient proof that the state of which the nationality is respected, may be the most zealous and devoted support of the empire to which it is attached. Despotism has its advantages as well as its disadvantages. The Emperor of Russia is possessed of unlimited power. He can make nations miserable or happy with a stroke of his pen. He, therefore, can make Poland happy if he will. Let him as we have done, try the experiment of kindness—remove grievances, redress wrongs; break the chain of the captive, recall the exile to his home; treat the brave as they deserve to be treated, with confidence, and earn from them respect and esteem in return—consult the wishes of the people over whom he rules—extend blessings as wide as his sway. This is "the sweetest, holiest, draught of power." By these means he
814
will add strength to his empire, and glory to his name. "Hœ tibi erant artes."—"These are imperial arts, and worthy thee." The hon. Member concluded by moving an address for certain Ukases, bearing date the 15th and 18th of September, 1841, issued by the Russian government and relating to the administration of the kingdom of Poland.
Sir F. Burdett, in seconding the motion, said, that he would not in the absence of any functionary connected with the foreign department of the late Government, make those observations on the subject so ably brought forward by the hon. Member which. he had come down to the House with the intention of making. He should therefore confine himself to the expression of the pleasure with which he gave his cordial support to the motion of the hon. Member, and would only further state, that he looked upon it as an earnest of the justice which this great country was at length prepared to do the ill-fated and unjustly-used Poles. He begged also to express his earnest hopes, that inasmuch as the present Ministry had incurred no responsibility whatever in regard to the acts of the Russian Government towards Poland, and as the late Government alone had participated in the responsibility which attached to this country for having quietly permitted them to be carried into effect,—he trusted the existing Ministry would still continue to act upon the same principle, and to refuse a participation in the responsibility assumed by their predecessors.
Mr. Humewould permit the hon. Baronet's example to influence him, and therefore would refrain from addressing the House at any length on the motion of the hon. Member; but he must express his hope that the people of Great Britain would at length agree to wipe off the stain which had been cast on them in consequence of their having quietly permitted the treaty of Vienna, to which this country was a party, to be so grossly violated as it had been in the case of the Polish nation. The British Government had often interfered abroad in matters which in no way concerned England; but, in 1830, when the fate of Poland was in the balance, and the mere expression of a wish on our part would have secured her independence, the Government of Earl Grey stood culpably by and saw her political exertions sacrificed. It was the duty of the British country to have supported the treaty they were

815
a party to at Vienna. The French Chambers passed, he believed, a resolution every year, declaring that the independence of Poland ought to be supported: and he would be very much pleased if the House of Commons would adopt a similar course. Though he scarcely expected to live to see that happy event, yet the day he hoped would come when Polish nationality would be restored, and the integrity of that kingdom recognised. He deeply deplored the present oppressed state of Poland, the destruction of her national institutions, and the fate of her children and women: and trusting to see them soon reinstated in some of their rights by the remonstrance of this Government, he gave his willing support to the motion of the hon. Member.
Mr. Milnes: Sir, the Government of any country that was a party to the treaty of Vienna is more or less responsible for the well-being of Poland. It was the sanction of those Governments and of England among them, which submitted Poland to Russian rule, which exposed it to the insane ferocities of the governor whom Russia imposed on it, and which therefore was the remote cause of the Polish revolution, and all its calamitous consequence. If there is such a thing as the responsibility of governments, in this case England is responsible, and, admitting this, one only question remained for us—by what means, and to what extent that responsibility is to be asserted. In ail matters of diplomacy, power must be regarded as well as right, and in none more than in the case before us. If what has occurred between Russia and Poland, had occurred between Holland and Belgium, had Belgium been defeated by Holland after her rebellion and resistance, and Holland had attempted to annihilate the nationality of Belgium, and transmute it into a Dutch province, is it conceivable that France and England would have permitted this infraction of the treaty of Vienna? We know, indeed, from the results of the Belgium revolution, that so far from this being the case, a new occasion for diplomatic interference was declared to have presented itself—the arrangements of 1815 were reconsidered and remodelled, and the independence of Belgium was the issue. The physical circumstances of Poland are different. I do not believe it was the duty of England to interfere alone by her resources or her arms in this quarrel; she owed something
816
to Poland, but she owed more to the interests of her citizens and the peace of the civilised world. One function, however, after the contest remained for her to perform, one from which no difficulties—no special interests, no diplomatic delicacies, could excuse her, and this was most clearly and energetically to protest against any infraction of the privileges guaranteed to Poland by the treaty of Vienna. And this course was at once adopted. On the 9th of July, 1833, the noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton, (Lord Palmerston), whose absence from this debate, I trust, is wholly accidental, stated,—
"That the contracting parties to the treaty of Vienna have a right to require that the constitution of Poland should not be touched, and this was an opinion which he had not concealed from the Russian Government, previous to the taking of Warsaw, and before the result of hostilities was known, and when Warsaw fell, and Poland was placed at the disposal of Russia, that opinion was again distinctly conveyed to the Russian Government."
The Russian Government remonstrated against this view, on the ground that the previously existing institutions were swept away by the revolution; but, continued the noble Lord,—
"The reply of the English Government was to this effect, that having taken into full consideration all that the Russian Government had stated in support of this view of the case, they still adhered to the opinion previously expressed, that the true and fair interpretation of the treaty of Vienna, required that the Polish constitution should remain as before the revolution, and that Russia had no right to abolish it. No circumstances can arise, under which the English Government can give their sanction or acquiescence to the arrangements which the Emperor has made."
In the same debate, Lord John Russell expressed the same sentiments; the noble Lord, now Secretary for the Colonial Department (Lord Stanley) said,—
If I am asked my own opinion as to the interpretation to be put upon the treaty of Vienna, I am ready to say, that it is that stated to be the opinion of the Government, and that I consider it has been violated by Russia."
And the right hon. Baronet, now at the head of her Majesty's Government, declared in the strongest terms his sympathy for the condition of the "Poles, and his indignation as to the course pursued by Russia." About three years afterwards, Lord Palmerston alluded to and repeated

817
the protest he had made in 1833, and now in 1842, after years of repeated violations—of continued infractions—of avowed aggressions—I call on the right hon. Baronet, representing the department of Foreign Affairs in this House, to avow his continuance of the policy which has been consistently and distinctly adopted by this country in this matter, and once more to record in the hearing of the civilised nations the firm and friendly protest of England in favour of the nationality of Poland. I would, Sir, do this in no spirit of enmity to Russia, I would do it as one who consults her best interests and her real honour. I am opposed to all violent language on this subject, for, however excusable by individual zeal and private indignation, angry words are no dignified expression of the feelings of Governments. I would remonstrate with Russia in this case, as any one of the Roman Catholic Governments of Europe might have remonstrated with our Elizabeth or James the 1st, for their treatment of the Roman Catholics of Ireland—as Elizabeth did remonstrate with Spain and France for their persecution of the Protestants, for the Inquisition in the low countries, and for the horrors of the St. Bartholomew; but I should stand on stronger grounds than any of those Governments, for my remonstrances would be based not only on considerations of humanity, but also on the special provisions of a solemn treaty. I own, Sir, that I cannot consistently, with my information, hope for any immediate advantage to Poland from any proceeding of this House, or any declaration of public opinion; but a protest is rather for the future than for the present; a protest leaves the question open, adjourns to some indefinite period the final solution of it, and reserves the right of returning to the subject, whenever favourable circumstances may arise. I see no reason to believe, that the present emperor will pause in his work of the annihilation of Poland; if he were a weak, or an ignorant man, he might be terrified or enlightened, but advanced as he is, in intelligence and reflection beyond his people, endowed with so many qualities of vigour, determination, and perseverance, I can only regard this his project as the settled purpose of a man, whose will knows no control, and whose passion is petrified into stern resolution. But brute violence only provokes resistance, and
818
gives permanence to the feelings it intends to destroy. Oppress a people, and you keep them together—banish a man, and you make him love his country—do as Russia is now doing with Poland, and Polish nationality can never perish. In the due course of time the present emperor will be gathered to his fathers. Another sovereign may ascend that throne of a less severe and unrelenting temper. He, perhaps, may deem another line of policy towards Poland at once expedient and just. He may regard the relation of Hungary to Austria as better than that of a province in permanent though covert rebellion to a Government whose only security is the weight of its despotism. He may discern the true limits of his own power, and abandon an attempt which he believes to be impious because he sees that it is impossible. And then the untiring protest which England and France have made against this wrong, and their continued assertion of this right will have their full efficacy in encouraging this benevolent wisdom, in proving to that sovereign, that in best consulting the interests of his own empire, he will be confirming the ties of amity and peace with the most powerful nations of the world. Or another alternative may occur. The throne of the Czars may be filled by a person less respectful of the interests of foreign nations, less prudent in his estimate of other powers, less temperate in his schemes of conquest and desires of ambition than the Emperor Nicholas. Again may the multitudes of the south be covetous of the wealth and luxuries of the southern and western kingdoms, and as the armies of Sobieski formed the barrier against Turkish invasion, so may the Polish nation still show itself the frontier guardian of the common liberties and common civilization of Europe. In that day Poland will not forget those who now remember her. At the same time, Sir, I cannot deny that I perceive in this our act of sympathy and protestation, an immediate advantage for this country in a most important and delicate quarter. In the year 1839, at a Polish meeting in London, the Count Montalembert, one of the most distinguished of the younger statesmen of France, expressed himself to the effect, "that if by bad policy or untoward misunderstandings, the good feeling then existing between France and England should come to be disturbed, England

819
will always find in the cause of Poland a common ground for sympathy with France, will always have a common subject of interest, will always retain at least one common tie of external policy." Late events, Sir, have realised this sad possibility: by policy, which I believe to be bad, France is alienated from England. Misunderstandings, as I believe totally groundless, have arisen, to disturb the union of those two nations; those only two which, in the emphatic language of M. Thiers," can fight together under the banner of constitutional freedom." Still this common cause of Poland remains to us, and firmly convinced as I am, that in the intimate alliance of France and England lie the best hopes of the coming years, that without that union there is no perfectly secure political basis for our civilization, that with that union, we may defy all assaults of brute force, all machinations of subtle intrigue, all policies and all powers,—I will not abandon that link of sympathy, which, however slight, still shows that the two sister nations of the west are actuated by the same sense of justice, good faith, national honour, and respect for national independence. For these reasons, therefore, and with an earnest desire that this country should continue the same distinct and honourable line it has already pursued on this subject, I trust that her Majesty's Government will add their weight to this protest in favour of the nationality of Poland.
Mr. P. Stewartsaid, that from the reasonableness of the motion, he assumed that it would be assented to; but as an old and attached friend to the cause of Poland, he could not abstain from addressing a few words to the House on the present occasion. Doubtless the question was surrounded by difficulties and delicacies; points of national honour and the faith of treaties being involved in it. Under these circumstances it was necessary that an individual who rose to speak on the subject in a popular assembly should endeavour to suppress the feelings which naturally arose in his bosom at the contemplation of the wrongs which Poland had endured. He would speak very shortly, and he hoped clearly, and would avoid expressing himself to warmly as he had done when he first addressed the House on the subject. There could be no doubt that, as parties to the treaty of Vienna, we were
820
authorised to attempt, by such a course as that now pursued, to redress the wrongs of that ill-used and high-minded people. At the congress of Vienna our ambassador had expressed his anxiety, an anxiety experienced by the diplomatic representatives of the other great powers of Europe, that Poland should be recognised as an independent state, and placed under a form of government separate and distinct from that of Russia, so as to form a power interposed between the three great empires of Europe. It had been stated by some high authorities, that the hands of England and of those other states, the guarantees of the rights of the Polish nation, had been tied up and restrained from any interference in her favour, in consequence of the revolt of Poland in the year 1830. Now, he recollected with peculiar satisfaction the sentiments expressed upon that subject by one of the most enlightened and temperate members of the Legislature, he meant Lord Ashburton, who had reflected great honour on his character by declaring that if ever a people had been justified in revolting against authority when grossly abused, it was in the case of the revolt of the Poles against the cruel misrule of the Grand Duke Constantine. That monster being deemed unworthy of ruling in Russia had been invested with the sovereign authority in Poland, where he abused power so outrageously as to goad and force the Poles to revolt, and the determined resistance then made to his tyranny shed fresh glory upon the military prowess and bravery of this extraordinary and interesting people. It was but too clear now what were the intentions of the Russian government, and unless this country assisted the Poles, by energetic protests, which could not be misunderstood by foreign governments, he saw great reason to believe that Russia would persevere in her resolution to extinguish the nationality and so erase the name of Poland from the map of the civilised world. He trusted our Government would vigilantly watch the conduct of Russia, and thwart her ambitious and unlawful designs. Before he left Parliament, in 1836, he stated what the conduct of Russia would be; and although he was then held to be a visionary alarmist, the events of the two subsequent years proved that his anticipations were correct. In the late debate upon Eastern affairs, it seemed to be assumed that the assurances of Russia were to be implicitly depended upon. Now he protested against that assumption. Sad experience

821
prompted this distrust. The House had been told that Count Simonich had been recalled by the Russian government from his embassy to Persia, on account of the part which he had acted at the siege of Herat. That was only a part of the sinister policy of Russia—that policy which induced her to furnish her agents with two sets of instructions, to be used as occasion might require. He would inform the House what had been the fate of Count Simonich, who had been denounced for having exceeded the powers vested in him by his government. Recalled from Persia, he was immediately made governor of a fortress in Poland, where he is at this moment; while some of his sons are pages to the emperor at Petersburgh. These were facts which ought to open our eyes relative to the conduct of Russia. It might be said that the present discussion was of no use; but its use consisted in this—that it would lead the Poles to look upon us as their friends. It was our duty towards our own national character, as well as to the rights of Poland, which we had guaranteed, to record upon our Journals that those rights had been unlawfully invaded by Russia. As a gallant Pole had said to him that morning,—
"Write your protest against Russia's conduct on the walls of this House, for it will be a consolation to Poland in her sufferings."
He, Mr. Stewart, had great satisfaction in now assisting in this solemn protest; and his belief and hope was, that whilst it would prove to be a source of comfort to Poland now, it would still more, when the principles of eternal justice shall be hereafter vindicated, prove to be to her in her hour of need, a deep source of national strength.
Sir R. Peel and Sir R. Inglisrose together; the former gave way.
Sir R. Inglisbegan by apologising for attempting to force himself upon their attention in preference or priority to his right hon. Friend; but he was induced to address the House now rather than attempt to follow his right hon. Friend, as he believed many other hon. Members would, with him, think it more expedient that the right hon. Baronet should be permitted to close the debate upon this subject. He must, in the first instance, protest against a distinction that might be drawn from the remark of his hon. Friend the Member for Pomfret, respecting the right of England to interfere in the affairs of Poland being
822
analogous with that of Roman Catholic countries to interfere with England at a former period of our history. He must protest against the supposition that any foreign country whatever could have a right to interfere with our affairs. Our right to interfere in the affairs of Poland rested on stronger grounds—it was simply derived from treaty. He felt that the discussion which had taken place, considering the unity of sentiment, moderation, and good feeling which had characterised it throughout, must have some effect in bringing about that object which they all desired—an amelioration of the condition of the Poles. He feared, however, that there was a technical objection to the motion. The hon. Gentleman called for papers connected with the proceedings of another country, which any man might obtain with some trouble perhaps, and at some cost, but he was not aware how far it was the province of the Government, to produce such papers as an act of the Government, or whether or not they had the means of doing so. He deprecated the principle of calling in that House for the municipal proceedings of foreign governments. Our right to interfere in the case of Poland, as he had before said, was founded upon treaty; and that being the case, the Government had a right to interfere in any way it might think proper for the fulfilment of that treaty. But in this case there was this difficulty. He believed the whole of the contracting parties to the treaty had never been united as to its construction. He wished to urge upon the Government of this country to exercise all the moral influence they possessed to induce the Emperor of Russia to treat his Polish subjects with greater moderation and fairness than it appeared he had done, for his treatment of them hitherto had been quite inconsistent with both the letter and spirit of the treaty of Vienna. It was, however, important that our interference should not go beyond that in which we should be supported by the other contracting powers to the treaty. He hailed the discussion which had taken place with the greatest satisfaction, and the warmest wish of his heart was, that the moral influence of this country, exercised as he had no doubt it would be, would tend to remedy those evils and wrongs which Poland had so long suffered. He hoped no division upon the motion would be taken, for he was most anxious that the general feeling which had been that evening expressed

823
should not be weakened by any apparent difference.
Sir R. Peelwas not sorry that his hon. Friend (Sir R. Inglis) had spoken before him, for that enabled him to refer to a precedent which appeared to him to settle the only point on which his hon. Friend doubted. His hon. Friend thought it possible that some difficulty of a technical nature might interpose an impediment to the production of the papers referred to in the present motion. In 1832, a motion similar to that now before the House had been made, and he thought that a reference to that motion was important, as forming a precedent, for he should be sorry to take a course which might appear at variance with the view which was taken by Parliament and the Government in 1832. In that year he found that a motion to this effect had been made—
"That there be laid before this House copies of the manifestoes issued by the Emperor of Russia in February last, and of the organic statute to which they referred."
Now, that motion was unanimously adopted and were he to take a different course now, and on the part of the Government oppose the production of these papers, an erroneous construction might be put upon his motive. His hon. Friend had overlooked the distinction between interfering in the municipal proceedings of a foreign country and the interference for a specific object, under a specific treaty; and he must beg of his hon. Friend to remember that Poland was 'not a province of Russia, so as to make the question one of mere municipal administration. He would not now enter into the question, whether the revolt of the Poles in 1830 had set aside the treaty of 1815, but he knew that we were parties to that treaty, and that, by it the condition of Poland had been regulated, and, consequently, we possessed a right to information as to the grounds upon which that condition had been changed. He felt therefore that he was not departing from the strict letter of diplomatic usage by consenting to the production of papers relating to that treaty. The temper and general spirit of the present debate was, he thought, most satisfactory, for it could not be said that it opposed any impediment—in point of honour—to the adoption of the motion. There had been throughout a most gratifying abstinence from anything approaching to abuse or offensive expressions in speaking of the conduct of Russia in reference to Poland, and he for his own
824
part regretted that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. P. Stewart) had referred to the policy of Russia in the east. It, however, gave him (Sir R. Peel) an opportunity of repeating what he had previously stated, that Russia had most distinctly disavowed the conduct of her agents in Persia and on the north-west frontier of our Indian possessions—that she had recalled those agents, and had given to the British Government the most distinct and positive assurance of her desire to act in concert with England in respect to the affairs of Persia, and had further as distinctly disavowed all intention of interfering hostilely in regard to our Indian possessions. That Russia was sincere in those professions might be inferred from her conduct. Since those assurances had been given, misfortune had befallen our Indian army, and if Russia had not been sincere, there was a temptation to depart from her engagement which, doubtless, would have been taken advantage of. But as he had stated, the assurances which Russia had given to this country had been fulfilled strictly and punctually; and it was his duty to acknowledge, the amicable and friendly feelings towards this country which Russia had evinced. That power had cordially acted with us, and had done her utmost to discountenance and discourage any hostile demonstration on the part of Persia, or any of the inferior states, in the affairs of Affghanistan. There was at this moment the most perfect understanding between Russia and this country, and he looked upon it as a great guarantee for the peace and for the general interests of the world, that those amicable relations between the two countries should continue unimpaired. He had felt it to be his duty to state this in respect to the conduct of Russia, and of her friendly intentions towards this country; but at the same time, however desirable it was that these relations of amity should continue, (and so desirable he felt it to be, that he could assure the House it would be the duty of her Majesty's Government to do everything in their power, consistently with the honour and interests of the country, to promote them) still he could not, for the purpose of confirming the good understanding which existed, consent to any sacrifice of truth or principle. He could not, as a public man, say that in his opinion the policy of Russia with regard to Poland was wise or safe. He spoke of the policy of Russia in reference to Poland, and after what had passed at Vienna this country had

825
a right to discuss, of course in moderate terms, any particular line of policy which might be adopted towards Poland. Acting upon that right, he must declare his conviction that the course now pursued by Russia towards Poland would not ultimately conduce to her own interests. Looking at the permanent interests of the two countries, the force of public opinion in Poland, and the expense which must necessarily be entailed upon Russia in maintaining her present course of policy, he could not think that she was consulting her own advantage. He was convinced, that after all the blood and treasure that must be expended in carrying out such a pernicious policy, it would be found that to abolish the nationality of Poland, was impossible. It might be crushed, but could never be extinguished; its spirit would survive amidst every oppression, and in lands however distant and obscure. The unfortunate natives might indeed be removed from the country and transported into strange climes, but it would be seen how eminently true, in their case, were the words of the poet—
"Caelum non animum mutant."
Considering what had since occurred in France, in Spain, and in Portugal, and considering the feelings of sympathy that had been expressed in those countries towards Poland, he thought there was more danger to be apprehended for Russia from provoking those sympathies, than there was advantage to be hoped for from acts of force. As he was not prepared, however, in the name of her Majesty's Government, to offer any hostile remonstrance, still less was he disposed to hold out any idea of open demonstration on this subject. Nothing could be more unfortunate for the people of Poland than to have any false hopes of such a kind raised. This country was not the only party with Russia to the treaty of Vienna. Austria and Prussia were parties to it also. He recollected too, and gave due weight to the revolt in Poland. The effort made by the people to relieve themselves from the connection with Russia he would not, however, discuss, or give any opinion as to how far Russia was relieved from the obligations imposed upon her by the treaty by that act of the Poles; but with respect to any influence to be exercised by the British Government, he thought he had said sufficient to show that they shared in that sympathy which must be felt by all parties as to the present state of that gallant and enlight-
826
ened people. And he did hope most earnestly, that the Emperor of Russia would himself have the credit of ameliorating the condition of that people. Most certainly nothing had passed in the House of Commons, which could form an impediment to his taking that course which it was his (Sir R. Peel's) opinion would most redound to his honour, and conduce to the permanent interests of those who were committed to his charge.
Lord Sandonrose to express his gratification, that the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government had in no way quitted the ground with respect to the nationality of Poland, as a question of European interest, and a fit subject for European discussion, which had been taken up by the noble Lord, the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He rejoiced to find this additional evidence furnished in the face of Europe, that on that subject no party distinctions were known in England; that Whig and Tory had but one opinion. He regretted that it had been put on lower ground in one passage of his hon. Friend's, the Member for Pontefract's, speech—that it had been placed on grounds merely of compassion and sympathy, such as might have been expressed by Philip the 2nd for the Roman Catholics of Ireland, or by Elizabeth for the Huguenots of France. Sympathy and interest we did feel, of course, for a gallant nation, struggling for its independence, and for gallant men suffering all the pains and privations consequent on an ineffectual struggle in such a cause—but such feelings as these would not justify us for calling the attention of the British Parliament to the question now before them. That question is, whether the nationality of Poland, its distinct existence, was not made by the Congress of Vienna, a matter of European diplomacy—a part of the statute law of Europe; whether respect for that national existence, so recognized by the powers of Europe, was not considered an object of European importance, and an obligation incurred to Europe, at least as much as to the Poles—whether, therefore, any act of theirs, however culpable, supposing it to have been so, could have released Russia from that obligation so incurred, not to them, but to Europe, whether finally that obligation had not been most thoroughly and entirely broken by the Emperor of Russia, not only immediately after the insurrection, but most signally by the Ukases, issued since the last Session of

827
Parliament, for a copy of which his hon. Friend, the Member for Nottinghamshire, had moved. Now, what was the principal object of these Ukases? What but the effacement of almost the last trace of their distinct national existence, which had been left by former ordinances; and that, perhaps, one to which nations were the most attached, and which generally survived the longest, the distinctness of their judicial institutions. He passed the practical grievance of having their causes carried before a distant, a hostile, and if report said true, not a very incorrupt tribunal—he would only dwell upon the wound to national feeling, the complete amalgamation, so contrary to European obligations, which was implied in the fusion of the judicial courts of Poland with those of Peters-burgh. Why, looking to our own country, to what was Scottish feeling, after a close and friendly connection of two centuries, more attached still, than to the distinctness of their own laws, of their own tribunals? Had it not taken five or six centuries of most intimate union with Wales, to enable us, and even then not without some difficulty, to persuade the Welsh to give up their separate judication? And yet with regard to Poland, this was done at once by a stroke of the pen; and the finishing blow was thus dealt, if any yet were needed, to the illusion, that the conditions on which the greater part of Poland was handed over to Russia at the Congress of Vienna, were considered in any way binding upon that power. That the insurrection, to which the Poles were driven, might have led to some modification of their constitution in their internal organization, he could understand, at least it would be a nice question for discussion; but how it could dissolve the obligation entered into towards Europe to maintain that distinct nationality, the intention to maintain which, pervaded every stipulation of the treaty of Vienna in regard to every fragment of Poland, he was at a loss to comprehend. He hoped, that the unanimous expression of opinion on this subject would have its weight, not only with the Emperor of Russia, but also with the two other powers, who had shared in the spoils of Poland, and whose obligations had not been much more rigidly observed—though the circumstances were not such as to excite the same degree of public interest. He should not have risen to prolong this debate, if he had not wished to show, that those who had taken an early interest in this cause, had not forgotten it, though
828
they were content, and rejoiced to leave it mainly in the hands of other, and newer champions, upon whom that interest had descended.
Mr. Sheilhoped that the Government would continue that munificent hospitality to the distressed Polish refugees which they had hitherto experienced at the hands of this country. He congratulated all the speakers who had preceded him, on the tone and temper of their observations in the course of the debate.
Mr. Stuart Worthysaid, that he should scarcely have thought it worth while to prolong this discussion, in which all the speakers were agreed, had he not felt anxious before its close to record, in a very few words, his entire concurrence in the objects of his hon. Friend, the Member for Nottinghamshire. There could be no doubt that, as had been correctly stated, the position in which this country stood with respect to the relations between Russia and Poland was that of right founded upon treaty; and it was impossible to look back to the transactions of the years 1814 and 1815, without becoming convinced that other rights besides those guaranteed to Poland were distinctly asserted and recognised in the negociations of that period. Indeed, it appeared to him that the very history of the fate of Poland, since the insurrection of 1831, showed symptoms of a lurking consciousness, even on the part of Russia, that there were other parties besides herself who had some right to a voice in her proceedings against that portion of her dominions. For, if we considered that history, what did we find? When she had suppressed the insurrection of 1831, what would have been easier for her than to have asserted at once her right of conquest, and to have incorporated, without delay, the territories and people of Poland within the limits of her own empire? But was this the course which she had pursued? On the contrary, she had proceeded by gradual steps; and if we looked back through the period which had elapsed since that insurrection, we found it marked by a series of successive alterations in the connexion between the Russian Government and that country, but all tending to the same apparent end. Through the years after 1831,—through 1836, 1837, 1838, and thence down to the last year,—we might trace the progress of this course. We might see a partial displacement of the Polish language, followed by its more general exclusion; the suppression of the

829
universities at one time; encroachments upon the church at another; again, the subversion of the courts of justice; and, finally, the entire annihilation of the structure of national government in the year just past. And it did therefore appear to him, looking at these events, that the dilatory, and he might say insidious course, which had been adopted by Russia in these proceedings, exhibited strong symptoms of a lurking consciousness that her rights in the matter were not quite absolute, and that she was not the only party who had a claim to be heard in the question. He (Mr. Stuart Wortley) should consider it wholly unnecessary to trouble the House with any further observations of his, after what had fallen from his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. The object for which he rose, was to declare his cordial concurrence in the objects of the present motion; and although the motion itself was not one which would have any immediate practical effect, he should not think it thrown away if it should tend at all to strengthen the hands of the right hon. Baronet in any representations upon the subject which he might find it possible to make, founded upon rights on the part of this country, with respect to which he had declared it to be his wish not to recede from former declarations made within these walls.
P. Howardsaid, it was only by an appeal to the magnanimity of the present ruler of Russia that any amelioration of the condition of Poland could be effected at present. He trusted that the Emperor Nicholas would imitate the example of his brother Alexander in the early part of his reign, and act justly and humanely towards Poland; and when that last hour shall come which visits the peasant and the prince, he would look back upon that day as the most blest of his career, when old Sarmatia was restored to her rights.
Galley Knightbriefly replied. He felt great satisfaction at the reception which his motion had met with, and he was sure that the sympathy so generally expressed by the House could not but be most grateful to the Polish nation. It would revive their hopes, and encourage the belief which they still fondly cherished, that the Polish nation was never to be extinct.
Motion agreed to.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL SCHOOLS.
Mr. Cowperrose, pursuant to notice, to
830
call the attention of the House to the state of the Greenwich Hospital Schools, and to move the following resolution:—
"That in the opinion of this House, the schools attached to the Royal Hospital at Greenwich should be open at all times to the inspection of inspectors appointed by the Committee of Privy Council on Education, and that reports of such inspection should be annually laid upon the Table of this House."
From the schools connected with Greenwich Hospital there issued a considerable number of boys. Last year, the number of boys who quitted the school was 404, of that number 91 entered the royal navy and about 150 went into the merchant service. In some respects the schools were likely to be productive of considerable advantage to the public, for they afforded great facilities for the preparation of boys. The upper school gave a good scientific education, at least to a certain portion of the boys, and it could easily be made capable of imparting to all who entered it a knowledge of machinery and of those sciences which were applicable to navigation. Now that steam navigation had been brought to so high a degree of excellence, it did appear to him most important that no pains should be spared to increase the number of competent engineers, and with that view he thought it very material that the schools at Greenwich should be placed under the best possible regulation, that they should be conducted upon sound principles, and be calculated to enforce habitual obedience. The House—at least every hon. Member present—might not perhaps be aware that the upper school formed part of the original foundation of the hospital. The two schools, however, were distinct in their origin and different in their regulations. The lower school was formed in the year 1799, and it was not transferred to Greenwich till 1805, when the name of the school was changed by letters patent. In the course of fifteen years the grants received by the tipper school amounted to 350,000 l., to which 40.000 l. from the patriotic fund at Lloyd's had been added. In the year 1821 these schools were consolidated by act of Parliament, and placed under the authority of the Board of Admiralty. Now, as they received money under an act of Parliament, and as they were placed under the authority of the Admiralty, he did think the House had a fair right to see those places of education were conducted under

831
satisfactory and adequate management. He had no wish to take away from the Board of Admiralty any authority which they at present possessed; his only wish was to secure publicity, to secure the benefits of a public examination, and of an efficient inspection. On former occasions the Lords of the Admiralty were in the habit of going down to look into the matter, and the pupils produced to them went on at such railroad speed that their Lordships felt not at all disposed to enter the lists against them; but these were the cream of the school: and when Lord Minto inquired about the generality of the boys, he found that they were not by any means well educated, and some of them could not even read. Having received information of the state of the schools, the Board of Admiralty requested the Privy Council to send their inspector to ascertain whether these allegations were true, and on the report made by that inspector all the subsequent proceedings were based; and he was of opinion that the inspectors should continue to examine these schools. [The hon. Gentleman read some extracts from a report made by Mr. Tremenhere, to show the defective nature of the religious instruction given to the children, and also their ignorance of geography, and other branches of knowledge valuable to persons destined for their sphere of occupation.] The reports of the inspector were corroborated by the others made at the same time by Mr. Irving, the present master, who when he was placed at the head of the school was requested to furnish an account of its condition. His report, dated May 25, 1841, was to this effect:—
"The course pursued (in the 1st and 2nd classes) was purely the old Bell and Lancasterian system, without any of the modifications which the lapse of time and the growing experience of educational men in every country had superadded to the original. Of the sixty-eight boys present in the lowest class, and whose average age was thirteen, twenty-four could not read at all, and twenty-two read very badly. Fifty of these could not work a small sum in addition. It was but too evident the majority of these children had not been taught either to spell or read, or to combine numbers. They were totally ignorant in every department of knowledge, and quite unable to give the meaning of the simplest words they had been attempting to read. Some of them could repeat the Church Catechism, but could not answer questions in explanation of the circumstances referred to in
832
the questions. Nor could they repeat any promise of a Saviour made to Adam, or to Abraham, or to any one else. The appearance and the manner of the boys also betokened a deplorable state of ignorance. They were rude and exceedingly inattentive to even the most gentle and kind remonstrances of those who had the charge of them. In the third class, consisting of fifty-six boys, whose average age was twelve years, one-half stammered over a few sentences in a very lame way, and a few read very well; the majority had no knowledge of numbers whatever. In the second class the average age was thirteen, and only one-half of them could read well. None could answer the plainest questions on what they had read; they had not been accustomed to think at all. In the upper class one-third read indifferently, but their chief defect lay in not understanding the meaning of the words they met in their lessons, and they had little, almost no general knowledge: knew nothing of geography, even that of England."
Such was the state of a school which ought to have been a model for all other schools in the country. Mr. Graham, the head master, says:—
"There cannot be said at present to be any religious instruction given in the school deserving of such a name. All that is done, and is professed to be able to be done, is to make the boys repeat, mechanically, the answers in the catechism. The Bible is sometimes used as a class-book. The boys are at present ignorant in a great measure of the first principles of religion, and it will therefore be of great importance to give due prominence to religion in the new course of instruction."
The chaplain being requested to account for this state of things, made the following communication:—
"With respect to the lower classes, Mr. Tremenhere is certainly justified in his statement generally, and, indeed, much so in the other classes, and the great deficiency arises from a want of proper teachers; a circumstance which has been continually represented and has been as often disregarded. For it is only by familiar catechistical instruction given by all the masters in conjunction that religious elementary truths can be imparted to the children, as it is beyond the physical powers of the chaplain himself to instruct 1,000 children as they ought to be instructed, though, if the proper means and encouragement were given him, he may and ought to see it done. I think I need hardly allude to the inefficacy of religious instruction within the school, unless accompanied by corresponding moral discipline without, and over which the chaplain has no control whatever. No small portion of this evil arises from the very limited personal superintendence over the children during the period of recreation."

833
Captain Huchisson, the superintending captain, on the 23rd of December, 1840, reported thus:—
"I beg leave, in conclusion, to observe that, charged with a heavy resposibility in the management of 1,000 children, many of whom have been used to low, if not vicious habits, before their entry into the school, I have had to fight a very up-hill, and almost hopeless battle, for some years under the evils and defects of the establishment as at present constituted; and although I have frequently represented to my superiors here at Greenwich the difficulties in which I have been placed, from the want of efficient assistance, it has always been done without producing any effect."
The first step that was taken was to dissolve the girls' school; the proximity of the two schools, the total absence of moral training, and the habits of the boys and girls, precluding all hope of the two establishments going on satisfactorily while they remained in juxta-position. The effect of this boarding-school, for such it was, upon young females of the lower classes of society was found to be mischievous, for they contracted manners and imbibed notions which unfitted them for their proper station in society, and in too many instances they did not pursue a course consistent with virtuous poverty, and they were the worse instead of being the better for the advantages they had enjoyed. A great change had been made in the course of instruction for the boys, and the lower school now afforded as complete and satisfactory an example of a good system of education and of mental cultivation as any school in the country. But there was not much reason for congratulation with respect to the state of discipline; for a measure which had been abolished by the late Board of Admiralty had been revived by the present one—a measure of a strange and anomalous nature, and unexampled, he believed, in any country in Europe. This school was a sort of hydra, a monster having many heads. Not only had a variety of bodies control over the master, which might perhaps be proper enough, but the poor boys were subjected to the varied and often conflicting authority of different and distinct persons. The boys lived a sort of Proserpine life, living during one-half of their time with Ceres and the other half with Pluto. Sometimes they were under the control of their masters in the school, and at others under the charge of a lieutenant or a drill-sergeant in the play-
834
ground, or the dining-room, or the chapel. The consequence was, that as soon as they left the school-room they considered themselves at liberty to disregard their master, and might snap their fingers at him, and insult him with impunity. [Lord Stanley: Till they returned to the school again.] He apprehended that the master had no right to punish a boy for what he did when not under his special control; at the same time, he ought not to escape punishment. Suppose a boy threw a stone at his tutor, he would have to go to the drill-sergeant to request him to punish the delinquent. But there was much jealousy and little correspondence between the several authorities of the school, amongst whom there ought to be as much harmony as amongst the officers of any ship in her Majesty's service. He thought it absurd that the master should not have full control over the boys. The drill-sergeants were marines, selected for their good conduct, and no doubt very competent to enforce thei orders by coercion, but utterly unacquainted with education, and unable to form the character and elevate the understanding. There ought to be a moral training, which should teach the boys to act from a sense of duty, and not from a fear of punishment. He was not a friend to corporal punishment, which had been entirely abolished, in many free schools with the most satisfactory results, the children having learned to regard the school as a home and their teacher as a friend. In the best schools of Scotland there was no corporal punishment, and the commissioners of education in Ireland had recently issued a circular, requesting schoolmasters to discontinue it. Among the ancients we had the authority of Quintilian for not using a mode of punishment which was fit only for slaves, convicts, and irrational beasts. He could not discover the wisdom of attempting to allure a child to learning by giving him blows on his back. He might, perhaps, put the matter very ridiculously; but it was nevertheless important. Coercion could only have the effect of making children hate learning. It was chiefly on account of the system of education which had been adopted in these schools that he had thought it his duty to bring the matter under the consideration of the House. He had great confidence in the noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty, and his hon. Friend the

835
Secretary of that board. If a report was laid on the Table of the House annually with reference to these schools, such a feeling and interest would be excited on the subject that the Board of Admiralty would no longer be able to resist the appeal made to it. It might be said by his hon. Friend that he would grant inspectors, but that they must be appointed by the Board of Admiralty. He thought that the Privy Council should have the power of nominating the inspectors. That would be a guarantee for their efficiency. He thought that all schools supported by a public grant of money should be accessible to inspectors. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, who took so lively an interest in the subject of education, would exercise his influence in securing for these schools all the advantages which would result from the adoption of the motion which he had submitted to the House. It had been urged that a division had taken place in the authority of the school in consequence of a number of the boys being educated for the navy, and being subjected to naval discipline. He thought, however, it exceedingly absurd to subject the boys to a discipline similar to that carried into operation on board of ship. He hoped that his motion would meet with the support of the House.
Mr. S. Herbertconcurred in the statement which had been made with reference to the inefficiency of the system of education which had been adopted in the schools attached to Greenwich Hospital up to 1829. The facts had not been exaggerrated. The two schools ought not to be confounded with each other. In the upper school the boys were instructed in mathematics, and, so great was their proficiency in this science, that great credit was due to the gentlemen who presided over their education. A feeling of jealousy had been excited with regard to the school, and certain allegations had been made respecting the inefficiency of the system of education adopted. On that point he must state that an examination had been instituted by the present Board of Admiralty. Two professors had been sent down to the school, one from King's College, and another gentleman from the London University, and they reported that the method of teaching pursued was highly satisfactory. The
836
Board of Admiralty had done its best to obviate all those feelings of jealousy which unfortunately had prevailed. The error committed by the Privy Council was in introducing new masters among those who had been for some period associated with the school. That circumstance gave rise to the feelings of jealousy alluded to be could assure the hon. Member that arrangements were now being made to secure the services of masters of high attainments, with the view of fully educating the boys connected with the school. The hon. Member had referred to the existence of two separate authorities, and had stated that it was difficult to ascertain which was the supreme one. It was thought better for the interests of the school to have two authorities, each exercising a separate jurisdiction. With reference to the subject of harsh treatment, he must assert that there had been no complaints on this ground. No master was allowed to subject the boys to corporal punishment on his own responsibility. If a complaint was made against a boy it must be brought under the notice of the head master; if he thought necessary, the boy accused of the offence was punished. With reference to annual inspection, he would make a few observations. The Admiralty proposed to have a regular annual inspection—the inspection, of course, would be made by a competent person, and he might be one under the Board of the Privy Council, but he would be required to make his report to the Board of Admiralty.
Sir C. Napiersaid, it appeared that in the upper school at Greenwich 450 boys were educated, only 100 of whom were the sons of warrant officers in the navy, the other 350 appointments being the patronage of the Admiralty, and of course very useful to hon. Members who represented the outports. In the lower school the boys were not required to belong to men in the navy, and he confessed that since the sixpence a month had been done away with he did not see what right the sons of merchant seamen had to be educated at the public expense, or at the expense of the hospital, which was the same thing. There were 1,500 warrant officers in the navy, yet only 100 boys belonging to them were admitted, by right, into the school. It appeared from the returns that between April, 1840, and April, 1842, 91 boys who left the schools had entered the royal navy, while 159

837
had entered the merchants' service. Now he could not see why all who were educated at the public charge should not be obliged to enter the naval service of the country. He would like to see such a regulation made, and would hail it as one step taken towards doing away with the evil of impressment. It ought to be an understanding that they were admitted to the benefit of the schools upon the sole condition of serving in the navy. They might be allowed to serve in the merchant service for four years, but they should also be required to serve in the Queen's service for a period of three years, as payment in some sort for the benefits which they had received. That would only be a return to the practice under an act of Queen Anne, which rendered all boys brought up at the public expense-liable to the merchant service, and the merchant sailors were bound to receive them. Since 1841 he was glad to learn that the boys were taught to row boats and something of seamanship, for before that period they might as well have been brought up in the interior, for all they were taught of the profession they were expected to follow. He could see no ground of exception to the examination of the boys by the inspector of the Privy Council; he thought that would be better than that two or three of the Board of Admiralty accompanied by their secretary should go down in their state barge. He never knew much good come from examinations made by boards—one competent person was much better, and he could see no reason why the report of such a person should not be made to the Admiralty.
Mr. J. Parkerconceived that it would be more satisfactory generally to the service that the report should be made to the Board of Admiralty rather than to the Civil Board. The difference was very small between the proposition of his hon. Friend and that of the Secretary to the Admiralty; therefore he trusted the motion would not be pressed.
Sir R. Peelthought that it was most desirable the connexion between these schools and the Admiralty should continue to exist, but that such an arrangement should not interfere with a proper inspection of the system of education. It was proposed to place the lower school under the periodical inspection of officers acting under the authority of the Privy Council, from whose experience great benefit would undoubtedly be derived. The Privy Coun-
838
cil was "not, he thought, a high authority of questions connected with nautical affairs; but the Council would be enabled to employ inspectors conversant with nautical matters to conduct the inspection of the upper school. At the same time it was, he conceived, most desirable to maintain the connexion between the nautical department of the school and the Board of Admiralty.
Mr. Cowperhoped that, if properly qualified inspectors were appointed, there would be no objection to place the schools under the inspection of the Privy Council. He considered that by such a step the Board of Admiralty would not be deprived of any authority, nor would any authority be conferred on the Privy Council. After the statement of the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty, he would withdraw his motion.
Motion withdrawn.

COUNTY OF DONEGAL GRAND JURY.
Lord Clementsrose, pursuant to the notice he had given for a committee to inquire into the conduct and management of the grand jury system in the county of Donegal; and in bringing forward such a motion, expressed his hope that he should have the approbation of the House, and the support of the noble Lord opposite. The matter on which he was about to address them, was of the utmost importance to Ireland; and he must say, that he felt compelled to bring it forward, from a grave and serious sense of public duty. He was obliged to take this step, because it was necessary for him to do so in the exposure of the bad system which had hitherto prevailed. Some of the matters that he was now about to submit to the House he had already brought before the grand jury of the county. The first time that he had done so he had obtained something like a hearing, but the second time he ventured to mention it he was scarcely listened to. He had also laid these matters before the late Government, and they said, they could not do anything for him—he had brought them before the Chief Remembrancer, and he said, he could not do anything. He then submitted the matter to his noble Friend, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the answer given by him was to the same effect as that which he had received from the former Government. And yet what was the case for which he was told that no redress could be procured? It was this—that forgery had been committed in the presentments for that county.

839
He had at length got the Chief Remembrancer to investigate his charge—the Chief Remembrancer looked into it, and decided that there had been a forgery committed. The Chief Remembrancer communicated his decision to the foreman of the grand jury the gallant Colonel opposite (Colonel Conolly), and also to the judge of the assize; and yet, with this representation before them, the grand jury did nothing! Under these circumstances, then, the duty was imposed upon him of bringing these matters before the public. It was to him a subject of the greatest grief to be compelled to do so; but he was determined to shrink from no portion of his public duty. There was, he said, no portion of the Irish grand jury law observed in the county of Donegal—neither in its presentments, nor in the proper mode of having its accounts authenticated by the Chief Remembrancer. Every part of the law was unobserved. This was a question which, if he did not, as he intended, make out fully, he would not ask of the House to go any further with him. In, however, bringing such a subject before the House, he wished at once to be distinctly and clearly understood, that he made no complaint against the grand jury itself—he made no complaint against the gentlemen composing that grand jury; but he did make a great and a serious complaint against those persons in whom the grand jury confided, and in whom they placed confidence. But which confidence has been abused. His charge was principally against the gallant Officer opposite, and the officers of the grand jury. Sure he was that most of the gentry of the county Donegal were as anxious as he was to have abuses rectified. The existing law in Ireland for the management of the fiscal affairs of the country, laid down the rule that the presentments should all be made in open court. The law also provided that the fiscal business should be entered into at a proper time, before the opening of the commission. How had these regulations been complied with in Donegal? He went so far back as the year 1836, and in that year he found the fiscal business of the grand jury was began on the 11th March, and the commission was opened on the 12th March. The sum presented was 18,362 l. 2s.4½d. At the summer assizes, in the same year, the fiscal business was commenced on the 19th July, and the commission was opened on the 21st July. The amount of presentment was 14,146 l. 6s. 6¾d. The short
840
space of three days was all that was allowed to be devoted to the fiscal business of the county in the entire year, and the amount presented was 32,508 l. 8s. 11¼d. during that short period. In 1837, he had not been able to ascertain when the fiscal business commenced and when the commission opened. In 1838, the fiscal business began on the 13th March; the commission opened on the 15th March—the sum voted was 17,987 l. 11 s. He had not the dates of the summer assizes in 1838: but the sum voted was 16,636 l. 15 s. 10 d. The total for the year was 34,624 l. 6s.10 d. In 1839, the spring assizes commenced on the 15th March—a Sunday intervened, and the commission was opened on the 18th March. At the summer assizes the fiscal business began on the 24th July, the commission was opened on the 25th, and the sum voted for the entire year was 35,763 l. 4s. 4d. All this was voted in three days. In 1840, there was 38,220 l. 3s. 6d. voted in the course of four days. It would naturally appear surprising to the House that such large sums of money should be voted away in so short a time; but how was it done? It was done, he said, by the foreman of the jury, contrary to law—contrary to the express provision of the Act of Parliament—it was done by dividing the grand jury into committees—it was done by the Gentlemen of each barony making presentments for their baronies, and their barony presentments never coming before the grand jury in a body at all. The hon. and gallant Colonel opposite, in his own person, laid a tax on two baronies; he first nominated the cess-payers, who were to be associated with the magistrates of the barony at the presentment sessions, and then, when the presentments came before the following grand jury, he being the foreman, divided the grand jury into committees, and by himself, and in his own person, he laid on the tax on the two baronies of Boylagh and Banagh. In this was, he might say, to be found the first step to the mode in which the business of the county was smuggled through the grand jury-room. In the summer, assizes of 1840 it had been represented to him (Lord Clements) that eleven presentments which had passed the road sessions had been quashed. Now, here was a remarkably strong case, and he had brought it before the grand jury. The grand jury went into the case, and it was shown to them that the secretary to the grand jury,

841
Mr. Spence, had either quashed them, as he would observe, either from fraud on his part, or through wilful neglect. The charge against him was, that he had fraudulently suppressed them. When that person was asked why they had not been brought before the grand jury after they had passed the road sessions, it was said (as we understood the noble Lord) to a Mr. Law, by Mr. Spence, that he would have them passed before the judge, though they had never been before the grand jury. The grand jury asked for the presentment paper, and every one of these presentments which had been before the road sessions, and there passed, and as it was asserted, by Mr. Spence, were afterwards lost by him, which prevented their appearing before the grand jury,—yet, when called before the grand jury, he produced these very presentments on a paper corresponding with those that had been before the grand jury, and which were going before the judge, and ready to be fiated by him. The person who did this acted in violation of the act of William 4th.; for he was not only acting as secretary of the grand jury, but also as deputy treasurer and deputy clerk of the Crown. Thus the intentions of the act, which meant that there should be a check and control of different officers on each other—were set aside and rendered of no avail. The grand jury submitted thus to be treated by a man who thus represented several persons. He (Lord Clements) had requested that he might be dismissed; but the grand jury voted that he should be obliged to give up the situations in the treasurer's office and the clerk of the crown's office, and that he should be severely reprimanded in court, and be mulcted in half a-year's salary. He was accordingly reprimanded, and having made an apology, was told that half a-year's salary was slopped from him—but what was the result of all this? After having been told that, the secretary of the grand jury allowed the presentment for his salary to be fiated by the judge. He must communicate to the House the scene that was exhibited in the grand jury-room when he attempted to impugn the conduct of their secretary. Never did he behold such an exciting scene as that grand jury presented. One gentleman got up and said, "this was nothing new at. all—that it constantly happened that presentments were thrown out at the road sessions—then brought, perhaps, before the grand jury, again thrown out—and at last fiated by the judge and levied
842
off the county." Another gentleman stated that the barony of Innishowen was divided by a forgery. According to the act, the grand jury had the power of dividing the baronies. The matter had been brought before the grand jury, and they objected to the division. Notwithstanding the objection of the grand jury, it was, however effected, and that by means of a forgery, and Sir James Stewart stated to the grand jury,
"That it was true that his name had been forged to the presentment; but, he believed, that it was not the secretary who had forged it, but a grand juror."
At the spring assize of 1841, he again called the attention of the grand jury to the conduct of their secretary, at the time that the presentment for his salary was brought forward, and requested that an investigation should take place into the general conduct of that officer. But he was particularly requested by the hon. and gallant Colonel not to bring it forward at that time, because a discussion would be excessively inconvenient and that they never should be able to get through their presentments. He did withhold it until the grand jury had gone through the presentments, and then, when the time had arrived for him to make his representations, to his astonishment the hon. and gallant Colonel, instead of calling upon him to speak, called on Mr. Alexander Stewart, who with great energy, particularly requested of the grand jury not to enter into the investigation, but only to notice any charges that might be brought forward. That gentleman laid down a rule for the grand jury to follow. He did not blame the grand jury for what they did; but he did blame those who took the lead amongst them—who had the confidence of the grand jury, and by whom that confidence was abused. When he was allowed to speak, he repeated the accusations that he had brought forward at the former assizes, and he requested that the question should be put to the secretary of the grand jury, as to who had put the presentment for his own salary before the judge to be fiated, and the hon. and gallant Colonel was directed by the grand jury not to put the question. He then requested of the grand jury to hear the complaint of Mr. Bateson, who made a serious charge against the secretary. The charge was this—that Mr. Spence had improperly procured payment from the treasurer of 12 l. 3s., which he had no authority to receive, and also that he had improperly substituted one

843
map for another, the latter having no reference to the presentment for which the map was intended. When these charges were read, there certainly was a strong feeling amongst the members of the grand jury that they had got themselves into a scrape, and that it would have been better for them to have gone on with the investigation which he had desired. Like persons, however, in similar circumstances—" in for a penny, in for a pound"—they determined to abide by wrong, having commenced in error. He regretted that such a course was adopted; the gentleman who brought forward the charge was not better received than he had been. Evidence was produced, to show that the person's name had been forged. The draft for 12 l. 3s. was professed to be received by a man named Owen M'Daid, and to that the witness was Mr. W. M. Spence. It was signed by M'Daid, as if he were a marksman, when the fact was, that he could write as well as Mr. Spence himself. Now, this was too plain, and there was only one way of getting out of the contradiction. He had seen a hungry lawyer badgering a witness at quarter sessions; but then, he had never supposed—he had never dreamt of seeing a gentleman on a grand jury, and acting under the solemn obligation of an oath, conduct himself in such a manner as did that gentleman, who took the lead on this occasion, and who acted as a sort of counsel for the defendant, and examined the principal witness, John Dogherty. Never did a counsel for the defendant so banter the leading witness of the plaintiff, as this gentleman bantered the unfortunate witness,—such a bantering he had never heard. Words were put into his mouth that he had never uttered—he was examined and cross-examined until the perspiration was running down his face. It was repeatedly suggested to him, that he had employed the secretary of the grand jury to receive his money, and it was as repeatedly denied by him. It was repeatedly said to him—" Did you or did you not empower the secretary to receive the money?" And although the answer was always in the negative, yet this was carried on for such a length of time, that at last the grand jury became bewildered; and he believed that there was not one of them, except the gallant Officer opposite and Mr. Stewart, who was examining the witness, who really comprehended the matter; Mr. Bateson, was not allowed to make any reply—and was not per-
844
mitted to call back the attention of the jury to what was the real question at issue; and he did not believe that the Members of the grand jury knew very well what it was that they were voting for. On that occasion, the secretary of the grand jury was severely reprimanded, and was declared to be guilty of the greatest irregularity, though it was said there was no proof of fraud, even though he had kept the poor man's money for four months in his own pocket. Now, he had brought this matter before the Chief Remembrancer in January last. The Chief Remembrancer went into the case, and from the minutes of it, it would appear, that 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 Doherty, 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 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 Doherty, who had done the work. That M'Daid admitted that he authorised Doherty to receive the money; and Doherty admitted that he had received it after summer assizes from Spence. He had followed up this subject by calling the attention of the foreman of the grand jury, and also of the judge of assize to it, at the last spring assizes. He might remark that there was one curious thing about the minutes of the Chief Remembrancer, who, he did not think, had fully performed his duty; in the matter, that in that minute, the fact was omitted that the secretary of the grand jury having kept the money for his own purposes, had not paid it until he had been repeatedly dunned for it over and over again by the poor man who had earned it in making a road. He did not understand why Mr. Blake had not sent a copy of the presentment on which the money was levied; for it would appear that the presentment itself was a forgery. It came, however, to this, that either the presentment was forged, or Mr. M'Clintock had signed it out of sessions—that is to say as it was on a mail car

845
road, the levy was to be half on the barony, and half on the county at large: Mr. M'Clintock being the presiding magistrate at the barony sessions, and not at that for the county at large, could only sign the presentments for the barony. Yet strange to say, the presentment in question was signed in his name for the county at large, and as it was stated that Mr. M'Clintock had refused to sign a presentment out of sessions, how came it that this presentment was signed by him? Mr. M'Clintock is dead, but his signature may be known. As the hon. and gallant Officer opposite took upon himself the management, not merely of two baronies, but of the county at large. It might naturally be expected that the hon. and gallant Officer would look at least to the two baronies that he took care of, and see them properly regulated; and yet even there he found the most extraordinary proceedings had taken place. He found, for instance, a contract there entered into with one Henry Cassidy, to repair a certain portion of a road at 13 l. 7s. 4½d and this presentment was to continue for seven years. There was to be the same sum on the barony as on the county at large; and yet in the spring assizes of 1838, the 13 l.7s.4½d. swelled into 26 l. 14 s. 9d. on the barony, and 13 l. 7s. 4d. on the county. In the spring assizes of 1839 it was 7s. too much, while on the county at large the sum was correct, and so the charges went on. There was another case somewhat stronger, which he should be glad to hear the gallant Colonel explain. In the barony of Banagh, there was a contract entered into with Hugh Meehan for 17 l. 9s. 9d., to continue for seven years, and it afterwards rose to 50 l. 13 s.4d.—to 40 l. four difent times, and then rose to 50 l. 13 s. 4d. This, he thought, was a curiosity in its way. He must remark, that it was very difficult to get at the county books; few of them were printed, and when printed, they were not brought into circulation. He was happy to say, however, that he had possession of some of them; and, on looking at this case of Hugh Meehan, he found him put down in the schedule at 17 l. 9s. 9d.—that was, he took it, the sum that ought to be levied of the county—while the sum set down in the grand warrant was 50 l. 13 s.4d Thus, while the presentment in the schedule is 17 l. 9s. 9d., which is the right sum,—that placed in the grand warrant and levied off the county appears to be 50 l. 13 s. 4d.—yet attached to this grand warrant, is the
846
affidavit of the Clerk of the Crown, to certify its correctness as compared with the presentments. This was for the summer of 1840. It appeared to him, that the whole was a system of fraud—that it almost taxed the credence of the House to place faith in. He had, he must say, gone through the grand warrants of the county with great labour and attention; and he was perfectly satisfied as to the correctness of what he had stated, and what he was about to state. He now went to the barony of Innishowen, where matters were still worse. Robert Mitchell entered into a contract for seven years, for 11 l. 5s. 4½d. This sum ought to appear every assizes. It did not do so; one time it was 45 l. 1l. 6d., and another time 22 l. 10 s. 9d.; and so it went up to January, 1840. Why was there this difference made with regard to this man, Robert Mitchell, unless it was for the purpose of defrauding the county? He should be glad to hear the gallant officer explain this—he should be glad to hear him explain the conduct of the salaried officers of the county—he should be delighted to hear a satisfactory explanation; but if the hon. and gallant Officer could not give him an explanation, he begged that he would not interrupt him. Under the same head of presentments, and to the same person, he found another contract for seven years for the sum of 17 l. 0s. 2½d.—this, like the former, should be continued at the same amount each assizes. But at summer assizes 1837, it rose to 51 l. 0s. 7½d. spring, 1838, it was 68 l. 0s. 10 d.; summer 1838, 68 l. 0s. 10 d.; spring 1839, 34 l. 0s. 5d.; summer 1839, 34 l. 0s. 5d.; spring 1840, 34 l 0s. 5d.; summer 1840, 34 l. 0s. 5d and he found, that under the two last mentioned cases, there had been presented to Robert Mitchell the sum of 316 l. 16 s. 9d. more than the amount of his contracts for the above period, and of which amount the county was defrauded. He should be glad to know from the hon. and gallant Colonel what had become of this money. He meant now to trouble the House with one case more, and then he intended to proceed to something else. With Peter Hegarty a contract had been entered into for seven years, and the sum to be presented for was 21 l. 10 s. 6d. That was the sum that ought to have been continued to be presented for at each assizes. In the spring assizes of 1838, it was 86 l. 2s. 0d,; in the summer of 1838, it was 86 l. 2s., instead of 21 l.; in the spring of 1839, it was 43 l. 1s.; and so to 1840, 43 l. 1s.; and at last, upon this one

847
presentment, the country had been defrauded of 215 l. 5s. 6d. He should be glad to hear the hon. and gallant Officer explain that. These were only isolated cases that he brought forward, and not a tithe of what might be laid before the House. He only mentioned those things that he had gone through himself, that he had investigated closely, and of which he was certain that he was correct in every iota. He must now go back to the assizes of 1841. Previous to those assizes, he had received a letter from Lord George Hill—one he was sure that the hon. and gallant Officer opposite must respect, and one whose very name must ensure the belief, that it would be impossible for him to make any statement that he did not believe to be well founded. He had, then, received a communication from that nobleman, to make an inquiry as to a sum of 3l. 3s. 4d. which was due upon a contract to a poor man named J. M'Bride—a man who was kept out of his money on account as was stated, of a mistake being made in his christian name which was printed "John," instead of "James." He (Lord Clements) brought this case before the grand jury, but they would not listen to it. He brought it then before the judge, who examined the county surveyor, and he having certified that the work was done, the judge asked for the original presentment, when a letter was produced by the secretary of the grand jury to show that the presentment had been forwarded for the purpose of being made the subject of prosecution, notwithstanding that the county surveyor's certificate was produced in court, to show that the work had been performed. There was no seal on the letter. The person who wrote it must have been in the court-house—he must have been present. Why was he not examined? But he must go a little deeper into this matter. That letter was handed to the high minded judge, who could not believe it possible, that a secretary of a grand jury, for the purpose of evading the payment of such a sum, should have resorted to such a device as this—or that he would say, that the presentment had been forwarded to Mr. Barrett if it were not so. The judge then desired, that the presentment should be forwarded to him to Derry, and that he would, upon the receipt of it, come to a decision. What was the result? As the judge was going over the bridge, the secretary of the grand jury laughed at the poor man, for he knew that the commission was
848
at an end. He would now read the judge's letter. It was from Chief Baron Brady, and stated that he enclosed the papers referring to the claims of James M'Bride, about whom he had interested himself—that he had since written to Mr. Spence about the presentment, but had not received any answer from that person—that he hoped the poor man would receive what he was justly entitled to; but that all power with him (the Chief Baron) to interfere further was at an end—that it must rest with the judge at the next spring assizes. That was the letter of the Chief Baron. His next step was to communicate with Mr. Barrett. Mr. Barrett stated that he had received from Mr. Spence, the secretary of the grand jury, a number of presentments on which to prosecute for non-fulfilment of the contracts; that he had selected some names for that purpose, and returned the list to Mr. Spence; and that on looking over the names of those proceeded against, he did not find the name of M'Bride; and that he had no presentment or bond of any such person; and that he had received no directions to that purpose in 1840 or 1841. Thus it was that they saw this unfortunate man treated, and that, too, by an individual who had the confidence of the grand jury, and who was sheltered by the hon. and gallant Officer opposite. He had one or two strong cases still left. He had compared the warrants of the county, and he wished now to draw the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland to this subject, in order that he might see what was done in the county of Donegal. He found that there was a very great discrepancy between the gaol reports laid on the Table of that House, and the returns that had been made by the grand jury. This was most remarkable with respect to the salaries of officers. He was only able to compare them for two years—these were 1836 and 1839. He found 8l. put down under the head of "other officers" in the gaol report, and in the grand jury warrant it was 82 l.; he found officers employed of whom no account was given in the report. There was, for instance, a nurse-tender 8l.; there was the keeper of lunatics 20 l.; a messenger 10 l.; a providore 40 l.: besides this, there was the keeper of the bridewells at Donegal and Letterkenny. He did not object to these officers as not being wanting; but he objected to them as not appearing in the gaol report that was laid before that House. In 1839, it was remarkable that almost

849
every officer in the county had his salary charged twice over. The local inspector, according to the gaol returns, was to receive but 95 l. 16 s. 8d., while there was presented for him that year 140 l. The chaplains were in the one account to have but 90 l., while by the other he had been paid 135 l. The Governor 150 l., in the gaol report swelled into 225 l. when it had to be paid by the county. 140 l. was to be given by one account to the turnkeys, but 159 l. was to be levied under the same item from the county. Under the head of "other officers" only, 12 l. 4s. by the gaol report, while the county, it seemed, was to pay them 76 l. 4s. In this year he found officers belonging to the gaol not mentioned in the gaol report. For instance, there was for the keeper of the lunatic ward, a nurse tender more; there was a messenger, and so on. He had now very little more with which to trouble 'the House; but he must first of all read part of a letter, addressed to the commissioners to inquire into the grand jury laws (whose report has lately been laid on the Table of this House), by the hon. and gallant Officer opposite. [Colonel Conolly: Read it all.] It is too long for that. But the hon. and gallant Officer was asked how he would amend the Grand Jury law, and his answer was to the effect that "many poor persons had sustained grievous Josses," like, he would say, to poor James M'Bride, "by inattention and negligence on the part of secretaries to the grand juries. He suggested, that the grand juries should, on memorial, have the power of awarding the amount of loss out of the salaries of such persons, or by giving a remedy by civil action, for any loss thus sustained by the wilful neglect of such persons." Now, he would ask the hon. and gallant Officer if he had, in penning that paragraph, his eye upon any body else than Mr. Spence, or did he suppose that any other secretary to a grand jury could act in the manner that it seemed he was in the habit of doing? He believed not one; and he was sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, when writing, must have had before him Mr. Spence as the original for every word he penned, and nobody else. He had now to mention some very curious local facts, just as a sort of wind up. He meant just to show to the House what these gentlemen said of themselves. What, first, said the treasurer?—He was asked if he discharged the duties in person, and if not, what remuneration he gave to the person he employed. His answer was, that
850
he always discharged the duty in person, but that he employed an assistant. (That is the secretary of the grand jury)—but he makes no answer as to the amount of the remuneration. Then see what the secretary says of himself,—in answer to the question put by the commissioners, as to what offices he held and what emoluments he received in respect thereof. Answer, I held the office of sub-sheriff in the years 1830 and 1831, was deputy-clerk of the Crown—and assistant-county-treasurer, I received under 20 l. a year, and from the Clerk of the Crown at first 20 l. a year, latterly 25 l., from persons who passed receipts to the county-treasurer about 20 l. a year." Thus it is seen that so small has been his remuneration, that he has been obliged to pay himself by laying a tax on those persons who passed receipts, and this without any authority for so doing. But he does not here acknowledge to having been providore of the gaol of Lifford, yet he found presentments to Mr. Spence as providore 1836, 20 l.—spring, 1838, 20 l.—summer, 1838, 20 l—spring, 1839, 10 l. With regard to the Clerk of the Crown, this most important fact was admitted by him—that he received fees, though by the act it was not allowed. He said, he received in 1838, in fees, 159 l.; in 1839, 131 l.; and in 1840, 174 l. 2s. 10 d. This individual was asked, whether he had an office in the county, and how many days he had attended during the year. His reply was, that he had an office in the county, and had attended sixteen days in each year, with the exception of 1839. He was then asked, if he had any one else in his office, and replied, that he had, in 1832. Mr. Spence, the secretary of the grand jury, to take charge of his office, and for some years afterwards. He then said, that the greater part of the duties of his office were performed in Dublin. Thus they saw the same officer—who ought to be a check on the secretary of the grand jury, and a check on the treasurer, and whose duty it was to certify the correctness of the grand warrants as compared with the presentments was not to be found in his office, but employed the secretary at a paltry salary in his own office, that same person having a paltry salary also from the treasurer. Was it, he asked, to be supposed as unreasonable that a man who had such arduous duties placed upon him would not pay himself one way or another?—that if he were not paid in the right way, he would not pay himself in the wrong way. He

851
thought now, that he had shown clearly to the House that there was much that was wrong in all this—that the affairs of the county were not checked and controlled as it was intended they should be—that the consequence was, that much evil was practised, much wrong was done, and much injury inflicted. "Henow, then, turned to his noble Friend (Lord Eliot), and asked if her Majesty's Government would not be disposed to interfere when he proved to them cases of hardship, and made manifest to them the evil that was committed? He confessed, that he would prefer a commission for the purpose of inquiring into this matter. It would be the better course—it would be that most likely to benefit the county, as well as Ireland at large. That some mode of inquiry should be employed, was most obvious; for he said, that in this case there was as much hardship and fraud as in any case he ever heard of—he did not expect what had taken place with regard to the forgery of the Exchequer-bills. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he thought this a matter of very serious moment, and he repeated that the extent to which these frauds had been carried, was quite as remarkable, as was that of the Exchequer-bills, and the sooner it was put a stop to the better. He confessed, that unless her Majesty's Government did step forward, with the resolution at once to eradicate those evils, it would be perfectly hopeless to expect to see it put an end to. At that moment he did not wish to say the course that he should adopt; but he would wish, if successful, that her Majesty's Government would take up the matter. It might be said, that the Government had not power to interfere with the grand jury; but, then, was it to be said, that they had not power to dismiss the Clerk of the Crown? He was confident, if they investigated this matter, it would be proved that the Clerk of the Crown had been guilty of a dereliction of duty, and that he was unfit for such a situation. Then, if the grand jury would not dismiss their secretary, the Government could take such measures, and put the law in such a form, that they should not have the power to do any more mischief. He was sorry to say, that the county of Donegal was exceedingly dissatisfied with the state of things that was going on. He had heard a great number of complaints from the cess-payers as to the charges upon the county being much higher than they ought
852
to be. The evils that were now felt had been experienced since the year 1823, and unless her Majesty's Government would enter into an investigation of them, there was no chance of a remedy. He hoped, then, that his noble Friend, with that diligence and perseverance that were usual with him, would undertake this most necessary duty. Unless he received an intimation such as he desired from her Majesty's Government, he must move, in the terms of his notice, for a select committee to inquire into the administration of the grand jury laws in the county of Donegal.
Mr. Morgan John O'Connellseconded the motion.
Colonel Conollysaid, the noble Lord laboured under the greatest ignorance of the whole system he pretended to denounce. The noble Lord had utterly misstated all the facts, and most disingenuously asserted what he must have known to be untrue. ["Cries of Order."]
The Speakersaid, the gallant Colonel had certainly dropped some expressions which, on reflection he would regret and retract. The gallant Member could not mean to affirm that the noble Lord had spoken wilfully what was false.
Colonel Conollysaid, he was sorry to have been hurried away by natural indignation, at what he felt to be very unfounded charges, he was charged with very gross misconduct, and that, too, upon a matter which he had already explained to the noble Lord; and if he had been carried in any way too far, or beyond that which was the duty he owed to the House, he was sorry for it. He now wished to proceed. The noble Lord had proposed a motion that Mr. Spence was unfit for his duty, and that was not seconded by any person; the motion was negatived unanimously. So far then as related to that transaction. The noble Lord had next charged him with managing two baronies in the county of Donegal. It so happened in these baronies that the three principal. proprietors were two other persons and their humble servant then addressing them. Until the change in the grand jury law, it might be said that he represented three baronies in the county—but when it was required that each barony should have a representative on the grand jury, he must say that it was very difficult to get one person to represent each of these baronies. When he was away there was one of them for which the sheriff could not find another person to represent. He

853
had taken means to have the barony represented by the agent of a noble Lord, but he had not succeeded. As to the presentments it was extraordinary that the noble Lord did not bring them before the grand jury, but should have reserved them for Parliament. It was, too, he said, a very remarkable circumstance, that with all the noble Lord's charges the grand jury were unanimous in their opinion concerning them. With respect to the gross irregularity mentioned, he did not vindicate it, he meant the irregularity of the secretary of the grand jury receiving money for one person instead of another. It was right, however, to state to the House, that it was the brother-in-law of the man to whom the money was to be paid that got it—the parties were jointly engaged in the same transaction. M'Neill had been called away on a Crown summons, and immediately on his return he was given the money. One person was substituted for another, but the man was paid the money, and there was no fraud whatever. There had been a gross irregularity, but nothing more. The statement of Mr. Blake, the Chief Remembrancer, after investigating the account, was this, and he added that there was no withholding the money from the parties. The grand jury had come to a resolution, after a long investigation, and they pronounced without a single exception that Mr. Spence had not been guilty of a fraud, but that he should be reprimanded, and that all works as to contracts should be better regulated for the future. As to the case of substituting "James" for "John," what was the wrong done here? The county treasurer could not pay to any person but the one whose name was in the presentment—so far was this from being a charge, that it ought to be regarded as a matter of praise—that in a country where there were so many persons of the same name, that the officer was careful not to pay the money to the wrong person. The noble Lord had arrainged his conduct and his dealings with the grand jury, when the grand jury in every sense of the word agreed with him. He knew not what was the noble Lords opinions of grand juries; but this he could say, that the instant the noble Lord came among them, he began arraigning every proceeding of theirs, in the most objectionable and strangest manner. The noble Lord had called the grand jury factious in the open court, and launched out in every sort of way, so that he (Colonel Conolly) had been called on by
854
the grand jury, as their foreman, to restrain the noble Lord. Now, he would leave it to the House to say whether the grand jury of Donegal had done their duty, when he could declare that the last grand jury he was on he had the happiness to hear Baron Pennefather pronounce a panegyric upon them. He who had been so many years a grand juror had only a remark to make upon the statement of the noble Lord, so short a term a grand juror—that they were remarkable for their ignorance. The noble Lord was not aware that sums not paid by the treasurer went to the benefit of the county. If a presentment was short one half-year in the county, then they had another presentment to make it up for the three half-years. That was a thing that they did constantly in the county of Donegal. Mr. Barrett was the quarter sessions solicitor, and the grand jury having directed certain presentments to be sent to him for prosecution, Mr. Spence could produce only one, on which so much stress was laid by the noble Lord. The presentment could not be produced, because it had been sent to Mr. Barrett. The grand jury did prosecute certain persons as defaulters. The names of those not selected for prosecution were sent back, and those selected to be made examples of were retained by Mr. Barrett. No men could act better than the grand jury of Donegal, and it was with exceeding wonder and indignation that he found a body of gentlemen attacked of whom he had so long an experience, who were of the highest respectability, and who were utterly incapable of doing an intentional wrong. And now what did all the noble Lord's charges against them amount to?—the serious irregularity of Mr. Spence, which was not be excused. As to himself being inculpated in any such thing, he was really astonished at the noble Lord, for he roust know as well as any man, that he was incapable of it. ["Lord Clements had already said that the gallant Officer thought he was."] But where did the noble Lord stop in impeaching every act of the grand jury, and attacking it with every sort of expression. He asserted that the noble Lord had attacked every body and everything, by imputing the most improper motives to every act of theirs. It was really shameful to see the business of the country impeded by the unjust aggressions of the noble Lord. An allusion had been made by the noble Lord to Mr. Alexander Stewart—that gentleman had

855
been for many years the representative for Deny, and was well known to every Gentleman in that House. He was almost ashamed to have to vindicate the character of Mr. Stewart, all he would say was this, he would be very happy to partake of Mr. Stewart's fate in the estimation of that House, various other items had been alluded to by the noble Lord, but he did not mean to reply to them. He thought he had said enough, and now he must say that he was utterly at a loss to understand why the noble Lord should have brought this matter before the House. The judge who had examined into all the allegations of the noble Lord, had been perfectly satisfied with what had been done by the grand jury, and took no steps, in consequence of the suggestions of the noble Lord. He would say, as the foreman of the grand jury that be had always objected to wrong presentments, and that the grand jury only acted for the interest of the county, and were always influenced by the highest sense of duty in every portion of their acts.
Sir E. Hayesdefended the grand jurors of the county of Donegal against the charges so unwarrantably brought against them by the noble Lord the Member for Leitrim. The noble Lord had arrived in that country, never having served upon a grand jury, and opposed himself to all the experienced grand jurors of the county, of all parties, and in every division which the noble Lord had taken upon the grand jury, in the qustion he had that night brought before the House, the numbers had been twenty-two on the one side, and the noble Lord himself on the other. And he must say, that it would be much more becoming of the noble Lord, instead of bringing unfounded charges against his hon. Colleague and the resident gentry of the county of Donegal, who were spending their time and their fortunes in improving their properties and bettering the condition of their tenantry, that the noble Lord should look after his own tenantry in that county, on a property where there was no resident, and in the improvement of which he believed there was not sixpense spent in the year.
Lord Clementsobserved, that notwithstanding the style and manner in which the hon. Baronet had addressed the House with regard to himself, he was determined upon not being misrepresented. He had distinctly guarded himself against charging the grand jury with being influenced by
856
improper motives. He did not say that the grand jury was guilty of fraud, but that the secretary of the grand jury was guilty—that things were done with regard to the road presentments for the purpose of fraud; and if he got a committee he would prove this—nay, if the hon. Baronet would take the trouble of going over the books, he would prove it to him.
Mr. Littonvindicated the character of the grand jury of the county of Donegal. He had been twenty-five years as a practising barrister acquainted with the grand juries of the county of Donegal. During fourteen years of that time he was entrusted with the Crown prosecutions on the circuit, and during all his experience he had heard from the Judges of the land the highest commendation of the diligence and integrity with which those grand juries had always discharged all their duties. He considered that the appointment of a committee such as that called for would be casting a slur upon the gentlemen of that county, and it was but justice to them to scout such a motion from the House.
Sir W. Somerville boretestimony to the honour and integrity of the gentlemen of the grand jury of Donegal; at the same time it was manifest that the gross irregularity had taken place; and if the motion were pressed to a division he should vote for it, without at the same time meaning thereby to cast any imputation upon the grand jury.
Lord Eliotopposed the motion, and would state shortly the grounds on which he would oppose it. His noble Friend opposite had brought forward charges on two distinct grounds, and these had been answered by his hon. and gallant Friend behind him. One of these had been brought under the consideration of the law officers of two successive Governments, and they agreed that there was not any case in which any legal proceedings for fraud could be instituted, and this view was coincided in by the Chief Remembrancer. If his noble Friend opposite had been able to show that any malversation on the part of this individual had been screened by the grand jury, there might be some ground for inquiry. But, so far from this having been the case, the grand jury of the county of Donegal had on one occasion visited the conduct of this individual with a severe penalty, and in the other instance with a severe and grave censure. Under these circumstances he did not think the noble Lord was justified

857
in taking so strong a course, or that he would be justified in acceding to the motion.
Mr. Shawsaid, that there was one circumstance connected with the present case which he felt it his duty to state in corroboration of what had fallen from his hon. Friends the Members for the county of Donegal, and in justice to the public officer, Mr. Spence, secretary of the grand jury of that county, it was this, that he had heard Mr. Blake, the Chief Remembrancer, observe upon the statement which had formerly been made by the noble Lord on the subject in that House, and express his surprise that the noble Lord should have designated what had occurred as a forgery, inasmuch as Mr. Blake, though he considered it his duty as a public officer to point out the irregularity which Mr. Spence had committed, yet that he had not attributed any wilful fraud or moral offence to Mr. Spence in the transaction. Under these circumstances he could not but consider that the noble Lord was wholly unjustifiable in applying to Mr. Spence the strong language in which he had indulged in the course of that debate.
Mr. M. J. O'Connellmaintained, that malversation in the management of the funds of the country was proved, or at least strongly presumable, against the accused party, and he therefore should support the motion.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonsaid, it was impossible the House could be required to investigate the money transactions and accounts of every county in Ireland. The motion ought to be met by a direct negative.
Sir R. Fergusonadmitted that great irregularity had been committed in this instance, but the proper place to try the question was before the grand jury of the county.
Lord Clementsreplied. He was not, he said, in the least degree surprised at the conduct of hon. Members opposite, but he denied that any answer had been given to the statements he had made. He was only surprised at the conduct of the noble Lord, for he had had the papers before him, and he might have made inquiries into these abuses. He must say that a more presumptuous speech than that of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Litton) he had never heard. He told that hon. and learned Gentleman that if he stood alone—if he stood by himself—he should feel proud—he repeated the words,
858
he should feel proud of standing by himself, as long as his conscience told him that his conduct was in the right. But he would tell the hon. and learned Gentleman a little more: he did not stand alone—he was proud to say, that he was supported by Gentlemen who differed from him in politics. He regretted that this had been made a party question by those opposite; but he did not bring it forward in that spirit. He regretted still more to find the part the Government had taken with regard to it; but now that he saw the Government was determined to resist it, he gave notice that the matter should not rest here. He meant to recommend to the cess-payers of Donegal not to pay the county cess—to allow themselves to be distrained; and on the distraint taking place, bringing the question before the Court of Queen's Bench, to try the thing in a legal way. It was also his intention, early in the next session, to bring forward a bill for the regulation of presentments. Hon. Gentlemen might successfully resist his motion; but he told them it was not in their power to defeat him in the just cause to which he had devoted himself.
Motion negatived.
House adjourned.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public—1a. Customs' (The Tariff); British Possessions Abroad.
3a. and passed:—Dean Forest; Municipal Corporations (Ireland).
Received the Royal Assent.—Assessed Taxes; Slave Trade Abolition (Argentine Confederation); Slave Trade Suppression (Hayti); Slave Trade Treaties; Justices Jurisdiction; Law of Merchants Act Amendment; Stockton and Hartlepool Railway; Thames Haven and Dock Railway; Sudbury Improvement; Liverpool Poor; Burntisland and Granton Pier, Ferry, and Road; Carlow Road; Tadcaster and Otley Road; Bromyard Roads; Stourbridge Roads; Bathurst's Estate; Duke of Argyll's Estate; Ashton's Divorce; Rouma's Naturalization; Lesbazeille's Naturalization.
Private,1a. Reading Cemetery Foxteth Park and

781
Paving; Leeds Burial Ground; Blackburn and Chorley Road.
2a. Ross and Cromarty Court House.
3a. and passed:—Birmingham Free Grammar School; Bishop of Darry's Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Islington, for the Redemption of the Metropolitan Bridge Tolls.—From Paisley, for Relief.

PUBLIC WORKS—CANADA.
In answer to the Earl of Mountcashel,
The Duke of Wellingtonstated, that it was the intention of Government to carry out the plans of Lord Sydenham in reference to public works in Canada, and that they were in communication with the present Governor-general of Canada, for the purpose of ascertaining what would be the best mode of carrying the engagements which had been made into execution, for the benefit of the province of Canada.

JUSTICES AT SESSIONS.
Lord Campbellcomplained of the irregular manner in which, as it appeared to him, the Justices' Jurisdiction Bill had been yesterday hurried through the House. That measure made some very important alterations in the jurisdiction of quarter sessions; and as the quarter sessions were now sitting nearly all over the country, the effect of its being precipitated into law in this manner would be, that all trials for offences wherein the jurisdiction was now taken from the quarter sessions would be rendered invalid, as coram non judice, and, indeed, it was questionable whether the offenders might not proceed against the chairman of quarter sessions for wrongfully putting them on their trial.
The Lord Chancellordenied that there had been any irregularity in this matter. Full notice had been given within the knowledge of the noble and learned Lord, that the suspension of the Standing Orders should be moved in the case of this bill.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that no notice had been given that their Lordships would meet at an earlier hour than usual.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that it was stated on the votes that the House would meet at half-past three, and the only business set down was this particular bill.
Matter dropped.

DISTRESS IN THE MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he rose to present a petition to which he wished, for a few minutes, to call the attention of the House. The petition was from a depautation now in town, composed of
782
most respectable and humane individuals connected with the manufacturing districts of the North of England, and more particularly Lancashire, Cheshire, and the West Riding of Yorkshire. Some of these individuals were largely engaged in commerce, others of them were extensively engaged in manufactures, and others were ministers of various religious persuasions—men who from their callings, their station in society, their long and ample experience in various branches of business, and also from their character and ability, were well entitled to give an opinion as to the state of facts which came before them, and also to expect that those feelings of apprehension and even alarm under which they approached that House should be shared by their Lordships. He felt the greatest pain and anxiety in presenting this; petition. He had long known many of these petitioners, and had, while a Member of the other House, been connected with the districts from which they chiefly came; and, as he knew that the petition was signed by persons connected with different classes in society, by members of different sects in religion, and by men of various political parties, he could safely assert that the petition was wholly divested of party or political feeling. It was only by a sense of the duty which they owed to themselves and their neighbours, and, above all, to the persons dependent on them for employment and the means of subsistence, that they had been induced to address that House at the present moment, which they even now thought was not too late, and ask that their Lordships would apply a remedy to evils which existed to such a fearful extent in those most important districts. He did not cherish a hope that he should be able to obtain relief for them, and had, therefore, respectably, but firmly declined to do more than present their petition. After, however, the pressing and anxious requests that had been made to him, he could not persist in his refusal. He repeated, he could not resist their urgent request after contemplating the misery which they had described to him; and he would, therefore, at once state that he should bring forward a motion on the subject on a future day. He should now only discharge his duty by presenting this petition, which was signed by the chairman on behalf of the whole deputation, and the petitioners prayed that some ade-

783
quate remedy might be immediately applied to the lamentable state of things which existed in their neighbourhoods. He had intended to have given notice for Thursday next, but, as his noble Friend, the Lord President had given a notice for that day, he should postpone it for a few days longer.
Petition laid on the Table.

MINES AND COLLIERIES.
The Marquess of Londonderrywas satisfied that the House must feel great sympathy at hearing the statement just made by his noble and learned Friend. He had received a letter that morning from Sunderland, complaining of great distress existing in that neighbourhood, but this distress would be greatly increased if measures which he understood were in contemplation were carried into effect. He trusted, therefore, when these measures came before the House, that he should have the assistance of his noble and learned Friend, in endeavouring to persuade the House not to legislate on this most important subject, by passing measures which must add to the distress already existing. The petition was from a large body of coal owners of Bradford, in Yorkshire, praying the House not to press legislation on a subject of such immense importance as mines and collieries, and when not sufficient time had been given to examine the voluminous reports on the Table. He objected most strongly to a measure which was before another place, which, if it passed in its present form, would entirely prevent the working of many of the most important coal mines in the country. The petitioners stated, that it appeared by the bill that it was intended to prevent children under ten years of age working in mines; they thought this was making much too great a limitation, and they prayed that the age of eight years might be substituted. They also prayed that the passing of the bill might be delayed for six months; and they stated that if it were at once carried into effect it would dissolve all engagements which now existed between themselves and their workmen. If the bill alluded to should come up from another place he should take the sense of the House on all the clauses except that relating to the exclusion of females from working in mines. He above all should oppose that clause which empowered the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors of mines.
Lord Hathertonhad a petition to pre-
784
sent to their Lordships upon the same subject as that referred to by the noble Marquess. It was from a number of gentlemen, delegates from the persons assembled at a public meeting of individuals interested in mining in South Staffordshire and the surrounding districts. It was not a petition against the bill which would shortly come under their Lordships' notice, but it adverted to the imputations contained in the report of the commissioners, and to the measure founded upon that report. He believed that the' interests involved in this question were of a most serious nature, and that very little was known of the real facts of the case. The petitioners complained of the hasty manner in which the bill now before the other House of Parliament had been carried through its early stages, and stated that it was only very recently that they had heard of it. Some delegates had been sent to London, who had returned on that day for the purpose of holding a general meeting of the trade. The mode of conducting the business of mines in Staffordshire was entirely different from that of the north, and in the mines in the former district there were no less than seventy boys employed to every 100 men. The number of the inhabitants of the coal districts of the midland counties was nearly 600,000, and of these tens of thousands were employed as colliers. The commissioners in describing these people stated that they were well fed, clothed, and educated, and the life of the collier of this district was the very best amongst those of the labouring classes of this country. The day labourers almost invariably endeavoured to procure their sons to be employed as colliers, but there were never any colliers who would submit to the degradation of their sons being day labourers. He did not intend to ask their Lordships for any opinion on this bill at present, but he had said enough, he thought to show their Lordships the great importance of a careful and deliberate inquiry into the whole question. He was far from saying that the regulation of these mines, and especially in reference to the employment of boys, was not a fit subject for some statutory enactment, but when the bill came on for discussion he should draw their Lordships attention to the importance of due caution, in reference to the particular part of the country to which he had alluded.
Lord Kenyanbegged to ask the noble Lord, whether women were employed in

785
the mines in the district to which he had alluded?
Lord Hathertonexpressed his obligation to the noble Lord for having reminded him of part of the subject to which he had forgotten to refer. These gentlemen were decidedly of opinion that the employment of females in mines was unnecessary; that it had an immoral and injurious tendency; and that it ought not to be permitted; and a petition had been entrusted to him, which he should hereafter present to their Lordships, praying that this part of the measure might pass into a law.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that he found that the petition which he had mentioned to their Lordships could not be received, as it was not in accordance with the rules of the House. He concurred in every sentiment expressed by the noble Lord who had just sat down; but he believed that the general subject was one in which the Government had no right to exercise any influence. He was most anxious, however, that this case should be considered on its merits—upon the report of the commissioners, and upon the counter statements which would be proved to the House before the bill came on for discussion.

DISTRESS IN PAISLEY.
Lord Kinnairdpresented a petition signed by 6,000 inhabitants of Paisley, complaining of the way in which the charitable funds raised for the relief of the poor in that town had been distributed. The petitioners complained that the management of these funds had been taken out of the hands of the relief committee, and had been placed in the hands of a Poor-law commissioner who had been sent down by the Government. It had been the custom of the relief committee to grant relief in the shape of money-tickets, which were taken at the various shops in the town; but of late, relief had been granted only in kind—in meal, bread, and potatoes. It was conjectured that the new system, so far from being productive of any benefit on the score of economy, had effected a considerable increase in the amount of the expenditure. The sum expended in one week had been 618 l. 6s., but during the management of the relief committee, although the wants of nine hundred more persons, inhabitants of the neighbouring villages, had to be supplied, the weekly cost had not exceeded 500 l. They believed that the commissioner,
786
Mr. Twiselton, had an object in refusing to grant relief otherwise than in kind, for they asserted that, at a meeting of the relief committee, he had declared that it was necessary to render the position of the labourers as disagreeable as possible, in order to induce them to emigrate to other parts of the country. He would not pledge himself that this was a correct statement; for having written to ascertain how far it was warranted by the fact, he had received one answer from a member of the relief committee stating that the fact was as was alleged, while others doubted the truth of the statement. The petitioners prayed that Parliament would allow them to send the produce of their labour to those markets in which they could obtain for it the best price, and from which they could obtain in exchange the necessaries of life of which they stood so much in need. They declared that they could not stand by and witness such cruelties as were practised, which, if not counteracted, might drive the people to desperation, and endanger the peace of the country. He felt that the state of the country was much too serious to allow the wants of the people to be trifled with. The lower orders had been for some time considerably disaffected; by such conduct as the Legislature had adopted the middling classes would be led to entertain similar feelings, and the consequences to be apprehended were most serious. With regard to the petitioners, they wished these funds to be distributed by the local magistrates and ministers, who were of their own selection, and whom they considered to be better fitted for such a task than a Poor-law commissioner. They did not want cold charity to be dealt out to them in a miserable pittance of food, but they looked for consolation in acts of kindness, and for some hopes of future happiness. They had not been accustomed to ask for charity, and they only sought at their Lordships' hands the means of finding a return for their labour.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the prayer of the petition appeared to him to be neither more nor less than that the petitioners might receive relief in money rather than in kind. [Lord Kinnaird: Partly so.] A gentleman had been first sent down to Paisley from the Commissariat Department, and a Poor-law commissioner was afterwards despatched to make further inquiries into the state of distress existing in Paisley. The funds had been for some time distributed by this gentleman; but

787
since then that duty had been transferred to a body of gentlemen who were permanently established in London, called the Manufacturing Relief Committee. He believed that that committee distributed these funds according to certain fixed rules laid down for their guidance in a very satisfactory manner, and he was exceedingly concerned to find that it did not give satisfaction.
Adjourned at half-past seven.