Sitting of 1 March 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—3° Buildings Regulations (No. 2); Boroughs Improvement (No. 2). 3° and passed:—Apprentices Regulation. Private.—1° Drogheda Harbour.
2° Mitford's Divorce; Stanhope and Tyne Railroad.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Williams, from Coventry, Mr. W. Ellis, from Bethnall Green, Mr. Wallace, from Renfrew, Sir G. Strickland, from Bath, and a number of other hon. Members, from several places, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Captain Taylor, from Meath, and Mr. Trench, from Roscommon, for Protection on Oats.—By Lord Duncan, from Covent Garden, St. Ann's, Westminster, and St. Mary's, Kensington, for the Redemption of the Tolls on the Metropolitan Bridges.—By Mr. S. Crawford, Dr, Stock, and Mr. E. Tennent, from Congregations of Dissenters (Ireland), to Legalize certain Marriages by Dissenters.—By Mr. Wallace, from Paisley, for means of Emigrating to Canada.—By Sir C. Napier, from Mr. Houghton, for certain Improvements in her Majesty's Navy.—From Almeley, for Amendment of Poor-law Act.—From Peebles, for Settlement of Scotch Church.—From Glenavy, relating to Education in Ireland.

FINANCIAL POLICY.
Mr. Wallace,seeing the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government in his place, wished to put a question to him, for which he really felt an excuse was necessary. He was exceedingly pressed by his own constituents, and from various other quarters, to endeavour to elicit from the right hon. Baronet —now that the resolutions on the Corn-laws had passed through committee—at what time it was probable that he could announce the commercial alterations which he was about to propose. He really begged pardon. He was afraid he was pressing on the right hon. Gentleman, but it would be a great satisfaction if he could now name the probable day on which that communication would be made to the House.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the position of the hon. Gentleman, and the circumstances of that portion of the country with which he was connected, rendered any apology for his question unnecessary. But he was afraid he could say in answer to it little more than he had already said. It was certainly true that the Corn-law resolutions had gone through committee at half-past one that morning, and he hoped they might be reported that day. In that expectation he had fixed the army and navy estimates for Friday, and he would do all

1269
in his power to expedite the Committee of Supply. But notice had been given him on the previous evening, that on the report various motions would be made, which might preclude his bringing up the report on the resolutions that evening, if the other business should occupy the time of the House to too late an hour. He would do all in his power to bring up the report that evening, to give an opportunity for bringing in the bill founded on the resolutions. But if he were unable to do it that evening, there would probably be no opportunity before Friday; therefore he would only say, that he had fixed the Committee of Supply for the earliest day, and that, having obtained a vote in supply, he would take the earliest opportunity of naming a day for the Committee of Ways and Means.

SYRIA.
Sir C. Napierhoped the right hon. Baronet would pardon him for giving him so much trouble about Syrian matters, but he took so deep an interest in the unfortunate people of that country, that he could not refrain from repeating a question he had already put—Whether the right hon. Baronet had received information of the deposition of the Emir Beschir, of his arrival at Constantinople, and of the appointment of two Turkish paellas in his stead, of whom one was an Austrian renegade? The people of Syria had been most cruelly and shamefully treated by the Turkish Government.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that from the distinguished part which the hon. and gallant Officer had taken in reference to Syria, and the interest which he naturally felt in its affairs, no question of his on the subject could require an apology. When the hon. and gallant Officer formerly put the question, the Government was not then in possession of official information from Beyrout, but they had since received a despatch, from which it appeared that the Emir Beschir had been deposed, and had arrived at Constantinople. It was also true that Omar Pacha, who had been formerly in the Austrian service, was appointed in his place.
Sir C. Napier:I can only say I am extremely sorry to hear it.

MAGISTRACY OF YORK.
Mr. R. Yorkebegged to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, which it was
1270
necessary to preface by a short statement. About six weeks or two months before the secession of the late ministry from office, representations were made of the inadequacy of the local magistracy of the city of York. The Government proceeded to supply the deficiency, and, amongst others, Mr. Mills, a gentleman of irreproachable character, elevated position, and independent fortune, was specified in the commission. But it happened that his name was John Robert Mills, while he was entitled in the commission John Mills. It was suggested that the commission should be sent back to be corrected; but it was stated that that was impossible. Since then a commission had been named by the present Government, including three gentlemen, all Conservatives. With respect to two of these gentlemen, a similar informality occurred, but there was no difficulty in sending the commission back to have it set right. He wanted to know why the same thing could not have been done in the case of Mr. Mills.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that the circumstance alluded to by the hon. Gentleman was made known to him then for the first time. If the hon. Gentleman would repeat his question to-morrow, or communicate with him in private, he would make inquiries on the subject.

CHURCH EXTENSION.
Mr. Hawesbegged to ask the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, whether he intended to bring forward the subject of Church Extension before Easter?
Sir R. Inglissaid, it was his intention to call the attention of Parliament to the subject of Church Extension during the present Session. It was not his intention to bring it on before Easter, and he should give the House and the hon. Member sufficient notice of the time at which he should bring it forward.

IMPORTATION OF AMERICAN FLOUR— THE SIDDONS.
Sir R. Peelsaid: A question was put to me yesterday evening, by an hon. Member opposite, which, at the time, I was unable to answer. I was afraid, that I had lost the paper from which I had quoted the fact relating to the passage of the Siddons, which the hon. Member seemed to doubt. However, I now hold it in my hand, and will read it to the House; it is as follows:—

1271
"An order was sent from Liverpool to New York for 1,000 barrels of flour. It was sent on the 1st of August by steam, from the house of Ogden, Ferguson, and company, was shipped in the Siddons, and arrived in Liverpool on the 12th of September."
The paper is, I believe, in the handwriting of the person who sent the order. It will be seen, therefore, that if there has been a mistake, it did not originate with me.
Mr. Thorneleyread an extract from a letter witten by a Liverpool merchant, who had imported flour in the Siddons. The gentleman alluded to, went out himself to America in the August steam-packet, and stated, that his flour shipped by the Siddons did not arrive in Liverpool till the 24th September, making fifty-one days. If the order alluded to by the right hon. Baronet had been sent out by the Liverpool, it was clear that it referred to some previous voyage of the Siddons.

FRENCH POSSESSIONS IN AFRICA.
Mr. Sheilbegged to ask the right hon. Baronet, the first Lord of the Treasury, whether the statement made on the 19th of January in the Chamber of Deputies, by M. Guizot, regarding a particular conversation which took place between him and Lord Aberdeen, in reference to the French Possessions in Africa, was correct.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought not to put a question upon a matter of such great importance, without previous notice [Mr. Sheil made some observation across the Table]. I do not want notice now. I can answer the question, but I think notice ought to be given upon a matter of such importance as anything must be which relates to our intercourse with the government of France. I am bound to say, that my noble Friend does not admit the entire accuracy of the version which M. Guizot has given of the conversations to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I do not know that there is any substantial difference, but my noble Friend does not admit having used the phrase that he had "no objections to the retention of the possession of Algiers." The expression which he used was, that he had no observations to make on that subject.

PRISON DISCIPLINE.
Mr. Thomas Duncomberose to move for a select committee, to inquire into the rules, regula-
1272
tions, and discipline of the several gaols and houses of correction in England and Wales; to report what alterations appear to be necessary in the laws now in force for the government of the prisons, in order to insure a more uniform system of discipline throughout the whole; and further, to report upon the expediency of abolishing the infliction of corporal punishments upon criminal offenders. He should be glad if the Government entertained no doubt of the propriety of acceding to his notice. It would save the time of the House, and it would spare him the pain of making, and the House of hearing, statements which must create feelings of great sorrow and concern. But looking to the vast importance of the subject, he thought the Government were right in calling on him to state his reasons for asking the House to agree to his motion. In doing so he hoped, at all events, whatever might be the difference of political opinions, that as he brought forward this question with no hostile feeling to any one, so would no party feeling enter into the discussion, or influence a single vote in the decision. He was well aware, that any one who called the attention of the House to the prison discipline of the country, whether he censured the present system as too severe, or said that in some points it was not severe enough, must be exposed on the one band, to the imputation of having a culpable indulgence and sympathy with vice; or, on the other hand, that he was not susceptible enough to human suffering, and did not make allowances enough for human frailty. The question that he was about to bring under their notice was one that had excited much public attention in consequence of the reports which had been made during the last five years by those individuals who were appointed by the late Government under the authority of Parliament as inspectors of prisons. He wished not to say one word against those reports; he thought they were drawn up with an accuracy and an ability which did the greatest credit to those who framed them. But there was another reason why this subject excited so great an interest in the country. During the last two or three years, the House would recollect that some 300 or 400 persons had been confined in our prisons for what were termed political offences. They were a different race of men from those who generally filled our prisons and houses of correction. They were men of more intelligence and greater ability; they had seen,

1273
felt, and witnessed the deplorable scenes which occurred in many of our prisons; they had called not only his attention, but the attention of a great portion of the community to what they saw, and they anxiously urged a strict and rigid investigation into the Government and discipline of those prisons. He should be doing the Legislature great injustice, and former Governments great injustice, if he were not to say, that great improvement had been made in our prison discipline during the last twenty years. When they looked back to those days when benevolent individuals, such as that great philanthropist Mr. Howard, whose name would never be mentioned without gratitude and respect, discovered and made known the existence of frightful disease in our prisons, destroying life more than the scaffold, and when they considered how much smaller was the number of deaths in prisons at present, they had a right to consider that great improvements had been made. With respect to the committee for which he was about to ask, there were precedents without end, both in that House and the other House of Parliament, for instituting such inquiries. In 1822, a committee was appointed in consequence of general complaints made of the administration of the law, and the management of prisons. The result was, the enactment of what was commonly called the Gaol Act. The Gaol Act classified prisons and introduced other great improvements. Things remained in that state till 1832, when the House thought proper to appoint another committee to inquire into the working of prison discipline at that time; that committee reported, that it was necessary, that greater uniformity of discipline should be observed in the prisons of this country, and that it would lead not only to the interests of justice, but to the welfare of prisoners, if such a system were adopted. Nothing was done in consequence of that report. In 1835, a committee was appointed by the House of Lords, and that committee reported a resolution to the effect,
"That it was expedient that one uniform system of prison discipline be established in every gaol and house of correction in England and Wales. That for the sake of procuring such uniformity of discipline, it was expedient that all rules and regulations of gaols should be in future submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval, instead of (as at present) to the judges of assize."
The committee also recommended the ap-
1274
pointment of inspectors, and inspectors were accordingly appointed. He admitted, that these inspectors had introduced many improvements, but still he must maintain that very great cruelties were exercised in prisons, and much yet remained to be done to improve them. He thought, the importance of this question was greatly increased by the great increase of crime which had taken place within the last ten years in this country. Of course her Majesty's Government were well aware of the amount of that increase, but he did not believe that the House or the public were aware of its extent. Therefore, with the permission of the House, he would state what the increase amounted to. By the report of the committee of 1832, it appeared that the commitments to prison during the seven years, previous to 1817, amounted to 56,308, averaging 8,044 annually, During the seven succeeding years, or from 1817 to 1824, the number of commitments was 92,848, averaging 13,264 annually. During the next seven years, or those from 1824 to 1831, the number had risen to 121,518, averaging 17,359 annually. He would now come to the report of the inspector of prisons, and take the last three years to which they extended—1838, 1839, and 1840. The House would recollect, that during the seven years previous to 1831, the number of persons committed was 121,518, being on an average 17,359 in each year. In 1838, in one year alone, the number imprisoned according to reports of the inspectors was 112,515. In 1839, the number was 112,812, being a difference of only 297 between the two years. But in 1840, the last year for which we had a return, the number amounted to 129,237, being an increase of more than 16,000 over the year 1838, and of between 600 and 700 per cent, above the average commitments in the ten years preceding 1831, while our population during the same period had only increased about 14 per cent. Surely this was a most alarming state of the criminal population of this country. That crime was increasing in this manner, was a most alarming fact; and if it could not be controverted, it was certainly deserving of the inquiry and investigation of Parliament. Along with the increase of the number of persons committed, there had been, of course, considerable increase in the expense of gaols, The expense during the year 1840, exceeded that of 1838, by more than 64,000 l. The House might naturally

1275
ask, what could be the reason of this vast increase of crime. So far as he could judge it was owing partly to ignorance—to the want of education amongst the people—to the want of employment, which produced poverty and distress, and, in some instances, to intemperance on the part of those who had the means of gratifying their passions. The want of education amongst the people would be found from several returns made by the registrar of births and marriages. They would find, that out of 121,000 marriages which had taken place during the last year, there were 40,587 males, and 58,959 females who could not write their names. The report also stated, the remarkable fact, that the chief deficiency existed in Lancashire, Bedfordshire, and Monmouthshire. In Bedfordshire, the number of men who signed with their marks was 55 per cent, and of females 66 per cent. It might be said, that this did not apply to the criminal population. There were other returns, however, which did. Out of 129,000 persons who were committed in 1840, there were 35,552 who could neither read nor write; out of 65,000 persons summarily convicted, there were 26,238 persons who could neither read nor write, 13,644 who could read only, and 21,483 who could write very imperfectly. The criminal returns included several species of crime. A large proportion of commitments appear to be made under the Vagrant Act. There was one offence for which a number of individuals were sent to gaol, and he wished some means could be devised to prevent such persons from being so sent. He alluded to individuals confined for what was called insubordination in workhouses. These individuals, according to the returns made, had been treated in a manner most cruel and severe—he might say, in some prisons, most brutal, for what was really a venial offence. A pamphlet, written by Mr. Pigou, contained extracts front the inspectors reports, stating some of the worst of these cases, and accompanied by very just and able comments. In the Ipswich prison, according to the fourth report of the inspector, seven youths were found in solitary confinement for insubordination or misconduct in the workhouse. He would read an extract from the report on this subject. The hon. Gentleman then read the following extract from the "Fourth Report of the Inspector of Prisons for the Northern and Eastern Districts:"—
"In the dark cell for the refractory, I found
1276
a prisoner lying upon the floor, who had been there for several days upon bread and water. One of the turnkeys in charge of him states, 'This prisoner was committed on the 14th of December for two months, for breaking windows in the union workhouse. One of the turnkeys brought him to me on Tuesday, about a fortnight ago, and told me I was to keep him in the refractory cell all the time he had to stay here. I asked him a day or two afterwards, how long he was to be kept there, and be told me for the remainder of his time. I understood he had been making a noise in the night.' The keeper states, 'I took him before the magistrate for refractory conduct, and was ordered to put him into another cell. I had no written order for continuing him in the dark cell so long.' In another part of the prison, I found seven youths in solitary confinement, who had been committed for refractory conduct in a union poor-house. They made the following statements, which proved to be correct:—
"W. E., aged 19—Has been here seven weeks, and is sentenced to four months' imprisonment. Has only seen the keeper twice; the chaplain and surgeon have never been to him; can read and write; has no book; takes exercise for ten minutes or a quarter of an hour in the morning, when let down to wash; he has 1½lb. of bread, and a quart of gruel daily.
"W.G., aged 16—Has been here seven weeks, been neither visited by chaplain nor. surgeon, is sentenced to two months' imprisonment, can read, but has no books.
"I. M., aged 17—Can read, has a book which was given him by one of the other prisoners through the ventilation holes of the cell, when he was sleeping below, has been ill, and seen the doctor twice, has seen the governor twice, but not in his cell.
"0. G., aged 17.—Can read but has no book, has neither been visited by chaplain nor surgeon, sees the governor about once a week.
"W. G., aged 16.—Can read but has no books, has never seen the chaplain during the seven weeks he has been here, the surgeon has seen him twice when sick.
"E. S., aged 16.—Can read but has no book, has never been visited by the chaplain or surgeon, has seen the keeper twice.
"T. D., age 18.—Cannot read, has neither been visited by chaplain nor surgeon, has seen the governor occasionally.
"These prisoners were at first placed upon bread and water, but have since been allowed a quart of gruel in addition. Upon questioning the chaplain why these prisoners were not visited by him, and were unprovided with books, he stated, 'The order, as I understand from the keeper, relative to these boys, is, that I am not to visit them, nor are they to have books; in fact, they are to see nobody.' The

1277
keeper states, 'A magistrate directed me verbally not to permit these prisoners from the poor-house to be visited by the chaplain."
The magistrate, he knew not why, had taken upon him to direct the gaoler, not to allow any one to see these unfortunate prisoners. They were placed in a dark cell, and made to live on bread and water, without the authority of any act of Parliament that he could find, giving power to a magistrate to issue such directions. The only fault he found in the reports of the inspectors was, that where the conduct of a magistrate had been so illegal as in this case, his name was not given. If a magistrate had done right he ought not to be ashamed to have his name made public, and if he had done wrong he ought to be held up to public condemnation by having his name printed. Moreover, he trusted that her Majesty's Ministers would take care that such an individual was not any longer suffered to disgrace the administration of justice by being connected with it. There was a report made which was most interesting. It was a report made by the chaplain of the house of correction at Lewes. That individual very much to his credit, had taken the pains of investigating what was the parentage and descent of the prisoners who generally filled that gaol. What then does he say of the class of persons who came there? That out of 943 prisoners, felons, vagrants, and misdemeanants, fifty-seven were the children of criminals, twenty-eight were illegitimate, 232 orphans under nine years of age, 133 had been orphans, between nine and sixteen years of age, and twenty-seven had been deserted by their fathers and mothers. He adds—
"Thus it appears that one-fourth of these unhappy individuals were orphans from childhood, and considerably more than one-third either orphans or deserted under the age of sixteen. Of the females very nearly half were such. How many of the rest were the victims of parental neglect, or trained to vice by those who ought to have guarded them from it, it is impossible to say. The foregoing statement surely calls for much compassion towards those who are also the just objects of judicial visitation. Not that their sentences should be rendered more light, which would neither be for their advantage nor safe to the community, but that every possible means of moral advantage should be combined with the strictness of penitentiary inflictions, and that the utmost assistance which discretion will permit should he afforded them on their discharge from prison where a disposition is shown to exchange the
1278
ways of crime for those of honest industry. Out of the many reflections which this view excites, one above others, was deeply impressed upon my mind, namely, the great importance of workhouse schools, where so many of these friendless and parentless children of the poor are gathered together. If I be not much mistaken, nowhere can a blow be more effectually aimed at the root of crime. Let these schools be made more numerous, and let them be placed in the hands of enlightened teachers, who with judgment and kindness will open the understandings and engage the affections of their pupils on the side of virtue, then magistrates and prison officers will have less onerous and hopeless duties to discharge."
In another part of his report he strongly reprobated the practice of sending children from the workhouse to the gaol. He said that they ought not to be made the inmates of a gaol, as nothing could follow from sending them thither but contamination, and their future life must be embittered by the reflection. If they went to the manufacturing districts, they could not be surprised to find that crime prevailed in such districts. He was sorry to say that their intemperance was very common. If they took up Captain Williams's report, they would find the statement of what had occurred at Manchester. He said—
"On Saturday, September 5, I accompanied Sir Charles Shaw, who was attended by two intelligent inspectors of the police force, on a walk through Manchester after twelve o'clock. The public houses mostly frequented by disorderly persons were found all open and in full trade at a quarter past twelve, and were only closed on the appearance of the police. They were crowded with men and women, several of the latter with infants in arms, and many of both sexes in a state of intoxication, who became noisy and irritated at what they appear to consider the improper interference of the police. We then proceeded to visit the low lodging-houses and brothels in the part of the town most frequented by the criminal population. They presented the usual scene of indiscriminate connection of the sexes and low dissipation, and I think a more than usual one of filth and wretchedness. Upon descending into a cellar, in which were some half dozen occupants in bed, I was struck by what appeared the unusual sight of the room being papered; but on one of the inspectors lifting up his lantern, I discovered that the appearance was caused by myriads of bugs having been crushed against it, which, in the dim light, presented the appearance of a figured paper."
What a state, he asked, was that, for any portion of the population of this coun-

1279
try to be in. Here they saw individuals miserable, utterly neglected, starving—nothing done to solace them in the dreadful condition in which they were placed. But then it might be said that such a horrible state of things was confined to the manufacturing districts. Not at all. It prevailed in some of the rural districts as well. There was one case to which he must refer. He would take the case of Cambridge; and considering that it was the scat of all that was pious and orthodox—considering it was the seat of all that was learned, he said that it was disgraceful that there should be in that town a gaol in the state and description described by the inspector of prisons, Captain Williams. One reason assigned for the gaol not being completed, was, that a Chancery suit was pending; that might be a good reason for closing the doors of the gaol, but was none for continuing its abuses. What he was now talking of was the spinning house. There the gaol act was directly contravened. The gaol act provided, that there should be divine service on the Sabbath-day, and that provision had not been complied with. He would quote a passage from the report:—
"The University has made no provision for any instruction. Some benevolent ladies have occasionally visited the prison; and a clergyman, a member of King's College, some time back, attended voluntarily on a Sunday, but discontinued it for private reasons; since which, no divine service has been performed. This prison appeared, upon first inspection, particularly that portion applied to vagrants, to be in a neglected and uncleanly state; but on a second visit, it was much improved in this particular. There is no sort of discipline maintained; several escapes have taken place. The prisoners are not searched, nor deprived of money, nor any other article. They occasionally climb over the walls of one airing-yard into another; they pass their time huddled round the fires, in obscene talk, or occasionally in singing and dancing. The keeper gives it as his opinion, `that any girl not very bad, would be far worse on going out than when she came in. He has observed shades of difference, as to feeling their situations, among some of the females upon first coming in, but this has worn off by association.' The confinement has no other effect but that of keeping them out of the streets in term time. The females now come in at a much younger age than formerly; they have generally been servant girls in lodging-houses in the town. The inutility of this establishment cannot be better exemplified than that the number of unfortunate females committed from November 4, 1834, to the day of inspection, 29th of October, 1835, was 66; the number of com-
1280
mittals, 176; averaging nearly three commitments of each individual; and the gross amount of imprisonment which they underwent was 2,634 days, averaging 39 days for each."
The statement with respect to the gaol was taken from the fourth report, and, with the exception of divine service being performed on the Sunday, the whole was to be found also in the last report. And then what was the instruction given by the University of Cambridge to the population? The report only said that the instruction given by the University of Cambridge was only to be found in dog-carts filled with religious tracts. That was not his statement; it was the statement to be found in the Inspector's report. If they could impeach that report, if they could prove it to be incorrect, of course then his statement must be incorrect also; but all this only proved the necessity for an inquiry into those abuses. It proved the very necessity of the motion to which he desired them to accede. It proved that there was not a uniformity of system throughout their prisons. It proved that the recommendations of the House of Lords, and their suggestions connected with the appointment of the inspectors had in no way been attended to, and that the inspectors had not been able to enforce uniformity in the different prisons. It was impossible that it should be otherwise; for by the present system visiting magistrates had the power of drawing up certain rules for the regulation of a prison, these rules being submitted to the Secretary of State, and approved of by him, were then enforced in that prison. Another set of visiting magistrates with another prison did the same. Thus, then, there was one set of rules for one prison, a different set of rules for another prison, and the Secretary of State approved of both. He did not blame the Secretary of State, nor the magistrates; but he blamed the Legislature which allowed such a system to prevail, and did not lay down one general rule which should prevail in all their prisons. He believed that if this were done, it would be of the greatest advantage to the ends of justice, as well as to the prisoners themselves. At present, it was totally impossible for a judge, when he sentenced a prisoner, to know what degree of punishment he sentenced the man to; for there was a want of uniformity in every material point in these prisons—in labour, in diet, in its quality as well as its quantity. Let them look to these returns, with regard to the inequality of labour. If an individual were

1281
sentenced to hard labour, the nature of the punishment must depend very much upon the number of hours that the individual would have to be on the wheel, on the height of the step, and on the rapidity of the rotation of the wheel. Let it be supposed that a judge in Devonshire sentenced a man to six months' imprisonment and hard labour, and another individual was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and hard labour in Northumberland, it would be found, that though nominally the sentence was the same in both places, there would in practice be a great inequality in the punishment. What would be the inequality in the same sentence? In Exeter the hard labour lasted for six hours and a half in the day, the height of the step was eight inches, the rotation of the number of steps in a minute twenty-four, making an ascent of 3,120 feet by that individual. If that individual had the same punishment to undergo in Newcastle-on-Tyne, the number of hours for labour were eight, the height of the step was ten inches, the steps mounted in a minute were fifty-two, and the ascent performed was 13,866 feet. In Worcester, the hours of labour were ten and a quarter, the height of the steps seven inches and three quarters, the number of steps in a minute forty-eight, and the ascent 12,716 feet during the day. Though the sentence was the same in each of these counties, yet it was plainly much more severe in some than in others. This, surely, was a subject that ought to be investigated, and all must, he was sure, think that one uniform system of labour ought to be established in all their prisons Then the next question was, how were these individuals fed? It often happened that when the labour was the hardest, the diet was the smallest and the lowest. As to the Bedford house of correction, it would be seen by the sixth report, that there was a great complaint as to the food. In the Bedford house of correction there was allowed per week 224 ozs. of bread, and eight ozs. of cheese, and three pints of beer. In Worcester the labour was hart, but the diet was more than sufficient for one person. It was 172 ozs. of bread, thirty-four ozs. of cheese, two pounds of potatoes, four pints of soup, and one gallon of gruel. It was plain from this, either that the diet at Bedford or Worcester was wrong—that either the one was too great, or the other too small. With regard to Aylesbury, there was a low diet, and there, too, another defect had prevailed, but it had
1282
to a certain extent been rectified. It was one that ought not to have existed. It was with regard to the not allowing any extra nourishment to females with children at the breast.
"There is a circumstance connected with the treatment of female prisoners which deserves attention. A woman committed with a child at the breast is permitted to have no more than the ordinary gaol allowance of food for those of her own class, out of which she has to support both herself and her infant. If the father of the child makes any allowance for its maintenance, the mother is permitted to expend it in provisions for her child; but as such an allowance is rarely made, both mothers and children are subjected to very severe privations. There is an entry in the visiting justices' journal, by which it appears that there were nine females with children at the breast at one time in this prison. In other prisons due provision is made for females of this class. In the Coldbath-fields House of Correction, a woman suckling a child is allowed half a pint of milk, and ten ounces of bread per day, in addition to the ordinary gaol allowance of her class. In the Westminster Bridewell, females so circumstanced are allowed half a pint of milk and two-thirds of the allowance of bread per day over and above the prescribed allowance of the class to which she belongs. In most cases the surgeon directs the allowance of food for this description of prisoners, and the matron should, in all such cases, be directed to call his attention to these prisoners on their admission."
This case had been reported to Lord Normanby, and so far rectified, that it was ordered that the surgeon should have a discretionary power to increase the diet; but, he maintained, the surgeon had that power before. Why, he asked, was there not a general rule for such cases? How did they know but that the females who were thus treated were the victims of another law that they had made? They first of all made a law—the new Poor-law, by which they deprived females of the title to obtain that support from the fathers of their children; and then, having done this, they sent the mother to gaol with her child, and they did not leave her enough of sustenance, as the inspector of the prisons said, for one person even without a child. The inspectors of prisons attested the great importance that ought to be attached to the question of diet. The prison discipline in America in this respect was very different from that which prevailed in England. There parties were divided as to the silent and solitary system; but as to the diet it would be found that it was full and sufficient. If

1283
they introduced solitary confinement into their gaols, he begged of them also to introduce a better system of diet. There was also a great want of uniformity in our gaols with regard to the powers that gaolers possessed, and the manner in which these powers were used by them. He had got there a statement from an individual who had suffered in one of these prisons, in consequence of the arbitrary treatment of the mere turnkey. In this case the boy, fourteen years of age, was confined for three days in what is called the refractory cell, of Warwick gaol. There, as it appeared, the turnkey, without the authority of the gaoler, put, in the depth of winter, an unfortunate boy into a cellar under ground; there the boy was confined for three days and three nights, and, when removed from it, was so ill that he was unable for three months to be brought to trial; and having in consequence of this treatment lost two of his toes, would now be a cripple for life. In that case the boy had not been tried, and his offence was quarrelling with another boy. There had been an affidavit made in his case. The name of the boy was William Griffiths, the son of William Griffiths living at Birmingham. The affidavit concluded by stating, that not being able to appear and be tried, he was kept in prison for three months, as he could not be carried up to take his trial at the assizes. The hon. Member read the affidavit, and proceeded to say:—Let them take, for instance, what was the consequence of the regulations at Wakefield and Northallerton. At Wakefield there was confined one of those to whom he had before referred—persons suffering for political offences. Amongst them was an individual named John Riding. He was confined in the Wakefield house of correction, and a representation was made to him (Mr. Duncombe) when Lord Normanby was Secretary of State for the Home Department, as to the rules and regulations there. By these rules it appeared that, when an individual came into the yard, he was not allowed to turn his head to the right or the left—he was not allowed even to look to the right or the left—he was not allowed to speak; that he did not object to when men were at work. The unfortunate Riding had been afflicted before he went into the prison with the asthma. When, then, Riding was placed in the yard, not only was he not allowed to turn his head, but he was not permitted to expectorate. Now, in consequence of his having the asthma, it was necessary for him
1284
to expectorate, but he was not allowed to do so for twelve weeks. The effect of this was, that Riding's throat and chest became swelled to an enormous extent, and his life was in danger. When the statement of this case was made to him, he confessed he did not believe it to be true. The case was laid before Lord Normanby at the Home-office, and an immediate inquiry was instituted, with a promise that he should be released if the statement proved to be true. The next post brought back the release of the man, and up to this day the man has never recovered his health. Now, that case had occurred in the Wakefield house of correction. With regard, then, to spiritual instruction in those places, he wished to state one circumstance to which he desired to call the attention of an hon. Friend near him (Mr. O'Connell.) In Salford it appeared that last year there were 131 Roman Catholic prisoners confined. The magistrates had made a regulation which ought to have had the effect of permitting prisoners of the Roman Catholic persuasion to have the spiritual assistance of their priests. This regulation was a very proper one, but it was not complied with. The chaplain of the prison, it seemed, had a very strong feeling, amounting almost to an antipathy, against Roman Catholics, which he evinced in the sermons he delivered in the prison, The chaplain, it appeared, preached controversial sermons to the prisoners, not only showing the superiority of Protestants over Roman Catholics, but going much further, and holding, that individuals of that persuasion were persons to be avoided. An instance of the feeling produced was, one of the prisoners suggesting that they should ask the chaplain to preach one of those controversial sermons over again; because, as it was said it would make their Roman Catholic fellow prisoners "as mad as blazes." [Laughter.] The House might laugh; but he asked, was this "spiritual instruction?" The rev. Mr. Macartney was the gentleman who made this statement to him, and he complained, that the Roman Catholics, particularly in that prison, were deprived of spiritual aid. There was no guarantee for the clergyman being admitted to the prisoner. If a Roman Catholic prisoner made a request to the gaoler or chaplain, he never could obtain a priest, except upon one or two occasions. On one of these cases being investigated, the chaplain and gaoler admitted, that they did not send for the Roman Catholic clergy-

1285
man, as they believed the prisoner only wanted to consult him as to his defence. There ought, in his estimation, to be some regular rule, guaranteeing to an individual so situated free access to the prisoners of his own religion. There was another subject, that was a most painful one, to which he wished to call the attention of the House, and which made him particularly anxious that he might succeed with them in pressing for a committee. The subject to which he referred was the infliction of corporal punishment for criminal offences. He asked of the House to express no opinion on the expediency of corporal punishment. He only asked them to institute an inquiry into the subject. He believed most persons who considered this point, thought that the punishment ought not to be inflicted upon adults, while they suggested it might, with leniency, be applied to juvenile delinquents. He believed, however, that all practical men were in favour of abolishing it altogether. He did not know that the House was aware of the numbers that had suffered corporal punishment of late years. It appeared, that in 1838, there were 983 whipped; in 1839, 1,026; and in 1840, the date of the last return, 1,207. This included those who had been sentenced by visiting magistrates as well as by courts of justice. It was quite clear, from the returns, that the numbers of those thus punished were greatly on the increase; for, in 1828, there were 322; in 1829, 336; and in 1830, 284—making for the three years, 942. How, then, did the inspector, Mr. Williams, speak of this practice in his last report?—
"The manner of inflicting corporal punishment in gaols appears very objectionable. I am of opinion the number of lashes, the time of punishment, and the instrument, should be defined, and the attendance of a surgeon rendered imperative by legal enactment. The consequences of such not being the case are, that the keepers of prisons have nearly absolute power in the execution of this sentence, and that the method varies in almost every prison, at least in the great majority of those which come under my observation: for instance, in one, the whipping of prisoners is carried to the utmost extent of severity, and to the number of eight or ten dozen lashes; in another, not more than ten or twelve lashes are given, and with a lightness which makes the sentence nominal. The time when the sentence is to be carried into effect is also generally left to the discretion of the keeper. In one house of correction, punishment takes place the day previous to a prisoner's discharge, a practice which I have strongly recommended to be dis-
1286
continued, more particularly as the whipping ordinarily inflicted there is severe, and must therefore greatly add to the already too numerous obstacles in the way of discharged prisoners obtaining employment. In some prisons the scourge in use is similar to that in the army; in others, to the navy; in another, it is a simple school-rod. I have occasionally found these instruments improper from their weight and size, and have considered it my duty to recommend the use of others less severe. The fact of whipping being now almost confined to delinquent boys, many of whom are little above the age and appearance of children, appears to me to call for the exercise of greater circumspection in the infliction, and which, from personal observation, I am satisfied it requires."
This, then, was the manner in which these punishments were inflicted. He had now to state what was the custom at Swaffham, in Norfolk, where a dreadful instrument was used, by which punishment was inflicted, and no medical man in attendance, and where the warrant signed by the magistrate ran thus:—"To be whipped till his back be bloody." It was also stated, that no improvement was found from this system of punishment, as the same persons were very frequently recommitted. There was next, the case of what had occurred in Salford gaol, where an individual was taken out of his bed to undergo the punishment of whipping, the very night before he was liberated from prison. The case was thus mentioned:—
"I instance the case of E. D., who on June 2nd was taken out of bed, after locking up, and the sentence of whipping carried into effect previous to his discharge the nest morning."
This system of deferring the execution of corporal punishment to the very day previous to which the criminal was to be released, was extremely bad. It was unjustifiable. In the case he had alluded to, as occurring at Salford, the prisoner described as E. D. had been pulled out of bed and flogged on the night previous to his liberation, How was it possible that, under such circumstances, a man could leave prison with any other feelings than those of anger and revenge? If they took the opinions of persons interested in the question, and who had made efforts to remedy the abuses complained of, they would find the feelings of horror with which such persons contemplated the subject. He would call attention to a communication from the chaplain of the Devizes

1287
house of correction. This gentleman makes his report to the Court of Quarter Sessions. The hon. Gentleman read extracts from the document referred to, expressing the opinion of the writer as to the injurious effect, morally and intellectually, produced by the system of flogging. There was another instance to which he would call the attention of the House, in which the punishment of flogging had been carried to a very great length. It occurred in Lancashire, and was inflicted in consequence of insubordination to prison rules. It appeared that the prisoner had objected to the food with which he and his fellow prisoners were supplied as not being of the quantity or quality which they were entitled to receive, and applied to the gaoler to go for the visiting magistrate, with the view of laying the subject before him. The gaoler refused to comply with his request s the prisoner then rejoined that he would not be locked up unless the quality of his food improved, and a scene of some confusion took place. The following day the magistrates arrived—the gaoler reported the case, and the prisoner, who was described as J. B., was sentenced to receive twelve dozen of lashes on his bare back. Then followed the account of the punishment. The prisoner was punished in the inspecting room, in the presence of the inmates of the various wards, who called loudly to the prisoner not to submit to the infliction. Some broke out into loud exclamations, and others burst into tears. The report from which he extracted these particulars concluded by expressing a hope that the example would produce a beneficial effect on the other prisoners. He did not know what effect had been produced on them by what they had witnessed, but he trusted that the effect which would be produced on the House by what it had heard would be to induce it seriously to consider if scenes like these ought to be enacted in prisons, which had for their object the suppression of crime and the reformation of the criminal. A return had been made to the House, on the motion of the hon. member for Devonport, of the number of persons upwards of twenty years of age committed to prison and flogged, by order of a single magistrate, from January, 1840, to January, 1841. He was happy to say that in that return he found only seven persons who had been committed to prison and so flogged. Four of these punishments had been ordered by the rev. John Boudier for neglect of agricultural ser-
1288
vice. Undoubtedly a magistrate should have the power of punishing persons neglecting service, by absenting themselves or otherwise, but it was another thing a magistrate ordering a man to be flogged for the offence in question, and it astonished him still more when he considered that that magistrate was a minister of the Gospel. He should like to have that magistrate brought before his proposed committee to justify his sentence—to explain on what principle he had pronounced it. Perhaps he could give reasons for his conduct that might convince him and convince the House of its propriety, but until such reasons should be adduced, he would say that that most brutalizing and degrading punishment ought to be abolished. One object of the committee for which he had moved would be, in the event of its appointment, to consider and inquire into (and Government ought to be glad of an opportunity of availing themselves of such services)—that new system of punishment called solitary imprisonment. That species of punishment was as strongly recommended by two of the prison inspectors, Messrs. Crawford and Russell, as it was condemned by Mr. Williams. When he first turned his attention to the subject, he looked over the reports, and heard the arguments in favour of solitary confinement, and was inclined to believe that it might be found a useful species of punishment; but when be came to consider the statements of practical men on the subject, he had come to the conclusion that it was not a punishment necessary in this country, or one which would ever meet with public approbation. Government was now engaged in erecting a model prison. It was to be built with a view to the carrying out of the system of solitary confinement. They were about to make still further experiments on that system, which had already been tried in the Penitentiary at Millbank, and they ought to bear in mind that, from the occurrences which last year took place there, the regulations of the establishment were obliged to be relaxed. During the last year eight persons were removed from Millbank to Bedlam in a state of insanity. If they looked to the report of what had happened in the Eastern Penitentiary at Philadelphia, on the plan of which the New Model Prison was to be constructed, they would find that in that establishment the instances of insanity produced by the solitary system in force there were numerous. In 1836 a report was published by a committee ap-

1289
pointed by the Legislature of Lower Canada, which visited the prisons of Auburn, Sing Sing, and Philadelphia; and this committee had come to the resolution of not recommending the system of solitary confinement. The hon. Gentleman then read extracts from this report, strongly condemnatory of the solitary system. He would quote, in favour of this view of the case, the opinions of Captain Basil Hall, who had also visited these prisons. The extracts read from Captain Hall also disapproved of the punishment of solitary confinement in strong terms and from various causes. He was the more wishful to quote these pieces of evidence as to the working of the silent system, because the New Model Prison would soon be opened; and, although he was aware that the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) would be obliged first to bring in a bill for the transfer of prisoners to the model gaol, still he thought that Government would do well to institute some inquiry into the merits of the system, by which they would be better able to judge of its expediency and probable success. He had trespassed longer on the attention of the House than he could have wished to have done, but he had such masses of evidence before him—he had such complaints made to him on the subject—that he hardly knew where to begin or end. He still feared that he had not said enough to induce the House favourably to consider his motion. He trusted that in this fear he might prove mistaken; but, at all events, he was sure of this, whether his committee should be appointed or not, he was sure that the House would find pleasure in engaging in measures so noble, generous, and humane in themselves, and which would prove so satisfactory to the country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the resolution which he announced at the commencement of his speech.
Sir J. Grahamcould assure the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that he gave him the greatest credit for the humane motives which had induced him to make the motion he had brought under the consideration of the House, and also for the very able and temperate manner in which he had discussed it. He most cordially joined in the sentiment uttered by the hon. Gentleman, when he described this as a subject quite devoid of all party feeling, to be considered entirely on its own merits, and with a view calmly and dispassionately to arrive at the results Which would be most conducive to the
1290
public good. Entertaining the question in this spirit and with this object alone, he must at once state to the House, that it was his conviction, that it would be inexpedient to appoint a committee to inquire into this subject. He was very glad to see in his place the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), the Member for London, who had devoted much attention to this question, and who, in his humble judgment, had rendered most important services to the State by the attention he had so bestowed upon the subject. At an earlier period, there was an act regulating prison discipline, to which it was unnecessary for him now to refer; but, in 1835, the attention of the Legislature was particularly directed to it; and the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Finsbury, had referred to the services of a noble Friend of his in another place, who instituted an inquiry on the subject, and on whose report the act of 1835 was founded. That act appointed prison inspectors; and he must say, that judging from his official experience, which certainly had not been long, but having had confidential intercourse with the five gentlemen selected for that important duty, it was impossible for a more judicious selection to be made. He had then to put it to the House what, under the operation of the act of 1835, was their course of proceeding? Constantly throughout the year, at least four times every year, every gaol and house of correction was visited by a responsible officer; reports were made by those officers from time to time of a confidential nature to the Secretary of State; and, in addition to these, there was every year a full report prepared by each inspector with reference to each gaol and house of correction in his district, giving most detailed information of everything discovered by him contrary to the Act of Parliament, or, if not contrary to the act, worthy of notice and regulation. These annual reports were made to the Secretary of State, and by the enactments of the Legislature they were in all their details laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. As a necessary effect of this regulation, the utmost possible publicity was given to all these transactions—not only was light thrown in upon them, but public attention was fixed upon them. The consequence of such complete publicity was a check on all the proceedings within our gaols, which was almost unknown in any other country,

1291
and formed the most salutary preventive against all the abuses which existed before 1835. It might be said, that in consequence of the absence of a direct enactment of details, there was a want of uniformity in the proceedings of the gaols. Now, it should be remembered, that the noble Lord opposite, the Member for the City of London, when Secretary of State, with infinite care, assiduity, and labour, framed one general code of regulations, which, after consulting the prison inspectors, he thought on the whole most conducive to the good regulation of the gaols throughout the kingdom. Instead of harsh unbending enactments, he did think, the course adopted by the noble Lord most in conformity with the intentions of the Legislature, and at the same time most practicable and expedient. The noble Lord recommended these regulations, but he had not then power of enforcing the code universally and at once. The regulations he had recommended were very generally, but somewhat gradually, and therefore very safely, being adopted by the different counties; even where they had not been in whole adopted, still they were, in a great measure, carried into effect with the most salutary results. The magistrates at Quarter Sessions had the power of adopting those regulations at various periods; and, although the Secretary of State had not the power of enforcing, but only recommending his code, he had, at the same time, a veto upon the proceedings of the magistrates. The joint operation of those two powers was gradually introducing uniformity in the sys- tem. It might be satisfactory to the House that he should state the counties in England and Wales where the code of regulations entire, as recommended by the noble Lord, had been adopted. They were these—Berks, Bedford, Cornwall, Carnarvon, Cardigan, Chester, Devon, Dorset, Glocester, Hants, Hereford, Kent, Lancaster, Leicester, Lincoln, Middlesex, Northampton, Norfolk, Oxford, Pembroke, Somerset, Surrey, Sussex, Salop, Suffolk, Wilts, and Yorkshire. In all these counties, the whole regulations, uniform in every particular, as recommended by the Secretary of State, had been adopted without variation. Here, then, was a great approximation to uniformity of discipline; and, as he had already stated, even where the whole had not been adopted yet in a great measure, and in all most im-
1292
portant particulars, the regulations were now in full force. The hon. Gentleman, in bringing forward his motion, had dwelt considerably on the great apparent increase of crime during the last ten years, In this part of his speech, he had been at some loss exactly to follow the hon. Member. The statements he made were certainly very different from those he was about to make, founded upon an admirable statistical register kept in the Home-office. He would compare the committals for trial before 1835, when the improved system of discipline commenced, to which he had already referred, and which was followed up by subsequent acts of the noble Lord opposite, with the committals for trial at a later period. The number of persons committed for trial in 1830 was 18,657, or one in 744 of the population; in 1840, it was 27,187, or one in 580 of the population, showing an increase of 45 per cent. He believed, that the hon. Gentleman, by including the summary convictions at the latter period, had made the increase nearly 600 per cent; but he conceived, that the committals for trial, as they included all the graver offences, constituted the only true basis for testing the comparative increase of crime; and according to this test it appeared, that comparing the year 1830 with 1840, the increase was only 45 per cent. In 1835, the number of persons committed for trial was 20,731; so that, while the number in 1840 was 45 per cent more than in 1830, it was only 30 per cent more than the number in 1835. This result was most satisfactory, and attributable, in his opinion, to the regularly progressive improvement of prison discipline. Still, it appeared on the face of these documents, that there was an increase of crime. He admitted and regretted it. Still, certain facts, bearing upon this increases must not be overlooked. In the first place, an increase of population, to the amount of 14 per cent had taken place in the last ten years. In the next place, in consequence of the number and increased efficiency of the police establishment, a very large number of crimes, which heretofore were committed with impunity, no longer escaped' detection; and immediate committal for trial followed on the discovery of the offenders. The result, too; of the salutary and prudent mitigation of the criminal code was not only a willingness on the

1293
part of parties to prosecute, but what was of more importance in this free country, a promptness on the part of juries to do their duty; for they no longer hesitated to convict, when there appeared proof of guilt; now that the punishments awarded were adequate to the offence, and not sanguinary. Another point connected with this part of the subject, to which he would refer, was a most Material alteration in the law, made by the right hon. Baronet, (Sir R. Peel), which relieved prosecutors from a very great portion of their expenses, providing that half of the costs should be paid out of the public purse. Beating all these circumstances in mind, the liaise would see the reason of the apparent increase of crime, which was, indeed, more apparent than real, inasmuch as many offences previously passed unpunished; whereas they were now promptly detected, and met with certain punishment. The hon. Gentleman referred to one of the causes, beyond all doubt, of the increase of crime, which he (Sir J. Graham) was happy to say was in the progress of being arrested—the want of education among the great body of the people. No man deplored that ignorance more than he did. He thought that, with reference to the public safety; to public morals, and the station of this country in the world, the diffusion of education among all classes of the population was an important object, and well worthy of the care and attention of Government. By recent regulations that great object had been placed under the control of the responsible advisers of the Crown. For the last three or four years sums of money had been feted for this important purpose; the Executive Government was responsible for the disbursement of that money; and in any measure which it might be his duty to bring forward with respect to the condition of the population, he should consider it his paramount duty not to overlook this great subject of education. It was impossible for him to follow the hon. Gentleman through all the particular cases he had cited. He thought it much more advisable rather to point out the general course of legislation and the conduct of the Executive Government as bearing on the important subject to Which the hon. Gentleman had called the attention of the House, than attempt to give direct answers to each particular case he had referred to. He did not mean to deny, that in many
1294
cases those abuses which the hon. Gentleman had observed upon might exist, but he was quite certain that they were in a rapid progress of diminution, that effective checks were applied to them, and he was confident that if the Legislature would but steadily adhere to the course pursued within the last six or seven years, if prudent and progressive legislation continued, coupled with constant checks on the part of the Executive Government over the administration of the law, coupled with constant inspection, and, above all, with publicity, into all the various transaction of the various gaols, and coupled with debates like the present, this most desirable result would ultimately be arrived at—uniformity of system, and a really protective and well-regulated plan of prison discipline. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the Ipswich case; and here he would observe in passing, that almost all the cases adverted to by the hon. Gentleman were contained in the fourth report of the inspectors of prisons, and were two years old; and the greater portion of the evils complained of had been corrected by the activity of the inspectors, aided by the constant vigilance of the Government. For this he took no credit to himself, because he had been so short a time in office. He was speaking of his predecessors, by whom every attention had been given to the investigation of practices pursued in prisons; and he felt that he had nothing to do but to adhere to the line they had taken up. The noble Lord opposite framed the regulations for prisons, and what had been his conduct after coming into office? September was the period when the annual report of the inspectors was made known to Parliament, and the hon. Member for Lambeth, who took a great interest in this matter, called upon him in reference to it. He thought this was anything but a party question, and he felt obliged to the hon. Member for his visit. The hon. Member explained the view he took of the advantages to be derived from the reports of the prison inspectors, and threw out a valuable suggestion, on which he had since acted. The reports of the prison inspectors were very voluminous, entering into the most minute details, and he issued a circular calling on the inspectors to subdivide the sixth report, which was the most voluminous of all, into three portions:—the first to consist of the matters contained in the report, to which they thought the attention

1295
of the Secretary of State should be specially directed; the second, of any matters with respect to which the Secretary of State ought, in their opinion, to communicate with the visiting magistrates; and the third, of such matters as required further legislation. With great ability and promptitude the inspectors acted on his circular; and in the course of November he was enabled to deal in detail with each gaol on each head. In consequence of that report so subdivided, letters were sent to gaolers and visiting magistrates of those prisons with respect to which any ground of complaint was found to exist in the sixth report. In the course of a mouth or six weeks letters were received from the visiting magistrates, expressing their willingness to correct any irregularities that had occurred, and he believed there was hardly an instance of a refusal to adopt the suggestions which had been made them. With respect to parts of the prison discipline, they pointed out their inability to carry at once into effect all that might be desired, because a very important portion of the improved system depended on the adaptation of the gaols for the purpose. The hon. Gentleman opposite appeared to confound the separate and the solitary system of imprisonment. The solitary system was open to many abuses, and required the most constant care. He agreed that the solitary system, coupled with low diet, operated most dangerously according to the different nervous temperaments of men. The same square rule could not be applied to all cases, but the particular circumstances of each must be inquired into. This was the way the Legislature had considered the subject, providing that no case of solitary confinement should continue longer than one month at a time, or three months in the space of one year. The hon. Gentleman had referred to a case of solitary imprisonment at Ipswich, where the prisoner was neither visited by chaplain nor surgeon. He could only say that that was a direct violation of the law; for the law provided that once every day the prisoner should be visited by the governor, chaplain, or surgeon. He was about to point out the difference between the separate and the solitary systems, and for this purpose he need only to refer to the admirable circular of the noble Lord opposite, which he held in his hand. The noble Lord said that—
"Great care must be taken, when this (the
1296
separate) system is put into operation, not to confound separate with solitary confinement. It is generally understood," (continued the noble Lord,)" that solitary confinement implies confinement in a gloomy and a narrow cell, without occupation, and with a diet of bread and water only, Separate confinement, as recommended by the inspectors of the home district, means, on the other hand, confinement in large, airy, light, well-warmed and ventilated cells, with moral and religious instruction, regular employment, and the daily visits of the chaplain and officers of the prison, as well as of those engaged in the instruction of the prisoners…. By the regulations of the separate system, such persons would be strictly separated from all other criminals, would have the means of repenting of their offences, and, when discharged, would not be liable to be claimed and recognised by convicts, who had been inmates in the same prison."
This was the system, not the solitary system, which was gradually being brought into operation throughout the country; and there was every willingness on the part of counties and borough towns in England and Wales to make every preparation for it; though they naturally observed, that they wished to see the experiment tried in the first instance, and promised, if it proved successful, to carry it into effect. Notwithstanding these scruples, he would state to the House the number of gaols newly built, or in progress of improvement, for this system. But here he must observe, while he thought of it, that he was only doing imperfect justice to the noble Lord opposite, when he said that the noble Lord appointed the inspectors of prisons. The noble Lord also employed, as a public servant, an officer of engineers of the highest merit and skill, who was engaged to give his assistance gratuitously to counties and towns for the improvement of gaols—he alluded to Major Jebb, of the Engineers. He was engaged to give to the local authorities all the results of his experience, and the consequence of this facility in obtaining plans for improved prisons had been a readiness on the part of borough towns and counties, even before a model prison was brought into operation, to improve their gaols. In Hertford shire an admirable new gaol was built. In Bath a new gaol was to open in a few months. In Hereford a new gaol was completed, and in Peterborough, Scarborough, Buckingham, and Wilton, new gaols were being built, or the old ones being enlarged. In Aylesbury, Battle,

1297
Chichester, Reading, Wisbeach, Penzance, Tewkesbury, Plymouth, and Tiverton, the building of new gaols had been recommended by the local authorities; and alterations had been suggested or were in progress at Bedford Gaol and Bedford House of Correction, at Canterbury Gaol and Canterbury Bridewell, at Falmouth Gaol, at Leicester House of Correction, and at Wakefield gaol. At Hitchin, Horsham, and at Newbury, the gaols were to be given up, and contracts had been entered into with several counties for the maintenance of all prisoners after conviction. In the county of Stafford the gaol was about to be increased, as likewise in Berkshire, in Usk, Brecon, Durham, and Hull. Some observations had been made on the varying nature of the punishment of hard labour. He admitted that from the different construction of treadmills this difference might exist; but this was a matter which would come under the consideration of the prison inspectors, and there was no doubt that all would at last be reduced to a state of uniformity. With respect to the diet, the Government had not abstained from interference; and indeed the hon. Gentleman had instanced the case of a mother nursing an infant at her breast while in prison, and receiving at the same time an insufficiency of food. But the hon. Gentleman, at the same time, admitted that this case had been brought under the consideration of the Secretary of State, and that officer actually interfered, much to his credit, in a matter of such minuteness. He took no credit to himself for the course he had pursued in this matter, but he must say, that in every case of solitary or separate imprisonment, where the inspectors reported that the diet was too low, he did not hesitate to communicate this opinion to the visiting magistrates, and he found every disposition on their part to attend to his suggestions as to the increase of diet. With respect to the important question of solitary imprisonment, it was his intention to tread in the footsteps of his predecessor. He should give it the fullest attention from time to time, and he would read to the House a circular which he had addressed to the visiting magistrates in November last on the subject of solitary confinement. The circular was as follows:—
"Inasmuch as it is desirable that uniformity of practice should prevail throughout all prisons in England and Wales, in the carrying
1298
into effect the sentence by court of solitary confinement, Secretary Sir James Graham has directed me to call your attention to the 49th section of the act 4th George 4th., c. 64, by which it is provided that every prison should contain a competent number of cells adapted to solitary confinement, and to state his opinion that all prisoners sentenced to solitary confinement by any court should be placed in a light and well ventilated cell, provided with a seat, and the means of communication with the officers of the prison, in case of illness, afforded to them; that artificial heat should be applied when requisite; that the prisoners should attend divine service on the Sabbath, and be visited daily by the governor or keeper, chaplain, and surgeon, who shall insert their having done so in their respective journals, or the reason for any omission, together with a report from the surgeon, to be shown to the visiting magistrate without delay, if he observe any injurious effect on the mind or health of the prisoner, in his opinion to be ascribed to the duration of solitary confinement; that they should be provided with books, and those not able to read be visited by the schoolmaster, or some other person capable of affording to them elementary instruction; that they should be permitted to take such exercise in the open air as may be deemed necessary by the surgeon for the preservation of their health; and that they should be supplied with work at the discretion of the visiting justices. And that the bedding should be withdrawn from the cell during the day and exposed to the air in dry weather."
The hon. Gentleman opposite had referred to the American system of corporal punishments, and drawn some comparison in reference to this country. He would admit that the power of the gaoler, like all other absolute power was open to abuse; but, at the same time, when he considered the large number of criminals who were under the authority of one man, he thought that they must invest that man with great, and he would say, almost absolute power. As to the delegation of that power to the turnkeys, the noble Lord had not admitted that in his general regulations there was no power given by law to the turnkeys to punish a prisoner. On the contrary, by the rule 138 in the official code, their power was limited to placing in close confinement any prisoner who was riotous or disobeyed their authority, applying without delay to the governor for directions. If the turnkey were to exercise any authority at all, it could not be placed under more restriction than was limited by that regulation. Now he wished to show to the House and the country that the Executive Government were not inat-

1299
tentiVe to these matters, and were proceeding in a merciful way; they were Maintaining the due rigour of the law, but at the same time were merciful. It appeared that, in the Wakefield House of Correction, the silent system had been adapted. To that system he was very Leech disposed to agree with the noble Lord, that there were very grave objections. He believed it to be most irritating to those Who were subjected to it, and that it could only be introduced as an extra punishment on account of heinous offences; still it had been brought to his knowledge by one of the inspectors of prisons, that in the House of Correction at Wakefield that system had been applied hot only to the Convicted prisoners, but also to those who had been committed for trial. He had thought that every person was considered innocent until he was proved to be guilty, but it was not so in this instance. The punishment of silence was very severe, and quite inapplicable to prisoners who were only committed. He suggested that to the magistrates of Wakefield, and the system had been abandoned until the prisoners were convicted. Then, with regard to Salford, the hon. Gentleman detailed a number of cases in which prisoners lied not been allowed to have religious instruction according to their particular persuasion. Now those cases had not been stated to him before, nor had he seen them mentioned in any reports of the prison inspectors. He considered that denial of the admission of ministers of their own religion, to offer to the prisoners spiritual consolation at a proper time, consistent with the gaol regulations, to be contrary to the law, and in every respect, and not to be tolerated. If it had been clone, it was in direct violation of the act of Parliament, for thereby it was enacted, that if there were any prisoner of a religious persuasion different from that of the Established Church, a minister of such persuasion, at the special request of such prisoner, should be allowed to visit him or her at proper and reasonable times, under such restrictions as the visiting justices might think proper. To deny such spiritual consolation then, as far as the law would allow, was certainly harsh and wrong. The next point taken by the hon. Gentleman was the infliction of corporal punishment. To that point he wished to call the attention of the House; because, although a power was given by the exist-
1300
ing law to the visiting magistrates to order such punishment in cases specified in the act, yet he wished the House to observe how sparingly that punishment had been inflicted. In 1840 the total number of male adult criminal prisoners in England and Wales was 69,428. The hon. Gentleman talked of 1,200 instances of corporeal punishment, but he would ask him whether they were confined to male adults? There was a great distinction to be drawn with respect to juvenile offenders, as contrasted with male adults; far in many instances such punishment towards juvenile offenders was both mild and proper. He should certainly say, that a frequent infliction of that punishment was a very indifferent proof of the good management of a gaol, but there was such a power given by law to the visiting magistrates; and yet what would the House say when he told them that in 1840 the number of male adult criminal prisoners being nearly 70,000, the whole number of corporeal punishments was but 70? It was not necessary for the House to inquire into cases of that kind; they could have all the facts that must guide them in their decision; they would be quite as intelligible as if inquired into by a committee up stairs; and, indeed, must at last be decided in that House. But the hon. Gentleman would ask him, after all he had stated, why he resisted an inquiry? He would frankly tell the hon. Gentleman his reason. He thought that the House would come to the conclusion that he had drawn, that progressively, steadily, and surely, we were arriving at an improved state of prison discipline in this country. The Executive Government were responsible to that House, and of that responsibility he was at that moment giving a proof in his own person. They were called upon to answer, from time to time, as to the exercise of the large powers vested in them; confidence was reposed in them, and they were proceeding well and surety to an improved state of prison discipline. There was perfect publicity; nothing was concealed, and he believed that the appointment of a select committee to revise the law would only lead to the detail of particular cases; which would shake public confidence and disturb that system which the Government were anxious to maintain for the present undisturbed, and steadily to adhere to. A change of persons in the Home-office had produced no change whatever in the system

1301
relating to these Matters. All had gone on steadily in the same course, and he entreated the House not to disturb it. In each individual case, if any hon. Gentleman asked for an inquiry,-he was ready to give it. He was sure that that would be better than to appoint a committee, and he therefore trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not think that he was treating him with any disrespect if he resisted his motion.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that the information which the noble Lord the late Secretary fat the Home Department, (Lord J. Russell) had just received from the right hon. Baronet opposite, must be gratifying to him—tamely, that there had been no change whatever in the department of the law relating to this matter, that everything was going on as before, and that all the recommendations which the noble Lord had given were faithfully adopted, and that it was desirable that no change should be made in the prevailing system. It had been said by grave writers, that the merits of a great man were seldom known or appreciated until he was dead. In this case it seemed that a "political suicide" was a good thing. The noble Lord was there alive to hear his merits discussed. He was officially dead; he was officially "the late Secretary." But the late Secretary was there to hear commendations bestowed upon him, from a quarter where he had no reason to expect them. He was sure the noble Lord could scarcely have expected such commendations froth such a biographer, as the right hon. Baronet. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman opposite make speeches in a very different tone, when the late Government existed. That, night, however, the right hon. Baronet had been most free and liberal in the commendations he had bestowed upon the late Home Department of the Government. He had listened with great attention in order to ascertain what there was in the system of our prison discipline which the right hon. Baronet could condemn; but it appeared, that after most laborious study and a careful investigation, there was nothing to condemn —nothing to alter. But he trusted the right hon. Baronet would yet see, that he had not given a satisfactory answer to the speech of his hon. Colleague. He thought his hon. Friend had made out a complete case for a committee to report upon, but not to inquire into, Did the
1302
right hon. Baronet deny the truth of the allegations Which had been made by his hon. Colleague? No such thing. But what did he say? Why, that there was a sure, a progressive, and a satisfactory improvement going on—" therefore de hat disturb us" Trust, said he, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and to the discretion of the visiting magistrates. He was quite willing to trust to the discretion of the Secretary Of State, because he believed ha would be a vigorous Secretary and would fulfil the duties of his office faithfully, and in a businesslike manner. But on the other hand, he must say, after what be had seen in respect to the conduct of the magistrates, in the superintendence of gaols, it would be cruel and inhuman to leave the prisoners under their management. If the House knew what ought to be done, by past experience, they should not give the right toy punish prisoners at the will and discretion of those who now wielded certain powers. That was the common-sense-view of this question. If they found that discipline could not be exercised, with reference to these prisoners, without punishment, why, then, they should leave them to be dealt with by those persons who should administer punishment according to law, and not leave them to the discretion of the magistracy. Look at the case which had occurred at Warwick goal, where a poor boy, who had been confined in a cell far three days and nights, had one of his feet frost bitten, and he was thus crippled for life. He had been committed for trial, but had not been convicted; and yet this punishment was inflicted upon him. Why not put down such practices? Was it nothing to endeavour to establish another system? Why not put down such practices, which were disgraceful, not only this country, but to the character of this kingdom in respect to its humanity. Look again to Salford and Ipswich; see one ease in which there were seven unfortunate boys who were sent to the gaol from the workhouse who had not received a fish from the governor of the gaol, from the chaplain or the Surgeon, for Weeks and weeks together, the chaplain stating, too, that be did not know he was to visit them, but that he had heard it stated by the governor, that he was not to communicate to these boys spiritual instruction. If hon. Gentlemen were to sit down quietly under such statements as these, and per-

1303
mit such practices to be pursued, it was not possible that that House should command the respect or esteem, whilst they appeared so indifferent to the sufferings of these unfortunate persons. Why, nine-tenths of their crimes were imputable to ignorance and poverty. If that House had done its duty, there would riot have been the same number of prisoners in our gaols, and this evil was the consequence of the neglect of the Legislature; and when these unfortunate persons became criminals, they ought to be the objects of the compassion of that House instead of reckless indifference. Much had been said, in regard to the improvements which had been made in the law. He felt this benefit existed in theory, not in practice. It was true there had been a diminution of the evil in respect to capital punishments; that was a great improvement on the old law, but with reference to the punishment of minor offences, we were mere savages. As far as his own experience went, he might state, that the first inquest he held in his capacity as coroner, was in the Coldbath-fields prison, He held an inquest on the body of a black man, a native of a tropical climate, who had been found in the streets in a state of destitution. He was taken up by a policeconstable,—he was ultimately sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. And why? Because he was destitute. This man was placed upon the treadmill on the 2nd of January, but in less than three months he was dead. Now, having heard the evidence, he had no hesitation, as a medical man, in saying, that the sentence which was passed upon this unhappy being, was virtually and practically a sentence of death; there could not exist in the mind of an experienced medical man a doubt on the subject. This unfortunate man, a native of a tropical climate, was placed on the treadmill. Where was that treadmill placed? Was it in a warm room? No such thing; it was exposed to the open air in the severest weather, and after the man was exhausted on the mill, he had to sit on a bench exposed to the wintry blast. His glands were affected, and his lungs were diseased. In short, he died under circumstances similar to those under which animals die in this country when imported from tropical climates. One would have supposed that the visiting magistrates would have said, "You shall not be ex-
1304
posed to this: we do not think your crime is adequate, or in proportion to your punishment." He would not ask how it was that the medical practitioner did not inquire into the case. Another case had occurred which had come under his notice in the same gaol. A man was convicted of stealing four and a-half pounds of bacon in an open shop and in the open day. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, and this was not all; for six weeks of that time were to be passed in solitary confinement. Now look to the inequality of the punishments inflicted! They must not come to the conclusion that the criminal law in its present state was satisfactory, because the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had made some valuable alterations in our code. At the Old Bailey sessions before Christmas, a man was transported for life for stealing a penny from a letter, whilst another man for stealing 2s. 6d. from a letter, was sentenced to seven years' transportation. A man had been convicted for manslaughter at Chelsea. The man pulled a woman, with whom he cohabited, out of bed; he kicked her violently; he placed his knees on her stomach, and swore that if she was pregnant by him, he would kick the child out of her. He was found guilty at the bar of manslaughter, and at the same sessions, whilst one man was transported for life for stealing a penny from a letter, this man was sentenced only to twelve months' imprisonment, with hard labour, in the House of Correction. Such a system as this could not be defended. It could not obtain the respect, or the confidence, or the attention of the public. He hoped the House would set about the work of reform in this matter. The right hon. Baronet had addressed the House in a tone which all persons must admire who felt the force and magnitude of the subject. He hoped the Government would not allow the matter to rest after that night's discussion. The right hon. Baronet had a majority which he could command, and he could prevent the inquiry being made; but he should be delighted if the right hon. Baronet would consent. to that part of the motion having reference to the committee to report to the House as to the changes which were necessary for the amendment of the law. He did not believe that a select committee would work well with reference to investigation;

1305
but it appeared to him that the facts in their possession were enough to enable them to legislate on the subject, and that if that House were disposed to make those alterations which the case demanded, they would require no other materials to work upon. They should relieve prisoners from the discretion and cruel conduct of those who were now their governors.
Sir C. Douglaswas not going to make a long speech upon the subject. Notwithstanding what had been said of the impropriety of appointing clergymen as magistrates, he fully concurred in such appointments, and he believed that if clergymen were not appointed in many districts, no other person would be found to perform the duties of a magistrate. He (Sir C. Douglas) knew that one clergyman who had been alluded to had filled that office for thirty-five years, and that no person had ever filled it better; and when the hon. Gentleman said, he wished he could call such persons to the bar of the House, he not only wished it also, but was sorry it should not be done, because it would afford an opportunity of proving to the House with what zeal, ability, and charity that gentleman had fulfilled his duties. He had received a letter from this gentleman, in which he stated that he had no recollection of the case that had been spoken of, but that it was a general principle with him to have recourse to severity only in extreme and aggravated cases, in which he never hesitated to put the law in force; and that in cases of summary conviction he was of opinion the proper course was always to inflict the full penalty, having found that the mitigation of the penalty greatly increased the repetition of the offence. He only rose to communicate this statement to the House, and would not therefore trespass longer on their attention.
Mr. Haweswas anxious to offer a few observations to the House, because he felt himself under the necessity of opposing the motion of his hon. Friend. He quite agreed with all the right hon. Gentleman bad said, both as to the manner in which the motion had been brought forward, and as to the motives by which his hon. Friend (Mr. T. Duncombe) had been actuated. He thought, there was nothing so likely to promote good prison discipline as the occasional attention of the House to the subject. At the same time, when he found that his hon. Friend had founded his
1306
motion entirely on the reports of the prison inspectors, that his proposition in point of fact was founded upon facts exposed by the inspectors appointed by Government to inquire into the condition of prisons, be could not but think, that these inspectors afforded the House far better information for the improvement of their legislation on the subject than could be obtained by any other means, and consequently that a commission of inquiry was unnecessary, and could lead to no good result. His hon. Friend had gone over a great deal of ground, in which he should not follow him, for he believed that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite had satisfied a great portion of the House, and he was rejoiced to find, that the subject had received so much of his attention. Perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman would permit him to allude to a visit he had paid him at the end of last Session. In the course of last year, the report of the prison inspectors was laid on the Table of the House, and he thought, that it deserved the attention of the Secretary of State; but the right hon. Gentleman having then recently entered upon his office, he thought it right to wait upon the right hon. Gentleman, and to point out to him those parts of it which he deemed to be most deserving of his attention. The right hon. Gentleman gave him every possible attention, and the suggestions that he then made were acted upon, he (Mr. Hawes) hoped he might say with some advantage. He mentioned this, because it was not in anticipation of this motion that he had waited on the right hon. Gentleman. He was extremely glad to find, that the right hon. Gentleman meant to adhere to the general system laid down in prior acts of Parliament, many of which were introduced by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), to whom, he repeated, they were greatly indebted for his services, as well as to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham). He rejoiced also to hear what had been said with reference to separate and solitary confinement, and he wished to draw the attention of the House to the distinction between these punishments. In America, there existed the most well-founded objections against strict solitary confinement, and disease, loss of mental faculties, and loss of health, having there resulted from it, the system had been given up, and a wiser and more humane system substituted for it. He had read the last report of the inspectors, and he assured the House that, having

1307
often expressed an opinion on the subject, he did not find, that the health of the prisoners was at all injured by the separate system, nor anything that tended in any way to alter or change his opinion of it. He was, therefore, glad to find, that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to carry on the experiment on the system commenced in the model prison in this country. He would here remark, that the greatly-improved state of prison discipline was, doubtless, to be attributed to greater attention on the part of the magistrates; and He would say, further, that, in the greater number of our gaols, no great abuse could exist without remedy, if brought before the notice of the magistrates. If it did, what would be the consequence? The inspectors of prisons, who visited them for the express purpose of examining into abuses, would bring it before the notice of the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State did not rectify it, some Member of Parliament would bring it before the House, and the eyes of every individual in the country would be directed to it. That was never the case before the appointment of inspectors. But his hon. Friends, the Members for Finsbury seemed to regret the want of uniformity of system. He remembered the previous debates on the subject, though he did not remember what part his hon. Friends had taken; but it being proposed to give the Secretary of State some stringent power to frame rules for the regulation of prisons, the House was strongly opposed to granting such power, although without they could not expect uniformity of system. It was hard, therefore, to turn round, and, for want of a power, they had refused, condemn a system which, after all, was the best that had ever existed in this or in any other country. His hon. Friends had complained also of want of uniformity of punishment. No doubt, there was a want of uniformity of punishment, but the remedy was obvious, though he did not say, that it was easy to be carried into practice. The right hon. Gentleman said truly, that any sudden alteration of prison discipline would involve the country in considerable expense, while they were now, more or less, making considerable and effectual progress in the improvement of the law. With regard to one point, he wished to touch as lightly as possible on an extremely deli-
1308
cate subject. He alluded to the cases of disease in the Penitentiary, mentioned in the 6th Report of the Inspectors of Prisons, which had occasioned considerable uneasiness to Government and the inspectors. He must say, that he wished that penitentiaries were under the direction of the Government, or at least of a committee of the Privy Council. He thought it most desirable, if the Secretary of State had not that perfect control which was necessary, that he should be invested with more, because if the Secretary of State had had sufficient power, and his attention had been called to the subject, some of those lamentable cases would not have occurred. The fact, that these institutions were more or less in the hands of private individuals was some explanation of the causes of the disease that had occurred. However, he felt that the right hon. Gentleman had almost exhausted the subject, yet he felt anxious to show there was good ground for supposing the object of the motion would be better accomplished by the annual reports of the inspectors, which would form the best possible basis for legislation, than by the resolutions of a committee. He did not know what system of discipline his hon. Friend meant to support. Did his hon. Friend wish to go back to the old system? He believed not, yet his hon. Friend objected to the silent system, and did not like the solitary system. The separate system was practised in the gaols at Bristol and Glasgow, and he had received a letter from the governor of the Bristol gaol, stating, that the separate system was enforced there with considerable rigour, persons being confined for periods of two or three years, yet that the prisoners were in perfect health, and that he knew of no disease resulting from their confinement, nor of any diminution in the strength of mind or body; but he further stated, that the system was attended with the greatest alteration in the manners of the prisoners, by cutting them off from communication with each other, and that it had at least this certain recommendation that if it did not make them better, it could not possibly make them worse. He would say no more, than that he believed the right hon. Gentleman's speech would give great satisfaction to the country, as it evinced that the right hon. Gentleman was determined to carry the system impartially into effect.
Viscount Mahon entirely concurred in

1309
the concluding observation of the hon. Member respecting the speech of his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham). He thought with the hon. Gentleman, that sufficient grounds had been shown for refusing the motion. He thought also with the hon. Member that the reports of the prison inspectors evinced that we were making progressive and gradual improvements in prison discipline; but at the same time he wished to state his opinion that whatever improvement might be intended, whatever advantageous change might take place, it would be but an alleviation of a bad system if applied to terms of years. He did not deny that for shorter periods, the system as it had already received very great amelioration, might yet admit of more, and might become perfectly effectual and satisfactory. But having paid great attention to all the reports of the prison inspectors, he was led to the conclusion that to whatever quarter they turned, whatever system they preferred, they would still find it lamentably deficient for terms of years; and that as applied to long protracted imprisonment, they could adopt no system such as the country at large would approve. First, he would take into consideration the system in which communication was allowed. According to the gaol returns presented in 1841, the greatest evils resulted from the communications often unavoidable between the prisoners. Thus, for example the chaplain of Bedford county gaol reported that three prisoners were brought in together in March last year,
"So ignorant that they could not tell me even the Saviour's name!"
It was no less the chaplain's desire than his duty to supply these wretched beings with means of religious instruction, but the effects of corrupt association in the prison presented most formidable obstacles; only the month before,
"The gaoler discovered that two prisoners were actually swearing, and otherwise grossly misbehaving on purpose to hinder and annoy another prisoner who was reading."
In Reading gaol the visiting justices' report most strongly the evils of association and contamination among the prisoners; books of religious instruction had been converted into cards by them to gamble with, and they added,
"It is impossible for a man to spend ever
1310
so short a time in such society without becoming an accomplished rogue."
There is also a long and very interesting report from the chaplain of the House of Correction at Preston.
"If there is one point more than another, (says he), which I would press upon the attention of the Legislature, it is the condition of a child of fourteen, or even ten years old, turned into a yard or day-room which is tenanted by forty or fifty criminals. Once here the terrors of a prison soon vanish before the levity and merriment of his new companions; he finds that the great objects of admiration and envy are the plunderers who can relate the most attractive histories of daring and successful robbery. Excited by these tales, he soon becomes ambitious of imitating the heroes of them, and is readily instructed by some adept in the craft."
Such were the effects of the one system. There were also great evils resulting from the other, or the separate system, which he knew no way to avert. As a specimen of these evils he would select a case, which had been communicated to him by his noble relative, the Member for the county of Monmouth, (Lord G. Somerset) of whom it was not too much to say, that his administration of justice as chairman of the Quarter-sessions had gained for him from all quarters respect and approbation; the case to which he referred, had occurred in Monmouth gaol. John Taylor had been sentenced to a week's solitary confinement, but after the very first night he was found dead in his cell. A coroner's inquest sat, evidence was entered into, and the surgeon deposed that it was clear suicide had not been committed. Another witness, William Williams, who was cook to the prison, deposed, that the wretched man had overnight urgently requested an extra allowance of gruel which was refused him, and that he had expressed a dread of ghosts appearing to him in his solitary confinement. Such were the cases which had occurred of men paying the penalty of their lives under the infliction of solitary confinement. The fears of persons so confined might be ridiculed; but it was the results, not the reasonableness, of such fears that he asked the House to consider, and to ask themselves how such fears could be prevented or rendered less fatal in the case of uneducated men. Looking further to the report of the inspectors as to the bride-well of Bristol, it appeared that during the last year a woman sentenced to soli-

1311
tary confinement had earnestly begged not to be shut up alone, but her entreaties could not be complied with, and she had then on two separate occasions attempted suicide, and such was the strong compassion entertained upon the case by the magistrates, that they had paid her expenses back to her residence. In the Stafford county gaol, the surgeon states that within the last eight or ten years, there had been about six cases in which death had been induced apparently from the length of solitary confinement. Then, as to Millbank Penitentiary, it was well known that several persons lost their reason, some their lives, in consequence of confinement in solitary cells. Upon what system, then, he asked, were they to rely for a reformation of the evils attendant upon the present practice of confinement for crime? If communication between the prisoners were permitted, contamination and increased depravity was the consequence; if, on the other hand, solitary confinement were resorted to, he must assert, and his right hon. Friends would not contradict him, that the loss of reason and of life often followed. If the lives of criminals were to be sacrificed, let them be condemned to that punishment; let it be done openly and in the face of day; let us retrace our humane advances towards the mitigation of the penal Code, but do not do that in the solitary cell which you shrink from doing on the public scaffold; but do not inflict the penalty of death under the milder name of imprisonment. What, then, was the House to do in this case? For shorter periods, as he could easily conceive, some of the evils he had alluded to might be obviated, but when it came to terms of years, he was persuaded that no endeavours would be successful to make imprisonment an effective substitute for transportation. The strongest part of the case, however, yet remained behind—namely, the condition of prisoners after their discharge—of men who, with blasted characters, were unable to obtain employment. The evidence upon this point was very strong. Let the House weigh well the expressions of the learned Recorder of Exeter, in his address to the grand jury at the sessions ending January, 1841. He adverted to his own painful feelings when required to pass sentence on young offenders for a first offence, and having previously borne an honest character.
1312
"I often see," [he says] "such persons exhibit proofs of deep and bitter repentance—of repentance in such a form as I am convinced is not assumed, but is felt deeply and sincerely; and in such cases I endeavour to point out to them the advantage of good character, but my heart sinks within me when I reflect what such unfortunate persons have to encounter when they seek to carry out their good resolutions by their own exertions, without a home or a place of shelter, forsaken by their friends and sneered at by their old acquaintance, until at length, under the influence of despair and the pressure of want, some greater crime is committed."
Were not such words from such an authority entitled to great attention? He could cite another important evidence on this point in a letter dated May 26, 1841, and published in the daily papers from the Rev. Mr. Nihil, the chaplain and governor of Millbank Penitentiary, who in the most pathetic terms lamented the impossibility of finding employment for prisoners when they were discharged. The rev. gentleman's words, in speaking of this difficulty, were—
"Prisoners sometimes express reluctance to leave the Penitentiary, not knowing whither to go. Young girls have besought me to save them from returning to a brutal father, who had forced them into crime; others are claimed by abandoned mothers, whose sole object is to bring them up in vagrancy and vice; others, after being received with apparent kindness by relatives, have been turned adrift by those very relatives as soon as they had spent the prisoner's little pittance in intoxication."
Could anything be more gloomy than this picture? He believed that many a person who was discharged from prison after undergoing his sentence was sincerely desirous of shunning the path of crime, but was unable to find employment in consequence of his lost character and his previous career. He believed there were many cases in which such persons had felt an earnest desire to return to a course of honest industry, but in the midst of their endeavours while struggling to regain the right road, there arose dismal phantoms to discourage and dismay them—
"—malesuada Fames et turpis Egestas
"Terribiles visu formæ."
Thus they were scared from the paths of virtue they might otherwise pursue, and the good seed which during punishment the chaplain of the gaol might have implanted in their minds was thus prevented from taking permanent root. Nor

1313
could it be expected that persons should take into their service those whose character was blighted by former convictions, in preference to such as were perfectly free from suspicion. Now, considering the prodigious competition for employment, it was not to be supposed that those who came out of gaols should be able to procure honest work even when desirous of it. The only way to obviate these evils was resorting to the old English plan of transportation, but freed from its previous abuses; thus allowing the criminals discharged to enter an entirely new state of society, and to find a comparatively easy road to the recovery of their lost good name. This was an object for which our Australian colonies furnished valuable facilities. Of this he was satisfied, that no system of imprisonment could possibly be devised, calculated perfectly to answer as a substitute for transportation; and he hoped that this opinion would gain ground and become universal. He had seen some suggestions for the employment of criminals in another hemisphere which had been drawn up by his noble Friend, the Secretary for the colonies, whilst he was seated on the opposite side of the House, and which, although he did not feel at liberty to say what that plan was, or in what direction it tended, was to him perfectly satisfactory. Having been favoured with a view of these suggestions, he could not but express a hope that they would receive official consideration and be carried into practical effect. He must, in the meantime, assert, that transportation did afford an outlet for the criminal population of Great Britain, which it would be beneficial to all parties concerned to bring into operation, beneficial to the public at home, beneficial to the criminals, and beneficial to the colonies, which would thereby receive an accession of what was now so much wished and wanted, namely, labour. In the present state of the question, however, he was perfectly satisfied with what had fallen from his right hon. Friend on the subject, and if the motion were pressed to a division, he should vote with his right hon. Friend.
Mr.O'Connellwas rather surprised, after the speech which the noble Lord had delivered, to hear him say that he should vote with the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, in case the question came to a division. He (Mr. O'Connell) regretted that the motion had
1314
been made by the hon. Member for Finsbury, because if he had been aware of the extent to which the arguments had gone, he would have prepared himself to have entered fully upon the subject, whereas he had made an appointment for the following day, in order to obtain some information that he required. Before, however, he went into such parts of the subject before the House as he was prepared to deal with, he must protest against what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury on the subject of the reform which had taken place of late years in the criminal law, changes which he was disposed to regard as one of the evidences of the humane spirit which animated the Legislature of the day; there were not so many persons now hanged at the debtors' door at New-gate, during the whole year, that there used to be formerly at the end of every sessions held at the Old Bailey, and the consequence was that the crimes of violence had since very considerably diminished. In Belgium, where the punishment of death was totally abolished, the effect had been the same; and in order to show the discrepancy which now existed between the punishments inflicted in this country, he need only turn to the newspaper of the day to furnish a sufficient sample; for he found in the same journal a case recorded, where a man had by a blow caused the death of a woman, for which he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment; and in the same column was another case, where a man had stolen a lady's reticule, for which he had been sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. But what he had principally to call the attention of the House to on the present occasion was, the complaints of the Roman Catholic clergymen with respect to prison regulations. The right hon. Baronet had read the act of Parliament on this subject, and had expressed his readiness to work out the provisions of the law; but he seemed to think this was sufficiently done by a sort of evasion on the part of the magistrates, who professed to keep improper persons out of the gaols. Such, however, was riot the right construction of the law. The Roman Catholic clergy could not be called in to perform his religious practices within the walls of a criminal gaol but by the special request of the prisoners, who were so much in the power of the gaolers and magistrates that they dared not make this special request. What was wanted by

1315
him was to give power to the Roman Catholic clergy to enter the prisons where there were criminals of their own faith, who were quite as much in want of spiritual instruction as those who made the special request required by the law; indeed, there was no class of persons who required religious instruction so much as those who were indisposed to make a special demand for the offices of the Roman Catholic clergy. He would not dwell upon the point at that moment, for he intended to bring the subject before the House in the form of a distinct motion; he would content himself in the meantime with pointing to some facts which would show that he had not exaggerated the circumstances of which he had complained. In the county of Middlesex there had been formed a society of Roman Catholic ladies for the purpose of visiting the prisons, and this most praiseworthy society having been brought before the notice of the bench of magistrates, had, on three separate occasions, been refused permission to enter the gaols. Had a parallel case happened in Ireland, had a society of Protestant ladies been formed to visit the prisoners there—the majority of them being Roman Catholics—and had they been refused access to their co-religionists, no language would have been strong enough to have been used by some persons of that persuasion. But he would use no such terms. All he wished to do was to show how necessary it was that the Roman Catholic clergy should have free access to the prisons. There was no person who was empowered to officiate in this capacity who was not qualified by education for the office of a priest, and who was not certified to be so by the Roman Catholic bishop of the district. This precaution, therefore, operated as a guard against improper persons gaining admission to the prisoners on the plea of affording them religious instruction, and the case was daily growing more important in the opinion of the educated classes, inasmuch as the Roman Catholic faith was spreading amongst those classes in England, and by consequence was also obtaining in the lower ranks of life. In some prisons the Roman Catholic criminals complained that they were compelled to attend Protestant worship. In Salford gaol this was the case, and he must say that the chaplain had, in this instance, shown much more zeal than discretion in preaching sermons to the prisoners which turned wholly on contro-
1316
versial points. He felt it conscientiously to be his duty not to permit this matter to rest without attempting, in a tone and manner becoming the gravity of the subject, to direct the attention of the Legislature to the subject until these abuses were remedied.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that in the course of the present discussion many observations had been made, having no immediate reference to the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury. With respect to that portion of the evils in our criminal system of jurisprudence which might be traced to the state of the law itself, he begged to say that he thought it was a topic with which they had then nothing to do, nor were they on that occasion called upon to examine the observations made upon those topics. There were other observations made upon other transactions, with which also he thought that House had then nothing to do. For his part, however, he was ready to discuss any of them whenever a proper occasion offered, but he must say that he thought it highly inexpedient to mix up such subjects with the question whether it was fitting or not that they should appoint a committee to inquire into and report upon the present system of prison discipline. The sole question before the House was, whether or not they ought to appoint a committee in compliance with the motion of his hon. Friend. He requested the House to recollect that it was not for a moment pretended by any one that we had, in this country, reached the highest point of perfection in our system of prison discipline—it was not pretended that there were no defects or abuses; on the contrary, it was most truly stated that we were going on from year to year making progress—effecting gradual improvements, and he was by no means prepared to say that that progress could be advantageously accelerated by adopting the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury. It was well known to all persons who paid any attention to the subject of prison discipline, that if any abuse took place the matter was immediately reported to the Secretary of State, and the report was usually laid upon the Table of that House. It was well known that to those matters every publicity was given. As to particular instances, it was only necessary that inquiry should be made of the secretary of State respecting them, and, that inquiry being made in the House, it was usual for the Secretary of State to say,

1317
whether he had any remedy to propose, or any explanation to give. It must be in the recollection of hon. Members, that Ministers of the Crown were, generally speaking, very ready to supply reasonable information upon subjects of this nature, to correct abuses, and to lay before the House such explanations as magistrates might furnish. If it were really true that such a state of the law existed as proved the present system to be defective, then he should say there would be no difficulty in making out a sufficient case to induce the House to consent to the introduction of a bill to amend such defects, but he confessed that at present he did not anticipate any advantage from a general inquiry. The House, of course, had not overlooked the fact that the Colleague of the hon. Mover had given up half the case when he said that no inquiry into facts was needed. He said he did not want an inquiry, but would be content with the report of a committee on the subject. Now he, for one, was perfectly satisfied—for the present, at least—with seeing that the attention of the House had been called to the subject, and the vigilance of the Secretary of State awakened. There had been a case referred to by an hon. and learned Member near him, respecting which it did not appear that the right bon. Gentleman opposite possessed sufficient information. It would certainly seem that he had not been informed as to the practice in prisons regarding Roman Catholics. As to that point, he certainly did think that the law was defective, and he thought that the defects of the law in that respect might have been remedied if the clause proposed by Mr. Langdale had been agreed to. He regretted that that clause had been lost; at the same time he thought Roman Catholic priests should not be permitted to go into prisons to visit the prisoners subject to no regulations. [Mr. O'Connell: To visit the Catholic prisoners.] He must repeat that he did not assent to that proposition, for they could hardly allow a general rule of that kind to prevail, without granting a similar permission to the ministers of all religious denominations. To him it did not appear expedient that any such unlimited permission should be granted—he thought that it would be improper and indiscreet to open the prisons of the United Kingdom to the various controversies to which fanaticism had given rise. But, entertaining those views, he was the furthest in the world from attempting to say that Roman Ca-
1318
tholic priests should be denied access to those prisoners who wished to be visited by them, In Middlesex, an arrangement of that kind was peculiarly required, for the number of Roman Catholics who came to London in search of employment was considerable.. A large proportion of the prisoners in the gaols of Middlesex were Roman Catholics; he, therefore, thought that the decision of the county magistrates was not justified by the state of the county, and he saw no reason why the requests of the Roman Catholic bodies should not have been complied with, or why there should not be a chaplain for the instruction of Roman Catholic prisoners. As to the motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, it appeared to him that no practical advantage would arise from the adoption of it, for all improvement had much better be made under the direction of the executive Government, and he felt assured that when a case came under the consideration of an hon. Member, and that he brought it forward in the House, the advisers of the Crown would examine into it, and apply the remedy which the circumstances of the case required. Holding these opinions, then, he felt that he could not do otherwise than vote against the motion of his hon. Friend.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose for the purpose of offering some explanation with regard to the House of Correction at Cambridge, to which allusion had been made. The alleged imperfections in the management of that establishment were, in some degree, if not wholly, to be imputed to the effects of the suit, which for some years had been pending, with respect to the Spinning-house, between the University and the trustees of the charity. So far from there being any indisposition on the part of the University or of the town to effect the desired improvements, he was enabled to state that the Vice-Chancellor had been in communication on the subject with the solicitor of the trustees, the object of the University being to effect a complete and substantial improvement in the system pursued at the House of Correction. The right hon. Gentleman then referred, as we understood, to the sixth report of the inspectors of prisons, to show that, pending the suit, no scheme could be devised for the purpose of effecting a complete reformation in the system pursued in the Spinning-house, at the same time that arrangements had

1319
been made to secure the regular performance of divine service on Sundays, as well as to promote the due classification of the prisoners. He further observed, that there was considerable intricacy in the case, but that the University had done all that they possibly could do for the purpose of accomplishing a reform in that prison. It had been also said that Barnewell was a populous parish, and had of late years quite outgrown the means of religious instruction; that it contained a great many lodging-houses where persons of bad character congregated, some of whom were in the habit of driving about dog-carts, professing to distribute religious tracts, and that those tracts supplied the only religious instruction with which the people were furnished. Now, so far from that being a correct representation of the facts, he was enabled to state that one of the fellows of Trinity college had himself acquired the site of a church in Barnewell, capable of containing upwards of 1,000 individuals, and that he had undertaken to perform all the duties of a parish minister.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, that as the Salford prison had been alluded to, he wished to offer a few words in explanation. The cases alluded to by the hon. Member for Finsbury had occurred some time ago. He was ready to admit that great abuses had existed in that prison, but the practice of flogging, he understood, had been discontinued, and the discipline improved. The governor, and several other officers had been removed. The Roman Catholic clergymen had complained to him (Mr. Brotherton) that they had not that access to prisoners of their persuasion which was necessary, and, it being a fact that the majority of the prisoners were Roman Catholics, it was desirable that the clergy should have the means of communicating with them without being specially sent for. The increase in the number of persons committed for trial might be attributed to various causes—as the want of employment, the vigilance of the police, and the interest the magistrates' clerks had in sending trifling cases to the quarter sessions. The expense of prosecutions was borne by the county, and this fact, he felt satisfied, led many magistrates to commit offenders whose cases ought to have been summarily disposed of.
Mr. S. Harfordwas glad that the attention of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had been di-
1320
rected to the subject, for in the county which the noble Lord represented the state of the prisons demanded extensive and effectual improvement. He had been sheriff of that county two years ago, and he then thought it his duty to call the attention of the magistrates of the county to the state in which he found the prisons. In some cases he found four men sleeping in one bed, the prison crowded in every portion, and not appearing to be capable of extension in such a way as to afford the accommodation really required. Moreover, the drainage of the prison was of the worst description, and its condition was in all respects greatly to be censured. He hoped, therefore, that attention would be directed to it without delay.
Lord G. Somersetstated, that the attention of the local authorities had been directed to the subject, and that it was proposed to incur an expenditure of from 16,000 l. to 20,000 l. for the improvement of the prison. Inquiries were at present going forward for the purpose of ascertaining in what manner that object could best be effected. For the information of his hon. Friend opposite, he begged to state that a new gaoler had been appointed, and that decided improvements might forthwith be expected.
Mr. T. Duncombehoped, that if he consented to allow this motion to be negatived without putting the House to the trouble of a division, it would not, from that circumstance be inferred, that he in any respect approved of the existing system. The complaint he made against the present system was, that there was no uniformity in it; the whole matter was left to the discretion of the visiting magistrates, subject, of course, to the approbation of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He should like to see the whole system with regard to discipline, diet, and labour, placed on one and the same basis throughout the country, and he believed that a committee would be able to make suggestions upon which an act of Parliament might be framed for regulating all prisons, and making the system uniform. He feared that it would be useless to press his motion to a division; but he felt confident that this discussion would do a great deal of good. He was sorry that he had done any injustice to Cambridge; it was perfectly true that divine service was performed there on the Sabbath-day since the year 1836;

1321
but, notwithstanding that, the Gaol Act was still contravened, because it directed that prayers should be read every day, which was not done. With regard to the case of Barnewell, he believed it remained in much the same state as it was reported to be in by the inspectors, with the only exception that service was performed there on the Sabbath. It was true that a letter had been received stating that certain improvements had been made, but it was not known what they were. His hon. Friend had accused him of not doing justice to the criminal code, on the ground of the great mitigations which were made in punishments; but he was ready to admit, that there were great mitigations. Yet he must warn the House and her Majesty's Government, that by the present system of prison discipline, they were substituting the dungeon for the scaffold, and that great numbers of persons who went into prison in good health, and in possession of their mental faculties, come out crippled, emaciated skeletons, and seriously injured both in body and mind. A nice distinction must be made between the silent and the solitary system. The right hon. Gentleman accused him of confounding the two; the fact was, that the separate system was the solitary system, though hon. Gentlemen might call it the separate system, if they liked. There were two systems; there was the solitary confinement in the dark cell upon bread and water, and solitary confinement in a well-aired and lighted cell. He should not withdraw his motion, but leave the House to deal with it as they thought fit.
Motion negatived.

HILL COOLIES
Mr. Vernon Smithrose to call the attention of the House, pursuant to notice, to the recent Order in Council respecting the emigration of Hill Coolies, and to move for a copy of the instructions given by the India Board to Lord Ellen-borough on that subject. The hon. Member, after stating that he considered that the course which the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies was pursuing upon this question was calculated to retard the progress of the improvement now taking place in the West India Islands, shortly stated the position in which the subject was with reference to the supply of labour imported into those islands to compete with the emancipated negroes. In 1837 an importation of Hill Coolies from
1322
the East Indies into the West India Islands bad taken place, others having been previously introduced into the Mauritius in 1835 Owing to some mismanagement which had occurred upon the same subject in British Guiana, Lord Brougham, in the year 1838, had made an able and eloquent speech relative to the introduction of Hill Coolies into that colony, which had the effect of putting a stop to it, and which led to the determination of the people of this country, that nothing short of a prohibition on the part of the Governor-general of India against any further exportation of Hill Coolies would be satisfactory to them. His noble Friend (Lord John Russell) afterwards introduced a bill called the Colonial Passengers' Act, showing his intention to be to take some steps with respect to Hill Coolies in the Mauritius; and at the time, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that it would be better that he should issue an Order in Council upon the subject. But his noble Friend, not deeming that the proper way to raise the discussion, had not adopted that course. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham) proposed that a bill should be introduced for raising the question; but his (Mr. V. Smith's) noble Friend thought it better to raise it by proposing the introduction of clauses in the Colonial Passenger's Bill, and that course was approved of by the House. A discussion then took place, in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the late Member for the Tower Hamlets actively opposed the proposition of the Government, but on a division, the bill was allowed to proceed. In the meantime, however, the whole machinery of the anti-slavery party was brought to bear against the measure; and after the third reading on the question that the bill should pass, it was thrown out, and mainly by the agency of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester, who came down with one of his "heavy pounding" speeches, and destroyed their chance of passing the bill for that time, declaring that "he would not be called upon to legislate without having any defined plan laid before him by the noble Lord." The right hon. Baronet was assisted on that occasion by an hon. Friend, who was a director of the East India Company, who presented a petition from that body against the measure, and said, that before they passed such a measure they ought to wait the result of information from India. This was the position of the matter at the close

1323
of the last Session; and what he contended for was, that by throwing out that bill, they gave Parliamentary sanction to the prohibition against the exportation of Hill Coolies from India to the Mauritius. He must say, then, that he thought it somewhat strange that the present Government should so soon violate the pledges which they had extracted from their predecessors, and it was because he thought the step taken by the noble Lord the present Secretary for the Colonies, unjustified either by the opinions of parties acquainted with the subject, or the weight of evidence, that he felt it incumbent on him to bring the matter under the consideration of the House. At all events, before he adopted the course which he had thought fit to take, the noble Lord should have invited discussion in Parliament; but this he had not done, although the question was one of immense importance, not only to the interests of proprietors in both the West Indies and the Mauritius, but to the happiness of hundreds of thousands of the unfortunate Hill Coolies. What did the report presented to that House contain? That report was drawn up by six gentlemen, appointed by the Governor-general of India, one of whom, however, had returned to this country before it was signed, but his opinions having been published in a pamphlet, were well known before the Colonial Passengers' Bill was thrown out. Three of the remaining five only signed the report, but still it was the report of the majority; and although somewhat long like Indian reports, it was in many respects an able report. The conclusion to be drawn from this report was that, on the whole, emigration of Hill Coolies to the Mauritius was unadvisable, in this opinion Mr. Dowton did not concur; but it could, not be expected that he would have been unfavourable to a trade in which he was largely engaged. He now came to the report of Mr. J. P. Grant, and he admitted that it was an able report. Mr. J. P. Grant seemed favourable to the importation of Hill Coolies to the Mauritius; but there were parts of his statements which would seem to lead to an opposite conclusion, because he admitted the existence of abuses and divided them into three heads. 1. There were abuses in India, the police who were the only persons for the execution of the law, bang suspected of assisting crimps. 2. There were abuses at sea; there was a considerable want of fresh water, and upon
1324
every passage some of those unfortunate persons threw themselves overboard, for the purpose, as Mr. Grant conjectured, of being picked up again. In the third place there were abuses at the Mauritius, and the slave owners were not to be trusted with the management of the Hill Coolies. Yet, in spite of these opinions, this gentleman was highly favourable to their exportation. He was anxious only to prevent a great cause from being endangered by a premature or false step. The next paper he should advert to was the minute of Lord Auckland. There were four other minutes, but he would only refer to the minute of Lord Auckland, because he was sure no one in that House could doubt either the sterling good sense or humanity of his noble Friend, the late Governor-general of India. The question was, did the minute of Lord Auckland justify the course which the noble Lord opposite, the Secretary for the Colonies, had taken, or did it contain any opinion that such a course would be beneficial either to India or the Mauritius. He charged the noble Lord opposite (the Secretary for the Colonies) with precipitation, and, therefore, in justification of the noble Lord, he would read the strongest parts of the minute of Lord Auckland, in order that the House might be able fairly to judge of the matter. What did Lord Auckland say? Why, after alluding to the opinion of Mr. Dewson, who maintained opposite views, he said:—
"The attention which I have been able to give to the subject, has led me to no very satisfactory general conclusion upon it, embracing, as it does, the difficult question of opening emigration to many distant and even foreign colonies…It was upon no understood practice, and only by the busy intervention of an active agency, that the first emigrants were induced to seek their fortunes in the Mauritius; and whether the many who have since done so have done it to their own good or evil, is a proposition which is yet to be solved, on which there have not been time and experience sufficient to determine."
Again,—
"I greatly fear that, though the amendment and caution would no doubt come with time, no strictness of regulation, no vigilance on the part of the authorities, would immediately prevent the frequent infliction of grievous oppressions and deceits upon large numbers of persons, helpless from their poverty, and from their utter ignorance and inexperience."
Speaking of the police, he said,—
"It is, however, but too true that this branch

1325
of our service is most defective and ineffective, and the different experiments which have been tried for its reform have greatly ended in disappointment."
Lord Auckland also said,—
"It will be for her Majesty's Government to decide whether distinctions as to the supply of labour can be admitted between the several Crown settlements. As respects the interests for which we are more especially responsible, I would say that my objections are assuredly the strongest to dealings of this description with the colonies and settlements which are most distant. The sea passage to them is, from its very length, liable to suffering and to hazard. We could not follow the emigrant with our care and protection; and we do not know to what laws or usages he might be consigned. With the Mauritius, however, the case is different; it is a British settlement, easily accessible from India, and open to our observation; and if the question were that of opening emigration to that island alone, I would willingly attempt to meet the difficulties which might be opposed to us, and I should hope shortly and gradually, in a very great measure, to overcome them by a plan such as had been suggested by Mr. Grant."
Lord Auckland further observed,
"We must remember, however, that in permitting emigration to the Mauritius, it would be necessary to guard against the possibility of labourers shipped nominally for that island being carried elsewhere, or their being inveigled while on the island into contracts of service in other settlements where we could have no security for their treatment. The interests of the masters in the colony would be a powerful check against the latter evil, and I should not despair of our being able to provide duly for both of these objects again."
"But after we shall have been satisfied of the safety of emigration to the Mauritius itself, we shall still have to consider that such emigration could scarcely be allowed without its leading also to a renewed emigration of labourers, chiefly British subjects, from Pondicherry, or other European settlements in India, to foreign colonies. The government of Pondicherry has co-operated with us in a manner for which all our gratitude is due, in prohibiting exportation from its territory, while the prohibition was strictly in force on our own coasts; but we cannot expect that we shall be permitted to stock Mauritius with labourers without immediate facilities being again given by the French authorities for emigration to Bourbon. From papers which were before me in 1837, it is my impression that great care is taken by the Bourbon government to insure the proper treatment of imported labourers; but this is a fact not to be assumed upon any imperfect evidence, and the importance of the consideration affecting this part of the sub-
1326
ject will be duly estimated by the Government in England in framing final instructions for our guidance. The home authorities alone will be able to determine how far the cordial co-operation of foreign governments is to be relied on in the steady enforcement of measures of effectual precaution and protection within the limits of these settlements. If we cannot depend on that co-operation, I fear that we should not be justified in opening emigration even to the Mauritius."
Now, here were the opinions of Lord Auckland; but was it not clear that the noble Lord opposite had not followed these opinions. In none of the papers on the Table did it appear that the noble Lord opposite had done anything to ensure this "cordial co-operation" on the part of foreign governments; and it could not be doubted that some foreign Governments were not likely to consent to an arrangement which would tend to promote the prosperous cultivation of the colonies of this country. Lord Auckland, in concluding his minute, said:—
"If, therefore, all plans for an extended emigration should be for the present rejected by the home authorities, and if the expediency of some relaxation of the existing law should nevertheless be admitted, I should be disposed to regulate but little, to have for such a restricted purpose no cumbrous machinery of inspectors and protectors, and examiners, but simply to declare that no ship shall take more than ten or twenty such passengers; perhaps not more than one for every twenty-five tons of each vessel. A provision of this kind would be open to none of the objections by which the adoption of a larger measure may be impeded, and it would take off the character of excessive and impolitic, if not of unjust restraint from the enactment as it at present stands."
Now, he contended, that the minute of Lord Auckland was not only exceedingly doubtful, but did not warrant the noble Lord opposite in taking any step in the matter without first obtaining the sanction of Parliament. He would not trouble the House with the minutes of Mr. Bird, Mr. Prinsep, and Mr. Amos, neither would he refer to the ill-treatment of the Coolies by other parties besides crimps and serangs. An examination of some Hill Coolies took place at Calcutta, an account of which was published in the British Friend of India Magazine. The result of that examination established, that these poor men had been much disappointed in their expectations. Many stated, that they only saved one rupee a month, and that they had left their wives

1327
and families in India to be supported by their friends. Five of the Hill Coolies who were examined stated, that they would not be induced to return to the Mauritius, if they were offered sixteen rupees per month. There were only two who expressed a willingness to return. From this examination he would infer, that very few of these Hill Coolies were desirous of going back to the Mauritius, notwithstanding that they were represented to have been so comfortably situated in that island. At the same time he thought, that under proper regulations the case would be different. What he asserted, however, was, that up to October 1841, there was no evidence which could justify the departure of the present Government from the course adopted by their predecessors, and that instead of stating his intention, as he ought to have done, the noble Lord opposite had allowed his Order in Council to slip out through a corner of the Gazette. He would direct the attention of the House to the line of policy pursued by the noble Lord since his appointment to the office which he now filled. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, introduced to the notice of Parliament at the commencement of the present Session two bills, one entitled the Passengers' Act, and the second was the Colonial Lands Administration Act, both of which the noble Lord might have found already prepared for him at the Colonial-office by his predecessor in office. It was to the first bill that he would direct his observations. Before that bill was introduced, the Order in Council with reference to the Hill Coolies appeared in the Gazette, and he would say, that a more feeble, worthless, inefficient document he had never met with in the course of his parliamentary career. The preamble was ridiculous, foolish, and feeble in the extreme. If such an order had been issued by the late Government, he would have been the first to denounce it as being a rash and reckless act of a Whig Administration. He wished the noble Lord to inform him whether the Order in Council was published with the knowledge and approbation of the East India Company. It was essentially necessary that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies should know whether the East India Company intended to co-operate with him in carrying his scheme into operation before he attempted to do so upon his own responsibility. He thought that if the Hill Coolies could obtain sufficient sustenance
1328
and employment in India, perhaps in cultivating sugar with which the India servants were connected, there existed no necessity for them to emigrate. He had no objection to their taking advantage of a free market, provided they were protected against want and fraud. If there was no correspondence between the noble Lord who had recently left this country for the East Indies and the Board of Commissioners, he thought that the East India Company had not, been treated with proper respect by the noble Lord. The public had a right to be made acquainted with the opinion of the noble Lord on the subject. He would ask why did not the noble Lord wait for the meeting of Parliament before lie issued his Order in Council? Was the noble Lord afraid of exciting the opposition and clamour of the anti-slavery party, which he had, when out of office, directed against the late Whig Government? What was the difference between the present circumstances and those which existed two years ago? If the prosperity of either the Mauritius or the Hill Coolies had been prejudiced, all he could say was, that the noble Lord opposite was responsible for it, in consequence of the obstacles he threw in the way of the measure of 1840. It was quite clear, although the noble Lord had not stated it, that the bill he had introduced related to the Hill Coolies, for it contained a clause, giving—
"Power to the Governor-general of India in Council to adopt this act, with certain exceptions, in India."
The noble Lord should have stated this fact; but his not having done so shows why he had issued his Orders in Council two days before Parliament had met. This, however, was substituting Crown-made law for law made by Parliament. Now, he wished the noble Lord to answer the question he should put; in the first place he wished to know the nature of the communications received from the East India Company, and the instructions given to the present Governor-general of India. That noble Lord could not have gone out without definite instructions on this subject. It was well known that in 1838 the present Governor-general of India opposed the emigration of Hill Coolies, whom he described as being more like monkeys than men, and yet he was ready to sanction and facilitate their exportation. This was a most inconsistent position in which to place

1329
that noble Lord. But what had occurred to justify the change of opinion in the hon. Members opposite? He was anxious to see both the West Indies and the Mauritius properly cultivated, and that the natives of India should be at liberty to dispose of their labour to the best advantage, and it was for these reasons that he now called for the production of the correspondence with the East India Company, and the instructions given to Lord Ellen-borough. He should also like to be informed what steps the noble Lord had taken to ensure the "cordial co-operation" of foreign powers. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for a copy of the instructions given by the Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India to Lord Ellenborough on the subject of the recent Order in Council respecting the emigration of Hill Coolies.
Lord Stanley:Sir, I beg the indulgence of the House while I endeavour to meet the various attacks which the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has made on me and the Government for that which he calls the rash and precipitate course which we have adopted—while I endeavour to show that neither is our conduct now inconsistent with that which we pursued in 1840, nor have we been negligent with regard to the various parties whose interests we had to consider, nor have the measures which we have taken been adopted without due consideration. The right hon. Gentleman made one charge against us which has surprised me, and that is, that two days before the meeting of Parliament, we thought fit not to promulgate an Order in Council but to allow it to sneak out through a corner of the Gazette. The right hon. Gentleman is not so ignorant of official business as not to know that the usual mode in which Orders in Council are promulgated is through the Gazette, and yet this is what he calls sneaking out. But he says it is to him most surprising that the Order in Council to which he referred should appear just two days before the meeting of Parliament. Sir, he is quite right in saying, that, for the purpose of formally issuing that Order in Council, a meeting of the Cabinet was held, and I presume his official experience will necessarily acquaint him that it is not unusual for a Cabinet Council to meet within two or three days of the assembling of Parliament, so that this ominous issuing of the Order
1330
in Council' does not arise from any very extraordinary cause. The right hon. Gentleman very singularly assumes that, because the order was issued two days before the meeting of Parliament, and because it appeared in the Government Gazette on the day on which Parliament assembled, it was intended to keep that order from the attention of Parliament. Now, Sir, I must say, that, if there can be any obvious means of issuing the order in such a way as that it might not escape the attention of the Parliament, it is issuing it two days before, and publishing it in the Gazette on the very day on which Parliament meets for the purpose of resuming its duties. But the right hon. Gentleman says that we have no authority for the course which we have thought fit to adopt, that it is not the course which his noble Friend, the noble Lord who was at the head of the Colonies, in the late Government, proposed to adopt in 1840, and that he would take a different course now. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that, immediately after the sitting of Parliament, when he asked me if it was my intention to lay that order on the Table of the House, I stated that not only was it my intention to lay it on the Table of the House, but that it was also my intention to accompany it with such documents as I conceived would be necessary for the elucidation of that order. As if the right hon. Gentleman did not feel satisfied with that expression of my intentions with respect to the production of that Order in Council, and of those documents, he gave notice that it was his intention to move for a copy of any Order in Council, authorising the emigration of labourers to the Mauritius. The motion was, however, not made according to the notice; it was postponed more than once, and this morning notice was given me, although the Order in Council was laid on the Table ten days ago. This morning only did I learn it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to go at length into the whole question of Indian emigration to the Mauritius. For the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman—if any satisfaction it be to him—I can state to him that no such course as he attributed has been adopted with reference to the East India Company, and that I laid on the Table of the House, with the Order in Council, the despatch of the Governor of the Mauritius and the despatch of the President of the

1331
Board of Control, with reference to the subject., The right hon. Gentleman has expressed himself greatly surprised at the course which has been taken in issuing the Order in Council without consulting the Parliament. Now, Sir, I hope that, whether as a Member of her Majesty's Government, or in any other capacity in which I may act, I shall never be guilty of anything which should appear wanting in respect to the House, and I beg to state that it was because we thought it consistent with that which was right and proper, that we acted upon our own responsibility as Ministers of the Crown, without previously bringing the subject before the Parliament, But the right hon. Gentleman says that the course which we adopt is not consistent with the course which we thought fit to take in 1840, when the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, brought forward the subject. Now, what has been the case as regards the consistency of the course we adopt now, as compared with that which we pursued in 1840? In 1840 the noble Lord stated that it was not his intention to consult Parliament as to the course which he intended to adopt; that he would act upon his own responsibility, and that a change had taken place in his views and opinions of the subject. The noble Lord said that, in consequence of that change which had taken place in his opinions, he would not consult Parliament as to the step he felt it proper to take. But the right hon. Gentleman says that Parliament would not allow the noble Lord to adopt that course which he stated his intention of taking. Now, I may venture to say to the right hon. Gentleman, that the refusal of Parliament to permit the noble Lord to act as he intended, was rather a significant hint that the Parliament had no great confidence in the Executive, and I have no doubt that if my right hon. Friend (Sir Robert Peel) should feel it necessary to answer the right hon. Gentleman, he will tell the right hon. Gentleman that he had no great confidence in the Executive at that period. What was the case in 1840? Lu that year the noble Lord stated that he had altered his views on a subject on which the House had expressed previously a very strong opinion, and we protested against his introducing such a change as he had indicated, without possessing farther information. But the right hon.
1332
Gentleman tells us that the course which we adopt now, in reference to the same subject, is inconsistent with the course which we adopted in 1840. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that the circumstances connected with the Mauritius are different from what they were in 1840. We have got more information. The proposal which is made with reference to the emigration of labourers is different from that which was proposed in 1840, and is not therefore liable to the same objections on the part of the Parliament and of the country; and if hon. Gentlemen will indulge me with a patient hearing, I will show to the House the gross abuses which formerly existed in connection with the emigration and employment of labourers, and I will also show to the House the means by which we propose to meet those evils. There were three stages in which gross abuses existed under the former system, namely, in the Mauritius, on the passage from India to the Mauritius, and in India. I do not mean, Sir, to deny that, under the system which formerly prevailed, great abuses existed in the Mauritius with regard to Indian emigrants. I will not deny that many of those people suffered great hardships, and that there had been some cases of cruelty; but I must also say that there have been great exaggerations in many statements, not only as regards the sufferings to which they were exposed in the Mauritius, but also as to the mortality which prevailed amongst them under that system. I have heard it stated, that the mortality in the Mauritius amongst Indian labourers, was worse than it had ever been amongst a similar number of labourers during the days of slavery, and I hold now in my hand a return, from which it will appear to the House that the mortality was not by any means so great amongst them as it had been represented. Taking a period of five years, namely, from the year 1834 to the year 1839, the whole amount of mortality amongst 17,028 Indian labourers in the Mauritius had been 999, making a proportion of one in seventeen, or one and one-seventeenth per cent. for five years. Is it possible, then, I ask, if there were not gross exaggerations in the statements which had been made as to the sufferings and mortality amongst those labourers in the Mauritius, that the mortality could not have been greater than an amount of one in seventeen for an

1333
average of five years, or an annual average of one in eighty-five of those 17,000 labourers imported for the whole period of five years. That appears by the return to be the state of mortality amongst those people, to whom I shall not apply the term Hill Coolies. They are Indian labourers. I objected to the injustice of the system under which those Indian labourers were formerly brought from India, to be employed in the Mauritius. The system which then prevailed was this:—A planter himself, or several planters combined, paid an agent in India, whose business it was to seek out labourers in India, who entered into agreements to emigrate to the Mauritius, and work for five years with those planters, at a rate of remuneration which was fixed in India. This agreement was made on the part of private individuals for their private interest, and the consequence of this unjust and fraudulent mode of proceeding was, that the labourer was often a virtual slave in the Mauritius during the five years for which he had contracted. The labourer found that he had no opportunity of increasing his amount of wages until the five years which he had contracted for had expired, and he found that, in consequence of advances of clothes and money in India, instead of receiving wages, he was often indebted to the planter for those advances. After having been deluded and smuggled from India, he found that he had no alternative; for he had been brought over for the private interests of the planter—for the private advantage of those who brought him over—he found, in fine, that he had been brought over under private arrangements, and to satisfy the private ends of those who induced him to go. It was under the injustice of that system that the labourer formerly suffered; and I ask how far do those objections apply to the system which we propose? The right hon. Gentleman opposite has said that he felt quite confident that Lord Ellenborough, who has now gone out to India, would be the last person in that country to assist in giving effect to the proposal which we intend to make. In reference to that statement allow me to say, that I should have greatly neglected my duty, if, long before the noble Lord bad left this country, and whilst he was President of the Board of Control, I had not entered into the subject in all its details, and in every bearing
1334
which it was capable of, in repeated personal conferences with Lord Ellen-borough. Before the departure of the noble Lord, all the main provisions of the proposal had been discussed with him and approved of, and he is now prepared to submit to the Council in India the measure which we propose, which is a measure that has obtained his full concurrence, and which is calculated, as far as possible, to prevent those abuses which formerly existed. There was one supposition thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman against the East India Company, which was so so unworthy of the character of that body, that I imagined there would be found some hon. Member ready upon their part to refute it. Before I allude further to the grounds upon which that supposition is founded, I will remark, with reference to the charge of rashness, that even though the Order in Council should be agreed to, and that it should be adopted by the colony of the Mauritius, yet it could not take effect, it could not be carried into operation in India, unless the Governor-general in Council, with the full concurrence of the East India Company, passed such a measure there as would remove all ground of complaint. But now let me call attention to the supposition which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed with respect to the East India Company. He says that the East India Company are connected with persons who are engaged in the growing of sugar, and he infers that in such a thinly-peopled country as India, where employment is so easily to be obtained, and so well remunerated, it is the interest of those who are engaged in the growing of sugar to retain those labourers in that country where labour is so scarce, and not to allow them to emigrate to the Mauritius; but I cannot believe that the East India Company would be actuated by such feelings, or so forgetful, not only of their character but their own interest, as to throw any obstacle in the way of free emigration of Indian labourers to a country where there is full employment for the people, and that they would rather keep them in India, where there is a superabundant and starving population, and where, in consequence of that, the rate of wages for those who are in employment is 1½d a day The right hon. Gentleman, however, asks what has happened since 1840? and evidently wishes to know why the proposal

1335
should be brought forward to introduce this system which we propose in 1842. My right hon. Friend, who sits near me, is charged with opposing the step which was taken by the Government in 1840; but in 1840 his right hon. Friend said he was not prepared to give his sanction to the change of opinion which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had stated to have taken place, nor did he think the sanction of the House ought to be given to it, until they heard from the Governor-general of India, and from the Governor of the Mauritius, as, till then, it would not be possible to ascertain how far it was likely to be carried beneficially into effect. Now, since 1840, we have heard from the Governor-General of India, and from the Governor of the Mauritius. And, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's having read the minute of the Governor-general of India, I am prepared to show, that not only the present Governor-general of India but the former Governor, general, have expressed themselves satisfied as to the fact, that emigration from India to the Mauritius under a proper system, and with proper restrictions, might be safely conducted. Before I read any extracts from the minutes of either the Governor of the Mauritius or the Governor-general of India, let me ask who is the Governor of the Mauritius? Sir Lionel Smith. If, ever, Sir, there was a man on earth who distinguished himself under different Governments as the friend and supporter of the negroes, and by his hostility to anything like oppression on the part of the planters, it is Sir Lionel Smith. Now, I have a minute of Sir Lionel Smith in reference to the subject of the emigration and employment of Indian labourers, dated in December, 1840, and what does it say? In December, 1840, he wrote thus to the Secretary for the Colonies:—
"I was two months in the Government before I received a single complaint from Indian labourers. Circumstances over which I had no control shortly afterwards brought whole gangs to Government-house principally on experimental complaints. Several cases having occurred in which one or two of the best stipendiary magistrates deemed it their duty to cancel the engagement of labourers with their masters, according as the law provided, and to leave them perfectly free either to go back to India, or to re-engage in labour on new contracts here. They agreed to remain, and obtained other masters, at increased rates of wages from five rupees to five
1336
dollars a month, and in some instances more. Thus the Indians became suddenly acquainted how much they had been undervalued by their labour engagements contracted in India."
These are the men who were starving on 1½d. a day in India, and in the Mauritius, besides food and clothing, these men were earning in hard money from five rupees to five dollars a month.
"At the same time (Sir Lionel Smith continued) that it became pretty generally known that the free importation of labour was to be permitted, and that an association of planters to encourage emigration had failed, these Indians became suddenly acquainted how much they had been undervalued by their labour engagements contracted in India; and every artifice which combination and violence could suggest were immediately resorted to."
For what purpose? To get back to India? No.
"In the hopes of being released from their present contract and engagements, to serve under contracts infinitely below the rate of wages."
No wonder that when this deception was practised, no wonder that complaints were made, and that every attempt was made to rescind the contract. Sir Lionel Smith went on,—
"I am constantly accused of having no sympathies in common with the sugar planters. Perhaps I have seen too much of the sacrifice of human life and happiness in the production of sugar to enable me to confide in a class of men allied so recently to such a system; but I should be glad to disabuse the public mind in England that every labourer who finds employment here has been treated with cruelty. I will not close my letter by promising that no injustice or oppression can occur; but I will say, they are infinitely better off here than in our own overstocked country, and their mercenary habits are gratified to the ultimate advantage of England."
This was the statement of Sir Lionel Smith as to the abuses in the Mauritius, The noble Lord read the following extract from another despatch:—
"His Excellency will inform the General that, having minutely inquired into the treatment of Indian labourers, he has been enabled to report to the Secretary of State that they have, by no means, been harshly dealt with or neglected, and his Excellency is quite satisfied that the interests of the planters themselves, and the intelligence of the Indians, will equally guarantee to them the justice and good treatment of their employers in this island. His Excellency observes that no man could have entered into these inquiries with stronger

1337
suspicions than he did, from an intimate knowledge of the tricks of the planters against the new-born freemen in the West Indies; but he is satisfied with the Government that even those who are most ill-disposed may be controlled in the exercise of arbitrary or unjust conduct."
We have, since that period, other testimony from the Governor of the Mauritius, which shows that there is in that colony means of abundant protection for the Indian labourers against any injustice, fraud, or oppression. In 1838, the report of a committee for the purpose of inquiring into the possibility of remedying the evils which then existed, in connection with the emigration and employment of Indian labourers, was published, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite referred to that committee, stating that three members of it drew up a report unfavourable to the system, and that two others were favourably inclined towards it. Yes; but it ought to be recollected that the committee to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded was a committee to inquire into, and, if possible, to suggest a mode in which the abuses might be remedied, but remedied under the system which then prevailed for the regulation of the emigration and employment of the Indian labourers who went to the Mauritius under the articles obliging them to serve for five years, and with agreements made by private individuals and for private interests. Let me now call the attention of the House to the change which is proposed, in contrast with what formerly prevailed, and the means that are proposed, in order to prevent similar abuses being practised, and I only regret that the right hon. Gentleman who brought forward the subject so fully to-night had not shaped his motion so as to permit me to obtain the opinion of the House with regard to it. Under the former system the planter appointed an agent in India, who engaged and shipped off the labourers under a contract to work for the planter for five years, and therefore the interest of those agents was to secure the labourers as numerously and cheaply as possible. Now, under the system which we propose, that will be completely put a stop to. The system which we pursue is this—and I ask the House if there is anything contained in it in the slightest degree indicating the most remote approach to slavery or forced labour—it is proposed that the colony of
1338
the Mauritius shall be entitled to pass a vote permitting the payment, at the expense of the colony, for the free emigration of labourers, but that emigration is to take place only from whatever part in India the Governor-General may approve of, and there is to be at each such port in India an agent, appointed by the Governor-general, and paid by the colony, of the Mauritius, who is to see every emigrant in person, and to ascertain whether such emigrant is about to leave the country of his own accord, and whether he is perfectly aware of the conditions under which he is to go. He is also to ascertain if the emigrant has been deluded by false expectations as to the amount of wages, and to inform the emigrant that any contract he may make in India will not be binding on him in the Mauritius, but that when he shall arrive there, he may go where he pleases. The agent is also to see that the ships are properly supplied with provisions, and to see that an interpreter goes out with every body of emigrants before he allows the ship to sail. There is also a list to be furnished of the emigrants to be taken, with their names, and a description of each individual, and no ship is to be cleared out of any port in India with emigrants, unless the agent sees on the spot that all those provisions are complied with. Is that all that is to be done? No; for when the labourers arrive in the Mauritius, they are not to be let loose, exposed to fraud or imposition—no; at Port Louis, which is the only port in the Mauritius at which such ships will be allowed to enter there again, a Government agent will be appointed by the Governor-general of India to reside, and it will be his duty to compare the lists which the ships shall bring, with the lists that shall have been taken in India; for one great evil formerly arose from the ships dropping down the river, and allowing an opportunity for smuggling emigrants on board. The agent is also to inquire of each emigrant whether he has any complaint to make of the treatment he received, and he is to be again informed that no contract which he made in India is valid or binding on him in the Mauritius, and that he is perfectly free to go where he pleases, and that for forty-eight hours he is to make no contract, and that he is to make no contract for a longer period than a single year. These are the measures adopted by Government for the protection of the la-

1339
bourer, and I ask whether it be possible to adopt a more precautionary system? In India, a labourer is very well satisfied if he can earn 1½d. a-day, out of which he has to provide himself with food. In the Mauritius, the ordinary rate of wages is from 5 rupees to 10 rupees per month, in addition to food and clothing. If, therefore, a labourer be dissatisfied with his condition in the Mauritius, he may, in a short time, by the exercise of ordinary industry, realize a sufficient sum of money to pay his passage back to India; for if he be disposed to return, he is not, as formerly, bound by any contract he might have entered into to continue in the colony for five years. At the expiration of five years' service in the colony, if the labourer wish to return to India, he is not only at perfect liberty to do so, but he is to have the right to claim a free passage at the expense of the colony of the Mauritius. It is, therefore, the interest of the colony to import only such persons as are likely to remain; for, as the colony bears the expense of their passage, it would—if the emigrants were dissatisfied, and returned to India—have to suffer the loss of the money which had been paid for their importation. The temptation tinder the former scheme was to wring from the emigrants as great an amount of labour at as love a rate of remuneration ad possible, and thus they were rendered dissatisfied and discontented. The tendency of the present plan is, I consider, to render them contented and comfortable. I cannot refrain from citing a few passages from the minute of the Governor-general, to which reference has been made by the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this subject. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he thought it appeared evident from this document, that the Governor-general entertained a very doubtful opinion as to the policy of allowing persons to emigrate to the Mauritius. Under the present plan many labourers had returned to India from the Mauritius, and had deposited in the hands of their families considerable stuns of money, the produce of their industry; and, although they were now anxious to return to the Mauritius, they were prevented from doing so by the present prohibitory law, which precluded persons who had reunified to India from the Mauritius from again proceeding to the colony. But I ask whether, upon any principle of reason, we can legislate to prevent the sub-
1340
jects of her Majesty, who are perfectly aware of the consequences of the step they are taking, from proceeding from one part of her Majesty's dominions to another, in order to dispose of their labour to the best advantage? What is the opinion of the Governor-general? The Governor-general has arrived at no such conclusion as that assumed by the right hon. Gentleman. The Governor-general said—
"The attention which I have been able to give to the subject has led me to no very satisfactory general conclusion upon it, embracing as it does the difficult question of opening emigration to many distant and even foreign colonies."
[Mr. V. Smith: I read that passage.] But the right hon. Gentleman did not read what follows. The Governor-general proceeds—
"I am clearly of opinion that the present law, which to a great degree restricts the freedom of labour and of movement to the whole Indian population, is most objectionable in principle; that it will presently become injurious and vexatious in operation; that it should not be regarded as permanent, and that no safe opportunity should be omitted of relaxing it."
Those words the right hon. Gentleman did not read to the House. The right hon. Gentleman had also selected this passage from the minute—
"I cannot indulge the hope that we should yet be able successfully to enforce safeguards for the due protection and superintendence of an unlimited number of common emigrant labourers."
But he did not read these passages—
"The impression to he taken from the evidence of the Coolies who have returned, is. I think, upon the whole, most favourable; and it may be assumed, in regard to the Mauritius, that where there have been prudence and good conduct, and an average Share of good fortune, a Cooly may return, after a few years of labour in that colony, enriched and improved, and for the most part bearing with him the recollection of no great hardship. Could this system fairly be carried out? Could a number of voluntary and industrious adventurers annually leave India for countries where labour is more highly paid than it is here, and could nearly the same number annually return, each with an average of capital of from 100 to 200 rupees, with some acquirements in cultivation and manufacture, and with his wits sharpened by experience, I think that such a course would have an excellent effect upon the country, and be a source of general advantage, and, in the end, many of the abuses which have been

1341
found to exist would work their own cure, and men would teach each other the manner in which fraud, and exaction, and violence, are to be guarded against. In this view, and under ordinary circumstances, and if the slave-trade and slavery had never been, we might, perhaps, approach the question of an open emigration with some hope of devising checks which might be relied on as generally effectual against abuse."
The right hon. Gentleman quoted this passage referring to the difficulty of an open emigration, but he did not state the exception of the Governor-general—
"It will be for her Majesty's Government to decide whether distinctions as to the supply of labour can be admitted between the several Crown settlements. As respects the interests for which we are more specially responsible, I would say that my objections are assuredly the strongest to dealings of this description with the colonies and settlements which are most distant. The sea passage to them is, from its very length, liable to suffering and to hazard; we could not follow the emigrant with our care and protection, and we do not know to what laws or usages he might be consigned. At the Mauritius, however, the case is different. It is a British settlement, easily accessible from India, and open to our observation; and if the question were that of opening emigration to that island alone, I would willingly attempt to meet the difficulties which might be opposed to us, and I should hope speedily and gradually, in a very great measure, to overcome them by a plan similar to that suggested by Mr. Grant."
The Governor-general was prepared to approach the question of open emigration, but if a distinction were drawn with regard to the Mauritius, he had no hesitation in saying that he was prepared to grapple with those difficulties. What did the Governor-general propose to do?
"By the appointment of a distinct 'protector' of emigrants, by the inspection and limitation of contracts, by the prohibition of money advances, and by the regulation of shipping, and the other rules proposed, we might, I think, do much in the few ports from which emigration to the Mauritius might be limited, and for some stated number of emigrants, towards the entire suppression of those abuses of which three or four years ago there was too much reason to complain; we could at the same time satisfy ourselves that the measures adopted in the Mauritius for the protection of the labourers when on the island are operative and sufficient."
The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to what the Governor-general concluded, and this was another instance, perhaps, of an unintentional omission, but
1342
it was a singular one. "Look," said the right hon. Gentleman, "at the conclusion to which the Governor-general came:—
'If you can send out a few skilled labourers I can see no objection to that.'"
Was that the conclusion to which the Governor-general came? After stating that he had no doubt on the question as to the Mauritius, but that he had some as to all the colonies, the Governor-general concluded thus:—
"I have known, since I have been in India, contracts for buildings in the Mauritius sent to Calcutta, and carpenters, smiths, and painters, go out, at high salaries, for their execution. It cannot he intended that such transactions should be perpetually closed; and, apart from the important question of free emigration and of colonial labour, and yet as not unconnected with them, I should be glad if steps could be devised for the gradual modification of this most anomalous law. If, therefore, all plans for an extended emigration should be for the present rejected by the home authorities, and if the expediency of some relaxation of the existing law should, nevertheless, be admitted, I should be disposed to regulate but little as to this skilled labour."
"But," said the Governor-general, "that was the conclusion to which the right hon. Gentleman came." The Governor-general said no such thing. What the Governor-general said was this:—
"If the Home Government are opposed to more extended emigration, then, at all events, I will press on them to repeal this most anomalous law with regard to emigration to the Mauritius."
I will appeal to the House, whether the right hon. Gentleman, in quoting from those papers, has quoted them in such a way as to give their effect fairly to the House? The right hon. Gentleman referred to the opinions of Mr. Bird, Mr. Princeps, and Mr. Amos. One of those gentlemen certainly admitted, that he objected to the relaxations of the present law, but not on the grounds of the hardship that it inflicted, but on the ground that there was no superfluity of labour in India: and that the people there were anxious to obtain a greater supply of labour than they were able to procure. The two other gentlemen, Mr. Amos and Mr. Princeps, expressed themselves favourable to emigration. I certainly thought that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken in terms of the report of these gentlemen which he saw no reason for. The right

1343
hon. Gentleman said, that those two gentlemen had acted in concert; but I see nothing in the documents referred to, to warrant that supposition. On the contrary, though those gentlemen differed on other points, they concurred in thinking that this law ought to be relaxed, though upon the amount of relaxation they were not agreed. The right hon. Gentleman has accused me of having acted hastily in this matter, because, having the authority of the Governor-general of India, and of the Governor of the Mauritius, for believing that with proper precautions the law might be safely relaxed, I have, with the concurrence of the Governor-general of India, and with the concurrence of the Board of Control, devised safe and efficient means for the remedy of the evils complained of. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman that he must know well that no person was more anxious for the speedy relaxation of this law than the noble Lord the late Secretary for the Colonies. In the last despatch written by the directions of the noble Lord on this subject, and dated the 30th of August, 1841, it is stated that the noble Lord
"Entertained a strong opinion in favour of the removal of his restrictions, and the modification of this law, provided that proper precautions were taken to secure the health and good treatment of those individuals during their passage, and their return to their own country."
Her Majesty's Government have taken those precautions. They have taken the same precautions exactly, with some additions, as the late Secretary for the Colonies took with respect to the emigration of labourers from the coast of Africa to the West Indies. These regulations were framed for the prevention of abuse, and since they have been adopted there has not been a word of complaint against them from any individual. The case which I have now presented to the House is the case on which I hope the House will be of opinion that the conduct pursued by her Majesty's Government on this subject is perfectly consistent with the course which they felt it to be their duty to take in 1840 —and that they cannot be charged with having rashly or harshly dealt with this great question. They have taken every precaution for the security and advantage of the labourer. They have given the Governor-general of India the best advice which practical experience enables
1344
them to offer as to the precautions to be taken there for the same purpose—and they have made a further provision that unless those recommendations were carried into effect, the system of emigration now proposed was not to take place. The right hon. Gentleman talked of the Passengers Act, and said that he had been taken by surprise. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could not be more taken by surprise than I am by the right hon. Gentleman's motion. On bringing forward my motion for leave to introduce the bill to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, I stated that my object was, to secure the adoption of additional precautions with respect to emigration from the United Kingdom to the colonies. The right hon. Gentleman said, that my object, in the course I have taken respecting emigration from India, is to evade the notice of Parliament. Now, on the contrary, I have inserted clauses in the Passengers Act specially applying to this particular emigration; and these clauses were introduced for this reason:—Supposing that there may be certain penalties provided for the violation of the regulations with respect to the emigration of labourers from India, the Governor-general, though he had the power to punish the infractions of these regulations in India, would not have the power to do so in the Mauritius. These clauses, therefore, have been inserted for the purpose of authorising these regulations, in order that, if they should chance to be violated, that would be an offence against a British act of Parliament, and would be liable to be punished accordingly. These, then, are the clauses on which the right hon. Gentleman has founded his accusation that I intended to evade the notice of Parliament. I only regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not so shaped his motion as to afford me the opportunity of taking the sense of the House on the course which has been taken by her Majesty's Government. Whenever the right hon. Gentleman may think fit to bring forward a vote of condemnation with respect to that conduct, I shall be ready to meet him, even at the risk of again wearying the House with this subject. As the right hon. Gentleman has moved for documents which are not in existence, it is of little consequence whether I consent to his motion or not. However, 1 will pursue the course of giving the right hon. Gen-

1345
tleman an opportunity of taking the sense of the House by giving a negative to his ridiculous motion.
Mr. Hawesdid not intend to discuss this question; but whenever those clauses that had been referred to should be in committee, he would endeavour to show the noble Lord that they did not provide those precautions which he had stated. He undertook to say that when all the papers should be fairly considered they would lead to a different conclusion from that which had been stated by the noble Lord. He was willing to concur in the eulogium which the noble Lord had expressed respecting the character of Sir Lionel Smith. But when he came to refer to those despatches of Sir L. Smith, on which the noble Lord called them to rely, they found that he spoke of the planters of the Mauritius as men who were still mourning over the loss of their slaves. Men of this description were not those to whom they should be inclined to entrust the carrying out of regulations of this kind. The noble Lord might possibly be able to carry into effect his proposed regulations with respect to India, and the passage by sea, but wish respect to his success in the Mauritius, he entertained a different opinion. He, when the noble Lord's bill should be in committee, meant to move that those clauses of the bill to which he objected should be expunged. He did not mean to do this in condemnation of the Government, for he believed that the noble Lord had no other object in those regulations but the good of those individuals. But he did not think that those clauses would answer that purpose. He hoped the noble Lord would shortly be able to have the bill in committee.
Lord Stanleywas anxious to forward the bill at as early a period as possible. He hoped the hon. Member would not object to proceed with the clauses up to the 41st clause (postponing those to which he objected). With respect to those clauses to which he objected, the hon. Member gave ample notice of the time when they would be considered in committee.
Mr. Hawessaid, that arrangement would be perfectly satisfactory.
Mr. Hoggdid not think that the conclusions of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, were borne out by the documents to which he had referred, nor did he think that the House had been
1346
correctly apprised how the matter stood in India, and in this country. In Calcutta a most influential public meeting had been convened, and all present were loud in their execration of the deception and cruelty which had been practised almost universally on the helpless natives who had been withdrawn from their homes. In consequence of that public meeting, a committee was appointed by the local government, and to the report of that committee, he would presently have occasion to refer. In this country the subject had been taken up by both Houses of Parliament. In the Lords, legislation on the subject had been attempted by Lord Ellenborough, aided by no mean coadjutor, the Duke of Wellington, but the difficulties that presented themselves were so great, that the bill was abandoned. In that House the subject had been repeatedly discussed, and he believed that his right hon. Friend who introduced the subject, had stated pretty accurately its course. He remembered well that when the noble Lord, the late Secretary for the Colonies, intimated his intention to relax the Order in Council, up got his right hon. Friend, the present Secretary for the Home Department, and cautioned the Government to beware how they proceeded in a matter of such delicacy and difficulty; suggesting that no change should be made in the prohibitory law, except by bill, and painted the enormities which existed in such glowing colours, that the noble Lord, who was not the least adventurous of politicians, shrunk from the task he had undertaken. A few evenings afterwards the noble Lord stated, that after what had occurred, he did not think it would be respectful to Parliament to make any alteration in the law until their opinion had been taken. Thus the matter stood, with respect to that House: an assurance had been given by the late government that no alteration in the law should be made, without taking the opinion of Parliament, and he (Mr. Hogg) thought that the present Government ought to have regarded that pledge as binding upon them. The Court of Directors had repeatedly written out to the local government, stating that they could not sanction any change in the existing law, while the matter was pending before Parliament, thus showing a deference to that House, which he admitted had not been evinced by the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire. The Court of Directors had stated that they would not stir in the matter until Parliament had

1347
pronounced its opinion, and desired that in the interim the existing law should neither be annulled nor relaxed. Thus the matter then stood, and wherein, he asked, was it now altered? The only alteration was the receipt of the report of the committee, which more than confirmed all the statements which caused the prohibitory enactments. When the question was last under discussion, his right hon. Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, dwelt strongly on the absence of information, and said, "Wait till the report of the committee has been received." He (Mr. Hogg) did the same, and stated his belief that the report would be very shortly received. Indeed, he had been taunted by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liskeard, with venturing to state the very day on which it might be looked for. True it was, he had rashly ventured on the perilous sea of prophecy, but the winds and the waves had proved favourable, and the report did arrive the very day he had predicted "sic me servavit Apollo." He would not weary the House by referring to the report or the voluminous evidence on which it was founded, but he would state without fear of contradiction, that the noble Lord could not refer to that report, as a justification for the proceeding he had adopted. Sir Lionel Smith, in adverting to the subject, spoke of the strong terms of the report, said it was highly coloured, and added, that it deserved no further notice. Now that was not a fit or becoming way to speak of a report, which had been made, under the order of the Governor-general, by six gentlemen selected by him. [An hon. Member: Only three signed it.] Even so, one of the six had left India, and three of the remaining five had signed it, and a report so made, and so signed, ought not to have been described by Sir Lionel Smith, as deserving of no notice. But suppose that report to have been less unfavourable to the view of the noble Lord, and that he had been able to refer to it as justifying his intended measures, what, he asked, was the course that ought to have been pursued. He (Mr. Hogg) was not well versed in parliamentary forms; but after what had already taken place in that House, he should have thought that the noble Lord would have deemed it fit and proper to have submitted to the Board of Control his proposed measures respecting the Mauritius, (which is under his own management,) saying to the President of
1348
the Board, "If you will induce the Home Government of India, to authorise the modification of the existing law, here are the protections and the safeguard which I offer you." These protections and safeguards ought then to have been submitted to the Court of Directors, who ought to have considered them, viewed the whole case, and pronounced their opinion at length in instructions to the local government; such instructions, with the Order in Council of the noble Lord, ought to have been laid on the Table of the House, and it would then have been for the House to have said aye or no, whether the contemplated alterations should take place. The noble Lord, however, had deemed it right to dispense with all this caution and consideration, and he must add, that although he was a member of the Court of Directors, he had never heard of the contemplated modification of the law, until he read the Order in Council in the Gazette. With respect to the Mauritius, he admitted the value and importance of the regulations proposed by the noble Lord, which would go far to do away the abuses there. The great and paramount evils existed in India, in the organised system of kidnapping and trepanning the natives, and he wished to know, and the House had a right to know, what provisions and regulations were proposed to prevent the recurrence of such evils. Indeed, he was not sure, after what had passed, that the House ought not to require the proposed local enactment to be sent home, placed on the Table of the House, and examined by the Legislature, before it was allowed to have the force of law. The abuses in India were admitted, and the sole question was, whether it would be practicable to prevent them, if the present law were annulled or relaxed. The noble Lord talked a great deal about protectors and inspectors, but what said Lord Auckland to all this cumbrous machinery? Why, he said it was utterly useless; and he said so with good reason, because every one of these arrangements existed at Calcutta at the time the abuses complained of took place. The temptation to fraud and abuse was so great, that he (Mr. Hogg) feared it was vain to attempt to legislate for its prevention. Without entering into details, he would show the House how absolutely certain it was that the great proportion of those who proceeded to the Mauritius must have been induced to go on ship-board by the grossest misrepresentation, fraud, and

1349
deceit; and for that purpose he would read an extract from the examination of Mr. Dowson, who was himself engaged in exporting Indian labourers to the Mauritius. The question asked him was—
"Are you aware whether the Coolies are informed that they are to go by sea to a distant place, and to be absent from India for five years?"
His answer is—
"I am nearly sure no representation of the kind is ever made to them; and, as a proof of this, I beg to state that, on my return from the Mauritius in November last, I was so desirous to crush the Duffadar system, which I consider most vicious, that at a considerable expense I engaged a highly respectable Armenian—a Mr. Carapiet, to proceed to Chutah Nagpore, the district where the Dhaugas live. He was the bearer of letters to Dr. Cheek, of Burdwou, and Capt. Wilkinson, Governor-general's agent of the district. My orders to Mr. Carapiet were, to engage no Coolie without first explaining to him the nature of the employment, and that he was to leave his country for a period of five years. It proved a fruitless mission, for Mr. Carapiet did not succeed in procuring a single Coolie, and that, too, at the very time that Duffadars sent by Mr. Hughes were engaging Coolies by hundreds in the immediate vicinity."
He entreated the attention of the House to this evidence of Mr. Dowson, who admits that the firm of which he was a member, had exported 6000 Coolies to the Mauritius, and who was, therefore, eminently interested in the maintenance of the system. He shows you, that not a single Coolie can be induced to leave his native hills, when it is truly explained to him that he is to proceed to a distance and by sea, and be long absent from his home; while at the same time, and in the same locality, they are procured by hundreds by means of the fraud and misrepresentation resorted to by the unprincipled Duffadars or native agents. He would give the House a still stronger proof that the Hill Coolies, when left to themselves, and fully apprised of their destination, were not disposed to emigrate to places beyond the confines of India, even when not required to proceed by sea. The House was probably aware that a company, with a very large capital, had been established for the cultivation of the tea plantations in Assam, and he need not dwell on the importance of giving every possible aid and encouragement to that enterprise. The company applied to Government, stating that their plantations were going to decay from their
1350
inability to procure labour, and entreating the aid and influence of Government to induce the Hill Coolies to emigrate to Assam, stating their willingness to allow them never less than three rupees a month for their labour, with land to cultivate free of expense for five years, and to pay besides their travelling expenses. The Government accordingly authorized the public officers in the districts where the Coolies dwell to explain to them the advantages that were offered, and to induce them, by all fair means, to emigrate to Assam; but I hold in my hand extracts from letters from Capt. Wilkinson, Mr. Davidson, and Major Ouseley, Government agents in the different districts, stating that they could not induce a single Coolie to leave their homes. This was evidence beyond all contradiction or suspicion, to prove that the Coolies would not expatriate themselves, when their destination was fully explained to them. He admitted they were migratory, but their habit was to proceed to the plains for a few months, to assist in the manufacture of indigo and sugar, returning to their own homes so as to be able to attend to their own cultivation. If the Government would only introduce a measure which would satisfy him that they should be left entirely to their own inclinations, he (Mr. Hogg) would say at once, that he would not offer a word in objection to annulling the existing regulation; but he thought he had established that up to the present time, that inclination had not been consulted, and that in the absence of fraud, no labourer from among the Coolie race could be induced to emigrate. The noble Lord had concluded very triumphantly by referring to Lord Auckland's opinions on this subject, and he endeavoured to make the House believe, that that Nobleman was favourable to general and unlimited emigration; and that he only suggested a restriction in deference to prejudices existing in this country. He begged to tell the noble Lord, that he was not borne out in that statement by Lord Auckland's minute. Lord Auckland had not stated it as his opinion, that the measure should be repealed; he only said, he should be glad to see it relaxed, particularly with regard to artisans who are in the habit of contracting for building in the Mauritius and elsewhere, and who might be prevented by the existing measure from continuing that course. He must say, that unless this subject were most cautiously dealt with, and unless we had some assurance that

1351
satisfactory arrangements had been entered into with the European powers, who had settlements in India, and with the native independent powers, who had territory on the coast, we should be virtually renewing the Slave-trade, if we removed the existing restriction; and we should utterly destroy the moral influence that has hitherto attended our exertions and representations for the purpose of abolishing that odious traffic throughout the east. Such, too, was the opinion of Lord Auckland, who states, that if we could not depend on the cooperation of the European powers having possessions in India, we should not be justified in opening the emigration, even to the Mauritius. The evidence of the Coolies who had returned to India, had been much dwelt upon. Now, the Coolies who had been so examined, were only about twenty-five in number, out of upwards of 17,000 who had emigrated, and when so much was said of the wealth, the satisfaction and the happiness of those twenty-five, he could not refrain from expressing his apprehension, that they had probably returned with the intention of decoying others; and that their evidence could not be much relied upon. It might be thought that in what he had said, he had expressed strong opinions against emigration; he assured the House, however, that he had not said a word that was not dictated by an imperious sense of duty. He admitted fully that it was the right of every man to carry his labour to the best market, and he (Mr. Hogg) was not one who desired to contravene that principle. But the House would at the same time admit, that considerations, not only of humanity, but of policy, rendered it imperative on them to see that those were protected, who were unable to protect themselves. It was all very well to talk of protecting the few individuals of spirit and enterprize who might wish to emigrate from India, for the purpose of bettering their fortunes, but where, he asked, was the liberty, where the protection, and where the consideration, for the hundreds and thousands who by fraud and falsehood had been deluded to leave their homes. The Government, he thought, had a very clear course to pursue on this subject. They should lay on the Table of the House all the papers connected with it, without any exception; all the dispatches of the Court of Directors, and the Indian Government—all the communications from the Mauritius—all the orders in council, and above all, the measures and
1352
provisions intended to be introduced for the prevention of abuses in India, and of which there was not at present one title before the House. The House would then be in a condition to judge of the expediency of annulling or modifying the existing restrictions. The misfortune of the present discussion was, that it could only lead to an expression of opinion, and not to any practical result.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies had made no statement respecting females and children. An opinion was very generally entertained by the people of this country that the system of the emigration of Hill Coolies would lead to a sort of legalized slave-trade. How, indeed, could the House entertain a doubt that such would be the result, after the admirable and lucid speech of the hon. Member for Beverley? That hon. Gentleman had treated the question in a manner which reflected on his character and conduct the highest possible credit. It was curious to observe the contrast between the policy pursued on this question and on that of the Corn-laws. The landowners maintained the Corn-laws on the ground that their repeal would lead to the injury of the home grower from the competition of foreign agriculturists, while they permitted the importation of foreign labourers from India into a market already overstocked with cheap labour, which could have no other effect than to increase the existing distress. Nothing could be more unjust than the manner in which they proposed to deal with those unfortunate creatures, overpowering them with the cheaper labour of the East Indies. The information which this House had obtained tonight ought to induce them to pause before lending any countenance to a system fraught with so much danger, and which might end in so much suffering. When a bill of this kind was introduced by the Whig Government, be was delighted at the manner in which it was received by the present Government. The right hon. Baronet the present First Lord of the Treasury was doubtful of its propriety. The present Home Secretary called upon the House to pause as the measure was pregnant with danger, and all the additional information which had since been received only showed still more forcibly the necessity of caution. The right hon. Baronet could not have forgotten a depu-

1353
tation which had waited upon him shortly after he came into office on the subject of slavery. They had hoped that he would have introduced some measure relative to that subject before this time, for slavery existed to an enormous extent in our possessions in India. He mentioned the subject in the hope that the right hon. Baronet would be able before long to make some statement to the House on the subject of slavery generally, but with regard to the particular subject before the House, he hoped the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies would be induced to abandon the intention he had avowed, after what he had heard from the hon. Member for Beverley, that he would not persevere in that clause of the bill which would go to continue the exportation of Hill Coolies from India to the Mauritius. He might depend upon it that the permanence of that system would be fraught with calamities; for the cupidity of capitalists would overrule all the precautions that he could take. He hoped, also, that the noble Lord would present all the information in possession of the Colonial-office, in order that the House might be able to judge how far it would be fair and just to those who were subsisting upon some three or four rupees a month, to inundate their labour market in the Mauritius, to their serious detriment.
Mr. C. Bullerdeclared that his opinions on this question were unaltered; he held the same opinions now as he had held when on the other side of the House, and supported the Government scheme as in substance a good, wise, and necessary measure. He was glad the noble Lord had adopted, with some slight alterations in the details, the same bill as that proposed by the noble Lord the late Secretary for the Colonies. He could not but express his gratification that the removal of the members of the present Government from the one side of the House to the other had done away with obstacles which appeared formerly to exist in their minds in the way of sound legislation, and he also hailed it as a very wholesome repentance, and turning away from sin. As regarded the manner of this legislation, however, he thought the Government were chargeable with considerable neglect of proper precaution. He did not see why so important an Order in Council should have appeared only two days before the meeting of Parliament. As it had been so long
1354
deferred, it would have been better to have waited a little longer, so that Parliament might have expressed an opinion on the subject. Considering, too, that this Government had come in as a meditative Government, that their essential principle was to think, and take time, and consider the measures they were to propose, he could not but think it singular that they should not have concerted measures with the East India Company before this. Any attempt to settle this question without their interference must necessarily be nugatory. The only answer of the noble Lord was to ridicule his hon. Friend for moving for a paper that did not exist. Then were they to understand that the Government had entered on this measure without proper communications with the East India Company? He hoped the natural light of Lord Ellenborough's mind would be sufficient to guide him in the absence of any instructions. Under whatever circumstances, however, the measure had been brought forward, he should afford to it that cordial co-operation which was refused by hon. Gentlemen opposite, when it was proposed by that side of the House.
Lord Stanleyin explanation, said, that it was erroneous to suppose there had been no communication with the East India Company. He had had full, anxious, and repeated conversations with Lord Ellenborough on all the details of the subject. He had had those conversations with him when he was President of the Board of Control, and, since his departure, with the present President. All he could say was, that the motion was made for the production of papers over which he had no power. All communications with the East India Company were made through the Board of Control. No disrespect was meant to the East India Company. He had written through the medium of the Board of Control, stating his opinion as to what the legislative enactments should be, and at the same time he had sent all the correspondence and instruction in detail, which had been left by Lord John Russell, and on which he hoped the provisions would be framed. The East India Company thought it better to wait until they received further information. He had done all that he could do in the regular mode.
Mr. H. Lindsaysaid, that, when in India, he saw the practices resorted to for the purpose of inducing the Hill Coolies

1355
to go abroad; it was a system of downright kidnapping, the men did not know where they were to be sent. It was just, then, that they should be protected from being dragged away to another country; but was it not to some extent inflicting slavery upon them, to say they should be prohibited by law from quitting their country and carrying their labour wherever they pleased. It should be recollected that the natives of India were freemen, and that they had common sense to guide them. He hoped that, in the contemplated measure, a clear provision would be inserted, that before quitting India the Hill Coolies should have explained to them what was the object of their going, what would be their employment in the Mauritius, and that they would have entire freedom there, and the protection of the British law.
Mr. Forbesthought, that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies had conferred not only a service upon the Mauritius but upon this country also by his conduct in this business. He hoped the noble Lord would by his measures he enabled to effect such an improvement in the price of sugar as would give satisfaction to all parties.
Mr. V. Smithsaid, that as there were no instructions to be produced upon this subject by the noble Lord, he begged leave to withdraw his motion.
Motion withdrawn.
Adjourned.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a Appellate Jurisdiction (House of Lords); Appeals (Privy Council); Transfer Administration of Justice(Court of Chancery).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Roseberry, from Stirling, Linlithgow, and Dalmuir, and Lord. Brougham, from Renfrew, for Repeal of the Corn-laws, and for Universal Suffrage.—By the Duke of Richmond, from Millers of London and its neighbourhood, for Protection.—By Lord Brougham, from Congregations of Dublin, Castle Caulfield, and Cairn Castle, to Legalize certain Marriages by Dissenters.—By the Duke of Buccleugh, from Banff, for Securing the Freedom of Election.

COURT OF APPEAL.
Lord Campbell:In presenting three bills which I have prepared for your Lordships' consideration, I intend shortly to state their object,—reserving the fuller explanation of them to the time when they stand for a second reading. I am glad to think that the measure which I propose is not of a party nature, and that in bringing it forward, it will not be necessary for me to make any observations which can be painful to the feelings of any individual. Giving all credit for what has been already done, I aim at a farther improvement in the administration of justice in this House,—in the Privy Council,—and in the Court of Chancery. 1 need not point out to your Lordships the extreme importance in every country of the Court of Appeal in the last resort. This court not only finally decides upon the rights of parties, but authoritatively settles and promulgates the law; and your Lordships may be aware, that the code of every nation originates much more from judicial decision than from legislative enactment. The supreme court of appeal ought to consist of judges of the highest learning and character, whose duty it is to attend all its meetings,—with a permanent head to preside over it,—sitting at fixed times—expeditiously disposing of all the cases brought before it—without excessive expense being cast upon the suitors who resort to it. Have we such a tribunal in England? From early times this House has without dispute had jurisdiction in writs of error from the courts of common law. It was
1244
not till the reign of Charles 2nd that you established your right to receive appeals from the courts of equity,—respecting which there had been great uncertainty and irregularity. Before the Reformation the appeal from the Ecclesiastical Courts was to the Pope. In the reign of Henry 8th, when all intercourse with the see of Rome was broken off, a strange expedient was resorted to, which continued in practice till the reign of William 4th, of appointing a tribunal for each suit appealed from the ecclesiastical courts, by a commission of delegates appointing a certain number of common law judges and doctors of the civil law to decide it, if they could agree, or there should be a majority on either side; —if not, their number to be increased by "adjuncts" of the same description. Appeals in prize causes were brought before Commissioners of Appeal specially appointed by the Crown. From the Channel Islands and the colonies the appeal was to the King in Council, and so it was from the Court of Admiralty and the Lord Chancellor sitting in lunacy, by virtue of a deputation under the royal sign manual. Things continued in this state till the year 1833, when the act was passed, constituting the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, for which the public is much indebted to my noble and learned Friend who then presided on the Woolsack (Lord Brougham). By that act the Court of Delegates was abolished, a committee of the Privy Council was established, consisting of those who hold or have held high judicial offices,—and to this tribunal were referred all prize appeals and all appeals from the ecclesiastical courts, from the Court of Admiralty, from the Channel Islands, and from the colonies. This was undoubtedly a great improvement, but it still left the system imperfect, and experience has shewn that further change is inevitable. I need hardly go farther, than to point out that you have two courts of the last resort, coordinate, of equal authority, to whom the very same questions of law are referred, and who may decide those questions different ways. There is no question of English law which may be brought before this House which may not likewise be brought before the judicial committee, as little bound by your decisions as you are by theirs. Under these circumstances discrepancy of decision must arise—most galling to the losing party, and most injurious to the public. The very same question may come before either tribunal of appeal

1245
in the very same suit. Take, for example, the late Braintree case, when the question was, whether churchwardens, of their own authority, could make a church-rate against a vote of the majority of the rate-payers. If it had gone on by appeal from the sentence of the Consistory Court of London, it would have been brought before the Judicial Committee. An application was made to the Court of Queen's Bench for a prohibition,—upon which a writ of error lies to this House. Your Lordships may decide with the Queen's Bench that the churchwardens have not the power, and the Judicial Committee, with the Consistory Court, that they have. In this conflict, how are churchwardens to act? and are the parishioners to pay or refuse to pay the rate? Then the allotment of business to the two tribunals is very whimsical, and without any regard to its difficulty or importance. Questions respecting marriage and divorce go to the Judicial Committee, although, indeed, the validity of the same marriage, arising in a different shape, might, upon a bill of exceptions, or, special verdict, be brought before this House. The validity of wills of personal property, however great the amount, is to be determined by the Judicial Committee,— of which he had lately an instance in the will of Mr. Wood, of Gloucester, bequeathing a million of money. But your Lordships are to determine the validity of a will of real property, if it devise only half a rood of land. The two tribunals, consisting of different judges, can hardly be supposed equally entitled to the confidence of the public. And why should questions of such magnitude to the parties and the public be determined by the one inferior in efficiency and in reputation? Another inconvenience follows from the separation; —that a bar devoted to the appellate business cannot be formed. I need not point out to your Lordships the importance of an adequate bar to the due administration of justice. Judges, however learned and laborious, cannot satisfactorily decide the causes brought before them, unless they are well argued by advocates on opposite sides; and advocates cannot satisfactorily do their duty, unless they chiefly confine their practice to one court. But the Judicial Committee does not sit above forty or fifty days in the year, and the advocates who are to plead there, must be brought for the occasion from other courts. A heavy expence is thus thrown upon the suitors; for in every case, without regard
1246
to the magnitude of the stake, or the labour required, the quiddam honorarium given to the Counsel, so brought from his own court, cannot be less than a certain fixed amount—considcrably exceeding what would be sufficient for him in the same cause coming on in a court, in which he usually practises. The solicitors must, likewise, have extra remuneration, and the members of the Judicial Committee, lately deliberating on this subject, came to the conclusion, that in taxing costs, they could not allow the solicitors less than half as much again as the tariff in the Court of Chancery, or Queen's Bench. I will mention only one other inconvenience of two Courts of Appeal in the last resort, that both may, and occasionally must, sit at the same time; so as to deprive one of them of efficient members, exceedingly to harass the counsel, and very much to prejudice the suitors. You must then choose between the two, and transfer all appeals to that tribunal which you prefer. This was strongly felt by my noble and learned Friend, who, in the year 1834, laid upon your Lordships' Table a bill to transfer all the judicial business of this House to the Privy Council. My Lords, my plan is to transfer all the judicial business of the Privy Council to this House. The Judicial Committee, in my judgment, is subject to various defects which can hardly be remedied. It has no permanent head. The President of the Council, if present, presides; but he has not been professionally educated, and is unacquainted with judicial proceedings. I can say, most unaffectedly, that on questions of fact, which have come before the Judicial Committee, such as whether a testator was sane or insane when he made his will, or whether he was fraudulently induced to sign it, we have derived every valuable assistance from the acuteness and discrimination of the present Lord President, who sits opposite; but he would hardly like to give an opinion concerning contingent remainders, and executory devises; and he could hardly expect a judgment by him on such a subject to be received with much deference. In his absence, the Privy Councillor of highest rank, who is pleased to attend, presides, and he may make us regret the Lord President. The attendance of the members is quite voluntary, and the greatest difficulty has often been experienced in forming a Board. The Judges are a fluctuating body, no one being able to tell whether the individuals

1247
who decided a cause yesterday, will decide a cause of the same sort to-morrow. Then they have no such power as your Lordships possess, of calling in the Common-Law Judges as assessors, in cases of difficulty. In the original constitution of the Court, two or three Common-Law Judges were selected, and sworn Privy Councillors, that they might act as members of the Committee. I protest against this course being continued; unless all the Common-Law Judges can be made Privy Councillors, make none. The selection, I know, gave great offence, and caused great heartburnings in that venerable body. I must likewise consider the practice highly unconstitutional. The Judges may consider the honour of being of the Privy Council an object of ambition, and this is to be gratified or disappointed as they may happen to make themselves agreeable or obnoxious to the Government of the day. I must likewise protest against an enactment, such as I think was introduced into my noble and learned Friend's bill of 1834, giving a power to the Privy Council at pleasure, to summon the Judges ad conciliendum. These learned persons, like their predecessors, from time immemorial, cheerfully obey the summons of your Lordships, sitting in the House of Parliament, and representing the supreme power of the State. But I know they consider that it is inconsistent with the dignity of their office, and would hurt their usefulness, if they were subject to the summons of a Committee of the Privy Council, which may consist of individuals for whom they could not have any very profound respect. Let all appeals, then, be brought to this House, the ancient constitutional Court of Appeal for the empire. I have supported and defended the exercise of your appellate jurisdiction. In your political and legislative capacity, I have often had the misfortune to differ from your Lordships, and to think that you made by no means a wise use of the power you possess, and I rather conceive that the mass of mankind have agreed with me; but in your judicial capacity you have deserved and enjoyed the confidence of the public. It is easy to ridicule the theory of hereditary judges; but in practice the appeals in this House have been decided by a succession of illustrious judges who have presided on the Woolsack, assisted by lawyers who have filled high judicial offices, and have been elevated to the Peerage. In the other House of Parliament, I had occasion to
1248
defend you against the assaults of the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who in no very measured terms condemned the manner in which the judicial business of this House is conducted. He not only considered the chancellor incompetent per se, but he censured the interference of law Lords in their ordinary garb and found fault with every thing down to the clerks sitting at the Table while appeals are heard. He was to march in two Lords assistant who were to dictate to you the judgment you were to pronounce, and by whom your jurisdiction would have been virtually superseded. I advise you to retain that jurisdiction, as an invaluable part of your privileges conferred upon you for the public good. You have it in your power at all times, to call in the assistance of the common law judges. I propose that the Vice-Chancellors, and likewise the Judge of the Admiralty Court, and the Judge of the Prerogative Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury, should be summoned at the commencment of every Parliament that you may have similar advice in questions of equity and civil law. I have not ventured to include the Scotch judges on account of the distance of their residence, but it may be matter for future consideration whether they ought not to be included; and as a native of Scotland feeling for the honor of my country, I trust that when summoned they will be placed on the Woolsack alongside their English brethren, and not ordered to remain as in some instances they have been like criminals at the Bar. Here, then, you will have one court of ultimate appeal combining all the requisites of such a tribunal. The expense of bringing appeals here I know is at present great; but this may be considerably reduced by there being an exclusive bar, and by regulations which it is in your power to make respecting fees received by officers of the House. There is no reason why the expense of hearing an appeal at the Bar of this House from the Lord Chancellor, should be greater than hearing an appeal before the Lord Chancellor from the Master of the Rolls. Such being some of the advantages of this transfer, what are the objections to it? The Queen's subjects at home who may be suitors in the Admiralty or Ecclesiastical Courts, must rejoice. The colonies must all rejoice. There is nothing more natural or constitutional, than that the appellate jurisdiction of this House should be co-extensive with the British empire.

1249
Before the year 1782, when Ireland was declared to be an independent kingdom writs of error and appeals were brought from the Irish courts to this House, and why should not the same course be followed with respect to the courts in Jamaica and Canada? These are the Queen's Courts, and the appeal will be to her Majesty in Parliament. This House will not be legislating for the colonies, but only declaring the law. Legislation for the colonies will still belong to the Queen in Council, or to the colonial assemblies, or to the whole Imperial Parliament. But it will be said, the House of Lords will riot have time during the Session to get through all this judicial business. I believe that it would not;—particularly considering the increased influx of appeals from the colonies which might be expected from this improvement. But where is the objection to the House of Lords being directed by the Crown to sit for judicial business during the prorogation of Parliament. If precedent be wanting, we have one in an act passed in the 14th of Edward 3rd, for appointing a committee of the Lords to sit during the time of prorogation,—an act, no doubt, produced by the inconvenience felt even at that early time from the long suspension of the sittings of this high Court of Appeal. Even with regard to the exercise of your ancient jurisdiction, this would be a great improvement. At present generally no appeal is heard from July or August to the middle of February, which must necessarily produce great inconvenience with respect to appeals respecting injunctions, the custody of infants, and other subjects of pressing urgency. The plan I suggest, necessarily supposes the constant attendance of the Lord Chancellor in this House throughout the judicial year. He is for ever withdrawn from the Court of Chancery. But this, my Lords, seems to me to be a very great advantage; for now we shall have a judge appointed to preside in that court quamdiu se bene gesserit. I do not concur in the sentiment which has often been expressed, that the union of political and judicial functions in the same individual ought never to be permitted. I allow that some political and judicial functions are incompatible. I think it was wrong in the year 1806, to make the Chief Justice of the King's Bench a Cabinet Minister, so that he might have had to sit on the trial of a prosecution for libel or high treason which he himself had
1250
directed, and on the event of which the stability of the Administration might depend. But if the Lord Chancellor had full time for all the duties cast upon him I can see nothing objectionable in their being united in his person. What I do object to is, that in the highest civil court in this kingdom the judge should be removeable at the will of the Crown; and as a matter of course, should he removed as often as there is a change of Administration. What should we say if the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, or Common Pleas, or the Chief Baron of the Exchequer were so removeable and removed. It is only use that prevents us from seeing that the grievance is as great to the suitors and to the public by the removal of the Chief Judge in the Court of Chancery. The evils are great and palpable, and it might appear invidious to illustrate them by examples. The only question is, whether, upon an enlarged view of all our institutions, it is necessary for the purpose of preventing greater evils, that these evils should still be endured. Formerly, there might be a necessity for the Chief Judge in the Court of Chancery being removeable with the Administration. I allow that for the dignity of this House and the efficient discharge of your duties, it is essential that the highest Judge of the land should preside here, and should act in concert with the Government of the day. It is likewise essential that, in every Cabinet, there should be a Member qualified to give a sound opinion on every legal and constitutional question which may arise. Till recent times, perhaps, this could only be the Chief Judge in the Court of Chancery; and hence it was necessary that he should hold his office by such a precarious tenure. The appellate business of this House was wholly insufficient to occupy the time of a Judge, and was disposed of by sitting a few hours two or three days of the week. Now you have occupation for a supreme Judge in this House throughout the year. He, therefore, presides here, and sits in the Cabinet being removeable with the Administration; and all objection vanishes to having a permanent Judge in the Court of Chancery. There is by no means the same inconvenience to be apprehended from the removal of the Chancellor presiding in this House in appeals; for he still remains a Member of the House. He can still give judgment in any causes which have been argued before him previous to his removal,

1251
and as ex-chancellor, he will assist, and be a check upon his successor. One great advantage of this change is, that it will let in an effectual appeal in all cases from the Court of Chancery. The business in the Court of Chancery has been admirably done by a succession of very able men holding the great seal, but before any cause or point of law is finally determined, there ought to be one appeal, the greatest men being fallible. But the appeal from the Chancellor in Chancery to the Chancellor in the House of Lords, has been little more than a mockery;—and the reputation of Lord Hardwicke cannot be rested on the fact, that none of his decrees were reversed. It is an appeal ab eodem, ad eundem, and as Sir E. Sugden says, with truth as well as point; it is not from Philip drunk, to Philip sober—but from Philip sober to Philip drunk, as the Chancellor is likely to view the case more calmly and dispassionately in the Court of Chancery before he has committed himself by any expression of opinion, than when he sits upon his own trial in the House of Lords and for the sake of his reputation he takes almost as great an interest in the result as the parties to the suit. In the judicial committee, the Judge from whose court the appeal comes is not allowed to sit, while in the House of Lords he has usually been the only Judge of appeal. Is not the removal of this grievance, a strong reason for having a permanent Judge in the Court of Chancery and another person presiding over the deliberations of this House? But it is said, the appellate Judge cannot properly discharge his duty unless he is at the same time sharpening his faculties by acting occasionally as a Judge of a court of original jurisdiction. There is no ground for this objection either in reason or from experience. The judicial business of this House must be abundantly sufficient to exercise the understanding, and to keep up the learning of any Judge, and he may see more clearly when always elevated above the heats and mists which may obscure the inferior regions of the law. In no foreign country are the Judges of the Court of last resort allowed to sit in a court of original jurisdiction; and it is a curious fact, that in those foreign countries, generally speaking, it is only the decisions of the courts of last resort that are reported and received as authentic declarations of the state of the law, while in England, almost the whole body of the law is traced to reports of the deci-
1252
cisions of the inferior courts, and Sir John Leach would not allow the decisions of the Privy Council to be quoted as authority, and very much regretted that they were ever printed. I am happy to think that the object I have in view may be accomplished without any addition to the number of Judges. By an act of the last Session of Parliament, two Vice-Chancellors were appointed. I find they, with the other Judges of the court, are rapidly reducing the arrears so long complained of; and that there is every reason to believe that four Judges will be sufficient to keep down all arrears for the future. It will be observed that I am not withdrawing the entire power of one Judge from the Court of Chancery; for the Chancellor, during the Session of Parliament, sits three days in the week in the House of Lords, his progress in the Court of Chancery is impeded even on the days he sits, by their alternate recurrence, and he is not unfrequently called away by Cabinet Councils, and other political distractions. I propose then that one of the four remaining judges shall be appointed to preside as Chief Judge. This is necessary to preserve subordination, and to give an appeal upon interlocutory proceedings without necessarily coming to the House of Lords. I think, after a final decree by the Master of the Rolls or the Vice-chancellor, the appeal should be to the House of Lords. At any rate, I would allow only one unsuccessful appeal, and that the decision of the Chief Judge affirming the order or decree of the inferior Judge shall be final. To carry these views into effect, I have prepared the three Bills which I hold in my hand. The first transfers the hearing of all appeals from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to this House. The second empowers the crown to summon this House to sit for judicial business when Parliament is prorogued. The third appoints a permanent Judge to preside in the Court of Chancery. I should observe, that the Judicial Committee will still remain, for the removal of patents, for giving an opinion on any question of law propounded to it by the Crown, and for other useful purposes. It seems to have been thought by all who have considered the subject, that the present state of things with respect to the appellate jurisdiction and the Court of Chancery, is unsatisfactory, and that some considerable change must be made. My noble and learned Friend, the parent of

1253
the Judicial Committee, has proposed that your Lordships should divest yourselves of your appellate jurisdiction altogether. My noble and learned Friend now on the Woolsack, brought in a bill having for its object that a Vice-Chancellor should be appointed to preside in the Privy Council. My noble and learned Friend his immediate predecessor, proposed that this duty should be done by the Master of the Rolls. My noble and learned Friend the Master of the Rolls, more adventurous, proposes a tripartite division of the Lord Chancellor; one-third of him to sit in the Court of Chancery, under the name of Lord Chancellor; one-third to act in this House, under the title of President, in matter of appeals and writs of error, backed by Lords-assistants; while the remaining third is to be minister of justice, under the title of Lord Keeper. With all deference to my noble and learned Friends, I think my plan is the simplest and the most efficacious. It creates no new office; it disturbs no recognised institution; it brings no fresh burden on the country; it only applies more efficaciously to the despatch of judicial business the judicial machinery which we now possess. The details of the Bills will be before the House on the second reading, and I shall then be prepared to explain and defend them.
The Lord Chancellor:Though he could not object to the course his noble and learned Friend had taken, in laying the hills upon the Table, must, at the same time, observe, notwithstanding his noble and learned Friend had told their Lordships, that the profession had generally approved of his plan, that he had not been kind enough to communicate the contents of those bills to him, and he therefore should be excused if he did not follow his noble and learned Friend into the details of his measure, but confined himself to some general remarks. First, with regard to the Court of Chancery. The noble and learned Lord had referred to the bill of last Session. That, bill had received the support of noble Lords on both sides of the House. Its object was to reduce the arrear of causes in the Court of Chancery, so that a suitor would be able to be heard as soon as his cause was ready for hearing; and he was happy to be able to state to their Lordships, that that object had been completely accomplished. Twelve years ago, when he before held the Great Seal, he had introduced, at two successive periods,
1254
bills which were directed to the same object, but which, although they passed their Lordships' House, met with so much opposition in another place, that they failed of success. But with regard to the bill of his noble and learned Friend who sat near him (Lord Cottenham), he was happy to be able to congratulate him upon the result of his measure, which was a most wise one, and had been attended by the results which he (the Lord Chancellor) had felt confident would flow from it. Look at some of those results. In the month of November last, at the commencement of Michaelmas term, when the bill came into operation, there were upwards of 500 causes waiting for hearing in the Court of Chancery, and that state of things had continued for a considerable period. Such was the state of the business that his noble and learned Friend told them that the judges who tried the causes had been obliged to sit permanently, as it were, night and day, the Vice-Chancellor having risen on one morning at four o'clock, and the Chancellor haying gone to bed at the same hour. Since November 230 new cases were set down, making in all 730 cases in arrear for trial. But, at the present moment, including the new causes as well as the old ones that stood over, there were not more than 100 causes in arrear. [Lord Brougham: 132.] When such a reduction had taken place in so short a time, he did not think he had been wrong in saying, that the object of his noble and learned Friend's bill had been fully and completely accomplished. He was well aware that his noble and learned Friend on the Bench below (Lord Brougham) would state that this result was only a verification of his prediction; but his noble and learned Friend had over and over again stated to the House, and in the committee, that his opinion was, that one additional judge would be sufficient. Did his noble Friend entertain the same opinion now? He thought the actual state of the business of the court had sufficiently decided that point. It had been over and over again stated in the committee, by persons of the greatest knowledge and experience in the law, that it was their opinion that if additional facilities were afforded for the trial of causes, there would be a great accession of business in the Court of Chancery. That opinion had been justified by the event. The increase was no

1255
less than 30 per cent., exclusive of those causes that were not yet ripe for hearing, and were not therefore included. To get rid of the arrears in the Court of Chancery was an object of the last importance. Their Lordships could form but a very imperfect conception of the grievances to which suitors were exposed by repeated delays. The term fees alone caused by the arrear of causes amounted in a single year to no less a sum than 42,999 l. The main question on the present occasion, however, was that which concerned appeals. His noble and learned Friend had argued that the new arrangements would increase the number of appeals. But at the present moment there were not more than twenty-four appeals, and he was satisfied that the result would be, that when the business regularly fell into its ordinary channels, there would not be more than fifteen or twenty appeals each year. It thus was quite obvious, that the Lord Chancellor could well attend to those appeals during the year without interfering with his other functions, and so steadily perform his duties in their Lordships' House. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), however, had thought fit to throw out that it was unwise for the Chancellor to sit on appeal against his own decisions; but when his noble Friend made those remarks, he could not think that his noble Friend had sufficiently borne in mind the weight and importance of the judicial character. He might undertake to say, that when a case came before a judge, either on rehearing or appeal, he looked with as much caution to the considerations which had influenced his own decision, and perhaps with more, than he would had the decision been that of another. But how could such an argument apply to the judgments on appeal in their Lordships' House? Then, the Lord Chancellor did not sit alone—he had the aid of other noble Lords—indeed, he (the Lord Chancellor) had been sitting now for several days on appeals in that House, assisted by several noble and learned Lords. All decisions come to under such circumstances were not merely the decicisions of the Lord Chancellor, but had the benefit of the most careful consideration by other noble Lords. He trusted his noble and learned Friend would see that there was no foundation for his observation. He appealed to him whether be thought it founded in truth and justice,
1256
and whether he ought to have pressed it forward on an occasion like the present. With regard to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, also, his noble and learned Friend had made some observations. He had contended for a change, on the ground that the House of Lords could always obtain the assistance of the judges in coming to their conclusions. Did his noble and learned Friend forget the judgments that had been given in committees of the Privy Council by such authorities as Lord Stowell and Sir W. Grant? His noble Friend called upon them to abolish that tribunal, whereas their Lordships, within only a very few years, had thought fit to extend its jurisdiction, and to establish it on a more solid basis. The constitution of that tribunal appeared to him to be admirably adapted to the consideration of the subjects that were brought before it. Questions were brought before it involving almost every kind of law on the face of the earth. There was the colonial law, every kind of European law, every kind of Eastern law, Spanish law, French law, both according to the new code and the old, Dutch law, English law, both common law and equity, the colonial statutes; and, in addition to these, the Oriental law, the Indian law, and the Mahomedan law. There was also the ecclesiastical law. The constitution of the tribunal was admirably adapted to the purpose of dealing with questions embracing so vast a range of judicial knowledge. There were judges of England to decide on questions of common law, and the equity judges to decide upon matters of equity. There were the judges of the ecclesiastical courts to decide upon questions arising out of the ecclesiastical law; and with regard to Eastern law, there were among the Judicial Committee two hon. and learned individuals who had filled the highest judicial situations in the East, and who were able to give advice to the committee on questions connected with Oriental law. His noble and learned Friend had alluded to a difficulty in bringing the members of this tribunal together. He was not aware of any such difficulty—he had never heard of it. It might happen now and then on particular occasions that they could not constitute a court, because the particular individuals required for it were engaged in their occupations, the judges being summoned according to their official acquaintance with the subjects to be brought be-

1257
fore them. But the strongest argument against his noble and learned Friend was, that the committee of the Privy Council had given satisfaction, perfect and entire. But then his noble and learned Friend said, that they only sat thirty or forty days, which he contended was not enough for the due discharge of the business brought before them. It appeared, however, that there was now no arrear in the business of the committee. There were only eight or nine appeals now standing for hearing, and he believed there would not have been even that arrear had it not been for the circumstance that certain East Indian cases had stood over because there was no person to prosecute them. This difficulty had now been removed; and he was sure that, in future, the Court would go on, as it was now proceeding, and in a manner perfectly satisfactory to the suitors who awaited its decisions. With regard to the voluntary attendance of those who formed this tribunal, he was not disposed to say anything. When he found a system working well, and the public satisfied with it, he was one of those who would not be inclined to introduce any change. It had been said by a great man, that no change should be made in a law, unless the alteration which was proposed was demonstrably better. He was willing to subscribe to this view, for he was not disposed to change for the sake of change. But he was not surprised that the noble and learned Lord should have come down to the House with this proposition; he had led a life of continuous activity, and having now little occupation, he appeared desirous to devote himself to the introduction of alterations in the laws of his country.
"Quod petiit, spernit; repetit quod nuper omisit;
Æstuat, et vitæ disconvenit ordine toto; Diruit, ædificat, mutat quadrata rotundis."
But, after all, the proposition of the noble and learned Lord possessed little novelty, for it was very like a scheme which had been already introduced to the House by a noble and learned Friend of his (Lord Cottenham), but which, after having been debated, was rejected by a large majority. Turning now to what had been said with regard to that House, he should say that there never was a moment when it was less necessary to interfere with the appellate jurisdiction of this House. Four noble
1258
and learned Lords constantly devoted their attention to the business of appeals, and nothing could advance better than their appellate jurisdiction. But then it had been said that it was monstrous that there should be two co-ordinate appellate jurisdictions—those of the House of Lords and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But they were not co-ordinate in every sense, because the jurisdiction of one of them went to certain parts of the empire, while that of the other extended to another. It was urged, too, how dangerous it would be if the two tribunals came to different and conflicting decisions. The Privy Council had sat for two hundred years, and in no one instance had there arisen any conflict between its decisions and those of the House of Lords; so that, practically, no inconvenience whatever had arisen upon this point. Various propositions had been made with respect to the office of Lord Chancellor. First, it had been suggested that the Chancellor should be cut in half, and that one portion of him should sit in the Court of Chancery, and the other in that House. Then, again, it had been suggested that he should be placed in a sort of easy chair, between two assessors. Then the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) had proposed to take away the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor and give it to the Privy Council; and now the noble Lord (Lord Campbell) wanted to take away the jurisdiction of the Privy Council, and give it to that House. Such different and incongruous views did learned Lords take of the same question when they came to consider it, with the object of effecting some alteration. For his own part, he said, that the present system worked well; and, while such was the case, it would be a wild and useless task to attempt to effect a new regulation. Then as to the time of the sitting of the House. He had never heard, that the present plan was attended with any practical inconvenience. How was it with the courts of common law? In the month of June every year they ceased to sit for the purpose of deciding questions of law, and they did not reopen their courts for the same purpose until the month of November —a period of four months and a half. But what was the difference? These courts did not sit more than seventy days in the year for deciding questions of law, while this House actually sat one hundred days for the same purpose. The noble

1259
and learned Lord had suggested an extended period of sitting of the House; and that the House might be summoned specially for this purpose. This, however, could not be done without an alteration of the whole constitution of Parliament being effected: and the consequences would be, not only the inconvenience resulting from this innovation, but that during the regular sitting of the House the Lord Chancellor would be altogether absorbed with his political duties, and that the judicial business of Parliament would be disposed of by him and the two or three law Lords whose feelings might prompt them to attend for the purpose of considering the appeals: and the effect would be, that in the course of a very little time this tribunal would be deemed not the appellate tribunal of the House of Lords, but as an appellate tribunal sitting within the walls of the House of Lords. It had been said, that the weight of their Lordships' House depended upon their judicial authority. That authority had been firmly established, and he hoped that they would not allow it to be taken from them, or lessened, or permit their power to be lowered in the consideration of the country—an object which some persons were desirous of effecting; but that they would endeavour, on the other hand, to support that power and authority which the country deemed of so much importance. He was not then enabled to go into the details of the bill, but he trusted, when it should come to be fully considered, he would be able to show that it was not one deserving of the confidence of their Lordships' House, and he did not think when it became known to the profession, it would receive their support.
Lord Cottenhamhad listened with great attention to the proposition of his noble and learned Friend; and, not having been aware of the nature of the proposition, he had been anxious to hear the remedy he proposed for the evils of the present system of appellate jurisdiction. As his noble and learned Friend proceeded, he found much to approve of in what he had stated, and he had been not a little surprised that his noble and learned Friend had proposed to their Lordships a measure similar to that which he (Lord Cottenham) had proposed in 1836, and he hoped that it would meet with more success. His proposition had been rejected by their Lordships on the Second reading of the bill by a very consi-
1260
derable majority, and from that time he had never had any encouragement from the House to renew his proposition. He had had in view two great objects:—one, the appointment of a permanent head to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; the other, the appointment of a permanent head to the Court of Chancery. He had always felt, that the measure of his noble Friend (Lord Brougham) constituting the Judicial Commitee had been defective, because that court had not a head responsible for the proceedings in that court. He did not consider any judicial establishment in this country properly filled unless there was some person whose duty it was to preside over it, and be responsible for the business transacted in it. He had always felt likewise, that in the Court of Chancery there should be some individual who should direct his whole attention to the judicial business; and it had appeared to him that, with the force of that court, previous to the late act, without any additional judges, it could have kept down the arrears and disposed of the current business of suitors, if it had bad a permanent head. His proposition was, that the Lord Chancellor should preside in all appeals in that House, and also in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He did not propose to remove the judicial business of that House to the Privy Council, nor the business of the Privy Council to that House. It was unnecessary to do either one or the other, for if the great law officer was placed at the head of both, both would have the advantage of his great talents and experience, and he would direct the business of both. True it was, that his bill provided, that the House should sit for judicial business, notwithstanding the prorogation of Parliament, and he believed, that that part of the bill had united many of their Lordships against it; and, if he had renewed the bill, he should have omitted that part of it; for, upon a calculation he had made, he bad found, that all the objects he had had in view could be effected without it. There would be no difficulty in getting rid of all the appeals if the Lord Chancellor had no other business to attend to than the judicial business before the House, and when the House was not sitting, he might apply his attention to the business before the Judicial Committee; so that it would not be necessary that the Session should be prolonged. To the extent, therefore, of a proposition to give to the Court of Chancery a head, and which should not take the Lord Chancellor

1261
out of the court to exercise jurisdiction elsewhere, and to give a permanent head to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, he should be ready and anxious to give his support. But it appeared to him a most unfortunate time to make such a proposition, for an act had recently passed, making an alteration in the establishment of the Court of Chancery, in order to dispose of arrears in that court, and that experiment had not yet been tried. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had said, that a great deal had been done, and that a large proportion of the arrears had been got rid of; but the noble and learned Lord could not calculate what a few years more, or even a few months might effect; yet in a few months after the experiment was begun, his noble and learned Friend proposed to take away one of the judges of the court to which two judges had been added. It might be, that in due time, everything would be done in the Court of Chancery, and that no suitor would be waiting for a judge to hear his cause; but, till that took place, the establishment of that court should be left in the situation in which it was placed by the bill of last Session. Whilst the experiment was going on, it would not be wise to interfere with it, and undo in February what had been done in September.
Lord Broughamwould take another opportunity of stating in detail what occurred to him upon his noble and learned Friend's bill. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the observations of the noble and learned Lord, he would take leave to snake a few observations on the present occasion. As to the proceedings in the Court of Chancery, it was true he had been of opinion and still continued to be, that two judges were not wanted. He had always, believed, and contended, that the arrear was only temporary, and that as soon as it was once got rid of, one additional judge would be sufficient; though he thought even one would prove unnecessary now as his noble and learned Friend had stated, the great arrears in the Court of Chancery existed no longer. The bill was passed in September; it came into operation in November. Four months including the Christmas recess had sufficed to get rid of all arrears. In November there were 508 causes in arrear; upwards of 200 new causes had been since set down for hearing; it was now stated that there were but 132 ready for hearing, of which thirty-two had been set down in the month
1262
of February. Not only was there no longer any arrear of the 508 causes, but there were 100 over and above the arrears, which the court had disposed of being ready to take the rest in the ordinary course. It had been said by many practical men, that it would take years and years to clear off the arrears, and yet they had been swept away in not many weeks. Then there were the speculations of his noble Friend, that there would be an increase of business in the court; that if the channel were cleared the stream would enlarge in proportion to the width given to it. Now in the year 1832, there were no arrears, not only in matters of appeal but in original causes. When he (Lord Brougham) rose at Christmas, 1831, there was no cause ready for hearing in his court. But, so too, there was no arrear in the other branches of the court. So was it with Sir John Leach, a judge who could not be named without commending the diligence with which he discharged his duties; nor was there any arrear at that time before his right hon, and learned Friend, the Vice-Chancellor. The consequence was, as might have been expected from the removal of the obstructions, there was an increase in the number of bills filed, but that did not last; the removal of the obstruction caused a momentary rush of business, but there was not a constant stream; in a few months the usual number of bills alone were filed. So now, again, there was a rush, which his noble and learned Friend estimated at 30 per cent, but it was only 25 per cent., and he did not think that this was likely to continue; 15 per cent. appeared to him to be the utmost extent of the permanent increase that would arise. Yet, even an increase of 25 per cent. would not justify the appointment of judges which virtually doubled the judicial power of the court. It was increasing the judicial power eight times more than the occasion required. With respect to the particular measure then before their Lordships, he thought that many of the objections taken to the present system were inherent or unavoidable. He did not, agree in thinking that there would be no evil in having judges sitting in an appellate court only; he was sure that all experience in England was in favour of judges not being confined to an appellate jurisdiction, but sitting also in courts of the first instance, although he was aware that the case was different in other countries, and particularly in the

1263
Court of Cassation in France, where the law was well administered. As to the judicial power of the Privy Council, the want of a permanent head as his noble and learned Friend stated was an evil; at the same time it was true, as the noble and learned Lord said, that this was more apparent than real. His noble Friend (Lord Campbell), was mistaken in supposing that he (Lord Brougham) as the senior judge present presided. No one presided in this court; but, properly speaking, each judge took a cause in rotation, which had been productive of an admirable effect, for it ensured the full attention of each of the learned persons, it prevented the three judges from throwing the whole work on the president, and it had proved satisfactory to the suitors both here and in the colonies. The want of a bar had been also made a point of objection by his noble and learned Friend; but he was much afraid that no change in the constitution of the appellate tribunal would ever remedy this defect. For suppose that according to the plan proposed they were sitting here upon appeal causes from Scotland, and other places in the United Kingdom, and that the same court should also sit upon appeals front the Court of Admiralty and the Consistorial Court, one bar would be found to attend only to one branch, and the other bar would only attend when the House should be sitting upon the other class of cases, and so of colonial and Indian appeals. Now as to the appellate business being sufficient to occupy a full court nearly the entire year, he found, upon looking into the number of days which the judicial committee of the Privy Council sat, that not above forty days was the average number of their sitting; and it would appear, from the returns which had been made to this House, that that number of days was perfectly sufficient to transact all the business, because there were absolutely no arrears in that court. The returns before the House showed that, even including appeals from the East Indies, there were only eight or nine remaining, of which one had been part heard, another had only been set down in February, and a third about the same time; so that there were only six cases to hear, and of these five were from native courts of India, which was a new branch of business. Formerly there were Indian native appeals of thirty or thirty-five years' standing when the judicial committee began; that heavy weight of
1264
arrears had been got rid of. The other causes standing for hearing were as follows:— From the Supreme Courts of India one; from the Ecclesiastical Courts, three; from the Admiralty Court, none; and from all the colonies in the East, the Cape, Australia, the West-Indies, and North-America, not one single cause remained to be heard. Therefore, he said, there was not any arrear at all. It followed then that forty days in the year was quite sufficient to enable the judicial committee of the Privy Council to transact all its business, and more than sufficient, for this number had sufficed to work off the arrears also. And forty days thus being the outside required for performing the whole appellate business of the Privy Council, there remained for consideration the number of days necessary for carrying on the jurisdiction of the House of Peers. [The Lord Chancellor, Sixteen days in the month.] Surely his noble Friend was mistaken, they did not sit four days in each week. He thought that three days in each week was the average number of their sittings. It was a question between seventy and eighty. He would take it lat the highest. This would make the number of sittings amount to about eighty, to which, if they added the forty days' sittings of the judicial committee of the Privy Council, they would make the whole number amount to 120 days for the sittings of both tribunals throughout the year. Now this would not occupy any one set of judges; they would have only work for twenty weeks in the year. His noble and learned Friend had observed that there was a very great objection to a judge holding high judicial functions being removable. He agreed with him that it would be better, if possible, to remedy this evil, but, notwithstanding this objection upon the part of his noble and learned Friend, the highest judge of all, by his own plan, would be removable. The Lord Chancellor would, of course, preside as the highest judge, and would, of course, be liable to removal. Another objection had been taken to this judicial committee, and that was, that the attendance was voluntary. But what was the attendance of the court which his noble and learned Friend proposed by his plan? Why, it was proposed to make the attendance voluntary also; so that the proposition of his noble and learned Friend was itself ex-

1265
posed to those two great objections which he complained of, and made the main ground of bringing it forward—namely, a judge removable and the attendance voluntary. They found, after all that had been said upon the matter, that in practice the new tribunals had worked so well for the last nine years as to give the greatest satisfaction to suitors both in the colonies and elsewhere; and not only to have no arrear of business on hand, but to have actually got rid of all the arrears which had been previously allowed to accumulate, as well as to have dispatched all the subsequently accruing business from various quarters of the world. Though, then, there might be some objection to the constitution of the tribunal, he nevertheless thought that those objections were more in theory than practice; for, undoubtedly, the system had worked extremely well in practice. There was a very great difficulty in forming what might be called a good appellate tribunal, and that argument with respect to this difficulty derived greater force from the failure of all those plans which had been heretofore tried upon the subject. First, the plan which had been proposed by his noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Cottenham) had been found very objectionable. The plan which had been proposed by the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland was also found extremely unacceptable to those persons to whom it had been submitted. The plan which he (Lord Brougham) had brought forward upon the subject for transferring the appeals from this House to the Privy Council had met with no greater favour, and after the failure of all those plans, his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) now proposed his measure in the shape of three bills. If he were to risk a prophecy upon the present plan, he would say that his noble and learned Friend's measure was very likely to fail also. He would not say that it would be likely to fail if it were allowed to pass into a law—he did not mean to convey this meaning, that if this plan were brought to the test of experience it would not work well. He did not mean to go so far as that. He could not carry his vision to that extent, because he could not see that it was very likely the noble and learned Lord's plan would ever arrive at that stage which would enable any person to say whether the measure had failed in its practical operation or not.
1266
He feared that the measure of his noble and learned Friend would not have the fate of the measure of his other noble and learned Friend, (Lord Cottenham) who had, with the aid of his noble Friend on the Woolsack, succeeded in making his measure the law of the land. That measure had succeeded so well that it not only answered his expectations, but greatly exceeded them. It had more than verified his fears, for it had defeated its own object by its excessive success. With respect to having one appellate jurisdiction, instead of two, the danger to be apprehended was, their having conflicting decisions—not upon matters of fact, but upon matters of law. If they had two tribunals in the last resort, neither having any jurisdiction over the other, but both being supreme, they certainly ran the hazard of having conflicting decisions. That this had not happened in former times proved nothing; for then the decisions of the Privy Council possessed not the importance now attached to them since the new jurisdiction. Nevertheless, this was to be taken into account, that though each of those courts was so far supreme that one could not interfere with the decisions of the other, still the decisions of the one came to be authority in the other, and were so cited. So far, therefore, this had a tendency to keep the courts together more or less. He thought a remedy might be found for that evil, for evil, indeed, it would be, if it did exist—the greatest evil that could possibly exist in the jurisprudence of any country, for, as it had been well said, the greatest of all slavery was that of a vague and uncertain law. Upon the whole he should, before he finally made up his mind upon the plans of his noble and learned Friend, wish to have an opportunity of examining more narrowly their details. As he was at present advised, he was inclined to think that many of the evils which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) complained of would be found more in theory than practically existing. At any rate, he was quite certain that some of those evils which were real were inevitable, and necessary to any such system of jurisprudence as at present existed.
Lord Campbellsaid, he did not mean then to prolong the discussion, as he thought it might take place more advan-

1267
tageously on the second reading of the bills. But he was anxious to free himself from any purposed discourtesy, in not having more fully communicated his scheme to his noble and learned Friends. He had publicly announced in the House his intention to bring the subject forward, and it was quite familiar to all his noble and learned Friends, who had each a scheme of his own. Notwithstanding the objections started, he trusted the necessity would be seen, for having only one Court of Appeal in the last resort, and that all the rest would be approved of, as necessarily following. He must just notice a remark of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, indicating, that he had prepared and brought forward these bills merely pour écarter l'ennui. He begged leave to remind the House, that law reform was not new to him; that in his busiest time, he had sent up from the Commons, various bills for the improvement of the law, which had met the approbation of their Lordships, and were now to be found in the statute-book. He hoped he knew, as well as his noble and learned Friend, how to employ his leisure for the benefit of his country. He was glad to find, that his noble and learned Friend who sat near him (Lord Brougham) kept his mind open to consider the merits of the scheme, and he could not but hope, that the more it was considered and understood, the more it would be approved of and supported.
Lord Broughammust set his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, right as to the noble Mover of these bills having brought them forward from want of other occupation. No man in the profession had ever laboured harder in reforming the law than he (Lord Campbell) had done. He (Lord Brougham) should be most ungrateful, were he ever to forget the valuable services rendered by him when most fully occupied at the Bar, he (Lord Campbell) had been chairman of the real property commissions (one of the two Commissions issued by the Government in consequence of his motion in 1828), and to his (Lord Campbell's) labours, and those of the other able and learned Commissioners, the country was mainly indebted for those bills carried through Parliament in 1833, by his noble Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) and himself. The Will Bill of 1837, came from the same commission, and it had been altered in this
1268
House so as to be made word for word as the commission carried it.
Bills severally read a first time.
Adjourned.