Sitting of 7 April 1843

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN. Viscount Dungannon, for the City of Durham.
BILLS. PUBLIC.—1°. Municipal Corporations (Ireland).
2°. Applotment of Rates (Dublin); Testimony in Colonies.
Reported.—Registration of Voters.
Private.2°. Liverpool Watering; Drumpeller Railway; Anderston Improvement and Police; Chalgrove Inclosure; Bermondsey, Rotherhithe, and Deptford Road; Norland Estate Improvement; Southampton Docks. Reported.—Glasgow City and Suburban Gas; Leeds Gas; London Cemetery; Liverpool Docks; Norland Estate Improvement; Charlwood Inclosure; Preston Water, works.
3°. and passed: Earl of Leicester's Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. B. Clive, from Hereford for Amending the Bankruptcy Act.—By Lord John Russell, from Queenboraugh, in favour of the Municipal Corporations Bill.—By Lord Ashley, from Blandford, for the Repeal of the Income-tax.—By the same, from a number of places, in favour of the Ten Hours' Bill, and of the Mines and Collieries Bill of last Session.—By Mr. Show, from the College of Physicians (Ireland), for the better regulation of Medical Charities.—By Messrs. Tancred, Brotherton, Scholefield, C. Standish, Morris, Busfield, Boskott, M. Phillips, H.Lambton, V. Smith, Aldam, Hindley, Denison, and Hume, Captain Pechell, and Lords John Russell, and Ebrington, from Places too numerous to insert, against the Factories Bill.—By Messrs. Brotherton, B. Clive, Morrison, and Darby, from a number of Places, for the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Cora Laws.—By Viscount Pollington, from Pontefract, and by Mr. Parker, from Leicester, against the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill.—By Mr. Palmer, from Newbury Union, against the Registration Act—From Brede, Burwash, and Westfield, for the Repeat of the Malt-Tax.—From St. Austell, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and Gateshead, against the Opium Trade.

THE TARIFF—COMMERCIAL TREATIES—FINANCE.
On the motion that the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply be read,—
Lord John Russellsaid that, as the House was now going into committee of supply for the last time before Faster, he would take this opportunity of adverting to some questions which did not appear to have been yet decided, but on which he hoped that some information would be given to the House, either at the present time, or when the House met, immediately after the Easter recess. The House would recollect that in going through the alterations in the Customs Bill last year

679
some articles were left subject to the same rates of duty as had previously existed, while those duties were admitted to be objectionable on account of the commercial treaties with other powers which were either then said to be in the course of negotiation, or which the government sought to procure. Of course the suspension of these questions had somewhat of the same injurious effect as the tariff had produced, so long as the discussion on that measure had continued, and it was uncertain what duties were to be imposed. It did not now appear that any of those treaties had been brought to a conclusion. The treaties which were expected to have been formed were with Portugal, Spain, France, and the Brazils. With regard to Portugal, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) had informed the House some time ago that the British Government had made up their minds to adhere to their last proposal, and that if this were not accepted they must then break off the negotiation. As to Spain, he did not hear that any treaty was in progress with that country. With respect to France, it was stated some time ago that confident hopes were entertained that the Government would be able to conclude a commercial treaty with that country; but it did not appear that the French government thought themselves able, either from want of power, or from want of inclination on the part of the country, to proceed to the conclusion of the treaty. As to the Brazils, he had heard no statement made in that House, but the reports which were in circulation were of an unfavourable nature. With regard to this matter, he did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to state at once in what position these negotiations were; but as the subject was one of the utmost importance, both as concerned legislation with regard to articles of foreign production, and the immediate interests of all persons concerned in trade with the countries to which he had alluded, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to state directly after Easter whether he expected the immediate conclusion of any such treaties, or, supposing that he was not able to hold out any sanguine expectations of their conclusion, would proceed on those principles which he had laid down last year, which he considered to be just with regard to commerce, and which he conceived, failing the commercial treaties, might be adopted advantageously by Parliament, both with reference
680
to the people of this country, and to those Powers which might be disposed favourably to receive our manufactures. It was very apparent that though some of these commercial treaties might produce direct advantages to the country entering into them, yet that the very conclusion of such treaties, by reason of a supposition that this country, so long renowned for its commerce and success in manufactures, would obtain terms unduly advantageous to itself, often produced the greatest jealousy in the country by which they were conceded. There was one other matter with respect to which, he thought, there could be no objection on the part of the right hon. Baronet to give immediate information to the House, namely, the financial statement of the year. The financial year was now concluded, and the country was to a certain extent informed of the state of the revenue; but it was desirable that the House should hear either from the right hon. Baronet or from the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what were his views of the present position of the revenue, and of the comparison of the estimated expenditure and revenue for the year. When, at the commencement of the present Session, a motion had been brought forward for a committee of the whole House to consider the distress of the country, the right hon. Baronet had said that it was hardly fair for Members on that side of the House to make such a proposition when the measures of the government had not been proposed. They had not since been asked with any impatience for the production of those measures, but, considering the quantity of business of another kind transacted—considering the votes of supply especially, which had been agreed to, and the forward state of the supply, he thought that it would not be unreasonable to require that, when the House met after Easter, the government should be prepared to state, both with respect to the finances and the commerce and trade of the country, what measures would be proposed. The only measure as yet referred to was the Canadian Corn Bill, with respect to which the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had stated that it was his intention to ask the opinion of the House immediately after Easter. For his own part, he was ready to consider that question, and he hoped that, with respect to any other measures to be brought forward, some immediate information would be given.
Sir R. Peelsaid the noble Lord and the House must feel that it would be impossible for him to eater at that moment into any statements as to the several subjects to which the noble Lord had referred. With respect to the noble Lord's question as to the time when the House might expect to have a statement of the finances of the country laid before it, he was sure the noble Lord himself would feel that there were many circumstances which had rendered it impossible to bring forward a statement of the finances of the country at an early period in the session. The state of the finances last year had rendered it necessary to lay a tax on property to the amount of 7d. in the pound, and it was expedient that accurate information as to the working of that tax and its results should be obtained by the Government before the exact state of the finances of the year could be laid before the House. That information was now, to a considerable extent, before Government, and on the part of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer he could say, that on an early day after the Easter holydays he would be prepared to lay before the House a statement as to the finances of the country and also of the intentions of Government. With respect to the state of the negotiations for commercial treaties, the noble Lord was as fully aware as himself of the effect of long pending negotiations on matters of this kind. He need not describe the difficulties which often arise in the course of negotiations, the prejudices which exist, and the jealousies the Government have to contend with. But in addition, they were also exposed to difficulties which could hardly be anticipated, from some change taking place in a foreign government, which rendered it necessary, if not to recommence the negotiations, at least to enter into lengthened explanations. He believed, also, that he had himself sometimes been the cause of impeding the progress of these negotiations, from his desire to give information to Members of that House; and the knowledge of this getting abroad, it often alarmed persons in foreign countries, and excited the fears of the manufacturers in those countries that their interests would be affected: and this fear of danger to them Was sometimes the cause of increased difficulties. He said this, as the noble Lord stated that he did not call upon him to eater upon any explanations at present. The difficulties of negotiating commercial
682
treaties were not confined to the negotiations with arbitrary governments; indeed, he might observe that the spread of constitutional principles and the establishment of representative governments had not increased the facilities of making these treaties—on the contrary, it had rather increased than abated the difficulties. With respect to articles of luxury, when the duties were high upon them in this country, it was very natural before we lowered the duties that we should endeavour to get some corresponding reductions in articles of our produce in those countries from whence they came. But still he did not think that it was always politic to go too far in demanding reciprocal advantages, but that we should in case of serious impediments in negotiation pursue our own policy, without any reference to that of other governments.
Mr. Laboucherewas glad to learn from the concluding observations of the right hon. Baronet that it was his intention at an early period after the holydays to let the House and the country know what progress had been made in the treaties now pending with several states, and particularly in that between this country and France. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that it had been the earnest desire of the late Government, of which he had the honour to be a Member, to maintain amicable relations with France, though it had differed from it on some points. He could state that the offer made to that Government of reduction of duties for corresponding reductions on its part was ample and liberal, and such as if viewed in the light of a bargain would have been found more favourable to France than to this country. He, however, had no desire to regard such offer in the light of a bargain, but rather as the basis of a fair and liberal reduction of duties on both sides, which would be equally beneficial to each. France had rejected the offer made to her, but he believed more in accordance with the prejudices of the people than with the sound views and just principles of its Government, for the people could not be persuaded but that in any commercial treaty the advantage must be all on the side of England and the disadvantage on theirs. Similar prejudices on the part of the people of Portugal and other states had hitherto retarded the negotiations with their Governments, and, indeed, such were the extremes to which those prejudices were carried and such was their in-

683
fluence on the Government that we ought to be cautious as to what negotiations we entered into on commercial questions, for if such negotiations failed, the fact of their having been entered into was found to be exceedingly mischievous. The present state of the wine trade, for instance, the negotiations respecting which had been long pending, was a strong illustration of this, and he therefore repeated that we ought to be very cautious as to what negotiations we entered into. He was glad to hear the observations of the right hon. Baronet, as they tended to remove the anxiety he felt on one point—namely, pledging the Government to any large reduction of duties with respect to the produce of any country. He confessed that from what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet in the debate on the sugar duties last year he was apprehensive that there was intended sortie exception with respect to the duties on Brazilian sugar. He was now glad to learn that it was a tariff treaty which was meant, and not a commercial treaty, and the two kinds of treaty greatly differed in their nature and object. He had apprehended that there was to be some arrangement relating to the slave-trade carried on by Brazil which was to influence the duties on Brazilian sugar. He was glad to find that there was no ground for any such apprehension.
Sir Robert Peelhad not meant to state anything, nor did he think that he had said anything, which was inconsistent with the opinions he expressed last year with regard to the negotiations with the Brazils.
Mr. Stuart Worthycould not help adverting to the recommendations of the noble Lord, that if these commercial negotiations with foreign states failed, that it would be for the Government to take another course, and to take into consideration what changes they ought to make in our tariff, entirely with reference to our own interests. Now, if it were supposed that such a suggestion would be acted upon, he was satisfied that all commercial negotiations with foreign countries would fail. It was as much as to declare that you would give all the advantages to a foreign country without any stipulation for any return. If this was the view which the Government and Parliament were to be called upon to take, it would be a far more effectual course to legislate without reference to foreign powers. He did not say, that this was his feeling in the mat-
684
ter, but he wished to draw the attention of his right hon, Friend at the head of the Government to the point, and to this inference. He did not think, however, that if either Prance, Portugal, or the Brazils refused to enter into ax>y negotiation for the reduction of duties on our produce, that we should make the same reduction on articles imported from those countries as we were prepared to do under other circumstances.
Sir R. Peelobserved, that it was hardly fair to discuss matters of such great importance without notice, when he had merely risen to answer a question put to him by the noble Lord. All that he said was, that when the duties were high on articles of luxury, and with respect, to which there was no danger of smuggling—for instance, on such articles as wine—that it was advisable, when it appeared possible to make a reduction of the duty on it, to see whether we could not stipulate with foreign countries from whence it came to make a corresponding reduction on our manufactures. His hon. Friend must not infer that in all cases, because corresponding advantages were not granted, that we should insist on stipulations where the continuance of extremely high duties would only inflict injuries on ourselves.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he had been misunderstood by the hon. Gentleman; he had merely said, that where negotiations failed, we should take such a course with reference to duties as our own interests and sound principles demanded; but he did not apply this to all articles, for instance, as regarded articles on which the duty was very high, and smuggling very great, it would be advantageous to diminish the duty. Again, with respect to articles of luxury, it might be very fair to make the reduction of duty a matter of negotiation with foreign countries.
Mr. M. Gibsonwished to remind the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Yorkshire, that it was the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government who first laid down the principle that whether foreign countries negotiated or not with respect to import duties, that if it was advantageous to this country, to reduce its duties, it ought to make the reduction without waiting to see whether other countries would make concessions or reductions. It was on these grounds that he objected to commercial negotiations altogether, and which he believed were, generally speak-

685
ing, complete failures. What he had risen for was to endeavour to obtain some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of the sugar duties. It was well known, that there was a very heavy duty on that article; now he understood the right hon. Gentleman to have said, that the reduction in the sugar duties was not to be considered as dependent on commercial negotiations with the Brazils, or negotiations with respect to the slave-trade, but solely dependent on the Brazilian Government engaging to make certain laws and regulations as to the continuance of slavery in that country. He wished to ask, what steps had been taken to carry out such arrangements.
Sir R. Peelreplied, that the hon. Gentleman's fertile imagination had suggested certain statements which the hon. Gentleman supposed that he had made, when he was not aware that he had ever said anything as to any negotiations of the nature described by the hon. Gentleman, on the subject of the sugar duties. On the earliest opportunity, he would take care to make a statement to the House on the whole state of our finances, and although he was aware, that the hon. Gentleman's constituents were naturally anxious on the subject, still the hon. Gentleman must excuse him if he did not make him an exception, so as to enter on the present occasion into an explanation on the subject of the sugar duties.
Dr. Bowringhad heard the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman with much pleasure. He thought from that declaration he should be able to find out what was the tendency of the right hon. Gentleman's mind. The more he thought on the subject, the more he was satisfied that, if we wished foreign countries to modify their respective tariffs, we must sot the example, and begin with reforming our own, He was convinced that, if the House and the Government were anxious to promote the commercial interests of England, that we must take the commodities of those countries with which we had any dealings. During the course of his experience, he had uniformly found that, when a foreign country was asked to reform its tariff, it pointed out the imperfections and the vicious policy of our own. He had not the slightest doubt that if our own were formed in a wide and generous spirit, it would be followed by a reform in those of other nations. If this were done, this country would soon he relieved from its commer-
686
cial embarrassments, and our commerce and manufactures would be extended in the greatest degree.
Mr. Humewas not so sanguine as his hon. Friend; but he believed his hon. Friend was right in principle. He was not going to address himself immediately to the question before the House. It appeared that the House had no power in it, and therefore the conversation that had just taken place was of very little importance. He wished to address himself to the right hon. Baronet on matters relating to the taxation of the country, and in reference to what was to be expected from him when the budget should be laid on the Table of the House. He held in his hand an estimate of what the right hon. Baronet expected their situation to be in April, 1843. The right hon. Baronet had estimated that the new taxes would produce this year a revenue of 4,340,000 l.; that the income-tax would produce 3,730,000 l.; stamp duties in Ireland, 160,000 l.; spirits in Ireland, 250,000 l.; and coal, 200,000 l.. Now, with the exception of the income-tax, the right hon. Baronet's estimate had failed to produce the expected result. He, (the right hon. Baronet), expressed himself strongly opposed to an excess of expenditure over income, and made strong appeals to the House to support him in his endeavours to reverse that state of things; but although the House had supported him, the right hon. Baronet's expectations had not been realised, nor would he have a surplus of income over expenditure, unless he adopted the plan of reducing the establishments. He might reduce the establishments three or four millions sterling in the course of the present year without any difficulty. The noble Lord on his (Mr. Hume's) side of the House (Lord J. Russell) had raised them 5,000,000 l. since 1835, and surely the right hon. Baronet might reduce them, if not to that extent, at least 3,000,000 l.. With a view to a further reduction hereafter, he submitted that the right hon. Baronet had it in his power to make, and ought to make" reductions in the army and navy, and other establishments. Even in the miscellaneous estimates, which amounted to 4,000,000 l., the right hon. Baronet could make, without any difficulty, a reduction of 1,500,000 l.. He wished to see the income and expenditure of the country equalised, and no further additions made to the national debt, which had been augmented for the last ten years. With reference to our commercial

687
treaties, he must observe that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the state in which many of them at present were; and on that ground, as well as others, he counselled the right hon. Baronet to throw open our ports to such an amount of duties as would raise the revenue and lessen expense, instead of the present complicated mode of endeavouring to raise money without adding to the Exchequer. He thought the country would be better without those treaties.

SUPPLY—LUNATICS—EDUCATION (IRELAND).
House in Committee of Supply—Miscellaneous Estimates.
On the question that 4,122 l. be granted for defraying the expense of maintaining Criminal Lunatics in Bethlehem Hospital,
Mr. Humeobjected to the large cost which it appeared each of these criminal lunatics involved the country in. The average was not less than 40 l.. per head, whereas thousands of industrious people in this country were able and glad to maintain themselves for 25 l. a head, and less. He thought that some means should be adopted by which offenders of this description, when they again had their intellects restored to them, should no longer enjoy comparative impunity, under the idea of their still being insane. He had visited the criminal lunatics confined in Bethlehem many times at intervals, and there were several of them who appeared to him to be perfectly sane. Mr. Hatfield, among others, had been kept for forty years at the public expense, an insane criminal, though as far as he had been able to judge, that person for many years was in full possession of all his mental faculties.
Vote agreed to.
On the question that the sum of 52,474 l.. be granted to enable the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland to issue money for the advancement of education in Ireland,
Mr. Shawsaid, he could not allow that vote to pass without troubling the committee with some observations upon it. It was not possible for him to raise the question in such a shape as to take the sense of the committee upon the vote. He did not desire to diminish the amount of the grant. On the contrary, he considered that the sum granted by Parliament for the advancement of education, both in this country and in Ireland, was too small, and the forms of the House would prevent his moving to augment it. His remarks would be in the way of remonstrance, and pro-
688
test on behalf of the clergy and the members of the Established Church in Ireland. If hon. Gentleman opposite expected or hoped that he would be betrayed into any angry attack or harsh language against those of a different religious persuasion from himself in Ireland, he trusted that they would be entirely disappointed. He was anxious to address himself to the reason and good feeling of the House and the country, and to persuade even those who differed from him, both in religion and politics, that the Established Church and the children of her communion in Ireland, had been unreasonably dealt with on the subject of national education. He was free to admit the peculiar difficulties arising from the anomalous condition of her people in respect of religious faith, which attended that question in Ireland; and he would not blame her Majesty's Government for acting with every caution and deliberation, and refusing to take any rash or hasty step in a matter of such great delicacy and importance. He did not dissent from the sentiment which had been declared so long ago as the year 1812 in the report of the Board of Education, signed by the primate, Bishop Elrington, and other prelates and heads of the Established Church in Ireland, that in a system of national education for the Roman Catholic population of Ireland, "all interference with their particular religious tenets should be unequivocally disclaimed and effectually guarded against." He did not object, nor had the Church in Ireland objected, to the state giving to the children of religious sects differing from them, the best education they could be induced to receive. What he did complain of, and what he thought, he could in a few words prove to the committee was, that while the state respected and made provision for the scruples of those who dissented from the Established Church, it had disregarded the Conscientious objections of the members of the Church, and refused all educational aid to the poor children of her communion, because on principle they declined to accept it at the hands of the present national board. He Utterly denied that the clergy in Ireland had been influenced in
their opposition to the national system of education, and in their refusal to admit their schools into connection with it, by party or political motives. He maintained that their conduct was governed by the highest sense of religious duty. He personally altogether agreed in

689
their sentiments, and could not understand why the Church in Ireland, merely because her numbers were fewer, and her members more scattered and exposed to danger than the Roman Catholics, should be expected to adopt a system, and act upon principles which had been resisted, and would not for a moment be submitted to by the Church in England. The National Board had adopted the discipline of the Church of of Rome in restricting the use of the Sacred Scriptures—and repudiated the great principle of the Church of England, that it was the duty and the right or all to read them. In the hours of united instruction, and during the time that could only be properly said to be the period of national education, not only were the Roman Catholics not required, but the Protestants were not permitted to read the Scriptures. It was true he did not wish to conceal or overstate a single fact connected with the board, it was true that there were certain works of Scripture extracts published by the board for the use of the schools, and the board recommended—but they did not require the scholars to use them. He would not then dwell upon objections which were felt against some of the extracts themselves, as taken from the Douay version, for what he was observing upon at that time, and what applied equally to some passages of Scripture interspersed through the reading books, was for the purpose of showing that in no one instance was religious instruction of any kind made a necessary part of the education afforded by the national system—and it had been well observed by the distinguished and munificent Prelate who presided over the Established Church in Ireland, in his last visitation charge, that "the character of a system of education was determined by its authoritative requirements, and not by its powerless recommendations." He would not detain the Committee by even glancing at various other objections which were entertained by the clergy and the patrons of the church schools in Ireland to the National Board. Such is the constitution of the board—the commissioners themselves being the representatives of the most conflicting religious opinions—for he was then upon the main objection, and that which most weighed upon his own mind—namely, the dishonour done to the word of God: and the total absence, as a requirement of the system, of any portion of religious instruction, without which he did not think a mere secular teaching could pro-
690
perly be termed, in a Christian Community, education at all. He would advert to but one other topic, and that was the fact, which was undeniable, that the system had totally failed in what had been professed as one of its leading effects—united education. In the north of Ireland there were latterly some Presbyterian schools, in connexion with the board; and there were Roman Catholic schools, but they were separate schools of each—and not schools in which the different persuasions of religion were united together. The county of Cork, he believed, might be quoted as a fair sample of the whole of Ireland—here it appeared there were about 30,000 children on the rolls of the national schools, and not ten Protestant children upon them—while in the same county there were about 9,000 children educated in the schools connected with the Church Education Society. After an experience of nearly twelve years, and under different governments, it had been found impossible to reconcile the Protestant clergy and people of Ireland to a system of which they could not conscientiously approve—and at all events, the fact was indisputable that, whether from what he called principle, and others might call prejudice, still the fact remained that, with scarcely an exception—the exceptions indeed were so few as only to prove the rule—the Members of the Established Church derived no aid from the national grant—and there was less union of the children of different denominations in the schools of Ireland at present than there had been before the establishment of the so-called national board. Last Session there were petitions presented to that House couched in mild and temperate, but firm language, assuring the House that from conscientious objections the clergy and members of the Established Church could not place their schools under the present board. These were signed by nearly 900 clergymen, and by about 25,000 of the laity of the church of Ireland—and they had now, with their own unaided resources—and depressed—miserably reduced—as had been the incomes of the Irish clergy for a long series of years—above 1,200 schools, containing more than 70,000 scholars, connected with the Church Education Society, and under the immediate superintendence of the bishops and clergy of the establishment. Was it fair, was it reasonable—was it right, that these alone should be refused the countenance or support of the State, because they acted

691
upon the principles of the Church which was connected with the State, and upon those which pervaded the whole system of national education in England—while every sect and other religious creed in Ireland were receiving assistance from their grants? He did not say the National Board gave the best possible education even to Roman Catholics and other Dissenters; but still, as regarded them, until a better could be provided, he did not desire the abolition of the present board—all he asked was, that the schools connected with the church should receive at least some share of Parliamentary bounty and support. He had himself brought for ward at a public meeting in Ireland, although he did not claim the merit of having originated it, a plan which he had thought would have been free from objection to any reasonable mind. It was, that leaving the national board in Ireland for Roman Catholics and Dissenters much in the same position as the British and Foreign School Society held in England, the church schools in Ireland should be taken into union with the national society in England "For Promoting the Education of the Poor in the principles of the Established Church," and presided over by the prelates and heads of the church in England—the two branches being really one united church of England and Ireland. This plan appeared most desirable for the church, and could not have afforded just ground of offence to any other body. He might without impropriety say, that the suggestion had been approved of by some of the most eminent prelates, and other leading members of the English national society; a few words of alteration in their charter, and an increased grant to the extent of the preparation intended for the Irish branch of the Church, were all that was required. But the present Government refused their sanction. This had been the source of deep disappointment and mortification to the Irish clergy and the friends of the Church in Ireland. They had felt it more "in sorrow than in anger," but still, they felt it deeply. He most reluctantly made a single observation which could reflect upon the present Government, to winch, in general, he gave his warm and independent support; but in this ease, be owed a paramount duty to those whose interests he represented in that House, with whose feelings upon the present question be cordially sympathized; and still, more, to the sacred cause of
692
sound scriptural education, of which he had throughout his life been the humble, but he trusted, the sincere advocate. As he said in the beginning, the forms of the House would not allow of his moving any amendment to the vote then proposed, which would be consistent with the views he had stated to the committee. He would, therefore, only in conclusion express his earnest hope that another year would remove from the Government and the House the reproach of withholding all aid from the education of the children of the Established Church in Ireland, only because their pastors and parents could not conscientiously suffer them to accept it under the system of the existing national board in that country.
Mr. Grogansaid, he was anxious to avail himself of that opportunity of pressing upon the attention of the Members of her Majesty's Cabinet the propriety, nay, he would add, the justice, of giving to the question of education in Ireland a full and liberal reconsideration, before they should be called upon to vote these estimates in the ensuing Session of Parliament; and this he should think the more necessary, because he did not believe that the Ministry were aware of the true state of public opinion upon this subject in Ireland. Now, after the able and dispassionate speech of the right hon. and learned Recorder on the general question, he should endeavour to confine himself to ground which had not yet been travelled over or alluded to. If, after a full and patient investigation of the subject, her Majesty's Ministers should be of opinion that the system of the national board was the best adapted to the circumstances of Ireland, afforded the best chance of inducing Roman Catholic parents to send their children to the schools of a Protestant state—in fact, of giving to those children such an education as would enable them the better to struggle and push their way in the busy and bustling scenes of life, and afford them a good literary secular education, or if so, it was not necessary for his present purpose to enter into the question, to combat that opinion. But, did the duty of the State stop here, or was it not also bound to furnish to the children a really sound, wholesome, and religious education also? The system was introduced when the noble Lord the Secretary for the colonies was Secretary for Ireland, it was a great and bold experiment, and he doubted not was intended for good. The object

693
was to induce the children of the different religious denominations prevailing in Ireland to unite together, to assemble in the one common school-room, in the hope of thereby causing them to forget their religious and political differences. Had that object been attained? Had that hope been realised? He conceived not; but, like all other schemes in which principle had been abandoned, and any other system adopted as a rule in its stead, it had, in his judgment, failed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had already shown to the House proofs of this failure, and had pointed out that the system of the Church Education Society had tended to unite the children of different religious opinions more effectually than the national system had succeeded in doing. He had shown that 70,000 children were in attendance on the schools of that society, of which number upwards of 20,000, or nearly one-third, were Roman Catholics, thereby proving that there was not that disinclination in the minds of Roman Catholics to receive a religious and scriptural education which some Gentlemen might imagine. That society had very limited means, and yet had already been productive of very great good, not only to the children of Protestant parents, but to those of Roman Catholics also. The right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, had recently laid before the House his bill for the regulation of factories, and had borne the most ample testimony to the very great importance which he attached to a sound and religious education being superadded to one of a purely literary and temporal character, in the previsions which he had made in that bill for affording to the children, whose parents, or who may be themselves, employed in factories, a really sound and scriptural education based upon the Bible, conceiving it to be the best and only effectual remedy against a recurrence of those unfortunate circumstances in which the country was plunged in the autumn of the last year, and the only method of raising these children from the depths of moral degradation, in which, from the reports of the commissioners of factories lately presented to the House, we must painfully admit them to be sunk. Now, the principles upon which the system of education proposed by the right hon. Baronet to be given in these schools was, as nearly as possible, the same, if not identical with, the principles on which the schools
694
of the Church Education Society were based; in both the prelates and clergy of the Established Church have a superintending and controlling power. The Bible was required to be read in the schools proposed by the right hon. Baronet; it was also required to be read in the schools of the society. In the schools of the right hon. Baronet, the children, whose parents might not object, were to receive instruction in the catechisms and formularies of the Established Church, in the manner and for so many hours daily, as the clerical trustee shall determine. The catechisms and formularies of the Church were also required to be taught to all the children attending the schools of the Church Education Society; but here a great dissimilarity occurred—the right hon. Baronet proposed to deduct from the little earnings of the children, a sum necessary to support and maintain these schools, whereas all children, without distinction of creed or circumstances, were admitted to the schools of the society, and instructed gratuitously, without any payment whatever, subject to the only limitations that they should belong to the parish in which the school Was located, and have the approbation of the minister for liberty to attend it. But the right hon. Baronet conceived, that a religious and scriptural education was useful, was necessary for this country. Was there anything so peculiar in the circumstances of Ireland to render it less beneficial, less necessary there? The Church Education Society had already done much good; it was on these grounds that they Were anxious to see the sphere of Its Usefulness extended, by its receiving the countenance and support of her Majesty's Ministers, and it was on these grounds, that the reply of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, conveying the sentiments of the Cabinet to the application of our prelates in the course of last autumn, created such a deep, general, and painful sense of disappointment, to all the Protestant party in Ireland. But he hoped that before the House should be again called upon to pass those votes, her Majesty's Ministers would be pleased to give the question of education in Ireland a full and searching investigation. He did not mean a mere inquiry based upon the reports of the national board, or of the church Education Society, but a full inquiry conducted by any body or committee whom they might think proper to authorise and depute for the purpose, into

695
the whole system, so as to find out the plan beat deserving of the support of the State, and he was confident that the system adopted by the Church Education Society would brave the strictest examination, and come off triumphant. He should conclude by reading to the House an extract of a speech delivered last year by a Gentleman equally distinguished for his piety, his zeal and learning, to which acquirements the Cabinet have borne full testimony, in promoting him to a bishopric—he meant Dr. Daly, who speaking of education, used words far more expressive than anything he (Mr. Grogan) could say. Dr. Daly says:—
"With regard to education itself, there seemed to be no difference of opinion—there seemed to be a common unity of sentiment—and every one cried out educate the people; and, indeed, he would ask how could there be a second opinion with regard to the subject of educating the people: was there a second opinion, he would ask, with regard to the cultivation of the land?—who was bold enough, or foolish enough, to stand up and say, there was no use in cultivating the land, when the curse that sin brought into the world declared that the earth should bring forth thorns and thistles f—who would, for a moment, advocate the principle that it was not necessary to cultivate the land; and, surely, if the mind of man, if the heart of man had not suffered less from the fall than the ground from which he produces the food he eats, who was there among them bold enough—who was there mad enough to deny the necessity of imparting a scriptural education to the people? Education, without religion, was like turning up the ground with the plough, and leaving it to bring forth thorns and thistles. Such was the view which he took of education without religion; and he thought that man would err from common sense who would set about the education of children without the assistance of religion—he would be turning up the land, but casting no seed into it. Then came the question, if they were to cast seed into the ground, what kind of seed was it to be? Some people said, and he believed the advocates of the national board had sometimes said, that they were in favour of religious education, but did they tell them what that religion was which was the seed of that good tree from which they expected good fruit? No; they talked of religion only, but they left out, they excluded that which God himself had said was the good seed—that seed was the Word of God, and therefore he would maintain, that if they educated the children, and did not cultivate the heart, as well as the ground, and cast good seed therein—and there was but one good seed, and that was the Truth, the Word of the Eternal God—they educated them in vain without it."
Lord Eliotsaid, the temperate manner
696
in which his right hon. Friend, the Recorder of Dublin and the hon. Member for the city of Dublin had stated their views, entitled them to every consideration. He (Lord Eliot) did not propose to enter into any lengthened argument, but to make a few observations on certain statements of his right hon. Friend relative to the working of the national system of education. His right hon. Friend said there was no security for religious instruction in the Irish national schools. It was true, that there was no absolute rule on the subject; but it was distinctly stated in the report of the commissioners that they earnestly and unanimously recommended the Scripture lessons to be used in all their schools. They stated that they preferred trusting to such a recommendation, to the adoption of any compulsory regulation; being persuaded, that if those lessons were not received willingly, they would have little beneficial effect; and, in point of fact, there was no school under the board in which religious instruction was not imparted. He believed the board would discontinue its grant to any school in which religious instruction was not given. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the time at which the Scriptures were read. When the Bible itself was read, it was necessary that those children whose parents had a religious objection to such reading should be permitted to absent themselves. It was a recommendation of the commission of 1812, of the commission of 1821, and of the commission of 1828, that there should be no compulsory religious instruction. But by the rules of the board, the Bible might be read at any hour every day in the week, provided those hours were prescribed and made known, so as to prevent the attendance of children against the wish of their parents, and one of the days in the week is set apart for separate religious instruction. The propriety of some such arrangement was, in fact, admitted by an eminent opponent of the board, the Bishop of Exeter, who stated that the use of a volume of well-chosen extracts, and the appointment of times of separate religious instruction, were no more than fair concessions to the circumstances of Ireland. He would now proceed to lay before the House some statistical facts connected with the working of the National Board. The number of its schools in operation in December, 1841, was 2,337; and the number in December, 1842, 2,721, showing an increase in the

697
year of 384 schools. The number of children in attendance in December, 1841, was 281,849; and in December, 1842, 322,778, showing an increase of 40,929. In July, 1842, aid had been given to 1,064 schools, to the amount of 80,961 l. In November, 1842, the board was obliged to decline giving further grants for the building of schools or the salaries of masters, from the inadequacy of funds, and to restrict their assistance to the supply of books. That limited assistance had been accepted by 70 schools. The number of books distributed was 1,200,000. Great stress bad been laid on the expectations formerly entertained of a system of combined education. Those expectations certainly had not been altogether fulfilled, but that was owing to the opposition of the established clergy—an opposition he firmly believed to be entirely conscientious, and one in which no party or political feeling was mixed up. The clergy, in fact, had felt it their duty to obstruct the system, and, therefore, it was not so successful as it might hare been in giving combined education. There was nothing in the plan itself to prevent a sound religious education, and it was hardly fair for the to reproach it for a failure of which they had themselves been the cause. Combined education, however, was at present carried on to some extent; of 2,584 schools in operation in July, 1841, 784 were under Protestant management, 1,737 under Catholic management, and 68 under the mixed management of Catholics and Protestants. Since the Presbyterians had withdrawn their opposition, one-fourth of the masters trained had been Protestants—and of 300,000 children under education, one-eighth part were Protestants, which was very nearly the proportion of Protestants in the whole population. The House should never lose sight of the fact, in reference to this question, that 80 per cent, of the population of Ireland were Roman Catholics. He thought it a great step in advance, that the Roman Catholics consented to receive the education given by the national board. It evinced great liberality in the Catholic prelates, that they had consented to the use of the volume of Scripture extracts, which he thought an admirable one. The House should pause before it did anything to shake the confidence of the Catholics in the present system. When the Kildare-place Society began to lose their confidence, the children were withdrawn from the
698
schools, and the House should beware of doing anything to produce a similar movement now. There were some other facts which he should mention. Of the eighty-nine Poor-law unions under boards of guardians, composed of Catholics and Protestants, the schools of sixty-one had been placed under the board, receiving, of course, only the assistance of books and the benefit of superintendence. Ireland was divided, with regard to education, into twenty-five districts, each being under a superintendent. Of these superintendents twelve were Protestants, and thirteen Roman Catholics. Of twenty persons, forming the establishment of the board, thirteen were Protestants, and seven Catholics, the income of the former being 2,998 l.., and of the latter 757 l.., per annum. Of the commissioners, four were Roman Catholics, and seven Protestants. Thus there was a decided preponderance of Protestants in the management, but the Catholics showed no distrust of it in consequence. As to the proposition of the right hon. Recorder, to give a separate grant, or a proportion of the present grant to the Church Education Society, there were serious objections to such a course. It would be transferring education from a responsible board, to an irresponsible voluntary society. Besides, the Church Education Society was formed in opposition to the present board. It was intended to be, not ancillary, but hostile to it. In supporting it, therefore, the State would be supporting two systems on directly opposite principles. And what would be the consequence, with respect to the national board? It would be left entirely to Catholics, and Protestants would have no right to interfere in its management. The Government must cease to prescribe any system of instruction. Hon. Gentlemen who recommended such a course, and yet opposed the Maynooth grant, should reflect that they would then establish a Maynooth in every parish in Ireland. The schools, he said, must become Catholic schools. The Archbishop of Dublin would feel it his duty to retire from the board, because he would not feel it right to interfere with education intended exclusively for Catholics. The other Protestant commissioners would take the same course, and the management would become wholly Catholic. In several of the schools at present there were no Protestants, but there were many parts of Ireland in which there were no

699
Protestants, and in the south of Ireland, they did not form more than a twentieth or a thirtieth of the population. It was not to be expected, that the schools in those districts should show a greater attendance of Protestants. He must conclude by expressing a hope, that the Irish clergy, whose laudable and praiseworthy efforts for the improvement of the people were highly creditable, might feel it to be consistent with their duty to take part in the management of the schools under the board, because he believed that in that way, they could do more than in any other to promote religious education.
Lord Ebringtoncould not admit that the objections to the grant had originated entirely in religious scruples, for he thought that party spirit had much to do with it. No one could doubt that, who knew how unscrupulously and perseveringly the cry of "No Popery" had been raised in connexion with this subject, and how much had been said about the mutilation of the bill by the commissioners of education. With regard to this, he could not but observe, that while the Established Church maintained the doctrine that the Scriptures ought to be read and circulated amongst the people, principles were spreading in it, which were utterly opposed to those Protestant principles which up to the present time had been regarded as the glory of this country. Every day showed more and more that the, principles of some members of the Established Church were less liberal even than those which induced so many Roman Catholic prelates to sanction the use of those Scripture extracts, which he had read and examined with attention, and found to contain all the essential doctrines and principles of Christianity. He knew they had been abused, but chiefly by those who had not read them. As the noble Lord had defended the national system, it was not necessary for him to say one word; but the attack was not to be wondered at, when the nature of the recent Church appointments and preferment's in Ireland was considered. Scarcely a single distinguished preferment or appointment had been given to any Irish divine, except to such as had been engaged, and some conspicuously, in running down the system which the Government now professed itself determined to uphold. That was the case with respect to the Rev. Mr. Daly. The Government
700
complained that they had been attacked on both sides. Why, of course, that was the national consequence of their double policy.
Mr. Colquhounbelieved the appointments made by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, had reflected as much honour on his Lordship as upon the persons appointed, who were distingushed for their enlightened views, their profound learning, and unobtrusive piety. They were such appointments, notwithstanding the aspersions of the noble Lord, which he would yet regret perhaps, as would make the present Lord Lieutenant look back upon them as the most glorious and satisfactory part of his administration, and which rendered him deserving of the greatest public confidence. Surrounded as this question was with great difficulties, and embarrassed by considerations which he thought it wise to appreciate, he must express his sincere regret, that her Majesty's Government had come to the resolution not to grant to the Irish Prelates, and the Irish Church, that assistance which he thought consistent with the greatest toleration and the national system of education. The noble Lord had said, that he preferred a board authorised by the Government to a voluntary association, when, in fact, grants Were made to voluntary associations—the British and Foreign School Society on one side, and the national society on the other. In speaking of conscientious feelings of Roman Catholics, he thought the same regard ought to be had for those of Members of the Established Church. He thought, that to have the co-operation, in a convulsed and agitated country like Ireland, of men inferior to none in learning and piety, and disposition to maintain order, was what no Government ought to neglect, and what all Governments ought to appreciate; and he not know any class of men more free from those peculiar feelings to which the noble Lord had adverted. Even the hon. Member for Lambeth, who advocated the cause of the Dissenters of this country, must see the injustice of excluding Members of the Church of England from the public aid which was granted to the Members of another Church.
Mr. Hanessaid, that not only was he ready to support what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down, but that when hereafter he should, on behalf of the Dissenters of England, advocate a free system of education, he should expect to be supported by the hon. Member, and

701
be would proceed upon the very same ground taken by the right hon. Gentleman, who said,—
"He could not but complain of the Government, that the Church Education Society should be refused any grant of public relief merely because the parents of the children could not accept the education of the National Society."
He hoped the hon. Gentleman would give notice of an address to her Majesty to carry out that view, and he (Mr. Hawes), and many on his side of the Mouse would support the right hon. Gentleman, hoping that when hereafter he should propose a grant to those bodies who dissented from the Church of England, he should receive the support of the right hon. Gentleman awl his Friends.
Captain Jonessaid, that the clergy of the Church of Ireland were opposed to the plan of national education established in that country, because they did not consider it a system of Scriptural education. It was on that ground, that he also objected to it, and he thought the children of Protestants had, at all events, an equal right with those of Roman Catholics to be educated properly in the principles of their religion at the expense of the State. The noble Load treated the Church Society as an antagonist establishment, but the noble Lard should recollect, that it a rose but of the necessity of the case, and because the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland had conscientious objections to the system of religious education adopted in the national schools. There was no wish on the part of the Bishops or the clergy to interfere with the education of either Roman Catholics or Dissenters; but they thought, and in his opinion correctly, that they were entitled to a grant of public money for the purpose of communicating to the children of their own flocks that description of religious education of which they could approve. If, however, it were proposed to discontinue this grant, he should not be found to vote against it.
Viscount Bernardwould not have intruded any remarks of his upon the House, on a subject upon which there were so many Hon. Members present much better qualified to speak, were it not that there was no other Member present, from a large district in the south of Ireland with which he was connected, and that be represented a constituency who entertained the same opinions,
702
which be did who felt deeply on the subject and were keenly alive to the injustice which the principles on which it was administered inflicted On the cause of Protestantism in Ireland, and also if he had not had the honour of presenting to the House a large number of petitions from the united diocese of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross, in the course of the previous Session of Parliament, petitions numerously signed by Protestants—lay as well as clerical—who feeling strongly upon the subject, were actuated solely by those feelings in petitioning the House against the system of education as carried on by the national education society. But while he came forward to express how much he disapproved of that society, and how much he regretted the course the Government had taken with, respect to it, he was willing to give full credit to the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) who had originally introduced the education system into Ireland, for having brought it forward with the best and purest motives, though the noble Lord had, he believed, been greatly mistaken in supposing this to be the only mode of giving to Ireland a scriptural education—nor was he ignorant of the many difficulties which the Government had to contend with in dealing with this question—difficulties which had resulted from the conduct of their predecessors in office, who had left this, among their many other political legacies, to embarrass the course of their successors. The late Government had come forward year after year, proposing a grant for united education long after the system had faded as a system of united education, and when the money was virtually applied to a very different purpose, the education actually given being in the smallest possible degree a system of education for Protestants and Roman Catholics jointly, because very few Protestant children attended the schools at all. He conscientiously objected to any Parliamentary grant being given for any system of education, unless the Holy Scriptures formed the basis of that education, and this was the objection of the Church. He was opposed too to what was understood by a united system of education, because he was convinced that it never could be made to work without a compromise of principle, in one or both of the parties to the contract. The Church of Ireland considered that while she waved her right as the natural instructress of the people, to teach them her creeds and cate-

703
chisms, she had a right to demand that in any system of national education the Holy Scriptures should be taught not as an accessory, but as a fundamental portion of it. She desired also, of course, to have some voice in the appointment of the masters of the schools. In the propriety of this he fully concurred. Conducted as it was, the united system, he believed, had a baneful effect on the children, because, if you taught that all religions were equally important, were you not running a risk of causing the children to believe that all religions were equally indifferent? The education was professed to be an united religious and literary education; on what religion was it based? Not on the Established Church; it was not purely Roman Catholic. It was founded on the basis of a compromise of principle; and if such a compromise was good for the young, was it not equally good for the adult? Would it not be equally good for establishing an union between the two churches according to the plan of the celebrated letter of Doctor Doyle? Upon this point he would read the opinion of a most distinguished man of his day, and who had filled the office of Secretary to Lord Castlereagh—the late Mr. Alexander Knox—as it appeared in the 3rd volume of his remains. It was as follows:—
"I think now in brief, that any prospect of our uniting with the Roman Catholic church is not deeply alarming, only because it is utterly impracticable There are essential differences between the two churches, which admit of no accommodation. To concede in these matters would be in us unfaithfulness to our providential trust, and in them gross inconsistency; but on such points as I refer to they would not concede a hair's breadth, nor could they without unlocking their whole arch. They, therefore, could only indulge us with modified explanations, in the prospect of afterwards drawing us, by subtlety or by force, from such modifications as, in the first instance, the enlargement of their church might have made it expedient to yield to, but merely with the design of re-explanation as soon as it would be practicable."
All experience had shown that any system of education that did not proceed upon the basis of religion, must fail. Allusion had been made to the commission of 1812-14, and he thought that an inference had been unfairly attempted to be drawn, that their reports sanctioned the present system of national education. He felt deeply on this subject; for one of
704
those who had signed the report of 1814, was a near and dear relative of his, a late most rev. Prelate (Archbishop Brodrick), and he felt confident, that that most rev. Prelate would have rather put his hand into the fire, or suffered martyrdom at the stake than have signed the education paper of 1831. But if the House would allow him he would read an extract from the letter of Baron Forster and Mr. Glass-ford, for though three of the education commissioners, in the report of 1827, were for combining literary and religious instruction, and expressed their belief that such a plan to a limited extent was not hopeless; the other two Mr. Glassford and Baron Foster said:—
"Any plan for compelling all the varieties of schools to give way to one inflexible form, would, in our opinion, be a great mistake. We feel strongly that the unexampled improvement that has taken place within a short time in the education of the peasantry of Ireland, ought to be duly appreciated before any of the means by which it has been produced shall be destroyed or endangered. We have stated in our second report that there are at present in Ireland no fewer than 11,823 schools—a greater number, perhaps, than is to be found, for the extent of the population in any other country; and though we lament that many of them still supply instruction of a very objectionable nature, we see, with the utmost satisfaction, the rapid improvement which has already been effected in their character. About twenty-years ago the Scriptures, as we are led to believe, were not read in so many as 600 schools in Ireland, while at present we have ascertained, and stated in our report, that they have found their way into 6,058 daily schools, independent of 1,945 Sunday schools—in all, about 8,000 schools. This great amelioration in the education of the Irish peasantry is still in progress, and can perhaps be checked by no means less powerful than such interference on the part of the stale as would be calculated to counteract it; while, therefore, we are ready to promote the trial of any experiment that may suggest the means of usefulness, or which may, perhaps, be now fitted for some districts hitherto less accessible than others, we cannot too strongly express our opinion that any such experiment ought to be considered only as an accompaniment to those means which experience has proved to be useful, and not as tending to the suppression of any tried instrument of good."
He (Lord Bernard) believed that the Kildare-place society, both on the ground of principle and policy, was the nearest approach they could hope to make to anything like an united system of education in Ireland. The system of that society

705
was founded upon the Holy Scriptures for its basis, and was in his opinion, the only one which could be administered with justice and fairness to all parties. It must be remembered that the great majority of the children attending the schools would be Roman Catholics, and looking at the influence they would have on their Protestant schoolfellows, at that period of life when the human mind was most open to such influence—looking at the combination of national and religious feelings which would be brought to bear upon them in their earliest childhood, he thought justice would not be done to the Protestant children, unless there was some counteracting influence in the religious instruction, and in the masters and teachers of the school. They were told that the Kildare-street society had failed in its object. He thought he could show that that was not the case. In the year 1821, there were 381 of the Kildare-street society's schools, and 26,474 scholars—in the year 1831, the number of schools had increased to 1,634, and the number of scholars to 132,530, while it appeared by the first report of the national education commissioners that the number of schools was then 789, and the number of scholars attending them 107,042; and in the eighth report it appeared that there were 2,337 schools, and 281,849 scholars. It would be seen by this statement, that in proportion the increase had not been greater, notwithstanding the many and great advantages the national education society had, than in the Kildare-place society. But the late Government acted in this upon the principle which they had for ten years applied in other measures to Ireland, they held that under the former Conservative and Tory Governments the Protestant party had enjoyed too much influence—and how did they proceed to remedy the evil? Why, instead of endeavouring fairly to equalise the balance, they threw the whole weight into the opposite scale. The Kildare-place society represented the Protestant principle—The National Education the Roman Catholic. The Government abandoned the former, and gave their influence to the latter. He could not agree with the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, that the national society, as an united system of education, had increased. The noble Lord had shown that a great many new schools had been established,
706
and that they were attended by many thousands of children; but he did not show that they were attended by a greater number of Protestant children than formerly. The fact was, he believed, that very few Protestant children attended the schools. And when it was remembered the great advantages which the national education society, with agricultural schools and improved literary education, enjoyed, it was scarcely fair to bring it forward, as having done that which the limited funds of the church society had not enabled it to do. But the noble Lord's numbers had been swelled by the addition of the poor-law schools, and it was exceedingly questionable, he believed, whether, by bringing those poor-law schools within the national education system, the Government were not committing a breach of the poor-law; in his opinion, they violated, by so doing, the neutrality which the Irish poor-law attempted to establish. The Protestant clergy of Ireland had been assailed for the part they had taken in this question, and the noble Lord the Member for Plymouth (Lord Ebrington), had spoken of them as though they had been influenced by political motives. He could tell the noble Lord and the House that there was no body of men, either in that or any other age, whose motives were more pure, or who were less influenced by political considerations in the performance of what they considered to be their duty than the Protestant clergy of Ireland. On the tithe question rather than surrender what they conceived to be the rights of their successors in the Christian ministry. Sooner than violate their ordination vow, or allow the holy Scriptures to be mutilated, they were willing to undergo the severest peril, and risk the loss of all advantages, rather than surrender their principles. But, after all, it was no charge against the clergy that they were opposed to the system—the very outcry that the failure was caused by the clergy was a proof of its failure. For if it were not a system such as the Church could conscientiously support, it would naturally fail. The noble Lord then referred to the number of diocesan schools in the diocese of Cork, Cloyne and Ross, there were only twenty-six attending the national schools. In the year ending 1841, there were 210 of those schools and 8,873 scholars; in 1843 there were more than 200 schools (exclusive of those

707
in the large towns). a large number of the children were Roman Catholics; and these schools were supported by going round from day to day to beg the assistance necessary for the purpose. Were it not for the voluntary subscriptions of the friends of the Church, who came forward to assist, all these advantages must fall to the ground. But he, believed, that the most serious view of this subject was, that the united system was a severe injury to the Protestant Church and the cause of Protestantism in Ireland. Formerly the state gave 25,000 l. or 30,000 l. a year to the Church education societies—now it gave 50.000 l.. a year to the opposite party, which was, in effect, giving an advantage to the amount of 80,000 l.. a year. To show the consequence of this, he would read an extract from a work of a clergyman who resided in a distant part of Cork, on the shores of the Atlantic who said,
"I have myself within the last week seen the houses of two Scripture schools, which for several years had flourished and prospered, but are now closed for want of provision for the payment of the teachers. I well remember when one of them, being in the centre of a large Protestant population, was attended by from seventy to eighty Protestant boys, with about the same number of females in the adjoining department. Now, however, it may well be said, that Ichabod is written upon the doors of the male department of this handsome building, while at the opposite side of the street stands a large Popish school superintended and taught by the four monks."
Feeling as he did upon the subject, he thought it his duty to state these facts to the House. It was with great sorrow that he differed from those for whose opinion he entertained great respect, and to whose administration in other respects, and with reference to other measures, he gave his warm and cordial support; but he could take no other course on this occasion than express his sincere opinion and enter his protest and dissent from the system to which he had been referring. He would add, that he did believe that by adopting a fair and equitable course between the two parties, between which unfortunately, the population of Ireland was divided, the Government could do much to conciliate both those parties, and do away with religious differences. Let it be remembered, that at one time penal enactments had been tried, and they hid signally failed. Then came concession—conces-
708
sion not unaccompanied with dereliction of principle—and it was now seen that it had failed too, and he would, therefore, press on the attention of her Majesty's Government to try the plan of giving the people of Ireland an united education based on the word of God.
Mr. G. A. Hamiltonrose, not for the purpose of prolonging the discussion, neither could he add anything to the very able speech which had been delivered by his noble Friend the Member for Bandon. But he felt it his duty to corroborate the statement of his right hon. Friend and Colleague with regard to the dissatisfaction which prevailed in Ireland amongst the Protestants generally, and especially amongst the clergy of the Established Church, with whose sentiments he had the opportunity of being well acquainted, in reference to the national system of education; and he had also for himself to express the deep regret and disappointment he felt that her Majesty's Ministers had not thought it their duty, in deference to the conscientious and nearly unanimous opinions of the bishops and clergy of the Established Church, and the great body of those who formed the sincerest and best supporters of the present Government, so to modify or alter the national system, as to render it scriptural in its principle and character, which was all that they required, and therefore enable the clergy of the Established Church conscientiously to join it. He felt very strongly the inconvenience and objections to raising a discussion, and going to a division upon a question of such magnitude, and involving so important a principle as that of national education, in a committee of supply, and on the occasion of a vote for the maintenance of an existing establishment; and, in order that this great question might be raised properly, and discussed fully and fairly, and on its principle, it had been his intention, if the Irish estimates had come on at the usual period of the Session, to have given timely notice, that on the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, he would move as an amendment a resolution to the effect, that no system of national education is sound in its principle, or worthy of support by the state, in which the supreme value and importance of God's holy word are not distinctly recognised and practically inculcated as the very basis and foundation of education, that the value and importance of God's holy word are not duly recognised, or practically inculcated

709
in the national system in Ireland, and that that system has failed signally in uniting children of different denominations. From the information he had already received from many parts of Ireland, and was receiving every day, he had no doubt he should be able to establish these propositions by strong evidence. He had no doubt he should be able to prove that there was not, on the part of the people of Ireland, that indisposition towards scriptural education so generally imputed to them; and be felt confident in asserting, that the cause of scriptural education was at this moment making way in Ireland, even against the influence of the National Board. He had no right to complain, that the Irish estimates had been brought on at so early a period of the Session. He was glad the state of the public business admitted of its being so, but he would confess, he had been himself taken somewhat by surprise. He had not had the opportunity of giving the notice or completing the information which he thought necessary on the discussion of so important a question. He would not, therefore, prolong the discussion, but would and, that it was his intention to bring the subject substantively before the House at a fitting time, by moving resolutions or an address to the Crown of the purport he had mentioned.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that it had not been his intention when he came down to the House to have taken any part in this debate, and he should not have risen bad it not been for an observation of his noble Friend the Member for Bandon, who had delivered a speech of so much ability that he was sure the House must wish to hear him more frequently; that observation of his noble Friend was to the effect that her Majesty's Government had adopted this system of united education in Ireland merely because it might have embarrassed them to depart from that system, which his noble Friend had described as one of the legacies which had been left to her Majesty's present Government by their predecessors. Now, he could assure his noble Friend and the House, that no spirit of servile adherence to the policy of the late Government, nor any fear of encountering difficulties, would have caused her Majesty's Ministers to shrink from the responsibility of asking for a grant for another system of education in Ireland, had they felt that to be their duty; but, on the contrary, after a full consideration
710
of the subject, they had felt it their duty to adopt the present system, from a strong impression that in Ireland, in the present circumstances of that country, great benefit would arise from perseverance in that system, and that great danger would be incurred of alienating the minds of the vast majority of the people of Ireland, if they departed from it, or made any arrangements tending to disturb its successful and progressive operation. Let the House weigh well what they were about to do, before they condemned the present system—let them bear in mind these facts—that, under the superintendence and control of a Protestant Government, they had in the last year 2,337 schools in operation, teaching 282,000 children, the most of whom, it was said, were children of Roman Catholic parents, who were contented it should be borne in mind, that their children should receive education under a system controlled by a Protestant Government. Then, as to the progress of this system—this great number of children, chiefly Roman Catholics, from the confidence of their parents in this system, conducted as it was under the control of the Government, received from the Legislature, and through masters, well instructed, an excellent secular education. The commissioners who superintended this system, stated that grants had been made for 200 new schools, which were not yet completed; but which, when completed, would be the means of affording education to 25,793 scholars, giving in all 2,921 schools, and an attendance of 347,000 children, the vast majority of these being Roman Catholics. He had had some experience, in the course of his official connexion with Ireland, on this question of education. When the attention of the Government was first called to it, they looked round for information to guide them, and he would read to the House the testimony of a man of great attainments, firmly attached to the Protestant Church, who had had great opportunities of being acquainted with this subject,; who was afterwards a judge, but now, unfortunately, no more—this gentleman, Mr. Leslie Foster, was one whose testimony was of great weight; he could not be suspected of a bias towards the Roman Catholics, for, though active, he was at the same time temperate in his opposition against a concession to the Roman Catholic claims. In speaking of the system of education in 1813, Mr. Foster stated that he would not recapitulate all

711
the painful descriptions that had been given to him of the state of the schools and the mode of education adopted in them; that in one of the returns made to him it was stated that a more disloyal or more bigoted set of men there could not be than the hedge schoolmasters of the county to which the observations referred; that the want of books was deplorable, the mode of teaching most improper and imperfect, and alike ridiculous and pernicious to the children; that the only means of education were through newspapers or such books as "The Impartial History of Ireland, "The Lives of the Irish Rogues and Rapparees," and "The Life of Moll Flanders." Instead of such books being found in the Irish schools now, or such teachers, the children in Ireland were brought up under effective and educated schoolmasters, placed under legislative control, and they were accordingly educated on the best known system. They had now there 350,000 children receiving an excellent secular education, combined, too, with an opportunity of acquiring a knowledge of agricultural pursuits. But it was said that the great majority of them were Roman Catholics. Be it so. Suppose that the whole of them were Roman Catholics, had they not realised a great public advantage by inspiring the parents of those children with confidence in the present system? But his noble Friend (Lord Eliot) had told the House that they were not all Roman Catholics, that one-eighth of them, bearing about the same proportion as the Protestants of the Church Establishment bore to the great mass of the population, were Protestants. The relative number of Protestant children in the schools did not differ from the relative number of the Protestant population to the other inhabitants of the country. But if he were convinced that not a single Protestant were to be found in these schools, still he should be loth to give up a system, by which so many were secured the advantages of an excellent education. But objections were made to the system of national education, which would be fatal if they were well founded. His hon. Friend who had spoken last had intimated that he would move a resolution that no system of education should be encouraged from which the use of the Scriptures should be totally excluded. Now, with respect to his hon. Friend and other hon. Gentlemen who thought with his hon. Friend
712
on this subject, he must say that he respected their motives; he was grateful to them for their exertions in the cause of education, and he had a great admiration for the perseverance which they had manifested—in many cases amidst circumstances of severe privation and depression—in promoting schools for the education of the people in Ireland; but he did say, that the views taken by the Government of the principle involved in the question before the House, was by no means a novel one in Ireland; and it had been always maintained that if they were compelled to offer the Irish a system of education founded, as his hon. Friend proposed, on the use of the Scriptures, it would have the effect of alienating from the schools a great portion of the Irish Catholics. In the year 1827 a commission was appointed by the Crown to inquire into the education of the poorer classes in Ireland, and he would beg the House to observe who were the commissioners then appointed. The final report bore the signatures of William Armagh (Stuart, Archbishop of Armagh), Charles Cashel, (Broderick, Archbishop of Cashel), James Killaloe, (the Protestant Bishop of Killaloe), Isaac Corry, (the Chancellor of the Irish Exchequer), Thomas Elrington, (the Provost of Trinity College, Dublin), Richard Lovel Edgeworth, J. Whitethorn, John Leslie Foster, Member of Parliament for the County of Dublin—all of them, with the exception of Mr. Edgeworth, he believed, were decidedly adverse to concessions to the Roman Catholics. They were instructed to inquire into the state of education in Ireland; into the state of those establishments for education conducted exclusively upon the principles of the Established Church; those Protestant charter schools in which the children received a Protestant education only, and they were to report what had been the effect produced by these seminaries in regard to general education. They did report that these schools were total and unqualified failures. This commission, consisting of eight members, of whom five were members of the established Church, in their report with respect to education, said, that they thought a system might be introduced to improve the education of the lower orders in Ireland. They go on to say—
"That such will be its acceptance we shall indulge the more confident expectation if all

713
interference with the particular religious tenets of those who are to receive that instruction shall, in the first instance, be unequivocally disclaimed and effectually guarded against. We conceive this to be of essential importance in any new establishment for the education of the lower classes in Ireland; and we venture to express our unanimous opinion that no such plan, however wisely and unexceptionably contrived in other respects, can be carried into effectual execution in this country, unless it be explicitly avowed and clearly understood as its leading principle that no attempt shall be made to influence or disturb the peculiar religious tenets of any sect or description of Christians."
Then, as to the use of the Scriptures, or scriptural extracts, the commissioners say—
"It appears to us that a selection may be made, in which the most important parts of Sacred History shall be included together with all the precepts of morality, and all the instructive examples by which these precepts are illustrated and enforced, and which shall not be liable to any of the objections which have been made to the use of the Scriptures in the course of the education. The study of such a volume of extracts from the Sacred Writings would, in our opinion, form the best preparation for that more particular religious instruction which it would be the duty and, we doubt not, the inclination also of their several ministers of religion to give at proper times, and in other places, to the children of their respective congregations."
Now, these principles had been precisely followed in the system at present established in Ireland. It was the system which these eight commissioners, five of them being members of the Established Church, and three of them bishops, had recommended; and, viewing the peculiar difficulties with which it was necessary to deal in Ireland, if they said that in Ireland they would not agree to establish any system of education unless it were exactly the same as that which they established in England, they must fail. There was no analogy between the cases, and it was therefore not right to say that they were bound to pursue the same course in Ireland that they adopted in England. Let it be observed, that it was the nature of the education that was given under the old system in Ireland, and the character of the books used in the schools there, that brought home to the minds of the prelates and others who composed this commission, the fact that the education given was not safe for the Established Church, and they consented to that which might be called a
714
compromise, but which must be yielded to if they wanted to have any system of education at all. Mr. Leslie Foster observed—
"We seem to have a choice of but two general modes of proceeding, either to have separate schools for the Roman Catholics and Protestants, and to teach them each the principles of their respective religions, or to unite them in the same schools, within which the points of their religious differences must never be adverted to. The first, though it may appear to some the most plausible, may, on consideration, be found highly objectionable. To promote the intercourse between the Protestants and Roman Catholics in all possible manners appears to me of the greatest importance, observing, as I always have, that their mutual prejudices abate in proportion as they become acquainted with each other, and that an increase, not of dislike, but of toleration, is the effect of this collision."
Let it be remembered, when hon. Members said that few Protestant children attended these schools, that the situation and circumstances of the Protestant population were somewhat different, from that of the rest of the population—that the Protestants were generally opulent, that the number of children of Protestants requiring gratuitous instruction was comparatively small, and generally speaking, they might conclude that a gratuitous education would not be accepted by a great proportion of the Protestant part of the population. But, however, this might be in other parts of Ireland, in the south circumstances were such as not to enable the Government, if they were disposed, to find the means of an exclusively Protestant system of education. In a parish, where perhaps, there were not twenty Protestant children, first ask how many would accept a gratuitous education, and then with the remainder, think how difficult it would be for the Government to establish a school for imparting an education such as would be effectual. Mr. Leslie Foster, in speaking of the south of Ireland, seemed clearly to point out the expediency of mixing the Protestants and Roman Catholics in the schools. He said—
"There is no plan more calculated to disconnect Protestants and Roman Catholics, than by setting Protestant schools against Roman Catholic schools, and allowing the pupils to look with jealousy upon each other."
This was the opinion of a man not influenced by party feelings, and of as much experience as was possessed by any who

715
had turned their attention to the subject, and he distinctly stated, that if they wished to establish for ever a line of separation between the Protestants and Roman Catholics, that the way to effect it would "be to set up rural Catholic and Protestant schools, and to allow the children to view each other with those feelings of animosity which such circumstances would be sure to inspire them with; and therefore he confessed that it would be with the utmost unwillingness that he should abandon the hope of seeing the national system successfully prosecuted. He knew that the number of Protestant children educated under that system was not so great as he could wish; but he could not help thinking, that if the Protestant clergy would take this view of the case which the five members of the Established Church, including three right rev. prelates and the provost of Trinity College, took in the commission of 1827,—if they could reconcile it to their consciences to think with the Archbishops of Armagh and Cashel, and the Bishop of Killaloe, and the provost of Trinity College, that this system might properly be adopted, which, though five days in the seven were devoted to secular instruction, was in reality founded on the Scriptures,—if in the two remaining days of the week the Protestant clergy could reconcile it to their consciences to attend to educate the children of the establishment in the principles of the Established Church,—he believed that the obstacles which had been hitherto found to interfere with the progress of this measure would be removed, and great benefit would accrue to Ireland. He respected the conscientious scruples which were entertained by the clergy of Ireland, because he knew those scruples to be sincere, and he must always speak with the highest respect of the clergymen of the Established Church in Ireland; but if the view of the highest ecclesiastical authority in that country with respect to this subject was adopted, it would contribute very materially to the successful carrying out of the system. It was not because the late Government had adopted that system, that the present administration had subscribed to it. From the accounts which two or three years ago he had heard of it, he had feared that it had proved unsuccessful, and under that impression he came to consider its claims and its merits, without much prepossession in their favour; but when he had inquired into it—when he had seen it in all its
716
forms—he had come to the conclusion that it was their duty to maintain it as they had found it. What would be the consequence, if they were to give support to plans for the separate education of children belonging to the establishment? If this were to be done, all Protestant children would be at once withdrawn from the national schools. They would have a separate Protestant school and a Roman Catholic school in every parish, for they might be sure that if the Protestant parents had the option of sending their children to the national school, or to one where they would be educated in the principles of the establishment, that the influence of the clergy would always cause the exclusively Protestant school to be preferred. What would be the consequence? They would have a system under which Roman Catholic children would exclusively be educated. If they had, as they would thus have, a system sanctioned by the State for Roman Catholic children—why not have one for the children of the establishment—why not have one also for Presbyterian children? Was it not likely that if two such systems were adopted, that the Presbyterians would require a third for themselves? He would tell them, that were such plans adopted as recommended by the advocates of the separate system, that in two years they would have one education system under the control of, and intended for, the establishment; another of the Roman Catholic Church, teaching her principles, and superintended by her ecclesiastics; and a third for the Presbyterians, teaching Presbyterian doctrines, and controlled by the Presbyterian church. In his opinion, the practical operation of such a system would be probably to improve the children in the knowledge of the doctrines of the particular system of faith in which they were born. The polemical instruction in each of the schools might be improved, but the practical effect would not be to conciliate rival sects—nor to abate religious animosities, but to produce new religious enmities, and to deepen those already existing. He felt that it was his duty to state, that in maintaining the present national system of education in Ireland, the present Government did not adopt it, because they found it established, but because they believed that the greatest practical benefits were now derived from it, and that if they could conciliate the confidence of the Roman Catholics in that country by the nature of the education

717
which they gave, and the commissioners they appointed, they would have the best prospect of improving the morals of the people, of gaining their affections, and diminishing those unfortunate differences which had so long disturbed that country.
Mr. Sharman Crawfordsaid he had the misfortune of seldom being able to support the measures of the Government; but on this occasion he was happy to say he could give his full concurrence and support to the measure proposed and the sentiments expressed by the right hon, Baronet at the head of that Government. He considered that great good would be produced by an united education in Ireland. It would tend, by the early mixture of young people in the same school, to take away the prejudices and the bitterness of feeling which in after-life produced such injurious effects on society in that country; and he was of opinion that the system adopted under the National Board was the best which could be devised for that purpose under the difficult circumstances which existed. He lived in the north of Ireland, and could say that the system was decidedly successful in that part of Ireland, so far as respected the children of Presbyterians and Roman Catholics. Both these classes went in common to the schools, and were educated together; but he regretted to say that the clergy of the Established Church still thought themselves called on to oppose the system, and in consequence, there was a reluctance on the part of that section of Protestants to make use of these schools. The right hon. Baronet had truly pointed out the objections to a separate grant to the Established Church. He had stated that each of the other sects would then require separate grants also. Even if a grant were given to the Established Church, the cause of discontent would not be removed, but on the other hand very probably aggravated. Would the Established Church be satisfied with a grant proportioned to its population, as compared to the population of the other religious sects of which the Irish community was composed? He believed that the proportion of the church would not exceed a tenth of the whole grant, the Presbyterians would obtain another small fraction of the grant, and the Catholics would necessarily absorb the great proportion of whatever sum the state should allow. He was quite convinced that this
718
division would be attended with irritated feelings, and would keep up continued discontent—estranging in a greater degree from each other the several religious denominations, and giving a greater power to the extension of sectarian principles.
Mr. Lefroy, always reluctant to trespass upon the time of the House, yet he felt it a necessary duty to express his opinion on the present occasion, and the more so, after the sentiments which he had, with much pain, heard expressed by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. The right hon. Baronet had treated the question as if it had been proposed that the Church Education Society should be substituted for the National School Society. He had not heard from his hon. Friends about him any such proposition, but he heard them express deep regret, in which he sincerely concurred, that as the Government were determined to continue the national system, they had not felt it their duty at the same time to consider the feelings and wishes of the prelates and laity of the Established Church in Ireland, and at least propose a grant for the education of children of that persuasion in conformity with their religious opinions. He felt some difficulty in alluding even to the letter addressed by the right hon. Baronet on that subject to the highly revered prelate who was at the head of the church in Ireland (which, almost in a single sentence, blighted all the hopes that had existed of a different plan being pursued), lest he might be tempted to depart from the temperate and conciliatory course which the prelates of Ireland had adopted and recommended to all who agreed with them, and which he felt was most becoming so grave and so important a subject; but this much he might be permitted to say, that the blow was as severe as it was unexpected. Whilst he expressed his unfeigned regret that the Government had acted thus to the Church Education Society, he was most anxious to guard himself against the House supposing that he preferred a separate grant being made for the education of Protestants and Roman Catholics in Ireland. He had ever desired to see the children of both religious persuasions trained up together, and, whilst free from the bitterness which too often arises in after life, taught the first lessons of good will and kindness by those scriptures which are the grounds of their common

719
hopes, and the only security for a truly moral life, For this reason he had always been a warm supporter of the Kildare place system; but as the means of usefulness of that society were now so restricted by the withdrawal of the public grant, he felt an increased disappointment that the Government refused any support for a religious education in Ireland, and this at a moment when it was admitted to be so important for England. He must express his deep regret that, whilst the right hon. Baronet seemed to think that Great Britain and Ireland should be assimilated in all matters of civil policy, as respected the all-important subject of religious education (which alone could thoroughly assimilate them), an actual difference must be maintained between them. He thought it was acknowledged generally in that House that a religious education was the only useful one. His noble Friend, the Member for Dorsetshire, had stated in the debate on a similar subject for England, "that it was only to the gospel they could safely look for the lessons and practice of true morality" (Cheers.) This sentiment was cheered by the opposite side, and was it denied by her Majesty's ministers? On the contrary, the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, sanctioned it by saying "all acknowledge that a religious education is, after all, the only true and safe one." He had the opinion of another no less important member of the ministry on this subject—he alluded to his right hon. Friend the Vice-president of the Board of Trade—not, indeed, expressed in this House, but in the great town of Liverpool, from whence it spread and was heard with satisfaction through the length and breadth of the land. He stated,
"It was a great truth that education, to be valuable and to deserve the name, must be a religious one, and to be religious must be founded on the definite word of God."
Such were the declared opinions of the right hon. Baronet's own colleagues for England, and he had not yet heard it explained why as respected Ireland the case was different. He could not understand why the right hon. Baronet quoted the. opinions of three deceased persons however estimable they may have been in their lives, as of greater weight than his own colleagues—but still more as of higher authority than almost the entire bench of living bishops. They and a great body of
720
the laity of the church in Ireland were now united upon the point of a Scriptural education. It was, therefore, unnecessary for him to discuss the point whether they were right or wrong. He thought they were right, though he differed from the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland in this opinion. It had been said, that if a grant were made to the Church Education Society, the Roman Catholic children would be withdrawn; but facts contra-dieted this, as proved by his noble Friend the Member for Bandon. He would in conclusion, add, that he trusted the day would yet come when the Government would be convinced that as in England, so in Ireland, their only hope of maintaining the regard and confidence of the vast portion of the inhabitants of that country must be founded on an avowed determination not to subordinate religion to policy, but to consecrate policy by subordinating it to true religion.
Mr. V. Smithwas astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken lay down the principle that the system of national education in Ireland was not a system of religious education. It appeared to him to be an eminently religious though it might not be a sectarian education, and that but for this they would have avoided a great part of the difficulties they had encountered. When the hon. Gentleman said that all the prelates were averse to this system, he forgot that the Archbishop of Dublin sat at the board of education, and that, however he might differ from them, the opinions of that rev. Prelate were entitled to great respect. As they would soon have another opportunity of discussing this question, he would now only further say that he had listened with great admiration to the manly and statesmanlike speech of the right hon. Baronet, and that he cordially concurred in his deliberate sanction of this system as the best system of education that could be established in Ireland.
Mr. Hardyquite agreed with the hon. Member for Longford, that they could not call that a religious education which was not founded on revelation; why was revelation excluded from the schools? The extracts used did not contain the great doctrines of religion, nor were they in the language of Scripture. They might afford a moral education, but there was great difference between that and a religious education. They were told by the highest

721
authority to search the Scriptures; but in these schools the command was not obeyed. The Scriptures were not to be searched there. If there were no difference between the religious education which a conscientious Roman Catholic would like his children to receive, and that which a conscientious Protestant would wish his children to be imbued with, why, in God's name, had they the great revolution—why did the Church of England now occupy the situation which the Church of Rome occupied here before her—and why was the Queen of this country placed upon the Throne formerly occupied by the Stuarts? And therefore, if the right hon. Baronet called the national system a religious system of education, he must admit that religion could be taught without reference to revelation. And how he could prove this, even with all his transcendant genius, he (Mr. Hardy) could not conceive. There was this difference between the Churches of England and Rome: one was founded upon Scripture—and the other excluded Scripture. [No, no.] He repeated it—the Roman Catholic Church excluded Scripture from her schools, and therefore the arrangement come to was, no compromise on the part of the Church of Rome, but a surrender of the principles of the Church of England—a surrender of that which constituted the great distinction between the two churches. Our translation of the Scriptures was a good and an honest one, but in some of the publications of the Church of Rome, our translation was said to teach the doctrines of the devil. He regretted that the Church which called itself infallible, had never produced an infallible translation of the Scriptures. That Church could find fault with our translation, but it could not produce a better. If the right hon. Baronet desired to introduce a system of moral education in Ireland, he should be prepared to agree that the children should meet and receive such an education together, and that their religious instruction should be received elsewhere.
Lord Eliotmust say a few words on the part of the Board of Education. He must remind his hon. Friend who had just sat down, that under the existing system, the Holy Scriptures were not excluded, and that the only limitation required was, that they should be read at a fixed and prescribed hour—whether that hour was at the beginning, the middle, or the end of
722
the day, it mattered not—in order that an opportunity might be afforded of withdrawing at that hour those children whose parents objected to the use of the Scriptures in the form prescribed. His hon. Friend asserted also, that the revelations were excluded from the extracts used at the national schools; but, surely the revelations were not excluded from the Gospel of St. Luke, the whole of which formed part of those extracts? With regard to the form in which the Scriptures were used, it was certainly neither the Douay nor the authorised edition of the Bible that they read, but what he believed to be a correct, authentic, and perfectly sound version of that holy book. He must also remind his hon. Friend, that two days were set apart for religious instruction exclusively.
Mr. Kembledeprecated the introduction of questions of religion into debates in that House, for he considered that that was not the proper place for them, and that they were but too likely to give rise to angry feelings. After having seen the reports of the commissioners, and having had an opportunity of looking into the working of the present system of education, he had no hesitation in saying that, on the grounds on which it had been recommended by the commissioners, it was an utter and entire failure. As he understood, it was to have united all denominations of Christians under one general system of education, by which there should be no compromise of principle, and which would form the means of softening down the asperities of religious rancour into one general sentiment of charity and benevolence. But such, he regretted to" say, had not been the result. Walking on one occasion through the streets of Newry, he inquired where the national school was, and could not learn, but was informed that there was a nunnery school, and this he found to be the national school of education. He went into it, witnessed the mode in which the children were instructed, and when asked to record his opinion of it, certainly did express himself to have been much pleased with it, as far as cleanliness, regularity, and general education were concerned; but he did maintain that this was not a school which could be called "national;" that a school which was to unite different denominations of Christians could not be held in a nunnery. He would not join in that ge-

723
neral condemnation of the extracts from the Scriptures which were used, in which the hon. Member for Bradford had indulged. Those which he had seen appeared to contain much that was commendable and desirable to be imitated, for they appeared to combine the Old and New Testament, and by that means to afford explanations of both, which were highly advantageous. He complained, however, that these extracts were not read in the schools, and that the commissioners did not insist upon their being read, only making it a matter of mere recommendation. He did not know what the sentiments were of those Gentlemen whose reports had been that evening quoted; but he believed that Baron Foster had never given his sanction to that system. It was well known that the Presbyterians, in consequence of some concessions or what they conceived to be concessions, after having been opposed to the system, became parties to it; but he could not regard that as a national system against which a large body of the Church of England, whether rightly or wrongly, strongly protested, and from which many of the clergy had severed themselves.
Mr. Ross, without meaning to doubt the hon. Member who had just spoken, must say that he knew of no school, attached to the nunnery of Newry, which was under the auspices of the Education Board; but he did know that an application to the board for money to improve the national school-house was refused on the ground that the parish priest lived within its precincts. That being the case, it seemed to him very unlikely that assistance would be given to a school held in a nunnery. If the system suggested by the hon. Member for Bradford were carried out, there could be no education in Ireland at all, for, according to the hon. Member himself, the Roman Catholics would not avail themselves of a system which required the whole Scriptures to be read from beginning to end. That the Scriptures or revelation were excluded at present, he denied; for, as the noble Lord stated, the entire Gospel of St. Luke was included in the extracts, and that Gospel every child was encouraged to read; and if the hon. Member for Bradford was a believer in the Scriptures, he must confess with him, that the words of eternal life were in that Gospel. Different sets of children might be brought
724
up in opposite views of the same parts of the Scriptures—so that it all depended, not on what they read in the schools, but what instruction they received out of the schools, and what views they were taught to entertain of the parts they did read. With regard to the translation which had been objected to, he believed, although there might have been some little compromise on the subject of the extracts that it was perfectly fair. But as there were mistakes in the translation which was read in all the churches of the Establishment, and meeting-houses of the Dissenters, it was possible, that errors might also be found in those portions of the Scriptures which were read in the national schools. But he believed they contained no errors of grave importance, while they certainly did fulfil the great object of placing the children who read them within the capacity of knowing the vital truths of Christianity, and were not, therefore, liable to the censures which had been so liberally cast upon them. He was not only a Protestant, but he might say a double-distilled Protestant—and as such, he had no hesitation in saying that he regarded with approbation all that had been done by the late and the present Administration towards conferring on his countrymen the blessings of a moral and religious education. In what had been stated by the right hon. Baronet he fully concurred. That the books now in use were of a superior order to those hitherto employed, he could bear testimony; but he believed that the inadequate supply, previous to the introduction of the new system, was owing to poverty. He remembered going into a village some years ago, where the youth of the neighbourhood were instructed, and there he found a lad, who, he believed, was destined for the profession of a priest, learning Latin, and what did hon. Members think was the work by which a knowledge of the language was imparted to him? It was Ovid's "Art of Love."In this respect there was an improvement. He sincerely hoped, therefore, that the Government would persevere in their present course, and turn a deaf ear to all revilings on the subject, and to all appeals, come from what quarter they might, to alter the existing system of national education in Ireland. By doing so, he was convinced that they would earn a rich reward in their own consciences, and in the gratitude of the Irish people.
Sir V. Blakeconcurred with the hon. Member for Surrey in the impropriety of introducing: religious discussions into that House. But he could not help remarking upon the egregious error into which the hon. Member for Bradford had fallen, in saying that the Catholics objected to the use of the Bible, and that they did not allow the introduction of revelations into their religious education. What they objected to was the abuse of the Bible, and for this objection he thought good grounds existed. He begged also to say, that the revolution was effected not to subvert the Roman Catholic religion, but to establish the civil liberties of Englishmen.
Mr. Brown, as a Roman Catholic, begged leave to say, that they did make use of the Bible although they did not use the English version. In the county of Kerry, which he represented, the national system of education was most successful, most perfect, and free from objection.
Mr. Shawsaid, there was one statement of his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel), which be (Mr. Shaw) could not let pass without correction; it was, that the system recommended in the 14th report of the Commissioners of Education, of 1812, signed by the Archbishops of Armagh and Cashel, and Bishop Elrington, was the system adopted by the present National Board, and now objected to by the episcopal bench in Ireland. So far from it, be bad in his speech that night—when his right hon. Friend was not in the House—quoted from and expressed his concurrence in the principal sentiments that report contained. The present Primate had on public occasions done the same. But, what was still more important, the only two of the individuals who had signed that report, and who lived to see the present national system proposed, had openly protested against it, as totally different from the one recommended in their report. These were Dr. Elrington and Mr. Leslie Foster'—they objected both to the schools—which, according to their report, were to have been supplementary to the church schools, and to the Scripture extracts, which they had hoped could be agreed on by both churches; whereas those at present recommended, but not enforced by the National Board, had been altogether objected to by the authorities of the Established Church—and had, in fact, fallen into general disuse. Again, his right hon. Friend was in error in the sug-
726
gestion he had made to his noble Friend (Lord Eliot), that one week day was set apart for separate religious instruction. It was true that had been originally recommended by the board; but the practice of late years had been generally, if not universally discontinued.
Sir R. Peelnever heard a statement with greater satisfaction than that of his right hon. Friend, who, from his position, was a high authority in Ireland, and who said the Primate of Ireland, concurred in the principles of the report. He would read from the report the principles in which they concurred. The commissioners declared it as their unanimous opinion:—
"That no principles of national education, however wise and unexceptionable in other respects, can be carried into effect or execution in Ireland, unless it be explicitly avowed and understood as a leading principle, that no attempt shall be made to influence or disturb the peculiar religious tenets of any sect whatever."
In another place they recommended the study of a volume of extracts from the sacred writings as forming the best preparation for a more particular religious instruction.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—PROFESSORS AT THE UNIVERSITIES.
On the question that 2,006 l.. for the salaries and allowances to the professors at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, be granted to her Majesty,
Mr. Humerose to object to this vote. The universities possessed private funds of their own, and the House was not in possession of any means of ascertaining how those funds were appropriated. Under those circumstances it was not fit that the House should vote away the public money. He wished, therefore to know from the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he could give any explanation of the appropriation of the private funds, and he ventured to submit to the House, that until they had such an explanation, they should not agree to this vote.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not know whether the committee would agree with the boa. Member, that this vote should be refused; but he thought that the committee would be hardly disposed to concur in that proposition. It would be remembered that the universities

727
were corporate bodies, having private funds at their own disposal for specific purposes, limited by their own statutes. If these funds were mismanaged, it was open to any one to take the same course with a view to a remedy which might be taken in reference to other corporations. The universities had been established altogether independent of the Crown; but after a time, out of the liberality of the Sovereign, a sum of money was appropriated to them out of its hereditary revenues. When an alteration took place with regard to the civil list, the charge in this respect was transferred to the estimates, and it now rested with Parliament to reject or grant this vote. He could not help remarking that the Crown derived considerable revenue—even to an amount greater than the grant to the universities—from the duties payable on the distribution of honours.
Dr. Bowringthought that the objection of his hon. Friend applied more strongly to Oxford than to Cambridge; because, while at the latter place dissenters were allowed to study, at the former they were excluded from all participation in the liberality of the country.
Mr. Humethought that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his question; for it might be that the universities had funds of their own so large as to make any further vote unnecessary.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—MAYNOOTH.
On the proposition of a vote of 8,928 l.. for the Roman Catholic College at Maynooth,
Mr. Plumptrerose and said that he should not enter now into any discussion upon the subject of this vote, but he should take the sense of the committee upon the vote.
Mr. B. Cochranealso opposed the vote, but would defer any lengthened observation until the motion of which he had given notice, should come before the House. A committee would be better able to judge of how far that system of education had been prejudicial to the country. With respect to the bearing of this question on the point of keeping faith with the Irish Union, the fact of the grant being annual, was of itself evidence that Parliament might at any time discontinue it. He had heard it said, that the articles of the Union would virtually be violated by a refusal of the grant, but he had that
728
day read the fifth article of that Union, by which the Church of England was made the Established Church of Ireland, and he confessed he could not see how, by supporting a Roman Catholic establishment in Ireland, they could say that they were acting up to the principles of the Union. There was no reason, in connexion with the original foundation and subsequent support of the College of Maynooth, why such a sum as upwards of 8,000 l.. a-year, should be given to it. They certainly could never forget that the Roman Catholic religion was the religion of their ancestors, and it was in no feeling of disrespect for that religion that he made these remarks; but he considered that, having declared the Protestant religion to be the religion of the State, the State ought to act towards it as a parent to his child, and that it was its bounden duty in no way whatever to hold doctrines that were in opposition to the established religion of the country. He was wholly opposed to all those declamatory allusions to the Roman Catholics which were too frequently heard. He respected the doctrines of the Roman Catholics though he was himself a Protestant. [Mr. Plumptre: " Hear."] Surely, with all deference to the hon. Gentleman, he might be permitted to respect the opinions of another man, although he differed from them, and though he knew that many who were in the habit of speaking in Exeter Hall and elsewhere, might therefore consider him not a good churchman. But he did respect the faith of his ancestors. At the same time, however, that he respected that faith, he would ever uphold the doctrine of his own creed, to which that faith was opposed, and it was his intention, after the Easter recess, to move for a committee to inquire into the system and effects of the education at Maynooth, considering that that would be the best mode of dealing with the subject.
Mr. Hardysaid, that at a recent meeting of the Repeal Association in Dublin, three priests of Maynooth contributed to the fund for the repeal of the Union.
The committee divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 40: Majority 80.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Balfour, J. M.

Aglionby, H. A.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Aldam, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Beckett, W.

Blake, Sir. V.

Baillie, Col.

Boldero, H, G.

729

Botfield, B.

Johnstone, H.

Bowring, Dr.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Brainstem,

T. W. Lambton, H.

Brodie, W. B.

Langston, J. H.

Brotherton, J.

Layard, Capt.

Browne, hon. W.

Leicester, Earl of

Brace, Lord E.

Lincoln, Earl of

Buckley, E.

McGeachy, F. A.

Buller, E.

Mahon, Visct.

Busfeild, W.

Manners, Lord J.

Chelsea, Visct.

Marshall, W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Martin, C. W.

Clive, E. B.

Mitcalfe, II.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Mitchell, T. A.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Murray, C. R. S.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Napier, Sir C.

Courtenay, Lord

Nicholl, rt. hon; J.

Crawford, W. S.

Ord, W.

Darner, hon. Col.

Patten, J. W.

Duke, Sir J.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Duncan, G.

Peel, J.

Eastnor, Visct.

Plumridge, Capt.

Eliot, Lord

Pollock, Sir F.

Ellice, E.

Praed, W. T.

Escott, B.

Pulsford, R.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Pusey, P.

Ewart, W.

Ross, D. R.

Flower, Sir J.

Scholefield, J.

Forster, M.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Fox, C. R.

Smith, rt. hon. K. V.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Smith, rt. hon. T. B.C.

Gordon, ton. Capt.

Smythe, hon. G.

Gore, M.

Stanley, Lord

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Stanley, E.

Graham, rt. he. Sir J.

Stewart, J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Stuart, W. V.

Grimsditch, T.

Stock, Mr. Serj.

Guest, Sir J.

Strutt, E.

Hamilton, W. J.

Sutton, hn. H. M.

Harcourt, G. G.

Tancred, H. W.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Tennent, J. E.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Thesiger, F.

Hawes, B.

Thornely, T.

Heathcoat, J.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Villiers, hon. C.

Henley, J. W.

Vivian, J. H.

Herbert, hon. S.

Vivian, hon. Capt.

Hervey, Lord A.

Wawn, J.T.

Hill, Lord M.

Wood, Col.

Hindley, C.

Wood, Col. T.

Hollond, R.

Wood, G. W.

Hope, hon. C.

Wortley, hon; J, S.

Hope, G. W.

Young, J

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Hussey, T.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Jermyn, Earl

Gaskell, J. Milnes

List of the NOES.

Ackers, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Alford, Visct.

Christopher, R. A.

Allix, J. P.

Clayton, R.R.

Antrobus, E.

Colvile, C. R.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Filmer, Sir E.

Arkwright, G.

Fuller, A. E.

Bateson, R.

Gore, W. R. O.

Bernard, Visct.

Gregory, W. H.

Broadwood, H.

Grimston, Visct.

730

Grogan, E.

Mundy, E. M.

Hamilton, G. A.

Newdegate, C. N.

Hardy, J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Hodgson, R.

Russell, J. D. W.

Ingestrie, Visct.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Kemble, H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Lawson, A.

Smith, A.

Lefroy, A.

Tollemache, J,

Mainwaring, T.

Verner, Col.

Marsham, Visct.

Master, T. W. C.

TELLERS.

Masterman, J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Cochrane, A.

The vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—BRITISH MUSEUM.
Sir JR. Peelsaid, that he had then to propose the annual vote for the British Museum, but as there were such ample details with respect to it in a paper which had been laid on the Table, it would not be necessary for him to go into any lengthened explanation. The estimate was 2,640 l.. more than that of last year. The chief of this increase was 1,500 l. for the completion of the collection of English scientific works in the library. Another addition was an increase of 450 l. for binding books. He was happy to state, that there had been a great increase in the number of visitors during the last year. In 1841, the number of visitors was 319,000, while last year the number had increased to 547,000, showing an increase of 220,000 in one year. He thought that after this it was unnecessary for him to say one word more in recommendation of the vote. He should, therefore, propose that the sum of 32,576 l. be granted for the establishment of the British Museum, for the year ending April 5, 1843.
Mr. Humeagreed with the right hon. Baronet, that the circumstance of the great increase in the number of Visitors was most satisfactory; but this showed that formerly the trustees of the Museum had not properly estimated the character of our countrymen. But there was no reason why this useful institution should not be made even more useful than it was at present. He objected to the constitution of the trustees who had the control over the institution, and who formed almost a self-elected body of thirty-eight persons. Of these, twenty-eight were ex officio, and the remainder were the representatives of the families of Sir Hans Sloane, and other persons. Some years ago it was considered a great thing to allow seventy-five persons to be admitted

731
to the Museum on three days in the week. In the year 1804, when Mr. Rose proposed the vote for the British Museum, he said,
"That the trustees of that institution had adopted a variety of regulations, by which every possible degree of accommodation would be afforded to those who were desirous of visiting that interesting establishment. It was now provided that seventy-five persons might be admitted per day, three times a week, and that even those who applied in the morning might be admitted in the course of the same day. Regulations were also adopted for admitting private parties three times a week, and orders had likewise been issued for an easy and regular access to the reading-room. In short, it would appear that the Museum promised to furnish the means of being both useful, instructive, and adequate to the gratification of the public curiosity."
What a contrast did this afford to what took place at present, when not less than 30,000 persons were admitted without inconvenience or risk in the course of one day. Still he thought that the constitution of the controlling body at the Museum should be changed, and that the public money should not be placed in the hands of persons over whom the Government had no control. He thought that the superintendence of this establishment should be placed under some responsible officer of the Government, by which means the public would enjoy much greater benefits from the institution than it did at present. If the matter was left to the control of a body like that of the trustees of the Museum, the public never would obtain the full advantages which they should enjoy. He complained of the exclusion of children under eight years of age from the Museum. At present even children in arms were admitted to Hampton Court Palace, and no inconvenience was found to result from such an arrangement. He also thought that the Museum should be open to the public, after one o'clock on Sundays, and also an additional day in the week.
Sir R, Peelsaid, that the hon. Gentleman bad stated that the Government had no control at the board of trustees of the British Museum, whereas six members of the cabinet were ex officio trustees. So far, too, from their having no influence, the First Lord of the Treasury had always a very great influence, as it must be with his sanction that the vote was proposed; and he would venture to say that any rea-
732
sonable suggestion as to the management of the Museum made by the First Lord of the Treasury would be attended to by the trustees. The hon. Gentleman stated that formerly only seventy-five persons were admitted to the Museum each open day in the course of a week, whereas at the present time not less than 30,000 had been admitted in a single day. Did not this circumstance prove that the trustees of the Museum were anxious to afford every facility for the access of the public? In the year 1840, the number of visitors was 247,000; in 1841, it was 319,000; and last year the number had increased to 547,000. If, then, the hon. Member would contrast the present management with that which obtained formerly, he would find that there was every desire to afford accommodation to the public. Again, in the year 1810 the number of visits made to the reading-rooms for the purposes of study was 1,950; in 1815 the number was 4,300, but last year the number was 71,000. It was to him most gratifying to find the large number of persons that passed through the Museum without any circumstance occurring that could reflect even the slightest discredit on them. The orderly and decent conduct of the visitors to the Museum, even on the most crowded days, must afford the utmost gratification to every reflecting mind. The habit of order inculcated by visiting this institution in this way must have a great moral effect, and this was produced in addition to the gratifying the curiosity of the people. With respect to the admission of young children to the Museum, he would only observe, that they might be exposed to inconvenience and some risk in a crowded day; for instance, on any occasion when 30,000 persons passed through the Museum. So far also, from the trustees not being willing to adopt the recommendation of the committee, he would observe, that they were gradually doing so; and in the present year they had made arrangements to carry out the recommendations of the committee with regard to the synopsis. Again, the public were greatly indebted to the enterprise of Mr. Fellowes for a most valuable addition to the contents of the Museum, in the shape of the Xanthian sculptures; and the trustees of the Museum were about to send out that gentleman again to Asia Minor, to endeavour to obtain an additional number of these valuable remains of antiquity.
Mr. Humeconsidered it most desirable that a cheap catalogue of the contents of the Museum should be published. The publication of cheap catalogues of the National and other picture galleries had been productive of the greatest advantage. After many ineffectual attempts to induce the authorities at the National Gallery to issue a cheap catalogue, he had printed a catalogue at his own expense, which was sold at a penny, and the reception which it met with showed how much the public had been in want of such an accommodation. On the very first day of its appearance, while only four of the shilling catalogues were sold, the persons who were stationed at the door of the gallery with the penny catalogues, though they came rather late in the day, sold 147 of them. The catalogues the purchasers took home with them, and everybody must see that such a work, lying on a poor man's table, must at once refine the minds of himself and his family, and operate as an inducement to his neighbours to go and view the works of art which had so pleased him. Similar cheap catalogues had been printed of Dulwich Gallery and other collections with vast public advantage, and it was most desirable that the poorer classes should be placed in possession of an equally cheap catalogue of the contents of the British Museum. The trustees of that institution, however, were most lamentably tardy in meeting the wants and the wishes of the people in this as well as in other respects. The utmost facilities should be given to all classes, including the lowest, for viewing all those public treasures which were calculated to refine and enlarge the mind. As to the damage which it had been the fashion with a certain class of people to predict would be done by the admission of the masses to the treasures in the Museum it was now proved that no damage whatever need be apprehended. It could no longer be justly charged against the English commonalty that they could not safely be admitted to places where foreigners might in all security be trusted. In one day, 30,000 persons of all classes, principally of the humbler ranks, had passed through the various public room of the Museum, and not one sixpenny worth of damage had been done to any of the multitudinous objects which were exhibited. The conduct of the humbler classes, on all these occasions, was stated by the officers in attendance to be most
734
exemplary; the persons who had behaved themselves with the least propriety being precisely what the witnesses before the committee termed the "half-and-half, or would-be gentry;" and this improvement in the character and conduct of the lower classes was attributed, by Mr. Mayne and Col. Rowan, precisely to the greater confidence which was placed in them. Why, too, should the masses not be admitted freely to our cathedrals? Never, he would assert, had the rudest countryman passed through and viewed one of these sacred edifices without awe, without having a higher class of feeling excited in his mind than he was ever before conscious of. As it was, the cathedrals were only open gratuitously during divine service, and thus it happened that the hours which ought to be solely devoted to purposes
of piety and religion were broken in upon by the confusion of persons seeking to gratify that curiosity which they were precluded from indulging at any other time. It therefore appeared to him that Westminster Abbey, for instance, ought to be gratuitously open for public inspection two or three hours in each day. The divine service would thus be uninterrupted, and in every other point of view the advantages would be of a most important character. Sir F. Chantry had mentioned to him, but a short time before his death, that it was entirely owing to his having been accidentally admitted to view a fine group of children in sculpture that had directed his own mind to that branch of art from which that gentleman had received, and to which he had added, so much glory. With the single exception of Norwich cathedral, which was open for an hour and a half on each day to the public gratuitously, all the other cathedrals, he believed, were closed, except during divine service, or on the payment of fees, and thus one great means of elevating the character of the people was lost.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the conduct of the hon. Member for Montrose, in printing a cheap catalogue of the National Gallery, was in the highest degree creditable to him; and there was not one word which the hon. Gentleman had said as to the cathedrals in which he did not entirely concur. He believed that access might be given to these edifices to the mass of the people with the most perfect safety, and that nothing but good could result from such access being freely afforded; even if any additional precautions were considered

735
necessary in the first instance, he could conceive no better way in which a portion of the revenues of chapters could be expended. It would be but a very small portion. Since the last discussion on this subject, the House was aware that a vacancy had occurred in the deanery of Westminster. He had filled up that vacancy with a gentleman, of whom he knew nothing personally, but who was recommended to him by his high professional and personal character; and, in speaking with this reverend gentleman, Dr. Turton; on the subject, he had expressly told him that he could not give him a more satisfactory proof of any gratitude he might feel for the distinction which had been conferred upon him, than the exercising all the influence he should have, as dean, in procuring for the public free admission to the abbey. Dr. Turton had expressed his entire sympathy with him on this subject, and he had every reason to believe that the rev. Gentleman would actively co-operate with him in carrying out this most desirable object.
Sir B. H. Ingliswas not prepared to expect a discussion on cathedrals, on a question as to the estimates for the British Museum. He would, however, not shrink from it. The hon. Member for Montrose seemed to consider that all the sacred edifices of the country ought to be open freely to the curiosity of all men. He held a contrary opinion: and did not wish to make them mere exhibitions. The chief object of attack was Westminster Abbey. Now, whatever was the case formerly, that sanctuary is now at least sufficiently open. He could call the hon. Member, perhaps, indeed, the House generally did not know the fact—that every man, woman, and child in England might enter Poet's-corner for nothing. Every person might see the nave and north transept for 3d. Mr. Hume: Every person had not 3d. to spare.] And, for another 3d., 6d. in all, he might now see every thing in the Abbey. No more was charged than was sufficient to maintain the number of attendants now required for this purpose. An unlimited and gratuitous admission of all persons could not take place without mischief, and, unless a regular inspection were maintained, injury and nuisance would be committed. He thought, that the hon. Member must have forgotten the evidence of the rev. Sydney Smith. To that evi-
736
dence he could add, that very recently one of the attendants, conducting a party of six persons, missed one, and, returning, found him committing a nuisance near the shrine of the confessor. The Dean and Chapter desired nothing but to keep the sacred edifice, which is entrusted to their care, free from such scenes, and from being made a common lounge. They desire to make no profit by any charge for admission, and to collect no more than is sufficient for the payment of the attendants throughout the year; but, on the other hand, they do not feel that they are called upon to maintain this establishment at their own cost, to gratify the curiosity of their neighbours. He was sorry to hear his right hon. Friend, the First Lord of the Treasury, after all the dismemberment of cathedral revenues, intimate an opinion that no better appropriation of the income of a chapter could be made than so to provide not for the devotion but for the curiosity of the people. What, in the case of Westminster Abbey, is the special ground of this? Why, that it contains public monuments erected at the expense of the nation. What is the fact? It contains seven monuments, and no more, so erected; placed there on special application to the Dean and Chapter; and received by them without any fee or charge whatever. This gratuitous admission of the monuments does not involve, as a fair consequence, the gratuitous admission of all men, to see them; and, still less, to see every thing else in the Abbey around them. Yet this is something like the ground, on which the claim of the public, as it is called, rests. Where is the abstract right of any man to enter the Abbey, except for devotion? There is no charge for devotion. [Cheers and Laughter.] You charge a fee not upon those who go to worship, but upon those only who go to gaze. The hon. Gentlemen who cheered the observation, may enter the choir, for the purpose of worship, free of any charge; but if they go to see Sir Francis Chantrey's monument of James Watt, they must be content to pay their 6d. There is a great mistake in supposing, that continental churches are always open freely for the curiosity of all men. They are, in many places, closed, except at service times; or for money. [No, no!] Well, it is a question of evidence, in relation to a fact not necessary for the present point; and he would not discuss it here. He would rather proceed to the more immediate business of the vote at issue for the British Museum. He

737
appealed to the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes) against the hon. Member for Montrose, whether the suggestions made by the committee of 1835 and 1836 had not been fairly considered by the trustees, and fairly carried out. The number of hours during which the Museum was open was greatly increased; it is open, in reality, five days in the week; since, in addition to the three days on which the public generally are admitted, it is open on two other days to artists and men of science. He believed, that the British Museum was open more hours in the day, and more days in the year than any other institution of the same class in the world. He trusted, that the Sunday would never be added to the number. He would only add, in reference to the observation of the hon. Member for Montrose about the catalogues, that it was the intention of the trustees to print cheap catalogues of each division of the collection, as well as the present synopsis of the whole.
Viscount Palmerstonwas highly gratified at what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet opposite as to Westminster Abbey. For himself, having been long acquainted with Dean Turton, and knowing his high qualities, and the liberal character of his mind, he was well persuaded that the rev. Gentleman would use all the means in his power to carry out the intentions of the right hon. Baronet. It was not a feeling of mere ordinary curiosity which drew people to Westminster Abbey, but feelings of a far higher kind.
Lord F. Egertonwas of opinion, and he had had some experience of the matter, that the mass of the people might be admitted to public, and, he might say, to private institutions and collections of various kinds, even of the most valuable objects, with entire security. The only persons whom, as far as he had had opportunities of seeing or hearing, bad misconducted themselves when admitted to collections and institutions, public or private, were precisely the half-and-half gentry that the hon. Member had referred to—people who, many of them, indeed, of a superior class in life, when they were admitted to view objects of art and science occupied themselves with rummaging over your books, or rocking about on your chairs, or trying to open doors that were locked, whereas the humbler classes contented themselves with looking
738
at those objects which they came and were admitted so to see.
Mr. Aclandfeared that some observations, which had been made in the course of the discussion, might unintentionally have the effect of casting some reflection on those whose duty it was to act as trustees of the buildings in question, and who, he believed, had performed that duty in the most praiseworthy manner. He knew that this was the case with regard to the chapter of Westminster, the Members of which took every pains to afford every facility for the admission of the public to the abbey, consistent with a regard to the preservation of the valuable monuments and relics committed to their care.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that the cathedrals, and instanced that of Exeter, were now more difficult of access than they used to be.
Colonel T. Woodwould ask the hon. Member for Oxford what more important moral lessons the people could learn, than those they received from viewing the interior of such places as Westminster-abbey.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.

EDUCATIONAL FUNDS.
Sir G. Greyin rising to move in pursuance of the notice he had given for leave to bring in a bill for the better application of certain charitable trusts for purposes of education, did not intend to enter into the general question of education which had already occupied the attention of the House during the present Session, and respecting which future opportunities for discussion would arise. At this late hour he would only state as briefly as possible the object which he had in view in the present bill, and the grounds upon which the bill was founded. The object was simply to render applicable to purposes of education a large amount of funds in the aggregate, but scattered over the country in small sums, originally appropriated to education; but now, either from the small amount of the fund in particular cases, from the failure of trustees, from the terms of the original endowment, or from some other cause incapable of being usefully applied to the important object for which they were intended. Of the existence of such funds in one who

739
had directed his attention to this subject could entertain a doubt, but the most ample evidence respecting it had been collected in two valuable pamphlets recently published, one by Mr. Hine, who for many years filled the office of secretary to the commissioners for inquiry into charities, and in that capacity had the opportunity of acquiring greater experience, perhaps, than any other individual as to their charities. The other by Mr. Eagle, who
was himself one of the commissioners. As to the amount of such funds, Mr. Eagle states that—
"An approximation to the probable amount of strictly educational funds may be made by a reference to the digest of the reports of the Charity Commissioners, published in 1835. The sum at that time appeared to be—

£

s.

d.

For Endowed Schools

180,309

12

5

For other Schools

16,938

17

5

Total Income

197,248

9

10

The aggregate amount of charitable funds for all purposes at that time, inquired into by the commissioners, being 748,178 l. 5s. 9d., and the whole being estimated as at least 1,000,000 l., if the educational funds be taken to bear the same proportion at at the former period, they will not amount to much less than 250,000 l., per annum."
This two, is exclusive of various institutions which were exempted from the inquiry, such as the two universities, public schools and other charities, of the charities investigated by the commissioners, Mr. Hine states—
"The smaller charities by which I mean those whose incomes range from 1l. to 20 l., form a very large proportion of the whole number, these are peculiarly liable to some of the evils I shall have occasion hereafter to point out, and for those evils they are in effect altogether without means of redress."
The evils here adverted to, in fact, render such charities almost useless, Mr. Eagle says—
"The reports of the inspectors appointed by the committee of the Privy Council on education will satisfy those who feel an interest in the matter, that the present application of educational funds derived from the smaller charities, is in general so lamentably defective as to tend to injure rather than otherwise those whom it was intended to benefit, and that some alteration with respect to them has became a matter of absolute necessity."
And he adds that—
"Utterly inefficient as their funds are for all
740
useful purposes in their present state, they would form in the aggregate a most valuable addition to Parliamentary grants."
At present the terms of the endowment in many cases precluded trustees who were anxious to employ the charity funds advantageously, from applying them in support of schools established with the aid of the Parliamentary grant administered by the Committee of Council, and consesequently they remained unapplied to any useful purpose, the Court of Chancery being the only tribunal which can be resorted to for the regulation of charitable trusts, and the expense of an application to that court being a complete bar in many cases to any remedy. One common case was, that of a failure of trustees, no power, perhaps, of keeping up the succession of trustees having been contained in the original grant, or never having been acted on, so that the property had become legally vested in some unknown representative of an original trustee, and no new appointment could be made except by the Court of Chancery. Upon this point, Mr. Hine states:—
"The most general and prominent evil by which charities are affected is the want of an easy and inexpensive mode of keeping up the succession of trustees. It often happens that the instrument of foundation omits to make provision for such succession, and when it does make it, and the donor has empowered a given number of surviving trustees to nominate others to fill up the trust, the nomination is generally deferred till the prescribed number of trustees no longer exist, when if an appointment is made it is invalid, but more commonly no appointment is made at all. This occurs either through inadvertence, or because the funds of the charities are too small to bear the expense of a conveyance or transfer to the new trustees. Rent charges of which a very great proportion of the endowments of charities consists, and which are frequently below 10 l. in annual amount, are especially subject to this evil. The reports of the commissioners teem with instances of such gifts, and it may be safely asserted, that except where they form part of a larger endowment, the succession of trustees is hardly ever kept up; the consequence is, that these charities are at the mercy of the owner of the property, out of which they issue who may withhold the payment with impunity."
In addition to this evil affecting their smaller charities generally, another had arisen from the operation of the Municipal Corporation Act, which is also pointed out by Mr. Hine, he says—

741
"By the 71st section of the municipal corporation set, persons who at its passing were trustees of charities is their corporate character wave constituted trustees in their individual character, till the 1st of August, 1836, but their estate interest and title, and their power were immediately thereupon utterly to cease and determine, and it was provided that if Parliament should not otherwise direct before that day, the Lord Chancellor should make such orders as he should see fit for the administration of the trust estates. No provision for the case having been made by Parliament, applications were after the 1st of August made by petition to the Lord Chancellor relative to charities in many corporate towns, and under his Lordship's directions, appointments of trustees of the several charities took place, but the property belonging to them has not been conveyed to such trustees by reason of doubt in whom it was legally vested, and by whom conveyances could be made. Much inconvenience has consequently been felt. In other towns the property of the charities was two small in amount to bear the expense of applications to the Lord Chancellor, they have therefore remained Since August 1836, without the protection of any regularly appointed trustees."
He would only add one other passage from Mr. Hine's pamphlet on the question of expense to show the inadequacy of the present remedy for the cases to which he had adverted. He says—
"When the Court of Chancery is resorted to to effect the appointment of trustees, the expense of the proceedings including that of a conveyance to the to can hardly be estimated at leas than 50 l. or 60 l., even in a simple case, and one where the defect of trustees is of recent origin, but where no appointment has taken place perhaps for a century, the expenses may be immediately augmented."
He was aware that the evils thus clearly pointed oat in the passages which he had read, affected all charities, and not only those for educational purposes, and he felt that a remedy was required in other cases. Suggestions had before been offered to Parliament with a view to provide such a remedy, particularly by Lord Brougham, but fully admitting the importance and necessity of some general measure, he (Sir G. Grey) wished now to confine himself to a particular class of charities, namely, those of email individual amount and limited to educational purposes. He thought that these cases were most urgent, and at the same time moat easily admitted of a remedy. The measure which he should propose would require no new machinery. He proposed to avail himself of
742
the Committee of Council on education, which might be properly made use of for this purpose. It was a body to whom was entrusted the general superintendence of education aided by Parliamentary grants, it was composed of individuals holding high official stations, and directly responsible to Parliament for the due discharge of their duties, they possessed means of instituting local inquiries and of communicating with parties as to each case which might come before them, they could command the advice and assistance of the law officers of the Crown, and they were in personal communication with the highest legal authority, the Lord Chancellor. He, therefore proposed that in certain cases which would be specified in the bill, a scheme might be laid before her Majesty in Council for the better application of charitable trusts for education, which scheme might be adopted with or without modifications, and that when adopted it should regulate the future administration of the trust. He proposed a similar provision with regard to the appointment of new trustees, and in accordance with the existing practice in some cases, it would be provided that upon the approval by her Majesty in Council of any scheme for this purpose, the trust property should be at once vested in the new trustees without any conveyance. He proposed that such schemes should be laid before the Privy Council only by certain parties, namely, some trustee of the property, or some person in the possession or management of it, or having an interest in its due application, to whom, in order to check any improper interference, he should add her Majesty's Attorney-general, making his concurrence in every case requisite to any scheme to be submitted to Her Privy Council. He felt that this brief statement of the provisions of the proposed bill would be sufficient on the present occasion; and he did not anticipate any objection to his motion, "for leave to bring in a bill for the better application of certain charitable trusts for purposes of education."
Sir James Graham, in giving his assent to the introduction of the bill, wished to guard himself from misconstruction. The object of the bill was a good one, and he was willing further to admit that a necessity existed for legislating on the subject, though the subject was attended with much difficulty. He was not, however, prepared to admit the distinction drawn

743
by the right hon. Gentleman between charitable trusts for educational purposes and all other charitable trusts. He was of opinion, this view of the subject was a too limited one, and he thought that the process recommended by the right hon. Gentleman might be made of a more simple and efficient character. He merely rose for the purpose of guarding against any misconception as to the assent of Government in allowing the bill to be introduced.
Leave given.
House adjourned at one o'clock.

MINUTES
NEW MEMBERS. Viscount O'Neill took the Oaths.
BILLS. Public.—3a. and passed: Slave Trade Abolition (Bolivia); Slave Trade Abolition (Uruguay); Slave Trade Suppression (Texas); Pound-Breach and Rescue.
Private.—1a. Northern and Eastern Railway; Willliam Watson's Divorce.
2a.Ipswich Docks.
Reported.—Bolton Gas; Grafton Inclosure.
3a. and passed: Carmarthen Market; Cockermouth Roads; Oxford Railway; Lancaster Lunatic Asylum; Chepstow Water; Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester Railway; Birkenhead Improvement.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Bishop of Winchester, from North and South East Droxford, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By Lord Cottenham, and Lord Reddesdale, from Carmarthen, Llandovery, Leek, Hereford, London, Westminster, and Southwark, for the Repeal of the Bankruptcy Law Amendment Act.—From Several Unions for the Repeal of the Births &c, Registration Act.—From Milnathort, for the Repeal of all Corn and Provision Laws.—From Kirkcudbright, for the better Payment of Schoolmasters in Scotland.

INCOME-TAX.
The Duke of Wellingtonhad promised the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) to make inquiry as to the amount of property tax paid. He had since made inquiry, and had ascertained that the produce received during the past year, was 2,456,288 l; that 313,344 l.. had been paid in the quarter ending 10th October last, 257,212 l. in the quarter ending 5th January, and the remainder in the quarter just concluded. The collection had not been made in many places, the appeals in some cases not yet concluded, and many payments had been made for the whole year, so that it was impossible now to give an estimate of the whole amount the tax would produce.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON—THANKS TO LORD ASHBURTON.
Lord Broughamsaid,* my Lords, when I consider the very great importance of the question, in all its relations, both foreign and domestic, which I have undertaken to bring before the House this evening, and when I reflect on the load of responsibility which must appear to rest on me in performing, or at-
* From a corrected report.
600
tempting to perform, this undertaking, I certainly do not deny, that though I have had a very large and long experience in addressing various public assemblies, in dealing with subjects of various kinds and under every aspect of public affairs, I feel considerable uneasiness and even anxiety at the present moment. It may be thought to savour of presumption in an individual, apart from the Government, voluntarily to grapple with a question of such mighty interest; nevertheless there are some considerations which, while they have urged me to the enterprise, seem to have a force sufficient to support me in proceeding with it. It is not now for the first time, my Lords, that I have had to deal with most important matters, concerning the relations of this country and the United States. None of your Lordships have had for so long a period as I have had, the fortune to take an active part in endeavouring to allay animosities, and to restore peaceful and amicable relations between this country and America. Not only in 1808, when the ill-devised orders in Council were issued; but in 1812, when I was aided by my noble Friend, whose negotiation forms the object of the present motion, and whose conduct upon that occasion pointed him out prominently as the proper person to proceed to America, for the purpose of putting an end to all matters in difference, and of restoring those feelings of friendship and mutual confidence that are of such vital importance to the welfare of the two countries—in 1812 I grappled for the second time with this question, and I had, with his powerful aid, the good fortune to triumph over that vicious policy which fettered the freedom of commercial dealings, embittered all intercourse with our American kinsmen, and sapped the whole commercial prosperity of the empire. But what sustains and repairs me in performing this arduous duty is the absolute confidence I feel in the impregnable position which I now occupy. I rely on its strength upon all points; not merely those on which no attempt has ever been made to assail it, but I should even say still more with reference to those on which attacks have been made, and been triumphantly repulsed. I shall now at once proceed to the subject-matter of this "great argument;" and if I shall succeed in "rising to the height of it," I feel confident that my labour and my anxiety will be rewarded by being the feeble, the humble instru-

601
meat, of rendering a service to the cause of train, of peace, and of my country. When either the policy of a state, or the conduct of a family or of an individual, is canvassed, in any particular way, with reference to blame or praise, the question usually is, what has been gained, or restored, or lost, or secured, in that particular transaction? But it is, I should say, first of all absolutely necessary that we form to ourselves a clear idea of what the object was which the parties had in view—what was the point of pursuit—what the matter sought to be obtained—before we can safely come to any decision. If we take not this course, we shall little know how to mete out the share of praise or of blame that the parties concerned ought to receive. I shall therefore, at once consider what the object of our Government was in originating this great negotiation, and what specific purpose they had in view when they sent a Minister to America. Now, I hold this to be the clear and undeniable truth—that the one great object of pursuit, the one great purpose sought to be attained, that purpose, in comparison with which every other point is a mere grain of dust in the balance, was the restoration of friendly feeling and amicable intercourse between England and America. If we only cast our eyes back for half a century, if we only look to the beginning of the independence of the United States, we shall at once perceive of what paramount importance as well as difficulty, this reconcilement was to both countries. So soon as the disatrous struggle which stripped England of her finest colonies was brought to a close, it is in vain to deny that on both sides of the Atlantic much ill-feeling naturally prevailed. Those feelings were kept rankling in the bosoms of each party to the contest, and circumstances occurred to render them still more acute. The great loss which England had sustained made the recollections bitter on this side of the Atlantic, and the indignities to which our opponents were exposed by the cast and complexion of our prejudices, made the feeling equally sore on the other side, notwithstanding the signal triumph which had there been won. To this I may add, for it is now matter of history, and can give offence to no one, that there was something in the establishment, for the first time in modern ages, of a great democratic government, of a. purely republican constitution, which bad an
602
inevitable tendency to beget soreness of feeling on our side of the water. We, with all our monarchical principles—for I will not call them prejudices—we, with all our aristocratic feelings, for I will not call them superstfBons—we, with all our natural abhorrence of the levelling system and a democratic form of government, were impatient of beholding a great and rising empire, founded by monarchical England's sons, a republic—a level republic—in the veins of whose members flowed the blood of aristocratic England. We saw those republican principles rooted and planted deep in the hearts and feelings of 3,000,000 of Englishmen—we saw them ruling, and conquering, and flourishing, without a king to govern, without a prelate to bless, without a noble to adorn them—we saw all this effected at the point of the sword after a series of defeat, disaster, and disgrace to the British arms. No wonder, then, that all strong feelings and deeply-rooted prejudices were called into fierce action so often as the successes of America were remembered—so often as the name of the new republic was pronounced. Nor were words wanting to express those exasperated feelings. A tone was assumed, sometimes of bitterness, sometimes of affected superiority, far more offensive than the utmost bitterness—sometimes of aristocratic exultation over the humbler members of the American community—which, though it might be in some degree excused by the violence offered—and somewhat rudely offered—to long-cherished prejudices, and was not the less calculated to wound and exasperate American bosoms, because it was diametrically opposed to those strong and powerful sentiments which they themselves cherished. They were as deeply impressed with the necessity of upholding the principle of plain and rustic equality as we were with the duty of maintaining the Corinthian capital of aristocratic rule. They upheld the massive but simple columns of their homely structure with as much fondness as we showed for our own many beautiful pillars. Events were not wanting to blow the coal of discord between the two countries. Whilst various matters were tending to maintain exasperation between the two countries, a great event shook all Europe, and indeed all the world to its base. The French Revolution added, on the part of England, new fuel to the aristocratic and monarchical feeling

603
which was so dearly cherished in this country, imparting at the same time new exultation and additional triumph to republican America. When things were in this state—when the feelings on either side were highly exacerbated—the French intriguer, the Jacobin leveller, the propagandist of republic opinions and principles, stepped in, and increased the discord. France, not satisfied with the dead level of American institutions—not content with the pure and absolute democracy of republican America—could not be grateful unless America, republican like herself, democratic like herself, should raise her arm against all the institutions of the old world, partake of that anarchy which prevailed within herself, and join in the war to which it had given birth. French intrigue laboured hard to introduce that confusion into America which had already laid waste all France, and which had kindled the war with England. Hence, For the last three years of the president ship of that great man who then governed America, the greatest man, I will venture to say, that as a ruler, either the old or the new world has produced, he endeavoured to hold the balance evenly between the factions in his country, and to maintain the republican principle untainted by that anarchy which mischievous or misguided men would introduce into the State founded by his sword, guided by his wisdom, and sustained by his patriotism. He successfully resisted the intrigues of France, and succeeded in preserving the great blessing of peace which he had achieved, when he nobly conquered the independence of his native land. During those three momentous years we were fated to see one perpetual contention between England and America, in the course of which, at every turn of the negotiation, war was ready to burst forth. Next came the neutral questions; then the short peace or truce with France—the peace of Amiens. Then followed, in rapid succession, the new neutral controversy, the orders in Council, and the question of impressment, Until we were ultimately involved in actual war. So that since the peace of Versailles, which acknowledged the independence of the United States, from those feelings and prejudices which I have described, owing to the events at which I have shortly glanced, and in consequence Of the practices of French in triguers, it had so happened that points of
604
difference having revived the half-forgotten hostilities of 1812 and 1813, we have been in a state of perpetual soreness, irritation, and heart-burning. The interval was tilled up by mutual injuries, mutual offences, mutual recriminations; suspicions and jealousies were ready, each moment, to break out on either side; mutual chagrin and vexation at each other's success—mutual joy and triumph at each other's disasters; then direct and downright animosities; then short-lived truce; then war—actual war; and at last peace—the name of peace rather than the reality or the substance of that prime, that inestimable blessing. One is reminded of the picture given in the Roman comedy of the relations between parties who should naturally know no coldness, no quarrels.
Injuriæ,
Suspiciones, inimicitiæ, induciæ,
Bellum, pax rursum.
But it was the aspect rather than the real, fair form of peace. It is in vain to doubt what it is impossible to deny, that after peace was in name restored, matters continued almost entirely on the same footing as before; so that, upon the accession to office of my noble Friends opposite—I allude particularly to my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs—they really may be said to have found matters with respect to England and the United States in anything but a satisfactory position, in everything but a warlike position, with some half dozen of the more difficult questions to settle—some three or four points upon which both nations had all but vowed never to listen to reason, and never to come to any understanding—and some other points, the settlement of which had often been attempted, and the attempt had as often failed. One question, at least, baffled all such attempts; a question which, with regard to the importance of the interests involved, with respect to the strong feeling entertained on the subject on both sides of the water, and, as to the difficulties which surrounded it, matched, I will venture to say, any other point of discussion on which negotiators ever had to treat, or which, when all attempts at treaty have failed, has brought on the last resort—the resort to the sword. Such, my Lords, was the state of things—such was the aspect of our foreign affairs as regarded America—such were the feelings and such the difficulties

605
which prevailed, when my noble Friend undertook the task—as important as it was hard—of effecting a complete adjustment of all these difficulties, and of reconciling; the two nations once more. I have said that matters were all but in a hostile position; and the state of the case was this:—A train was laid in America, in the feelings of the people upon the boundary question; on the subject of Canadian interference with respect to the cases of the Caroline and the Creole; above all, upon the question of the slave-trade and the right of search; feelings of a similar kind prevailed in this country, though on the opposite side of the question, doubtless as strong and as universal. It was thus rendered inevitably certain that, if any mischance had happened to peace in Europe,—if any war, or anything like war had broken out on this side the Atlantic,—one spark of that fire which would then have broken out in the old world, borne across the ocean, would have kindled the train thus ready laid to explode, extended the flame to America, and involved the new world as well as the old in endless war. And if I am asked whether there was any likelihood of that spark being flung off, I must refer—though I am loth to broach any matters but those immediately under discussion—to a man existing in France, who may be said to have been, and still to be, the impersonation of hostile feeling, the promoter of discord between America and England. I name him because I wish to attach undivided blame to the quarter within which, at I hope, the guilt is, without any accomplice, confined. I name General Cass as the person, whose manœuvres, whose discreditable conduct, whose breach of duty to hit own Government—more flagrant than hit breach of duty to humanity, and as a descendant of free English parents—whose conduct in these particulars it is wholly impossible either to pass over or to palliate. Even after the adjustment of the differences between the two countries, after an end had, all but miraculously, been pat to the difficulties which beset us—that negotiator, that envoy sent to preserve peace—that man presiding at Paris over the pacific relations between France and America—that man sent to maintain general good wilt and amity—that minister of peace, acting as if some friend had whispered to him, and inspired him, Disjioe composition pacem, sere crimina belli
606
—did hit very best to destroy it, by the circulation of arguments upon questions of international law, of even the rudiments of which he had no more conception than he had of the languages spoken in the moon—he having, to all appearance, no more capacity of reasoning upon any question than he had of understanding legal points and legal differences—by stepping out of his own province, and mixing himself up with French affairs—with the negotiations between France and England—which he had no more to do with than he had with treaties between two powers in the Peninsula of India—and by officiously intruding upon the French Government his impertinent protest against the treaty between England and France, in order, if he could, to excite war between the two countries. That was his object; and I speak with the greater confidence, because I have now before me the severe reprimand given him by his own principal, Mr. Webster, for his conduct during that negotiation, for hit interference with matters which in nowise concerned him, and for his gratuitously thrusting his remonstrances upon his own Government, who had sent him out, whose servant he was, whose orders he was bound by his allegiance to obey, whose proceedings he had no shadow of vocation even to criticize, much test to blame. And for what did he do this? For the sake of furthering his electioneering interests in America—from a desire for the attainment of that situation, the possession of which he envied Mr. Tyler—the situation of first magistrate of that great republic—he pandered to the mob-feeling of the lowest rabble in the United States. It is a circumstance which I contemplate with a pure and unmingled satisfaction, that the most respectable portion of the American community is favourable to the maintenance of peace with England, although the detestable spirit of faction prevents that desire from being entertained in every quarter. This vile working of party feeling prevents me from affirming that every respectable person in the Great Union is the friend of this country and of peace; but this I will say, and every one who is acquainted with the state of things in America will vouch for the truth of my assertion, that where so ever in that country there is to be found a lower race of politicians than all others—wherever there can be discovered an inferior caste of

607
statesmen—wheresoever in raking into the filth and the dross of faction, the dregs of political society, there is to be dug up a grovelling, groundling set of politicians—that wherever the mere rabble holds sway, as contradistinguished from men of property, of information, and of principle—in that quarter, among those groundling statesmen, among those rabble mobs, among that lowest class of the people, you are absolutely certain to find the strongest and most envenomed prejudices against the American alliance with England, and the greatest disposition to see war usurp the place of peace between the two kindred nations. Such, my Lords, were the dangers, such were the risks, and such the difficulties by which my noble Friend opposite, and my noble Friend (Lord Ashburton), whose delicacy prevents him from attending in his place this evening, found their path beset at every step. To heal these divisions—to provide a real and substantial cure for the wounds which existed in each of the two countries—to effect, not merely the adjustment of the differences in detail, but, above all, to reconcile the two countries, and to restore that feeling of cordial good-will which ought naturally to subsist between communities related by language, by laws, by the same literature, and by a common descent, was the paramount object of my noble Friend opposite, and of his emissary, my Lord Ashburton. Your Lordships will, I am am sure, give me credit for not having been influenced in entering into these details by any desire of needlessly occupying your time by referring to these fruitful subjects of an easy declamation; but it is quite impossible to tell what my case is, without calling your attention to the present, or, rather happily, the late position, and the state of feeling that prevailed, or had so long unhappily ruled, on both sides of the Atlantic. But, because I hold the assuaging of these feelings to have been the grand object of our endeavours, do I say, that the terms agreed upon are of no moment at all, that they are but as dust in the balance, absolutely, and of themselves and in every point of view, when I only say they are as a feather compared with far mightier objects? Do I hold that it was quite immaterial what terms were consented to on one side or the other? Very far from it. Some terms are always of importance. I should say that the pecuniary interests, the commercial interests
608
of countries are, in questions of negotiation, of comparatively little importance, and for this reason:—If a war should take place, the expenses of the first six months of that war would cost incalculably more to both parties than the whole object in dispute. The case is similar to many law suits, as many of my noble and learned Friends know. Some of my noble Friends have profited more or less by such suits, and other noble Lords continue, without profiting much, to suffer a great deal from the laborious discharge of their duties in investigating such cases. 1 have very seldom seen a cause, in which a moderate amount, under 100 l.. or even 150 l., was involved, which, upon a calculation of profit and loss, it would not have been the most prudent course, if the man had a receipt in his pocket, to have given up rather than incur the expenses of costs—and then run the risk, and there is always some risk, as to the result. But a man knows that if he did this in one case he would be liable to be gradually, and indeed very speedily, stripped of every thing he possessed. Such is also the case of nations, with regard to their disputes and their great trials, wars. The cost is heavier than any mere loss or gain can be worth. But anything affecting the honour of a country is always of importance; and I think it was Mr. Fox who once wisely and profoundly observed, that while he could never approve a war for profit, a war for the maintenance of honour was a very different thing, for the sacrifice of national honour mast lead to the downfall of the country. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the terms and conditions of the important treaty to which I am now referring. This becomes doubly necessary when you are dealing with a people like our Transatlantic brethren, who are somewhat prone, after the manner of democratic nations, to magnify themselves and undervalue others, and to count all they gain in any new state as a tribute rendered by fear to their greatness and their courage—I now undertake to show your Lord ships, that every one object of the negotiation has been gained, as well as the reconcilement of the two nations—that no one interest of this country has been sacrificed—that nothing has been given up which it was of the slightest moment that England should retain; and, above all, that no one principle has been sacrificed, and that the high and untarnished honour

609
of the people, of the Crown, and of the Constitution of this country has, throughout the negotiations of my Lord Ashburton acting on the instructions of my noble Friend opposite, been preserved absolutely unsullied and pure. I, therefore, come, my Lords, and I will be as brief as possible, to those points which the negotiator had to handle. I will begin with the subject of the Caroline. It has been said that an apologetical tone was adopted by my noble Friend in dealing with this question; but that he entirely succeeded in his negotiations on this point, that every difficulty was removed, that every doubt was at once abolished, and that the whole question was settled satisfactorily to all parties, I have yet to hear denied. This has certainly never been doubted on either side of the Atlantic. The greatest difficulty to be apprehended in the settlement of the differences between Canada and the United States arose, perhaps, from the fact of their near neighbourhood; for near neighbourhood in the case of states, as in that of private persons, does not always engender great vehemence of affection; but has sometimes a tendency, both with individuals and with communities, to beget feelings of a very different character. Accordingly monarchical and aristocratic Canada is very apt, if not to look down upon its neighbour the United States, yet to feel a pharisaical self-importance; to bless God that it is not as other men are—deprived of the spiritual blessings of a church, destitute of the light of the royal countenance, possessing only the rude and clumsy Doric columns of a republic, instead of seeing the tendrils of their vine and the branches of their fig-tree twine round the graceful Corinthian shafts of an aristocratical structure. Such is the feeling which prevails among our fellow-subjects in Canada. They were the witnesses, and indeed the actors in the affair of the Caroline, and if any persons were likely to feel dissatisfaction with the negotiations on this subject, had anything gone wrong, had any undue concession been made, or had any needful stipulation been omitted, the people of Canada were they. I understand from some friends of mine who have lately visited that country,—one of them an hon. and learned gentleman who has lately appeared at our Bar (Mr. Falconer)—for whose great abilities my noble and learned friends will vouch,—for whose accuracy
610
and intelligence, and total freedom from prejudice, I can vouch from personal knowledge, and who was in Canada when the result of the negotiations was promulgated,—that nothing could give more entire satisfaction to the people of the province than these negotiations and their results. The press also was almost unanimous in its praise of the manner in which the affair of the Caroline was concluded; and, the press may be taken as an indication of the popular feeling, so far it is worthy of attention, though I am far, indeed, from holding it anything like a safe guide in other respects. It appears that out of eleven papers, of which the press of Canada is composed, no less than ten gave the most entire and express approval of all that had been done on the subject of the Caroline. But another testimony in favour of that negotiation I take from a very different source—from the eloquent silence on the subject of the objectors to my noble Friend. Not one word has been said by them against that section of the Treaty which touches the taking of the Caroline. True, I may be expected to say—Oh, such candid objectors as they are must have too much British feeling, too much candour not to give their open and oral testimony in favour of that part of the Treaty. But no! Not only is there a dead silence with regard to blame, but there is a dead silence with regard to praise also—
" Et quæ
Desperat tractata nitescere posse, relinquit."
The objector, whenever he can find food for his spleen, battens upon it; when there is nothing that can turn to gall, he leaves it; anything that seems unfit, not to make his eloquence shine brighter, but ill-adapted to serve as fuel to the flame of war, he leaves untouched. That silence, however, though little creditable to the objector's fairness, at least is valuable in that it forms a reluctant testimony to my noble Friend's success. It is said, however, that my noble Friend made an apology on the subject of the Caroline. Did he? Here is the language of this so-called apology. He is speaking of those who went across the St. Lawrence and cut out the Caroline, and who committed the act of hostility and of invasion of the American territory; and if my noble Friend made an apology, we must expect to hear him use the language of apology. You will expect to hear him saying,—"We are

611
sorry for it; we will never do so any more; we admit that we are wrong and that you are right; and we beg that you will accept this declaration as an apology for what we have done." This is the sort of language which, when men talk of an apology, you may expect roe So read as the language of my noble Friend. But what does he really say?—
"I might safely put it to any candid man acquainted with the state of the circumstances, whether the military commander could, on the 24th of December, reasonably expect that he could be relieved by any American authority?"
That is to say, when the American authorities found it impossible to restrain their own subjects from the course they were pursuing, we must take the thing into our own hands and act. The noble Lord goes on,—
"How then could the Government, having imposed on them the paramount duty of protecting their own people, be reasonably expected to wait for that which they had no reason to expect?"
I really do not know which the most to admire in this passage, my Lords,—the remarkable force, point, and precision of the language, or the dignity of the assertion of the right.
" The necessity of self-defence," continues my noble Friend, "leaving no option of deliberation, was applicable to this case in as high a degree as to any case in the history of nations."
I need not read further. AH the rest of that despatch is to the same effect, and justifies the act on the ground of necessity, using the self-same topic, so offensive at that time to Americans, which my noble Friend opposite (Duke of Wellington) used in the heat of the controversy—namely, that the American Government was too feeble to restrain its own subjects, and that therefore we must take the law into our own hands. So that it was most justly observed in a work not very prone to take the part of America, and which has many sins to answer for in exciting prejudices on both sides,—I mean that able and learned journal, the Quarterly Review,— that it is really an instance of kindly feeling on the part of the American Government to take this most plain and spirited assertion of a right as anything like an apology. But whence did all this dispute arise? It arose—mark this—out of a transaction which ended in reflecting equal honour on
612
the candour and the sense of justice of the American Government, and on the dignified and determined tone of the British negotiator. It arose out of a transaction caused by that very deficiency of authority in the American Government to which the noble Duke referred at the time, and to which my noble Friend (Lord Ashburton) refers, in nearly the same terms, in the passage I have just read. It arose out of the case of M'Leod, which was not only declared to be an unlucky one by my noble Friend, but was also admitted by Mr. Webster to be so, for he says in the very next paper to that from which I have already quoted, that "it is a subject of regret that the release of M'Leod should have been so long delayed," I do not attempt to triumph over the United States because of this admission. I do not assume to look down on the American secretary on account of it. I do not wish to seize hold of this sentence as an apology, and therefore a humiliation of America. But, after all that I have heard said about my noble Friend having made an apology, I really must say, that the tone of the passage which I have just read does look to me much more like an apology than anything which is to be found in any part of my noble Friend's despatches. It is couched in the appointed phraseology of apology, the terms used by men when they feel they have done wrong, and wish to be pardoned by the injured party. But it casts no blame on America or her minister; on the contrary, it does credit to both. It is highly proper, fitting, and becoming that such a passage should there be found, because it shews that those honest republicans are not prepared to sacrifice truth and justice to diplomatic arts. But see what has been the result. It was necessary for my noble Friend, on behalf of this country, to endeavour to obtain such an arrangement of the law as would prevent the like evils happening in future. Surely it was no light matter to ask any State to change the fundamental law of its constitution,—to say to them, "Be pleased to alter the form of your Government in a material particular,'—to add to the power of that executive, of which you are so jealous that you watch it by every kind of contrivance—be pleased to give to the Government of that central power, of which all the States of the Union are so especially jealous—as jealous as love of independence and na-

613
tional feelings united can make them,—be pleased to arm the Government with a new, unheard-of, unconstitutional prerogative, which, till then, had never been enjoyed in the Federal Executive of the States." Surely, it was no little matter to ask any power for such a concession; and for what reason? Why, because the absence of such a prerogative caused inconvenience to the neighbours of that power, and in order that the case of M'Leod might never occur again. Nevertheless; notwithstanding the greatness of such a concession, it was asked by my noble Friend, and it was entertained; it was honestly, candidly, and liberally received by the American negotiator; and, ten days before my noble Lord turned his back upon the country where his negotiation had been so satisfactorily concluded, a law received the assent of the President, altering the constitution, giving the power that was so jealously looked upon, and rendering it impossible, henceforth and for ever, that such a case as M'Leod's could occur any more. I apprehend, therefore, that in that part of the negotiation which related to the Caroline, the success of the negotiator has been triumphant and complete. The next case is that of the Creole-one of peculiar nicety,, If, my Lords, you. recollect the affair of the Creole, a year and a half back, and the state of feeling on it both Out of doors and in Parliament, yen will at once say that at no time has there been any case which appeared more likely to create difficulty, or to encumber the march of negotiation than that of the Creole. I remember well what took place before my noble Friend's departure. 1 had, in common with many noble Lords, conversations with my noble Friend on the subject, and I believe it will he readily admitted that no one entertained a doubt bow difficult, if not impossible, it would prove to settle that question without consenting to give up something in the way of principle, with regard to the great question pf the slave-trade—aye and something which would be most painful and repugnant to the feelings of this country, It always happens that men forget, or think lightly of difficulties, eyen of the greatest, after they have been overcome. It is so with us in all matters, from the most trifling to the most important, from the obstacles presented to our progress by a had road, up to the obstructions in our path when governing a
614
country and administering its affairs. But justice requires, when we are called upon to examine the conduct of those who have guided the State in its course, that we should cast our regards back, and recollect how we felt when the obstacles surrounded us, and beset every step of our path. I am about to carry your Lordships back then to that period, before any one of those difficulties had been overcome. The case is this:—The American coast in the Gulf of Florida lies on the borders of a narrow channel studded with islands, which islands must be neared by almost every vessel engaged in the coasting trade of the southern states, and since the establishment of steam communication this mode of transport has become still more desirable and preferable to that through the interior, because of the difficulties of the roads. Now, in these vessels the crews are composed of one or two free men and the rest are slaves. The consequence is, that this coasting communication, which is almost like a daily communication between parish and parish, cannot be carried on without exposing the owners of those slaves to the difficulty arising put of the principle laid down in the case of Somerset, and now re-asserted in that of the Creole; not to mention that many bands of slaves are constantly carried by their owners coastwise from one state to another, an unavoidable consequence of those great friends of human liberty still pertinaciously clinging to the crime and the curse of negro slavery. It was never doubted that the Americans, seeing this difficulty, would call upon us to give them some security against it, so that their negroes, in coasting from island to island, should not be tempted to run their vessels ashore, in order to avail themselves of that principle by which a negro, the moment he touches British land, becomes immediately free. The difficulty apprehended was, how we should be able to meet any such demand as this, if it were made. But what has been the result? It appears to me even more gratifying than that in the case of the Caroline. The American government, as if they saw the situation in which we were placed—the impossibility pf our yielding on that point, and the extreme delicacy of the subject-made no demand of the kind, except that there should be some guard against conspiracies to harbour slaves, or decoy them from their owners; such as we ourselves pro-

615
vide against persons who harbour apprentices against their masters, and such as is provided more or less by all laws. But, on the other hand, a most important gain has been acquired—a most invaluable concession has been made by the American government. Now, for the first time, I rejoice to say there has been a distinct and unqualified admission by the American government—by that government representing not merely the good men of the northern and middle states, where happily slavery does not contaminate the banner of a free republic, but also the southern states,—they who are as great enemies of negro emancipation as ever existed,—for, although under republican institutions, there is nowhere, 1 am ashamed to say, a more deep-rooted aversion and disgust towards the very name of negro liberty than exists in the breasts of the free citizens of the slave-holding states of America; nevertheless, a most unqualified admission has been made by the government which represents those southern as well as the other states, that the instant a slave, whether American or any other country, touches a British settlement, that instant his fetters fall off for ever. Then, also, statutory provisions have been stipulated for, and are now in course of being passed for executing what is called the extradition clause, by which offenders in either country, under strict regulations, shall be mutually delivered up to justice. And now, my Lords, I approach that which, after all, is the main subject of these negotiations—the great boundary question—but before I come to that, I must address a few words to your Lordships upon what is called the right of search. If your Lordships will look to the despatch of the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) to Mr. Fox, of the 18th of January, 1843, you will find that he there expresses his astonishment that such grievous misrepresentations should have been made, and misapprehensions so industriously circulated on this subject; for that the right of search never did form, and never could have formed, any part of the subject-matter of these negotiations:
"The President of the United States must have well known (said the noble Earl), that the right of search never formed the subject of discussion during the late negotiations, and that neither had any concession been required by the United States, nor made by (Great Britain."
616
Yet we hear men persisting in the assertion that we have made an abandonment of the right of search. My noble Friend went there to hear what they had to say on the subject, and, as we had nothing to ask, we bad it all our own way. Our right, all the right we claimed, we were in full possession of, and in daily exercise of, consequently we had nothing whatever to propound. It was for America to ask, which she did not. We did not claim the right of search in the proper sense of the term, because there had been no treaty. Without a treaty there can be no right of search in peace. We search French vessels, but that is by treaty. The Americans never would give up the right—one of the many evils that have grown out of the stale of feeling, which I commenced by describing, and which I was forced to dwell upon at such length, because it appears to me to be the key that will unlock all the difficult passages in this case. We never claimed that right. If a vessel be an American, and is brim full of slaves, though every slave may have been found on board, or may be proved to have been thrown overboard in the chase, though an act of piracy, accompanied by murder as well as pillage, and attended by the most grievous infliction of cruelty, has been committed each time a poor negro was carried on board in irons, yet we never pretended that in such a case we had a right to search that vessel and ascertain whether it were a slave trader or not, or even if it were admitted to be a slave-trader, we admit the right of the Americans to carry slaves, as far as our authority is concerned. They are answerable to their own government, and not to us, for breaking their own laws, and we do not claim any right to stop or search a really American vessel, even although it may be caught in flagranti delicto, in the actual and audacious commission of piracy or murder. Nor are the right of search and the right of visit two different rights. No such thing. "Visit" is the French word, and "search" is the English. All that we have to do is to make certain that the ship is American, and then all right to search or to detain, ceases at once. But, on the other hand, no person has a right to hoist two penny worth of flag, and call it the American flag, and by the magic of the name of that flag, keep us out of a slave-ship which we know is not American, or anything like

617
American. Where the case is one of such pregnant suspicion, that there can be no reasonable doubt of the American flag being fraudulently assumed—of the whole being as well a foul fraud on America as on ourselves—in that case our right to ascertain the truth is not done away with; but the fact is, that such cases are not at all included in the proposition on which the supposed right of search is based, because they are not American ships. The law is—the law of nations—that without a treaty we have no right to search an American ship for slaves any more than for anything else—that we have no right to stop an American ship on the sea—that an American ship may for anything that concerns us, trade in slaves as much and as foully as she pleases. But it is not the law, it is neither the law of nations, nor of common sense, that any vessel may trade in slaves, and commit all crimes, and shelter all felons, by hoisting an American flag, and that the sight of that flag is to turn away all our cruizers, though they may know that the ship is wholly manned, and owned, and fitted out, by British subjects. Let the objectors, if any there be in America, make the case their own. Suppose a murder committed in America—I put it in America, for if we have no right to search American guilty vessels, they have no right to enter English guilty vessels—and; by their own argument, if our flag is hoisted to cover that which is not English, they have not any right to go aboard a vessel fraudulently using our flag, and make search, anymore than they say we have to go on board an English ship with a false American flag; suppose a crime of great enormity—a murder of a most cruel stamp—of the utmost blood thirstiness—was committed at New York, and the perpetrators were to go on board an American ship, which should put out to sea before the police could overtake the felons, and hoist the British ensign, lying off half a mile or a mile from the coast—according to the argument—I am astonished, I am petrified to find that such an argument should be repeated by persons writing on the law of nations, and by that profound jurist, General Cass—according to their argument, if argument such vile trash may be called, out of pure courtesy to the nation of those who use it to the degradation of that nation—according to their argument—the reasoning of
618
those who can no more draw an inference than a pyramid—the murderers of New York might set the law of the country at defiance, because the ship they were on board of had an English flag, and no one had a right to visit her to ascertain whether she was English or not. That, however, is not the argument of Mr. Webster, or of my friend Mr. Everett, who most worthily represents his country here, and who, whilst he is most ready to maintain the honour of his own nation, feels the most amicable sentiments towards the country in which he is resident. Nor is this the argument of Mr. Stevenson, or of any man but those who shew that they are dealing with subjects of which they are not competent to comprehend even the very rudiments; these able and well-informed men never said that their own flag was to cover piracy, because used by fraud. Oh, but it is said, we are not to look at the text of the treaty; we are to look at the commentary upon the text contained in President Tyler's message. My Lords, I wish to speak with respect of the chief magistrate of the United States, although he was not chosen to be the chief magistrate—he was chosen as the second magistrate, as Vice-President, and by the death of the real object of popular choice, he succeeded accidentally to the chief magistracy. I speak with respect of him in his accidental office of chief magistrate. It is the practice in America, from a great confidence in human life, to choose a person as Vice-President, not with reference to any prospect he may have of succeeding to the chief magistracy—a person, whom, for chief magistrate, the people never would have thought of choosing. Nevertheless, I speak with respect of President Tyler, as he is a person chosen by the citizens of the United States to fill an office which gave him a chance of becoming President. And yet I confess, I believe that, as an honest republican, the head of a popular Government, he would not object to my giving a fair and candid opinion, that there are some parts of his conduct which I do not approve of, and which I do not at all comprehend. The electioneering system of America seems to me to make the whole time one perpetual canvass from beginning to end of each Presidency, and just in proportion as the period of election approaches does the feeling of political animosity become more exasperated, and all

619
the arts of canvassing become, as it were, more rifely quickened into life. Now, the message of President Tyler has been by many viewed as an address, principally oh the subject of his own election, to the Southern States of the Union, to which he belongs, or at all events where he has great hopes of success; men have looked at the whole matter as a canvass of the slave states in the President's message. Certainly, I cannot deny that a very curious gloss is put upon the articles of the treaty, which makes it appear that we have given up something we never dreamed of, and about which we never negotiated for a moment. Those who say nothing of the articles themselves tell us that we nave abandoned the right of search, and think they can prove it because President Tyler has said so. I do not say, that they are right; I do not say, that the president has said so; and I believe he did not mean to say so; if he did, it would have been a canvassing measure, and I am the last man to suppose, that he would have uttered a false statement as a truth for the purpose of canvassing. But President Tyler has happily since told us what he did mean in language so plain, that he who runs may read. After stating the law as I have laid it down, he says:—
"And such, I am happy to find, is substantially the doctrine of Great Britain herself, in her most recent official declarations, and even in those now communicated to the House."
This was in February.
"These declarations," he adds, "may well lead us to doubt whether the apparent difference between the two Governments is not rather one of definition than principle. Not only is the right of search, properly so called, disclaimed by Great Britain, but that of mere visit and inquiry is—What?"
Oh, say those who charge my noble Friend Lord Ashburton, with truckling, and abandonment, and degradation, and other hard terms with which they fill their mouths, though I verily believe their heads are free from them—oh, that is the only question. Nobody says, that the right of search was given up; but the right of visit—the right of suspicion—the right of ascertaining if a flag is genuine, and a ship really American—that right has been given up. Has it? Why do you say so? Because President Tyler gays so. They do not look at the documents and the treaty, but they trust to the American commentators and to Presi-
620
dent Tyler. But does he say so? "Even that of mere visit and inquiry is"—what? given up? abandoned? sacrificed? departed from?—No such thing—the very contrary "is asserted, with qualifications inconsistent with the idea of a perfect right." Why, who ever said it was a perfect right? Who ever said, that there was an unqualified right to visit any vessel, French or any other? Nobody ever heard of it—nobody ever thought of it. That is the very hard statement of my noble Friend opposite (Lord Aberdeen), and the statement he abides by, and the statement I abide by.
"A right which is only to be exercised under such restrictions and precautions and risk, in case of any assignable damage, to be followed by the consequences of a trespass, can scarcely be considered anything more than a privilege asked for, and either conceded or withheld on the usual principles of international comity."
And the president says,—
"Such, I am happy to find, is substantially the doctrine of Great Britain herself, in her most recent official declarations, and even in those now communicated to the House."
I was curious to look at these documents thus referred to as communicated now,—namely, 27th of February, 1843, because, though I have the president's clear admission in the rest of the paper, this reference to a document puts the matter beyond doubt. Now, then, I shew your Lordships that I have the admission of President Tyler himself, that we have not given up, but nave asserted the right of visit. This message of the 27th of February, 1843, refers to the note of Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Everett of the 20lh of December, 1841, in which the right of search is modified and qualified; but the right of visiting a vessel under a flag used fraudulently is asserted in plain, distinct, and downright terms, from the beginning to the end of the note. This is the document to which the passage refers; consequently the President states that Lord Aberdeen, up to February 27,1843, holds by and asserts the right of ascertaining the genuine nationality of any ship under an American flag. Then what says Mr. Webster? At one of his first interviews with Lord Ashburton, when the subject was glanced at Mr. Webster cut short all discussion by distinctly and categorically asserting, that the question had been set completely at rest by the unanswered

621
and unanswerable statement of my noble Friend (Lord Aberdeen) to Mr. Stevenson. [The Marquess of Lansdowne: where does that appear?] It is not in any dispatch. I have it in the statement of my noble Friend, Lord Ashburton, made in his place as a Peer of Parliament, which I think sufficient to satisfy my mind as to what Mr. Webster said to him,—that the question had been for ever settled by Lord Aberdeen's despatch to Mr. Stevenson. But though this would clearly have been sufficient, the matter rests not here. Look to No. 5 of the papers last laid before the Howe, on the motion of my noble Friend himself (the Marquess of Lansdowne.) 1 And it stated by Lord Aberdeen, in a letter to Mr. Fox,—
"That be had no intention to renew the discussion upon the subject, which was the less necessary, as the Secretary of State, that is Mr. Webster, had more than once (I said ones; I find I understated the case), more titan once declared to the British Plenipotentiary, that is Lord Ashburton, that the statements of Lord Aberdeen had been satisfactory."
This shews that I have not misstated or misunderstood the information I obtained from my noble Friend. It shows, that he must have related in his despatches to Lord Aberdeen, the conversations and ad-missions of Mr. Webster, in the same terms in which he recounted them to your Lordships in his place. I have had occasion, in dealing with this branch of the question; to notice what has been said of the political character of America. No one will suspect me of any hostile feeling towards the American government, or of joining in any outcry raised against it; but when I sea it confidently stated by General Caw, and stated as a known and admitted fact, that the American Government is beyond all comparison, and without any manner of doubt, by far the freest Government on the face of the earth, I, with the moderation of one speaking as the subject of another government with the respect due to all foreign institutions, and with the self-denial which becomes me in comparing them with oar own, must be allowed to enter my ptotest against such a statement. True, there is no monarchy there; tree, they have no thraldom either from despotic prince or haughty patrician; but I do venture, and I think I may without offence venture to express a hope that all is not
622
tyranny which is clothed with a royal name, and that all is not pride and oppression where nobility exists; that there may be freedom under a sovereign, and equal rights enjoyed by private individuals under an aristocratical polity; whilst it is barely possible that there may be tyranny and despotism beyond all endurance—that there may be tyrants not one but many, who may drive a people to desperation, to abject degradation, to self-abasement where kings are unknown; that there may be a helpless state of thraldom in a democratic constitution beyond all that nobles can inflict. The worst sort of tyranny is that of a reckless mob, without responsibility, at least in its corporate or aggregate capacity; but I pause on this proposition; for there is a tyranny worser still, where not even the slender personal responsibility exists which the individuals of a mob feel—that tyranny, the greatest curse of America—the intolerable despotism of the anonymous mob, the licentious and slanderous press—.the curse pervading the whole union, invading the privacy of domestic life, outraging the personal feelings of all ages and both sexes, from whose venomous fangs nothing is sacred, and which alike revels in the destruction of all character and the corruption of all taste. I name it now in the hope which every good American and every true friend of America cherishes, that many years may not pass over our heads before these ruthless and despicable tyrants shall be dethroned and destroyed, if they cannot be curbed, reformed, and reclaimed! I now proceed to the last point, but in some respects the most important of all, the Boundary Question. We have been told that the cessions we have made "have fixed a stain upon the honour of the Country, which it Would be difficult to parallel in the whole annals of diplomacy." Here I have no locus standi if there be the least foundation for the charge; but if repel it, and, without retaliation-—if I shew that there is no colour or foundation for it, without at all recriminating on those who make the assault, then I think the stain will rest, not upon the honour of this country, or of the negotiator, or of his instructors, who are attacked, but somewhere else, which I leave this House to divine. The Boundary Question was a question of compromise, not of strict right. Then, what is meant by the magniloquent expressions about a

623
stain on the honour of the country, if it was no question of right, but only a matter of arrangement? If, in such a case I should be of opinion that a man got less than another thought he was entitled to, could it be said that there was a stain upon his honour. But I will show that nothing was given up at all. In 1794, the negotiations were referred to arbitration, by two commissioners on each side, with power to choose an umpire by lot, and the lot fell on an American, and by these arbitrators the head of the St. Croix was determined to be the commencement of the American line, which thus included the whole of St. John's river. Now, in the American treaty of 1783, the language is to be considered, though there is a certain map on which I have a word to say. But, if in conveying a certain estate, there is a description and also a plan, the plan is only resorted to in case of ambiguity of the words: if the description is one way and the plan another, the plan goes for nothing. Now the description is this:—"A ridge which divides the waters which flow into the St. Lawrence, from the waters which flow into the Atlantic." If the American line is followed—if the Bay of Fundy is in the Atlantic, then the description of the ridgeis completely answered be the American line; but by no conceivable supposition can the ridge be our boundary line; there is no ridge within 200 miles of our boundary, dividing the waters of the Atlantic on the one hand, and those of the St. Lawrence on the other; therefore, by possibility their line may be right, but by no possibility can ours be right. Now, the matter was referred to the king of Holland, and he made what the Americans call the Dutch line, which kept the Americans very near the coast of the St. Lawrence. Did we object to this reference? Did we fly off? Did those who now object to what Lord Ashburton has done, shudder at what the king of Holland proposed? Did they exclaim, "What, give up 500,000 acres of bad land? God forbid !" Did they shrink at the Americans being so near the coast of the St. Lawrence? Did they wring their hands in despair that we got no more? On the contrary, they accepted the Dutch line; they pressed it urgently upon America for three or four years, and America refused it. There were two great objects, two great points we were throughout anxious to gain—the keeping
624
away the Americans from the St. Lawrence, and the keeping open the communication between Canada and the coast of that river. The Dutch line gives us the latter object, but not the former. Nevertheless, we adopted and pressed that line on America. Compare now what Lord Ashburton has done with the Dutch line; and first of all, to estimate the difficulties he had to encounter, look at his situation with reference to this boundary question. The inhabitants of Maine, of all the people of the United States, are most affected by this question. I believe that they proposed to themselves that there should be no treaty on the subject. I believe that was their desire. But I know that they appointed four deputies, and Massachusetts, the state next to Maine most desirous there should be no treaty made, appointed three, to attend the negotiation. They were required to make no concessions; and that they might be more sure to render the treaty utterly impossible, each of the seven negotiators had an absolute veto upon the whole proceeding at every stage. A liberum veto, that famous expedient for neutrality, for preventing all action, for what Americans would term nullification, was conferred on each of the seven commissioners with whom my Lord Ashburton bad to treat. Such were some of the difficulties with which he had to deal. How did he steer his way? You would say it was utterly impossible he should get a line half so good as the Dutch line—a line of which we were so fond that it was deemed a victory—which was cheerfully adopted by us and pressed upon America, and we were greatly disappointed that it was not accepted. You would naturally suppose that Lord Ashburton, whose difficulties were very much increased by the state of the negotiation, he having succeeded in four points out of the five, which rendered it more difficult to succeed in the fifth, especially when there were parties armed with a veto from Maine and Massachusetts for the express purpose of preventing his success. You naturally expect, therefore, that he would have got anything rather than the Dutch line. He must give up something, and something considerable, to obtain that line. But what if he gave up very little of any value? What, if the price he paid for obtaining a good line was nothing very material? The Dutch line was manifestly no longer to be hoped for;

625
a worse line was inevitably our fate. What, if the line we obtained through Lord Ashburton, was not so materially worse than the Dutch line as might justly and naturally have been expected? What, if it was not worse at all? What, if he got the Dutch line itself? Would that be no success in negotiation? Would that be no praise to a negotiator, so skilfully and judiciously selected?—no praise due to the good instructions he was armed with?—no praise to the ability and firmness with which he executed them? But what if he got a line a great deal better than the Dutch line? The Dutch is as far inferior to the line which Lord Ashburton has got, as the Dutch line is better than the line we had any title to expect; and while it keeps open the communication—one of the points in view—it removes the Americans much further from the St. Lawrence than the Dutch line did, which was the other great object. Such is the state of the case. I need not go further; never, the less, I am compelled to take notice of another circumstance, because it is incumbent upon me, from the singularity of the matters attending it—from the peculiarity of the discovery—from the charges that have been grounded on it of neglect against us, and of the suppression of truth against my excellent friend Mr. Webster; but which derives in my eyes an additional interest from the name with which it is connected, of one of the greatest philosophers and philanthropists and statesmen by whom either England or America, fruitful in all such produce, ever was before honoured or adorned—I mean the illustrious name of Franklin. We find that, at this extraordinary moment in a singular place, and under circumstances of no little suspicion, a map or plan has been produced, said to contain Dr. Franklin's sketching, in red ink, of what he held to be the boundary line of Mr. Oswald's treaty; and it is said, that when you examine that line it turns out to be coincident with the British line; whence an argument is said to arise—that we have been defrauded out of a few thousand acres of land, which this map would have given us, and which the Americans must have conceded, because Dr. Franklin, their own negotiator, had drawn it against them and for us in the year 1783. Upon that point I would first make this remark:—it is a very singular fact that my excellent friend Lord Granville, after searching in the ar-
626
chives of the Foreign-office in Paris, could not find this map; and that there is no trace of its history. Well, then, after a minute being made in the office that there was no such plan; in a letter from Count de Vergennes to Dr. Franklin, or rather in a letter from Dr. Franklin to Count de Vergennes, in answer to one from him, the Count's letter not being found up to this hour, Dr. Franklin speaks of a map, "in which," he says, "I have traced what I take to be the line in Mr. Oswald's treaty." It is very odd that this could not be discovered at all till a long time after the search for it, and that there is nothing whatever to connect the map with that letter. There is no evidence which they would have been able to produce in any court of justice to shew that this is the map to which Dr. Franklin's letter refers. The map could never have been let into any such case at all. They find the letter in one place, and at one time, and at a different time, and in a different place, they find the map; but whether that is the map referred to in the letter of Dr. Franklin or not, they cannot tell. Dr. Franklin's name does not appear upon it; nor is there anything in the slightest degree calculated to connect it with Dr. Franklin; and it is a map of very small dimensions, a few inches square. My first remark upon this is, that under the suspicious circumstances and mysterious nature of its appearance, and the want of evidence to connect it with the letter, it is by no means upon such a document that a great matter like this can be settled; it is by no means upon such evidence as that, so doubtful and unexplained, and surrounded with so many suspicions, that it would be safe for nations to suffer that the success of their negotiations should depend. But the map does not tally with the description given? Suppose you had an account in writing, that the thames, as is the fact, forms the boundary of the counties of Surrey and Middlesex; and suppose you found a map, or chart, or plan connected with that description, on which a red line through Piccadilly was drawn as the boundary, I should not take it; I should go down to the river; because the red line is only to be regarded if the words do not speak for themselves, or the language is ambiguous; and the same is the case here, more or less. A great charge against Mr. Webster is, that he suppressed the map of Dr. Franklin in

627
the course of the negotiation; and this suppression has been said to savour of bad faith. I deny it. I deny that a negotiator, in carrying on a controversy, as representing his own country, With a foreign Country, is bound to disclose to the other party whatever he may know that tells against his own Country, and for the opposite party. I deny that he is so bound, any more than an advocate is bound to tell the court all that he deems to make against his own client and for his adversary. My noble Friend, Lord Ashburton, has been Objected to—my noble Friend opposite has been blamed for selecting him—because he is not a regular bred diplomatist, because he is not acquainted With diplomatic lore, because he is a plain unlettered man as regards diplomatic affairs, and because he had only the guide Of Common honesty and common sense, great experience of men, great general knowledge, a thorough acquaintance with the interests of his own country and of the country he was sent to, for his guide in the matters he Was to negotiate. But I believe my noble Friend has yet to learn this one lesson—that it is the duty of experienced diplomatists, of regular bred politicians, Of those who have grown grey in the mystery of negotiation and the art Of statescraft, that when you are sent to represent a Country, and to get the best terms you can for it, to lower the terms Of the opposite party, and to exalt the terms of your own, as far as may be—you ought first of all to disclose all the weaknesses of your own case—that your duty to your country is something, but that your duty is first to the opposite party, and that you are bound to tell every thing that makes for that adverse party. That is your duty; that is one of those arts of diplomacy which have lain concealed until the present year, 1843—one of those principles of statesmanship which it remained for the 6th of Victoria to produce and promulgate, but which Were assuredly not quite understood by that old French statesman, albeit trained in the diplomatic school, who said, that language had been conferred upon men by Providence for the purpose of concealing their thoughts. This was a lesson he had yet to learn, this regular bred diplomatist- this practised negotiator. He certainly could not have thought, that it was his duty to practise a window to his bosom, and let every one see what
628
passed in his mind. But it was the duty, it seems, of my noble Friend to tell all, and it was equally the reciprocal duty of Mr. Webster to do the same. It was my noble Friend's duty to disclose all that he had found out against the negotiation he went to conduct. That was the new art, the new mystery, the new discovery of 1843; but I find my hon. Friend Mr. Webster, has great authority, and that even if he were wrong, he errs in excellent good company. It does so happen that there was a map published by the King's geographer in this country in the reign of his Majesty George 3rd; and here I Could appeal to an illustrious Duke Whom I now see, whether that monarch was not as little likely to err from any fulness of attachment towards America, as any one of his faithful subjects? [The Duke of Cambridge: Hear.] Because he well knows that there was no one thing which his revered parent had so much at heart as the Separation from America, and there was nothing he deplored so much as that separation having taken place. The King's geographer, Mr. Faden, published his map 1783, which contains, not the British, but the American line. Why did not my noble Friend take over a copy of that map? My noble Friend opposite (Lord Aberdeen) is a candid man; he is an experienced diplomatist, both abroad and at home; he is not unlettered, but thoroughly Conversant in all the crafts of diplomacy and statesmanship. Why did he conceal this map? We have ft right to complain of that; and I, on the part of America, complain Of that. You ought to have sent out the map of Mr. Faden, and said, "this is George the third's map," But it never occurred to my noble Friend to do so. Then, two years after Mr. Faden published that map, another was published, and that took the British line. This, however, came out after the boundary had become matter of controversy, post litem motam. But, at all events, my noble Friend had to contend with the force of the argument against Mr. Webster, and America had a right to the benefit of both maps. My noble Friend opposite never sent it over, and nobody ever blamed him for it But that was not all. What, if there was another map containing the American line, and never corrected at all by any subsequent chart coming from the same custody. And what if that map came

629
out of the custody of a person high in office in this country—nay, what if it came out of the custody of the highest functionary of all,—of George 3rd himself? ! know that map—I know a map Which I can trace to the custody of George 3rd, and on which there is the American line And not the English line and upon which there is a note, that from the hand-writing, as it has been described to me, makes me think it Was the note of George 3rd himself: "this is the line of Mr. Oswald's treaty in 1783," written three Or four times upon the face of it. Now, suppose this should occur—I do not know that it has happened—but it may occur to a Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,—either to my noble Friend Or Lord Palmerston, who, I understand by common report, takes a great interest in the question; and though he may not altogether approve of the treaty, he may peradventure envy the success Which attended it, for it was a success which did not attend any of his own American negotiations. But it is possible that my noble Friend or Lord Palmerston may have discovered that there Was this map, because George 3rd's library by the munificence of George 4th was given to the British Museum, and this map must have been there; but it is a curious circumstance that it is no longer there. 1 suppose it must have been taken out of the British Museum for the purpose of being sent over to my noble Friend in America; and, that according to the new doctrines of diplomacy, he was bound to have used it When there, in order to show that he had no case—that he had not a leg to stand upon. Why did he not take it over with him? Probably he did not know of its existence. I am told that it is net now in the British Museum, but that it is in the Foreign Office. Probably it was known to exist; but somehow or other that map, which entirely destroys our contention and gives all to the Americans, has been removed from the British Museum, and is now to be found at the Foreign Office. Explain it as you will, that is the simple fact, that this important map was removed from the Museum to the Office, and not in the time of my noble Friend (Lord Aberdeen). Now one Word as to the ignorance and inefficiency of Lord Ashburton. I am aware that there was a plan proposed in 1837, by very experienced diplomatists, for the
630
settlement of this question; and what do you think they proposed as a rational practical expedient? A mediator was necessary, a reference was necessary, and an arbitration was necessary. The reference to the King of Holland had failed, his award had met with the refusal of America J therefore, they said there must be a new reference, and there must be a new mediator. Let us try this plan, said they. One king does not do, let us appoint three; and so, on the 6th of January, I suppose, which our French neighbours call the day of the three kings, but Which we call Twelfth-day, they draw for three kings and this was the result; this was the plan of diplomatists of experience of, regular bred statesmen, of men grown old in the service of the Foreign office, of men really at the head of all diplomatic craft; this was their consummate tattle for practically settling a difficult question. They said appoint three kings; and What then? Did they add, let these three kings arbitrate? Oh no, no such plan! It was too much akin to common sense to let those you appointed arbitrators, arbitrate. That was not their plan; they meant nothing so plain and so vulgar as that; but they said: "Let us appoint three kings, and let them have a commission to do"—what? To settle the dispute? The kings had a royal road to truth, though there is no royal road to geometry. They had a royal road to an award, which a common arbitrator did not appear to have; but the three kings, truly mailed and fenced in with their own peculiar dignity, they had a road all to themselves in the air, and, therefore, they had nothing to do With arbitrating. They were chosen for that, but they Were to do nothing of the kind. What had they then to do? To choose philosophers, men of Science, and to send those men of science to examine the boundary—and report. Behold the result of diplomatic experience of long acquaintance with the forms of office; it Is an accomplishment to which my noble Friend never aspired, even in his dreams of arbitration. I know that once upon a time, by a departure from professional arbitrators, very short work was made of a long suit, which, as my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack knows, had lasted some eight or nine years in the court of Chancery, and when some of the parties entitled to the pro-petty were starting, but that we did'nt mind. The suit might have tasted for the

631
natural lives of all the parties, and of the counsel too. Some of the parties were in the workhouse, but they got tired of this; the counsel did not get tired of it at all, nor possibly even the solicitors; but the judge got tired of it, and the parties got tired of it, and so the judge recommended a reference, and the parties acceded to it, and it was about the only reference in equity that has ever been final. The four years that I was there, there was not a single reference. There was only one in my noble Friend's time, and it ended in the cause coming back to him again; but in this case the reference was effectual. Now, as they said to the Foreign-office upon the present question, "Why send a man who is not a regular bred diplomatist?" so was it said in this particular case, "Why not take a lawyer—it is shocking, it is indecent not to do so." But the practitioners did let go the carcass, or what little remained of it; it was not much; but the whole cause was referred to my excellent friend Mr. John Smith, and to this very Lord Ashburton. And what was the result? That in less than a week—in less I believe than three days—the whole matter was settled; an entire division of the property took place, there was an end of the suit, and the bill was dismissed. The whole of the money was divided amongst the parties, and those who were in the workhouse were released, and in the enjoyment of their own property. It was a most shocking event, because it took the property out of the hands of those who were its natural owners—I mean the lawyers—and vested it in the hands of those who were intruders, being those to whom it belonged, and who had so long been perishing for want of it. And I hope your Lordships will excuse my recounting this anecdote, though a professional one, as it may perhaps a little enliven the dry details into which I am obliged to enter; but I mention it also to let you know that a man who was not bred a diplomatist, who was not an experienced statesman, might be selected as an arbitrator, and might adjust a most difficult question; as the same person not bred a lawyer had successfully arbitrated an endless equity suit. I come now to that part of the question which has reference to the giving up of the boundary of Madawaska. That is, in fact, the gist of the charge against my noble Friend Lord Ashburton. I will state what the
632
Madawaska is. It is a small piece of territory through which the St. John's River runs; and the insult and dishonour is said to be because British subjects inhabited it, and that we gave up a part inhabited by British people. ["No, no."] I mean French people from Canada, or from Nova Scotia; but they were British subjects. The truth is this—in 1763, when the illustrious achievements of our arms at Quebec under Wolfe had conquered Canada, and we had taken possession of Nova Scotia, a number of refugees, disliking our dominion—that is the fact—disliking our dominion, and annoyed by our conquest, left our territory, and voluntarily took refuge in the Madawaska district. I do not think we were very much bound to go out of our way to consider them, and to run the risk of throwing up our negotiation on their account. But then it is said we have given up and have abandoned this new territory for no object. But what if those people who make these objections did a great deal more to abandon Madawaska than my noble Friend ever dreamt of doing? For my noble Friend kept a
large portion, and three-fourths of the people, and they gave up the whole. Upon the disputed ground a fort, Fort James, was erected by the Americans within the last ten years, while the objectors to this treaty were in the Foreign-office; and yet no step was taken to prevent that act of sovereignty. I suppose no apprenticeship of ten years at the Foreign-office is necessary to make one know that erecting a fort upon any ground was pretty good evidence of a claim of sovereignty over that ground. That fort was erected,—there was no attempt to take it, and that fort was erected on the very spot where we had before arrested a citizen of America named Baker; and for what? For making a seditious movement to claim that very territory on behalf of America. Therefore our allowing the fort to be erected was a great deal worse than if we had allowed it without claim or remonstrance. Mr. Baker was arrested for making a claim. He was given up after being arrested, and the fort was allowed to be erected on the very spot. Fort Fairfield, another fort, was erected on the same disputed territory, and suffered to remain undisputed and undisturbed. Then a writ was issued out of Penobscot county for electing American officers in Mada-

633
waska. The American officers were arrested for serving and executing that writ; Mr. Livingston remonstrated, and upon his remonstrance, the officers
were released by the objectors to my noble Friend, Lord Ashburton, and my noble Friend opposite. Next, a road was made by the Americans through the disputed territory. A remonstrance was offered by us, but the road was not stopped by the objectors. My Lords, there is nothing so degrading—if they talk of dignity, and abandonment, and degradation, and truckling—as their conduct who do not abandon before remonstrance, and without remonstrance—but choose to remonstrate, and when they are not listened to then abandon. Last of all a census was taken of the population, another act of sovereignty, and a pretty distinct act—a numbering of their Madawaska subjects by the American government. My noble Friend, Lord Ashburton, gave up part of the settlement and it is said to be an intolerable and unparalleled stain upon our honour. But the very parties who say so, allowed that census to be made. The person who was employed to take the census was taken into custody; but on the 5th of August, 1837, he was released by Sir John Harvey, in consequence of positive instructions to that effect from the Foreign Office. The terms in which the demand for his release was couched are sufficiently remarkable, and are deserving the attention of your Lordships. It says:—
"A deep violation of our law has been committed on the soil and territory of the United States by the arrest of Creed."
Such, my Lords, is the language in which the demand for the release of the person who made the census was couched, and to which Lord Palmerston twice paid implicit obedience, for the same person was again arrested on the 26th of August; but he was again given up upon a remonstrance made by the American authorities, and was never after retaken. If ever men, then, my Lords, had no title to speak of degradation, dishonour, and abandonment of rights, in relation to the settlement of Madawaska, surely it is the very men who now so complain of and so vituperate the conduct of my noble Friend—the men who had long ago suffered five several acts of sovereignty to be done on the spot—had always tried to prevent or to punish them, and had always been frustrated in
634
their attempts—had always yielded when resisted and beaten. And now, my Lords, I come to the last of these charges, which have been showered upon my noble Friend and it applies rather to my noble Friend himself, than to those who commissioned him. My noble Friend's tone, it seems, was too mild; they call it "a truckling, a cunning, a wheedling, and an undignified tone." My Lords, I am here to deny it, but I feel embarrassed with the nature of such a charge. Hitherto I have had to deal with men's actions—with their course of conduct while struggling for the interests of their country, or for the interests of humanity, or, as the objectors alleged, of my noble Friend, while abandoning and giving away the rights and the interests of both. My Lords, I can understand the acts of a man; 1 know that they are palpable and may be found fault with—I can perfectly understand that a charge may be brought against a man in respect of deeds done by him—I could deal with such charges and repel them, or if not I might submit; but when I hear a complaint of a tone, of the tone of the language used by an individual, the matter wholly eludes me; it is very difficult to meet, because when you try to grasp it, it vanishes into thin air. My noble Friend is charged with having compromised the position in which he was placed—with lowering the dignity of that great Crown which he represented. It is said, "All his deeds may have been right enough, but look to his words. He has done nothing amiss; he has made no concessions failed in no attempt, submitted to no dishonour; but observe his tone; scan his words. They are too civil, too humble, too little dignified." That charge is rested upon the words which are to be found in his despatch of the 21st of June, and to them I entreat your Lordships' particular attention. See what it is that they complain of as "cunning, wheedling, truckling, undignified."
"If the part which through a long life £ have taken in public affairs is marked by any particular character, it has been by an earnest and persevering desire to maintain peace and promote harmony between two countries having a common origin. On the accession to power of the present ministers, perceiving the same wise and honourable spirit to prevail, I could not resist the hope of being able to serve my country, and, accordingly, at a time of life when no other inducement

635
would have been sufficient to lure me from that retirement better suited to my feelings, I have taken upon me the cares of this negotiation."
I know not whether my noble Friend is a practised author, and capable of facing the courts critical of the country, any more than that he is a practised diplomatist, and fit to pass muster at the Foreign-office, But I will say, that a more beautiful piece of composition, in the writing of any author, I have never yet seen, than the remarkable passage I have just read. But this language has been attacked as cunning, as truckling, as leading to the humiliation of our country, it has been' stigmatized as wheedling and unworthy of a diplomatist. My Lords, who can be so great an authority upon such a question as Mr. Fox? He was not only well versed in all matters of modern and ancient lore, but in foreign affairs he was peculiarly so; indeed, he has been painted, and most justly painted, by the relative pf a noble Duke opposite, one who knew him well, (Mr. T. Grenville) as the man who, above all other men, was an able an accomplished negotiator. Nay, this very character has been given of him, and his 'high authority appealed to by those ignorant, those singularly ignorant objectors, whose attacks I am now dealing with. They so ushered in an appeal to his fancied authority. Well, the objectors say, "Good God, what would Mr. Fox have said to such an appointment as that of my noble Friend? what would Mr. Fox have said to such a cunning, truckling, wheedling mode pf carrying on a great negotiation?" Now, my Lords, I cannot take upon myself to say what Mr. Fox would have said. I cannot take it upon myself to speak of him in that fanciful and easy tense, of what a man would have done, or might have done; but I will take upon myself to say, speaking in the past tense,—the tense of the historian, and not of the poet,—I will take it upon myself to say, not what Charles Fox would have done, but what he did; and upon that I rest my ease, and the ultimate defense of my noble Friend. My Lords, I speak now as a witness of what I am about to lay before you. But I am not the only witness; my lamented Friend, Lord Holland, was a present, and I believe the passage will be found in his papers; for I am confident he must have noted down a passage so remarkable, that
636
I have again and again heard him refer to it. In 1806, when Charles Fox presided over the Foreign Office, the question of furnishing out the embassies arose. Mr. Fox then said, "I will choose my ambassadors only in one way—I will choose them out of Homer." Of course such a reply caused some astonishment, and naturally the, question was put to him, "How so? He said," When Agamemnon wished to send an embassy to Achilles to promote a treaty of peace with him, he could not find one man combining all the qualities he thought necessary; therefore he chose three—Ajax, Ulysses, and Phoenix. He chose Ajax for' his high birth; Ulysses for his great experience and skill in negotiation; and Phoenix, because he was the old master and friend of the man to whom the embassy was sent, and the man for whom Achilles had the greatest regard." Well, then, in choosing his negotiator, ray noble Friend opposite followed the example of Agamemnon. Lord Ashburton had rendered great services to England and America, in promoting a good understanding between them; he was connected with England by birth and affection—As Phoenix stood in an endearing private relation to the chief he was sent to conciliate, so Lord Ashburton had a yet more endearing connexion with the nation he was sent to, having brought from among them the matron who divides with him his cares, who shares his distinguished name, and who will now partake the new illustration which your Lordships are about to shed upon it. In him all the three requisites for an embassy were joined, in him there was rank, skill,, and above all kindness—kindness mutually prevailing between him and the party with whom he was sent to treat.' But then, my Lords, it is said that this was only a speculative opinion of Mr. Fox's; but did he not act upon it? That he most undoubtedly did. He had not been a week in the Foreign Office before a miscreant waited upon him with an offer to assassinate Bonaparte. What was his conduct then? Did he treat the man with sullen scorn, and command him to be cast out of the office because he had offended' his dignity? He did no such thing; but he sent him over to M. Talleyrand, who was then the Foreign Minister in France, with a letter; and if any man, or any 100 men, were to swear that in thus sending him over, Mr. Fox had no hope of

637
thereby opening the door for negotiation, that be had no hope of his act of courtesy some reconciliation with France through the Emperor, I would not believe him or them; I would not believe any authority on such a subject, save that of Charles For himself, who I full well know never would for an instant pf time have pot forward so absurd and incredible a pretence. But that was not the end of the truckling and wheedling of Mr. Fox; for negotiations did arise opt of these courtesies. One courtesy indeed was repaid with another; for I remember that Mr. Fox received a present of the growth of France, of which I partook, and which was very acceptable to my illustrious Friend for its own intrinsic merits, though still more as a token of reviving goodwill among the rulers of France. But, ray Lords, Mr.Fas thus opened the door, and the door being opened by this truckling and wheedling system, somebody behoved to enter; and then came the proper time for my illustrious Friend to put the Homeric plan in operation. In the cabinet of 1806, were when of all the various shades of opinion; the Whigs were there in considerable proportion, the friends of Lord Sldmouth in a smaller proportion, the friends of Mr. Windham in considerable numbers,—men who had been notorious through their lives for a repugnance to France and French notions of liberty; there were also the friends of Lord Grenville, and there was Lord Hastings, who might be characterised as belonging to no party. There was, therefore, no limit to the choice of men in the hands of Mr. Fox; he was not driven to choose a friend of his own by any want of proper materials. Well, according to the doctrine of those who now raise the cry of truckling and wheedling against my noble Friend, Mr. Fox ought to have chosen for his ambassador a man who all his life had been a violent enemy to Bonaparte, some adherent of Mr. Windham, who had opposed the peace of 1802, and never ceased to vituperate the Consul or the Emperor; some practised diplomatist of Lord Granville's school, who had rejected the Con sol's advances in 1800, on his first accession to power. But who was it that he did choose? Why, my late worthy and lamented Friend, Lord Lauderdale—the very man in all England who was mast the friend of France; be was the man selected for that embassy, al-
638
though during the whole course of his life he had given expression to strong opinions in favour of the French, When the emperor heard of this nomination he exclaimed, "They have sent me an old Jacobin." "On m'a envoyé un vieux Jacobin.." Greatly mistaking Lord Lauderdale's opinions certainly, but right in believing he was partial to France and French principles in those days. My Lords, did any man war charge Mr. Fax with truckling and wheedling, because of his choice of an ambassador on that occasion? No such thing. Mr. Fox knew that the way to gain his own ends, and to serve his country, was to send over a men who would be favourably received by the party with whom he was to negociate, end therefore he chose one to whom the French could have no enmity, but for whom they would rather be inclined to feel kindness. If your Lordships want any more instances of the same policy I have one ready, of which I speak from personal knowledge, having been under that truly great man Lord St. Vincent, one of the mission I am about to describe, It was thought expedient to thwart Bonaparte in his attempts upon Portugal, and to prevail upon the royal family to leave Europe for the Bra-ails, an important operation afterwards very ably and successfully performed by my noble Friend opposite (Lord Strangford), The battle of Jena, soon after our arrival in the Tagus, suspended for the present our mission; but how was it a composed? Three commissioners were sent, and one of those was General Simcoe, a gallant general, no doubt, but wholly inexperienced as a negotiator, and in such a state of health that be died immediately and before the mission was closed. However, he was sent with us on the were ground that the name be bore was a pass-port to the hearts of the Portuguese--he was sent because he was the son of the General Simcoe, who took out from Eng-land 200,000 l., towards the relief of the sufferers by the great earthquake in 1761, and whose name was revered in Lisbon, Was that truckling conduct? No; it was called, and I think rightly, a wise expedient, and in no manner of way unworthy of, or unbecoming a great nation. My Lords, I have now arrived at the last charge which has been mode against my noble Friend, that at a public meeting he spoke of Boston as being the cradle of American liberty. It is said that such an

639
expression was in bad taste, that it was undignified and unbecoming the representative of England. But, my Lords, it must be remembered that this meeting was held after the negotiations had been terminated, after all had been concluded, and the parties had then met for the purpose of singing, as my noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington) lately said, a song of triumph upon the happy occasion. It was a public meeting, attended by 3,000 persons, and held for the purpose of celebrating the new alliance, the reconciliation between two countries which ought never to be at variance; and what is rather strange, this objection, this charge, is made by Whigs, or a sort of Whig—a Whig not of the first growth, but rather of a light body. It is something strange to hear such as they object to anything said in favour of the cradle of liberty? Wherever the word "liberty" is used should have thought they would think the sound so sweet as might have reconciled them even to a breach of dignity or decorum; but 1 find I was mistaken. My Lords, I am sorry to have detained your Lordships so long, but I am happy to say I have now arrived at the end of this tedious subject, nor shall I think it necessary to trouble you longer on the present occasion. His late Majesty George 3rd, did not think that he stooped from his august position, or adopted a truckling and unbecoming tone when he received Mr. King, the first American minister, who represented the revolted subjects of the Monarch at the court of the Sovereign whose allegiance they had thrown off". It was a most delicate meeting for both parties, the more especially as it was well known that the Sovereign had held fast by those provinces until they were wrested from his royal grasp. Upon that occasion the Sovereign did not think it either cunning, or truckling, or wheedling conduct, to give the Minister a most courteous reception, and he did so for the purpose of promoting the reconcilement which had just taken place, of cementing the friendship which had just been restored. That was the conduct of the Sovereign—it was worthy of all imitation. He told the American that he was the last man in his dominions to recognize the independence of America; but he added that there was no man in his dominions who wished better to that independence, or was more anxious for the prosperity of the republic. This
640
noble conduct of the Sovereign was after the cessation of the war; so also was the speech of Lord Ashburton after the negotiations had been concluded. My Lords, I fervently breathe the same prayer to which my late Sovereign gave expression upon that memorable day. I hope and trust, for the sake of America first, for the sake of England next, for the sake of humanity, of mankind at large, that the establishment of the republic and the prosperity and the happiness of that great people, who are descended from common ancestors with ourselves, may be perpetuated for ever! I cannot view with indifference that magnificent empire which Englishmen have erected on the Western Ocean; my heart glows when I reflect that it is from England that America derives all that is valuable in her laws, her institutions, her letters; but, above all, am I gratified when I reflect that it was from us she inherited that spirit of liberty—religious as well as civil, which has made her republic the greatest democratic nation which ever held existence on the face of the earth. Contemplated by itself there is enough to make the heart leap with hope and admiration; but it is necessary in order fully to estimate the blessings which she enjoys, that we compare and contrast her condition with that of other settlements; in other parts of the same continent—in countries enjoying all the gifts of nature, but gifts rendered useless by the want of the great blessings of social existence. Look, my Lords, at the condition of South America, a region blessed by Providence above all others in the boundless resources of nature; with a climate varying from the mild to the torrid through every degree of temperature; with a soil that pours into the lap of man the richest produce in unmeasured profusion, scents the air with every spicy perfume, and for its mineral wealth proverbially surpassing all the earth besides; and peopled by tribes that embrace the industry of the negro, the swiftness of the Indian, the practised ability of the European; all this abundance has failed to produce the peace that should spring from plenty—has failed to prevent civil broils and perpetual anarchy from becoming the ordinary condition of those boundless regions; and has failed because Spain could not send over to the new world the far greater treasures of good laws, wise institutions—the inestimable treasures of

641
civil and religious freedom. Turn now to the north, where men, but they were Englishmen, had to struggle with a bad climate and an ungrateful soil. Their numbers, small at first, gradually extended themselves—spreading far and near, till they erected a system of free government, which has proved capable of resisting every tempest; and, finally, outrode the revolutionary storm in which so much of the European commonwealth had suffered shipwreck. Wherefore do I draw this contrast? Because I wish to direct the attention of the House to the fact that the Spaniard had not brought out to South America the blessings of a free constitution; therefore did the United States surpass the other portion of the American continent in all that constitutes social and political greatness. If, for a moment, a passing cloud has passed over the American name, by a departure from the high feeling of rigid commercial honour and perfect good faith, I yet entertain no more doubt than I do that I now stand on this floor addressing your Lordships, that the cloud will quickly disappear, and that the free citizens of America will proudly and gloriously resume once more those principles and that practice, from which neither nations nor individuals can safely depart, and on which alone the purity of national honour, with the security of national prosperity, can permanently rest. My Lords, I have done; I feel that I have trespassed upon your Lordships' indulgence for an unpardonable length of time, but I also feel that I could not within a less compass have discharged the important duty which I had voluntarily undertaken. I move you to resolve;—
"That this House doth approve the conduct of the late negotiation with the United States; doth rejoice in the terms, alike advantageous and honourable to both parties, upon which the treaty has been concluded; and doth express its high sense of the ability with which the Lord Ashburton, the Minister sent to treat with the United States, executed his commission, and its satisfaction at the restoration of a good understanding, which it is alike the duty and the interest of both countries to maintain unbroken."
The Duke of Cambridgebegged leave to detain their Lordships for two minutes, that he might express to them how heartily he concurred in the motion that had been so ably made by the noble and learned Baron. He should feel that he did wrong
642
if he did not express how much benefit the noble Lord (Lord Ashburton) had done his country by the successful termination of this treaty. He in the station which he had filled abroad, had himself had some experience of what were called boundary treaties; for in the country over which he had had to preside, there had been differences on the subject of the demarcation of boundary with almost every neighbour state. He had therefore some knowledge of the great difficulty that attended the adjustment of such differences. He had the satisfaction, however, of knowing that all those differences had been settled when he left the country. He knew, also, the great importance of a judicious selection of a negotiator, and how very necessary it was that the individual chosen should be of a conciliatory character. It was impossible, he believed, that on the present occasion a better choice could have been made. No man could have been selected better qualified for the mission. And, considering the age of the noble Lord (Lord Ashburton), he thought that the noble Lord deserved the highest credit for undertaking so difficult a negotiation; and in the manner in which he had conducted it he had shown himself attached to the best interests of his country, and ready to make every sacrifice for the promotion of those interests. It was impossible that any man should look upon the noble Lord with any feeling but that of respect, and he felt at the same time, that he was called on to do justice to the manner in which the noble and learned Lord had brought forward this motion. Should that motion go to a division, he (the Duke of Cambridge) hoped it would be carried by a very large majority.
The Marquess of Lansdowne, before he proceeded to address their Lordships, wished to be informed whether this motion had been brought forward in connection with the Government?
The Earl of Aberdeen: There is not the least connection between the motion and the Ministry; but the motion will have their support.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that having obtained the answer to which he thought he was entitled, the more so as the noble Earl well knew that this motion was a very unusual one to proceed from any one not immediately connected with her Majesty's Government, he felt that the House would expect some remarks in jus-

643
tification of their votes from those who felt it to be their duty to withhold their concurrence from this motion. The noble and learned Lord had consumed considerable time, profitably, no doubt, in making a most unusual motion, which he had introduced by a speech of great—from any other individual he would have called it—of singular eloquence, embracing a vast variety of topics. It appeared, however, from the answer of the noble Earl, that a less expenditure of eloquence on the part of his noble and learned Friend would have been sufficient to prevail on her Majesty's Ministers to accept the diplomatic laurels which his noble and learned Friend was so eager to cast upon them. Nevertheless, the noble and learned Baron had not made it apparent that this deviation from the ordinary Parliamentary course was called for by any particular necessity. It had hitherto been deemed more consistent with the wisdom of Parliament, that all motions for public thanks should be left to the Government, and that they should not be decided with reference to the feelings of individuals, but by the feeling of the public at large, whether such a course should be followed after any great public transactions. For diplomatic services it was quite unusual to call upon Parliament for a vote like that now proposed. He might go through one treaty after another to show that such a proceeding had not been deemed necessary in former times, but he would not fatigue their Lordships. He would only mention one or two cases. He would take one that seemed to bear some analogy to the treaty to which their attention was now immediately directed. He meant the first treaty after the war of independence with the United States of America. Differences arose on an infinite variety of subjects, and after they had accumulated for years, these differences were adjusted in 1795, by a treaty negotiated in London by a noble Friend of his, now no more, Lord Grenville, of whom he could never speak without emotion and respect. That treaty embraced no less than twenty-eight articles, bearing upon every subject that could arise between the two countries. No demand had then been made on their Lordships to go out of their usual course in order to thank Lord Grenville. No, Lord Grenville was content to rest on the general approbation of his country. He would refer to another case, of a somewhat similar character. Lord
644
Palmerston brought about the solution of great difficulties, occasioned by the trans-actions that followed—he would not call it the revolution, but he would call it the event which placed the present dynasty on the French throne. Great difficulties arose with respect to Belgium; but, by a bold and successful course of negotiation, those difficulties were brought to a conclusion in 1832. Though that treaty had not been universally approved of, for it was attacked in both Houses of Parliament, yet it completely gained its object, the preservation of the peace of Europe. Sinister opinions were not wanting then, that in six months or less the event he had referred to would lead to a general war; but the experience often years had proved the wisdom of his noble Friend's negotiation. Their Lordships might depend upon it it was not wise to depart from a course which Parliament had adopted from the experience of centuries. Upon this ground alone (continued the noble Marquess) I feel it will be impossible for me to concur in the motion which has been submitted by my noble and learned Friend. I feel that by agreeing to this motion we should be introducing a most inconvenient practice, and that before many years could elapse, her Majesty's present Government or any Government which might succeed them, would deeply regret the establishment of such a precedent. I might stop at this point, because I think I am warranted in calling upon your Lordships not to depart from the usual course of proceeding upon similar occasions, in the absolute absence of any proof that it is either necessary or expedient to do so. I do not call upon the House to negative the motion, because I am anxious not to pass anything like a condemnation on the treaty, which, for reasons I shall presently state, it would not consist with my views to condemn. If, however, I were to stop here, it might be supposed that I was shrinking from making a declaration of my opinions as to those particular parts of the treaty which I think are obnoxious to more or less criticism, if not condemnation; and therefore, I will, without entering into further detail than is necessary to elucidate my opinions, I will proceed to state what portions of the treaty I approve of, and what portions I disapprove of. But first, a few words with respect to the individual whom the noble Lords opposite sent on a special mission

645
to negociate the treaty in question. I have always considered that noble Lord as my Friend through a great many years of our respective lives, and what I know of him in that capacity imposes on me the duty of declaring in his absence—a duty which I have the greatest pleasure in discharging—that no person could be found who, from his great natural and acquired talents—from his many amiable and estimable qualities, and from a facility of intercourse which he possesses in a greater degree than most men, and which wins for him the good will and confidence of all those with whom he comes in contact, could be better qualified for the discharge of the particular duty which was assigned to him, or, indeed, for discharging the duties of any civil office whatever, which he might be willing to undertake. I say, also, that my noble Friend's connection with America formed no disqualification for the office of negotiator between the two countries; for of this I am sure, that there is no man in existence, on either side of the Atlantic, less likely to be influenced by any selfish considerations than my noble Friend. I think it was quite unnecessary for my noble Friend to defend himself from imputations pointing to that direction, if such imputations have been made. Entertaining those Opinions of my noble Friend, and not yielding to any noble Lord opposite, in a sincere desire to establish and maintain a good understanding with the United States, I nevertheless cannot shut my eyes to what I conceive to be the disadvantages, as well as the advantages of the treaty which has been brought under the consideration of this House. My noble and learned Friend seems to think that a disposition exists to withhold praise, where praise is due; but I declare, for my own part, that I have no wish to see in this treaty anything that is not worthy of praise. When I first heard of the treaty—being then out of the country—my first feeling was one of unbounded satisfaction, and I was disposed to acquiesce in all its provisions as far as I then could collect them. When, however, I came to look into the details of the treaty, and considered them in connection with the correspondence which has been published, while I still think that some parts of the treaty have been ably, wisely, and judiciously negotiated, there are other parts with respect to which I entertain a different opinion, and to those parts I felt it my
646
duty to advert on the first day of the Session. I do not hesitate to admit at once that the case of the Caroline has been successfully disposed of. I must here do justice to the American government, by observing that the representations which they made with regard to this question—that the law of America was totally defective as to the means of redressing the wrong done to this country in the case of the Caroline and Mr. Macleod—were founded on no opinions then for the first time adopted. From the commencement of the negotiations which were entered upon by Lord Palmerston and Mr. Fox, the American minister uniformly declared that the federal government possessed no power to do justice in the case, and acknowledged that it would be necessary, both from regard to their own dignity, as well as the interests of other countries, to effect such an alteration of the constitution of the States as should prevent outrages of a similar kind from being taken cognizance of by the departmental courts, over which the federal government has no control. I do not quarrel with what has been done in the case of the Creole, and though doubts have been expressed with respect to the wording of the treaty on this point, I will content myself with expressing a hope that the question has been permanently settled. I now proceed to notice two or three parts of the treaty, with respect to which, though my opinion may differ from that of the majority of the House, I cannot join in expressing a degree of satisfaction amounting to joy. I will first advert to the case of Madawaska, which my noble and learned Friend connected with the award made by the King of Holland. My noble and learned Friend stated that we accepted that award with joy and satisfaction. This is new to me. I always understood that we accepted the award under positive compulsion, because we were bound to accept it. The award was not proposed by Lord Palmerston. Lord Palmerston found the award on coming into office; he looked at the treaty, and found by the first article that the two parties were bound to adhere to the award. The British Government, therefore, had no alternative, but to agree to the award. The Americans, also, ought to have had no alternative but to agree to it; but they got out of the obligation by what I must be permitted to call a subterfuge, which I should be sorry to see the British

647
Government have recourse to. The British Government employed no subterfuge. They did not say that they liked the award; but they said that good faith required them to adhere to it. The Americans, however, availed themselves of a subterfuge, and the King of the Netherlands was bound to find for the claims of one or the other party, and not compromise them, the Americans said they were not bound by the award. There was an end of the arbitration and the British Government was at perfect liberty to enter into negotiations with America upon a totally different footing from that upon which former negotiations rested. They might either attempt to ascertain the line which was fixed by the treaty of 1793, or, failing that, could contend for such a line as they considered most advantageous. But, now, with respect to the Madawaska case, I think it was creditable to Lord Ashburton, and noble Lords opposite, to consider the interests and feelings of the inhabitants of that district. My noble and learned Friend who touched upon this point, about the middle of his speech, appeared to me to treat the interests of these persons somewhat lightly. He stated that they were of French origin, which is perfectly correct and that they had emigrated—that, I believe, was his phrase—from under the protection of our Government to the spot where they were located. I am not aware that those persons ever conducted themselves in a disreputable manner: if they had done so, it must have been known to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen), and, under those circumstances, he could not have instructed Lord Ashburton to speak of them as he has done in his correspondence with the American government. I presume that Lord Ashburton acted in strict conformity with the instructions he received from the Government. Here I cannot avoid remarking, as a curious circumstance, that, although the papers on the Table of the House contain all the instructions which Lord Palmerston gave to Mr. Fox, they do not, with the exception of the instruction relative to the right of visit, which the noble Earl communicated at my request the other day, include any of the noble Earl's instructions to Lord Ashburton. No doubt, Lord Ashburton had instructions, and, as I presume he acted strictly in conformity with them, I am compelled to collect what his instruc-
648
tions were from the conduct which he pursued. If my noble and learned Friend thinks it absurd and injurious to the interests of peace to attach importance to the Madawaska case, it is not 1, but the noble Earl opposite, and the negotiator appointed by the Government, who have done so. I call upon your Lordships to look at Lord Ashburton's first letter, in which he states the various points which he was prepared to concede, and those as to which he was resolved to offer determined resistance. This despatch was evidently framed on the principle—I do not stop to inquire whether it were right or wrong—of stating his ultimatum at the outset. Lord Ashburton, speaking from the instructions of the Government says:—
"There would be evident hardship, I might say cruelty, in separating this now happy and contented village, to say nothing of the bickerings and probable collisions likely to arise from taking in this spot the precise line of the river which would, under other circumstances, satisfy us. Indeed, I should consider that such a separation of these industrious settlers, by placing them under separate laws and governments, a most harsh proceeding, and that we should there by abandon the great object we should have in view of the happiness and convenience of the people, and the fixing a boundary the least likely to occasion future strife. I dwell on this circumstance at some length, in justification of the necessity I am under of departing to this inconsiderable extent from the marked line of the river St. John. What line should be taken to cover this difficulty I shall have to consider with you, but I cannot in any case abandon the obvious interests of these people."
In conclusion, Lord Ashburton says:—
"It must be sufficiently evident, that I have not treated the subject in the ordinary form for a bargain, where the party making the proposal leaves himself something to give up."
By using such language Lord Ashburton distinctly implied that this was one of the points on which he insisted, and would, under no circumstances, abandon. My noble and learned Friend, in one part of his speech, alluded to the ignominy, as I think he called it, of making remonstrances, and allowing them to be disregraded. I will not apply the term ignominy to the conduct of Lord Ashburton and the Government, in the case of Madawaska; but I must say I do not think it a very creditable proceeding on the part of a Government, not on a question of mere trade and commerce but on a question of honour, involving an

649
act of cruelty to persons who have lived under our sway, to mate such solemn declarations as Lord Ashburton did on this very point, and then to abandon them without any sufficient cause being apparent. But this is not all. Lord Ashburton having advanced the reasons which I have read to the House, for retaining the inhabitants of Madawaska under the British dominion, subsequently addressed Mr. Webster in the following terms:—
"It is sufficiently explained in my plan for a settlement, why I was anxious not to divide, in two pans, by our new line of boundary, the Madawaska settlements; and I am sorry to say, that the information I have since received, both as to local circumstances and the anxiety of the people themselves, tends strongly to confirm my impressions."
His Lordship then proceeds to say, in the most precise and emphatic language:—
"This strip I have no power to give up, and I beg to add, that the refusal of my Government is founded simply on their objection t5 dispose arbitrarily of the persons and property of her Majesty's subjects living by preference under her authority, an objection which you are sensible applies with peculiar force to the inhabitants of this part of New Brunswick."
[The Earl of Aberdeen; What page?] In page 25. It is clear that, according to Lord Ashburton's original instructions, the retention of Madawaska was a sine qua non. Yet the territory was at length given up to America on no other ground than an allegation on the part of Mr. Webster, which was contradicted by the petition of the inhabitants themselves, that they did not wish to remain subject to the authority of the British Government. It appears to me that Lord Ashburton had no sufficient reason to depart from the resolution which he solemnly declared in his despatch should be binding on him. I will now proceed to another point. My noble and learned Friend said that the award of the King of Holland gave us less than we have obtained under the treaty of Washington. I cannot altogether concur in that opinion. It appears to me that immense advantages have been conceded to America by the treaty, no one of which she could have obtained under the award of the King of Holland, unless the British Government had thought proper to concede it. The treaty opens the navigation of the St.
650
John to the Americans. Let it not be supposed that I quarrel with this. I am a friend to the free navigation of rivers all over the world. I think it would be wise policy for all governments to enter upon negotiations, in order to make the navigation of all rivers free from their source to their mouth. Still I cannot help thinking that by opening the navigation of the St. John we have conceded a great boon to America. By that arrangement American timber will be brought duty free into this country, and the importation of American corn, upon the same terms, will probably soon follow. Many of your Lord ships, I think, will be of opinion that that is a considerable boon to America, and some of you, perhaps, may not deem it quite so unobjectionable as I do. Well, this being a boon, it was something to bargain for, and we might have got some equivalent for it. But this is not all. The Sugar island and St. George's island have also been ceded to America. Now neither of these cessions were included in the King of Holland's award. Again, we have given up, beyond Lake Superior, many millions of acres, which were not comprised in the award, and which contain a rich mineral field that must hereafter prove of the greatest value to America. Why did we not insist upon retaining Madawaska as an equivalent for these concessions? But if we consented to abandon Madawaska we removed the only objection which, according to the testimony of those who have visited the country, existed to making the St. John the boundary between the British and the American territories. Even that boundary would have been most advantageous to the United Slates; for though each country would have got an immense tract of the disputed territory, that obtained by America would have been the most populous and fertile, whilst that which we should have acquired would have derived its value from the facilities it affords of defending the two Canadas. This, however, is a consideration which my noble and learned Friend—I say it with great respect—is not capable of appreciating; for I remember that a few years ago my noble and learned Friend stated emphatically, in this House, that the Canadas were worth nothing to this country in a national point of view, and that the only question to be considered was, how he could best get rid of them. That being my noble and learn-

651
ed Friend's opinion, he is not likely to criticise severely the abandonment of any portion of territory which derives its importance from being a means of defence for Canada. Those, however, who think that Canada ought to be defended, will take a different view of the question, and I doubt whether my noble and learned Friend, with all his eloquence, would be able to convince the noble Duke opposite that Canada, in a national point of view, is worth nothing to this country. I think that we ought to have insisted on having the St. John for the boundary, as an equivalent for giving up the Sugar Island, St. George's Island, and some millions of acres besides, in addition to the outlets at Champlain Lake, and the territory immediately adjoining thereto. I know that Rouse's Point would have fallen to America under the King of Holland's award, but in addition to that, we have, under the Washington treaty, given a district of some hundreds of miles to America, and I have seen a report made by some engineers to the government at Washington, in which it is stated, that the outlets of Lake Champlain, and the territory adjoining, are a most important acquisition to America, affording, as they do, the means of making an aggressive movement on Canada. These are all points which, in my opinion, have not been adjusted in such a manner as to call for any particular expression of joy. There remains another question which my noble and learned Friend touched upon, and which will probably be discussed by others who can bring a greater amount of knowledge of international law to bear upon it than I can boast of being possessed of. I allude to the question of the right of visit; and after the recent message of the President of the United States, I cannot think that that question has been placed on a satisfactory footing. I entirely acquit the noble Earl opposite of any blame on this head. I think the noble Earl's letter of December, 1841, contains a sound, clear, and dispassionate exposition of international law on this subject. Whatever construction may be put on the article in the Washington treaty, I trust the noble Earl may persevere in claiming for this country the right to visit all vessels for the purpose of seeing whether the flag they bear is genuine or not. If instructions to that effect are given it will bring the point to issue. But till then—till I know what
652
practical measures have been taken, I cannot consider the question to be placed on a satisfactory footing. I am, indeed, at a loss to know how the case really stands. I can find nothing on the subject in the treaty, for the 8th article refers only to the employment of American men-of-war to suppress the slave-trade. My noble and learned Friend has said, on the authority of Lord Ashburton, that the general opinion in America is in favour of our exercising the right of visit; but that it is clear is not the interpretation put on the treaty by the first authority in the United States. The President very magnanimously says that the right exists in the Government of Great Britain; but this is much like the concession formerly granted to the kings of England of being kings also of France—provided only they do not exercise the right. It is plain that the people of America do not wish nor expect us to exercise the right of visit. And yet it is a right which, if not exercised, goes for nothing. The principle is worthless; it is only the practice which can make it available for any good. And if my noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) does not issue instructions for enforcing this right, I believe that we may give up our labours for the suppression of the slave-trade. But I do not believe that my noble Friend means to withhold such instructions. I think it a great object for securing that good understanding so essential to the good feeling between the two countries, that it should be known in America as it is here, that our cruizers, whenever they meet the American flag, should have the power, when they see just cause of suspicion (I ask only these terms), to stop the vessel for the purpose of searching it.
Lord Brougham: Not when they have a suspicion' of the American vessel being a slave trader, but of her carrying a fictitious flag.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: Yes, I rest the grounds of a right of search on a suspicion of the genuineness of the flag which is carried. And, until I see the President admitting that he considers such a suspicion a sufficient justification for the right of search, I cannot see that the disposition of men to peace and good will will be much promoted by this negotiation; and though I sincerely trust that nothing will occur to disturb the good understanding between the two countries,

653
I do not know that there is anything so likely to disturb it as a confused understanding of this important right in America and England. If our cruisers go forth, not with any discretion vested in their commanders, but with positive instructions to stop a suspicious flag under the circumstances I have stated, and if there prevail in America an opinion that no such right exists, that no such instructions have been given, and that, consequently, our cruisers in stopping American vessels are committing acts of piracy, they must consider such a proceeding an usurpation open to just remonstrance from the country to which they belong. Therefore I must say, that my noble Friend does not appear to have cleared up a difficulty, on which he states he found a strong opinion prevailing in the States.
Lord Brougham: The President admits the right.
Lord Campbell: Yes, he apparently does so, but he contradicts that assertion subsequently.
Lord Brougham: No, it is a distinct admission.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: I am sure, my Lords, I am loth to stop that encounter of legal research and ability which you will have much more pleasure in listening to than to any remarks of mine; but I trust my noble and learned Friends will allow me to express once more my strong conviction that there is not now, whatever there may be hereafter, any prospect of arriving at a clear understanding of this most important matter. I have now gone through the whole of my objections to this treaty. To secure a good understanding between the two countries—to guard against future differences—to maintain those relations of amity and commerce, the limits of which it is impossible to describe, but which, if uninterrupted by discussions of an angry nature, must redound to the prosperity of both countries; to such objects of the treaty I readily subscribe with an ardent wish (notwithstanding the objections I have stated to it) that it may prove successful. If it should so prove successful, I shall be the first to congratulate the noble Lords opposite and my noble Friend who undertook this mission. Not that I doubt the sincerity of the first, or the activity of the last, to bring about a desirable settlement of the differences which existed; but the observations I have made were promoted by
654
the duty which I felt to arise on a perusal of the papers before your Lordships. I have stated again and again, I believe, in this House, but certainly out of this House, and before my noble and learned Friend gave notice of this motion, that this treaty was one which I was not prepared to condemn. I speak in the hearing of those, and who know I entertained such opinions. The treaty is one to the object of which I wish well, but when I am called on to say that I absolutely rejoice at the terms in which it is concluded, I must say that in some of those terms I cannot "rejoice," and as I do not wish indirectly to condemn it, instead of saying "not content," I shall satisfy myself by moving, that this House do now adjourn."
The Earl of Aberdeen: It is undoubtedly true, as stated by the noble Marquess, that the course which has been pursued by my noble and learned Friend, is one of a very unusual nature, and the noble Marquess intimated an opinion, that in so doing my noble and learned Friend assumed to himself an office which would be more properly discharged by the Government. Now, however, this may be, I cannot help thinking that my noble Friend not now present, who is the object of this motion, will feel as highly, and appreciate as duly, your Lordships' thanks when moved by a noble Lord unconnected with any party in this House, and moved, too, with that power, eloquence, and ability which are not possessed by any Member of this assembly, as if those thanks had been proposed by a Member of the Government. The noble Marquess must not suppose, that because the Government may have been disposed to follow the ordinary course, and to have abstained from originating any motion of this description, that they were, therefore, indifferent to the services of the noble Lord, or in sensible to the debt which this country owes him for his exertions. My Lords, though the motion may be thought unusual, the manner in which my noble Friend has been animadverted upon (I do not mean on this occasion, or in this House), has certainly been of an unusual character. Formerly it was the custom to attack the Government for the acts of the agent whom it employed. On this occasion we heard of nothing but criticisms of the acts of my noble Friend, not from the noble Marquess, but he knows that they have been publicly circulated, and that they proceeded from quarters which it was

655
generally understood spoke sentiments which might be expected to be pronounced in the Legislature, and not to be communicated through those organs to which I have referred. My Lords, whatever these critics may say, her Majesty's Ministers are responsible for the acts of the noble Lord,, and we are ready and willing to take on ourselves that responsibility. Amongst those servants of her Majesty I am prominently responsible; for the noble Lord did not go to America without instructions on all the points which he negotiated. Those instructions, whether right or wrong, were full and precise on every point; and I must say, that I had every reason to believe, not only that my noble Friend was eminently qualified to discharge the duties imposed on him, but it is my belief (and I am confirmed in that belief by those in the United States best qualified to judge) that there is probably no other man in England who would have succeeded in obtaining the terms of the treaty now on your Lordships' Table. It happens but too often, that we not only show little gratitude to those who have extricated us from difficulties and danger, but we forget the very existence of the apprehensions from which we have been freed. Now I request your Lordships to call to mind the state of feeling which prevailed at the period of the departure of my noble Friend. I am more able than most of your Lordships fully to estimate what our position then was. It was well known to the public, that every mail was then looked for with anxiety, for it might have brought intelligence, which would put an end to anything like friendly relations between the two countries. Numerous subjects of controversy had arisen, which were then aggravated by the course of time, and the manner in which they had been treated. I would ask any of your Lordships, could he be sanguine enough when my noble Friend left this country to hope that he would have succeeded in obtaining the boundary awarded by the King of the Netherlands? Recollect, that for ten years it had been steadily refused by the United States, and no man expected that award to be adopted by them. The noble Marquess, it is true, denied the position of my noble and learned Friend, that the late Government had accepted readily and with satisfaction the award so made by the King of the Netherlands. Possibly they did not; but at least it was accepted by them, and not only accepted, but when rejected by the United States,
656
it was for three or four years perseveringly pressed on the acceptance of the United States by the noble Lords opposite. If this award is very objectionable, as the noble Marquess now seems to think, why did not the Government, of which the noble Marquess was a Member, when the United States declined to be bound by it, express their disapprobation of it; and why did they, on the contrary, use every exertion to induce the United States to accept it? The noble Marquess says, that that award sacrificed the Madawaska settlement, and not being bound by or approving of it, he holds himself at liberty to claim that portion of the territory which has now been ceded. But I beg to remind the noble Marquess, that he was himself a party to the voluntary cession of this very Madawaska territory. What took place in 1835, after the award of the King of the Netherlands had been departed from? The Government of that day proposed a new line to the States, which would have made precisely the same cession of territory as that which has now taken place. They proposed by the boundary of the St. John to divide the Madawaska settlement; and had that been accepted by the States, we should have ceded precisely that territory now given up by the treaty. I am sure your Lordships will bear with me while 1 shortly explain what the Madawaska settlement is. It consists of a population of 4,000 persons, 3,000 of whom are situated on the north of the St. John—these we have retained. About 1,000 are located on the south of the river, and these we have ceded to the United States. And this was the portion which was offered to be ceded in 1835, when the proposition was made through Sir C. Bagot. The noble Marquess stated, that my noble Friend avowed that he had not "power" to cede this territory. Now, see what he says in his despatch:—
"At the same time you will have seen, that I was sensible that some good reason should be assigned, why we should not be satisfied with what you justly term the otherwise perfect boundary of the St. John. In your reply you recognise the difficulties of the case and do justice to our motives; but you state distinctly on the part of your Government, that you can consent to no line which should bring us over the St. John, without some equivalent of territory to be found out of the limits of that part which is in dispute, and you refer, more particularly to a certain strip lying between the north line and the river."
Now, the noble Marquess inferred from this, that it was the Madawaska settle-

657
ment which my noble Friend said he had no power to give up; but this is quite a mistake. "The strip" refers to a part of New Brunswick, which was no part of the disputed territory, and which has always been and then was in the possession of the Crown. When, then, it was proposed, that in lieu of the north line through St. Croix, some portion of the territory south of the St. John should be ceded, my noble Friend said, that constituted no part of the disputed country, and that the inhabitants manifested a strong desire not to abandon the dominion of her Majesty. The terms of the boundary proposed by the King of the Netherlands, such as they were, the former Government accepted and maintained. That award was founded on what had taken place before the accession of the late Government to office. It was submitted when I was in office, twelve years ago, under my superintendence, and when I left office I thought this boundary question was settled or about to be settled very speedily. I certainly thought, that the award Of the King of the Netherlands was final on both parties. I left the question submitted to one sovereign, when I returned to office, 1 found it had been proposed to submit it to three sovereigns, and in the month of August, 1841, a very few days before the change of Government, a contre projet was sent to the United States, after refusing all conditions which authorised Mr. Fox to call for the adjudication of three sovereigns. Therefore the question, so far from having been advanced by ten years of wrangling, was actually much further removed from settlement than when I quitted office. And the position in which we were placed was very different indeed from that in which we were when we submitted the question to the decision of the King of the Netherlands. In fact, the population of the United States had advanced on our possessions. It was very difficult to expel those who had occupied the country; and as my noble and learned Friend accurately stated, a fort was built on the spot, where, ten years previously, jurisdiction was exercised by this country. The noble Marquess talked of the military defence of Canada. No doubt, this was a most important point in fixing the boundary, and we were bound to take pains to satisfy ourselves that any cession which was made was not incompatible with the military security of Canada, and the communication which was necessary to be kept open. But apart from military security,
658
the amount of territory is a matter of comparative indifference, and though I am not indifferent to the possession of territory, that must be given up to obtain security. The boundary we have actually obtained, is to all intents and purposes equal to the St. John for a military defence, for all the heights between the St. John and St. Lawrence are ceded to us. That is the important consideration, and not extent of territory. In swelling the charges against my noble Friend, the noble Marquess dealt somewhat in exaggeration; for he said we have ceded Sugar Island and St. George's Island. Now, the two happen to be one, and instead of consisting of 25,000 acres, it does not exceed 1,000. The noble Marquess then referred to the eighth article of the treaty, by which he contended that we had taken a retrograde step as regarded the final abolition of the slave-trade. Now, my Lords, I confess, though I always thought it the greatest object of this country to obtain a mutual right of search, and on that point, this treaty, so far as it goes, is a very considerable advance towards the abolition of this traffic. It is a little unreasonable to blame my noble Friend for conceding such an article, when we know what has taken place; for though we always desired to obtain a mutual right of search, we have been prepared to accept precisely such an article as the present. The commissioners of Sierra Leone, in January, 1839, actually proposed that which is established by the article—namely, a joint plan of cruising on the coast of Africa, as most effectual for putting an end to the traffic; and what says Mr. Fox in his note of October 29tb, 1839, by the direction of the Government at home:—
"In conclusion, the undersigned has to state that it remains the settled conviction of the Government that the sure and effectual means of checking the slave-trade is by an agreement for the mutual exercise of the right of search by cruisers of the two nations; and the undersigned is instructed to urge this plan on your serious attention. As to obstacles, the Government is unwilling to anticipate any that can prevent the co-operation of the two Governments; and it has only to express an anxious hope that the Government of the United States will be able to devise some other effectual method of removing the progress of this sinful traffic."
We have put in execution, then, this very proposal; and I am certain that Mr. Fox would have been too happy to have, obtained that article, which has been made

659
the subject of criticism in the treaty of my noble Friend. It has been said, that this treaty is differently interpreted by the President of the United States. My noble and learned Friend has so fully stated his views as to the claims of this country, that it is unnecessary for me to follow him. But I do not think the noble Marquess quite correct in the statement he has made on this subject. Not only we made no claim to search, visit, or detain an American vessel, but we made no claim to search or detain any vessel, except such as we were allowed to search by virtue of our treaties. Therefore, when we visited an American vessel, it was not as an American vessel at all, but because we had reason to believe that it belonged to a state giving us permission to search it by treaty. Without such treaty, we have no right to visit any vessel whatever. This is the view which the President takes in his message. He argues, that we do not claim it as a per. Feet right. It is not such a right as all nations have in capturing pirates, but it is a right, the exercise of which is accorded by treaty. And it is because we have reason to believe, that a vessel belongs to a country with which we have a treaty, that we have any ground for visiting her with the view of ascertaining her nationality. Now, such being the nature of our pretensions, we shall adhere to them in spite of all opposition; for, being founded in common sense and justice, it is impossible to recede from them. But I must say, I think the United States had reason to complain of the pretensions which were put forward at no very distant period, and of the manner in which they were enforced. And it is, I think, more owing to the recollection of what took place on those occasions than to anything which exists at present, that we are to trace the feeling which exists in the United States. Why, my Lords, it was only in the month of February, 1841, that the noble Lord then at the head of Foreign Affairs gave instructions to her Majesty's cruisers to abstain from capturing American vessels. Not visiting or searching, but actually capturing American vessels. So that up to that period, they had been in the habit of capturing American vessels believed to be slavers. On several occasions, the commissioners at Sierra Leone found great difficulty in adjusting differences when one party acted in this manner. It was very natural, therefore, that an impression should prevail in the United States
660
that such proceedings were still possible, and on that account a good deal of excitement prevailed on this subject throughout the union. Before this right can be exercised, two things are necessary; first, that there is ground for suspecting, that the vessel is engaged in the slave-trade; and, next, that she belongs to one of those states the vessels of which we have, by treaty, a right to search. It is true, a mistake may be made. It is true, that we may imagine an American flag to be displayed for deceit, and that on visiting, we find the vessel to be bonâ fide American. If so, whatever reparation is due, ought to be made at once, and the Government will never be reluctant in such a case to afford such reparation as may be fit. We can do no more than admit that such vessels as are bonâ fide American are perfectly free from our jurisdiction. But, by this article, the Americans agree to send a squadron to the coast of Africa, which, as my noble Friend says, will practically settle the question. No doubt they will have no right to detain or search any but American vessels; and whether they cruise separately or with our squadron, of course they will search every vessel bearing the American flag. And no doubt those officers will, as they always do, when acting in company with the British navy, display the same zeal, activity, and cordiality, for the attainment of an object in which they are mutually interested. We have always found that to be so, and it will be the case, I am sure, in the present instance. I have heard it said, that we made another retrograde movement by a letter I addressed to the Lords of the Admiralty about a year ago, which had reference to the proceedings on the coast of Africa. Now, my Lords, having had statements from the law officers of the Crown, warning me that such proceedings could not be maintained by the law of nations, of course it was my duty to apprise the captains of our cruisers of such an intimation. To such an extent, and to that extent only, did that letter go. I should like to know, therefore, how it can be called a retrograde step, when I have just informed your Lordships that it was only in February, 1841, that the capture of American vessels was desisted from. Why was that done? It was evidently because we had discovered that to capture those vessels was contrary to the law of nations, and that we had no right to capture them. Such considerations induced me to

661
write that letter. I did nothing eke, except to encourage the meritorious exertions of our cruisers on those coasts. If it were possible to suppose that this country alone could effect the abolition of the slave-trade by its single exertions, we might deal with these questions more easily, but it is an undoubted fact that our only chance of effecting the abolition of that traffic is by the assistance of other: countries. It is therefore, necessary, that in the execution of this duty we should do nothing to injure the rights of independent nations, or to violate public Justice. Her Majesty's Government are disposed to do alt in their power to effect this object, and I trust that so far from any retrograde step having been taken in this great cause, we hare made a great advance, and that the very article of this treaty which has been found fault with will operate practically to give very important additional means of terminating this traffic. The noble and learned Lord has so fully exhausted this and every other part of this subject, that I do not think it necessary to detain your Lordships further at this hour of the night. My Lords, the present motion has been made by the noble and learned Lord entirely unconnected with her Majesty's Government, and it has been brought forward without their sanction; but having been made, we feel it our duty to give it a ready and a willing support.
Lord Campbellsaid, he was somewhat surprised at this extraordinary and unprecedented motion of his noble and learned Friend. He discovered, from the votes of the other House of Parliament, that a notice had been given on this subject, by a very distinguished Member of that assembly, who was now looked up to, he presumed, by his noble and learned Friend, as his political leader; but his noble and learned Friend was bolder than his leader, for the notice of motion in the other House was confined to approbation of the treaty for settling the north-eastern boundary, whilst his noble Friend called for the approbation of the House for the ability with which the whole of the negotiations were conducted, and required them to rejoice not merely in the treaty, but in all the terms of the treaty. Now he (Lord Campbell) would take it upon himself to say for the British people, that whilst they rejoiced in the treaty, they grieved at the terms of that treaty. No doubt the noble Lord had conducted these negotiations to the best of his ability, and with an anxious desire for
662
the benefit of the country. He should consider it as great a calamity as could befall us, if any circumstances should bring on hostility between two nations, who should always recollect their common origin, their common language, and even their common institutions; for although, as his noble and learned Friend had said, the United States had no monarch, no bishops, and no nobility, still their institutions and our own bore a strong family resemblance. He agreed also with his noble and learned Friend that there was no imputation resting on Mr. Webster; it was not his duty to furnish materials to his opponent; he had eon-ducted himself throughout with equal honour with our negotiator, and with far more ability. When our negotiator was opposed to Daniel Webster, he was greatly overmatched. He had read with some mortification and humility the despatches of the two negotiators, for Mr. Webster's showed infinitely more astuteness, judgment, and skill than the noble Lord's. In touching on the different points of this treaty, he would begin with the north, eastern boundary. His opinion was, that the line of demarcation was of much less importance than the various other topics which arose during the negotiation between the two countries; but when Lord Ashburton left this country, the general expectation certainly was, that this country would obtain a much better line than what was called the Dutch line, because, in consequence of the ignorance of the physical geography of the country at the time of that award, it was little favourable to us. If the maps produced by America were examined, they would be found to be mere delusions. They laid down rivers where no rivers flowed; they made mountains where there were only plains and morasses. When Lord Ashburton went out, better evidence had been obtained of our rights than we had previously possessed, and what he blamed that noble Lord for in this part of the negotiation was, that he began by putting himself out of court; he began by saying that the treaty of 1783 could not be executed, and that we could never find the north-west angle of Nova Scotia. Mr. Webster admitted no such thing. He said that there was no difficulty in finding the north-west angle or of executing that treaty; they had only to run a straight line due north from the source of the St. Croix till they found certain Highlands, which were his Highlands, and which, he said, were

663
contemplated at the time of the treaty by Franklin and Oswald; and then, when they got to those Highlands, they were to go to the north-west branch of the Connecticut; and Mr. Webster said that America must make a concession if we had a foot of that land. Now, these Highlands had none of the conditions of the Highlands of the treaty; there were not rivers flowing on both sides, and when they went to the Connecticut they went south, and not north, as they ought to do by the treaty of 1783. The map of Franklin was, in his opinion, quite conclusive. If they assumed that the map now known to be in existence was the map, as he believed it was, which was referred to in the letter of Dr. Franklin, the negotiator of the treaty, to the Count De Vergennes, this was the very map on which the treaty was made; and, after the production of that map before any jury of Englishmen, there would not be the slightest doubt as to what was the true boundary. His noble and learned Friend admitted that they ought to settle a disputed boundary between nations precisely as they would settle it between private individuals, and he (Lord Campbell) agreed in that doctrine. Now, in this very Session, and in that House, there had been a cause arising out of a dispute relating to some land in the neighbourhood of Glasgow which had been granted many years ago. The question was whether the grant extended eight feet beyond a garden wall; there had been a map which was referred to during the negotiation between the parties for the grant; that map was neglected by the Court of Session; but when the case came to that House, he, who presided in the absence of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, together with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), and his other noble and learned Friend (Lord Cottenham), all concurred in deciding, that as this map, although not referred to in the contract, had been used at the time of the contract by the parties negotiating it, it was to be taken as evidence of the boundary. Except that in the one case the line was red, and in the other it was black, the cases were precisely alike. Although he believed that the whole of the disputed territory belonged to England; although he believed that if more firmness had been shown, a better boundary would have been obtained, and better terms than proposed by the King of the Netherlands; and although we had now given up the navigation of the river St.
664
John, which was not conceded at the time of that, proposed settlement; and although, therefore, he could not rejoice in the terms, he could not condemn the treaty. He then came to another subject which had entered into these negotiations—the case of the Caroline. The negotiations upon this point were conducted with ability and with success, and he rejoiced that Lord Ashburton had refused to give way. The dispute relating to the Caroline arose whilst he had the honour to fill the office of Attorney-general, and he had never had the slightest doubt that we had a perfect right to cut out the Caroline from the shores of America; and he felt little regret that she had been sent down the Falls of Niagara. He found that the noble Lord had adopted the very argument and illustration he had used at that time. The noble Lord, in reply to Mr. Webster, said:—
"If cannon are moving and setting up in a battery which can reach you, and are actually destroying life and property by their fire; if you have remonstrated for some time without effect, and see no prospect of relief, when begins your right to defend yourself, should you have no other means of doing so than by seizing your assailant on the verge of a neutral territory?"
In his opinion, it was just the same as if in a neutral territory a fortification were erected by the owner, who allowed his guns to be used and to be fired in our territory, slaughtering our men. There could be no doubt that we had a right, to take possession of that fortress, and to level it to the ground. Firmness had been displayed by Lord Ashburton with regard to the case of the Caroline, and he had succeeded. In that case the United States did what was very honourable to them—they allowed that the responsibility rested entirely on the Government of Great Britain. They admitted, that when an officer acting under the orders of his Government entered upon a belligerent expedition, he was not responsible, but the Government whose instructions he executed. He was glad that the United States had passed an act the necessity for which had been demonstrated by the case of M'Leod, to enable them to maintain amicable relations with foreign countries. So much for the case of the Caroline, in which he admitted the noble Lord had done justice to his country. When, however he (Lord Campbell) came to the case of the Creole, he was obliged to take a very different view of these negotiations. He

665
doubted whether his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), from the course of his daily avocations, sitting as a judge from ten to four, had had time to read the correspondence between Lord Ashburton and Mr. Webster with respect to the Creole. Was the case of the Creole settled? It remained unsettled to that hour. He deeply deplored, that when this question had been raised, it had not been met as it ought. We were now placed in a situation of great difficulty, and the noble Earl opposite either had, or would have points to settle, which he would hardly arrange without much difficulty. In the despatch of Mr. Webster, of the 1st August, 1842, he said,—
"The facts in the particular case of the Creole are controverted; positive and officious interference by the colonial authorities to set the slaves free being alleged on one side, and denied on the other. It is not my present purpose to discuss this difference of opinion as to the evidence in this case, as it at present exists; because the rights of individuals having rendered necessary a more thorough and a judicial investigation of facts and circumstances attending the transaction, such investigation is understood to be now in progress, and its result, when known, will render me more able than at this moment to present to the British Government a full and accurate view of the whole case. But it is my purpose and my duty to invite your Lordship's attention to the general subject, and your serious consideration of some practical means of giving security to the coasting trade of the United States, against unlawful annoyance and interruption, along this part of their shore."
He (Lord Campbell) asked then, whether on the return of Lord Ashburton from America, the case of the Creole was settled? The noble Earl (Lord Aberdeen) appeared to-assent to the statement that the whole question was undisposed of; and here, in order to illustrate his complaints, he must remind their Lordships that disputes had before arisen between this country and America, as to the liberation of slaves which came into our ports in vessels driven there by stress of weather. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) appeared to entertain a desire of palliating the conduct of the American government in their internal slave-trade, for the noble Lord had argued as if American ships entering the gulf of Florida had no slaves on board, that they had only black men forming part of the crew. [Lord Brougham had said, that there were no slaves going from one part of the United States to another.]
666
Although America had abolished the external slave-trade, yet he regretted to say, with respect to the internal trade, that it remained in full activity; there were certain states in which the breeding of slaves was carried on, and they came through the gulf of Florida to be taken to the Carolinas, to be sold in the markets there. These cargoes of slaves did come into the gulf of Florida, and had been again and again driven by stress of weather into Bermuda and other English ports. Two cases of this kind occurred before the abolition of slavery in our own colonies, the cases of the Comet and the Encomium; the governor detained the slaves and liberated them. A demand was made on the English Government for compensation for this liberation. He was Attorney-general at that time, and after much reluctance he was bound to say, that compensation must be made, for whilst we ourselves, who still maintained slavery in our colonies, liberated American slaves which came to those colonies, we were bound to cause compensation to be given. But since that period slavery had been happily abolished in all our colonies; slavery existed now as little in Bermuda as in Middlesex. Afterwards, in the year 1836, the ship Enterprise was driven by stress of Weather into Bermuda, and then the authorities of the colony had no option. It was precisely as if a vessel with a cargo of slaves came into Portsmouth, that they sued out a writ of Habeas Corpus, and were brought before his noble and learned Friend, the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, who would be bound to liberate them. The Chief Justice of Bermuda was obliged to do the same thing, and accordingly he liberated the slaves. Compensation was claimed for those slaves by the American government, and he (Lord Campbell) as Attorney-general, came to the conclusion, that no compensation should be made. The slaves were no longer slaves; the moment they entered an English port, they were entitled to their freedom: it would be a trespass to detain them, they would be in the same situation as emigrants unlawfully imprisoned; and in the case of the Enterprise compensation was refused. For several years the American government acquiesced in that decision, and the general understanding between the two governments was, that no compensation could be made in such cases. Mr. Webster tried to get Lord Ashburton to admit, that compensation was due, or that a new law

667
should be passed applicable to English ports, to recognise the slave-trade, and to enable the masters to take away their slaves. Mr. Webster entered into the general principle, he tried to show that the slaves ought not to be liberated, that the masters were wronged if they were so liberated, and that the American government had, in these cases, a right to demand compensation. The reasoning of Mr. Webster would have shown that the negro Somerset ought to have been kept captive by Lord Mansfield. But not only was the law of England as he (Lord Campbell) had laid it down, but it was the law of America also; for Professor Storey, one of the greatest ornaments of the United States, who had a greater reputation as a legal writer than any author this country could boast, since the days of Blackstone, said, that slavery was a local law, but that the moment the slave got beyond the limits of that local law, he had broken his chains, he had escaped from his prison, and from that moment he was free, and entitled to the protection of the law of the place in which he was. And Mr. Storey followed up this doctrine with sentiments which would have done credit to his noble and learned Friend (Lord Denman), who so worthily presided over the Court of Queen's Bench here, and who had ever proved himself a distinguished friend to the freedom of the human race. When an English port received a slave cargo, from that moment the whole of the individuals composing that cargo were entitled to their freedom. What, then, ought to have been the answer of our negotiator to such a demand? And, be it observed, that there was not the slightest difference in this respect between Bermuda and Portsmouth. He ought either to have refused to enter into this negotiation at all, or he ought to have asserted the high principle upon which the English Government had acted in the case of the Enterprise, and on which he (Lord Campbell) trusted the noble Earl opposite would continue to act. What, however, did Lord Ashburton do? He did not blame him, because he was not probably aware of the concession he was making, or of the principles which ought to have guided him. Instead of repudiating the demand, he said,—
"For the reasons which I will state, this question had better be treated in London, where it will have a much increased chance of settlement, on terms likely to satisfy the interests of the United States."
668
The noble Lord was all acquiescence—he was willing to assist in the continuance of slavery, he desired that a law should be passed, in which in our colonies and in this country slavery should be legalised. He goes on to say;—
"Although I really believe that much may be done to meet the wishes of your Government, the means of doing so would be best considered in London."
The noble Lord hands Mr. Webster over to the noble Earl, to contrive some means of keeping chains on the slaves when they were brought into this country. The noble Lord added—
"Whatever I might attempt, would be more or less under the disadvantage of being fettered by apprehensions of responsibility, and I might thereby be kept within limits which my government at home might disregard. In other words, I believe you would have a better chance in this settlement with them, than with me. I state this after some imperfect endeavours by correspondence to come at satisfactory explanations. If I were in this instance treating of ordinary material interests, I should proceed with more confidence; but anxious as I unfeignedly am, that all questions likely to disturb future good understanding between us should be averted, I strongly recommend this question of the security of the Bahama Channel being referred for discussion in London."
The noble Lord entered into an understanding that instructions should be given to the British colonial governors to comply as far as possible with the wishes of Mr. Webster. [Lord Brougham: No such thing.] It was quite clear that his noble and learned Friend had not read the despatch, for he was entirely ignorant of its contents. [Lord Brougham; " hear."] The case was not new; it had already occurred in the Enterprise, and again and again the British Government had refused the demand of compensation. The papers upon the Table, therefore, showed a departure from the great principle on which our Government had uniformly acted; and a departure, he would venture to say from the law of England. He remembered that his noble and learned Friend, when at Paris, sent him a letter—not a private and confidential one, and he therefore supposed there was no reason for not mentioning it, upon this subject. It put this hypothetical case:—Suppose a foreign ship was in a harbour in a British colony, and a murder was committed on board, would the courts of that British colony take cognizance of

669
that murder? Most undoubtedly they would; and the murderer would be convicted and executed. If a foreign vessel laden with slaves too, or worked by slaves, were driven by stress of weather into a port belonging to this country, the vessel might not be forfeited, but there could be no question that the human beings, as aliens, were entitled to their liberty. There could be no doubt also that if an affidavit were made in this country that any human bangs were unjustly deprived of their liberty, the Court of Queen's Bench would grant a habeas corpus. Such was the case with the Canadian prisoners, who were brought before the present Lord Chief Justice, in whose favour Mr. Joseph Hume, the header of his noble Friend (Lord Brougham) had made an affidavit. Such being the law of England, was it a law which ought to be altered? Certainly not. What then would be done? The noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Department would refuse the demand of Mr. Webster. He (Lord Campbell) deprecated any cause of quarrel between Great Britain and America, but if they were unfortunately to quarrel, could Great Britain have a holier cause than the refusal to give compensation for human beings liberated by the law of the land. Our conduct in such a case would be applauded by mankind, and would receive the blessings of heaven. He now came to the eighth article of the treaty, which involved the question of the right of visit and the right of search. To his utter astonishment his noble and learned Friend had said that he knew no distinction between the right of visit and the right of search. [Lord Brougham: I never said any such thing.] What would General Cass say to the position that there was no distinction between the right of visit and the right of search? He admitted that when General Cass was in Paris, he mixed himself up with the disputes between England and America most reprehensibly, but at the same time he (Lord Campbell) regretted that his noble Friend had thought proper to employ language towards that individual which would fly over all parts of the world. Let their Lordships consider what might be the consequences. General Cass might become President of the United States, and his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) might become Prime Minister of this country. [Question, question.] He apprehended that he was speaking strictly to the question. He wished to know in what respect he was out of order.
670
[A Noble Lord said, that he had cried "question," when the supposition was stated that the noble Lord (Lord Brougham) might become Prime Minister of this country.]
Lord Campbell: There could be no breach of order in such a supposition whether it were possible or not. He did not think the event impossible, and when it did arrive—as far as eloquence and ability were concerned, England would never have a Minister of whom she could have better reason to be proud. But what might be the consequence if, at the same time, General Cass happened to be president of the United States? Might it not tend to the disturbance, at least, of the friendly relations between the two countries? He would return to the eighth article of the treaty, and would contend that the right of visit claimed by Great Britain was a perfect right, and that it subsisted by the law of nations. That right had been most admirably and convincingly defined and defended by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Aberdeen), in his two letters to Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Everett. The object of this right of visit was simply to ascertain the genuineness of the flag, and whether the ship was entitled to carry the colours she hoisted. That was an indispensable right, and it existed as much in time of peace as the right to search for arms, &c, existed in time of war. It had been denied by Mr. Stevenson, by Mr. Everett, and by Mr. President Tyler, and they relied upon a decision by Sir W. Scott, which they supposed shewed that there existed no right of visit without a convention. The fact, however, was, that Sir W. Scott's expressions all had reference, not to the right of visit, but to the right of search, detention, and condemnation. No such right, Sir W. Scott decided, existed in time of peace; but he had never decided that in time of peace there did not exist the right of visit for the purpose of determining the nationality of the flag displayed by a suspected vessel. There was not the slightest ground for denying that right, or for asserting that it was not a perfect right. What was said by the Americans on the point? President Tyler, in his first message, represented that England had set up a right entirely contrary to the law of nations, and that she had been obliged to abandon it. In his second message he persisted in denying the right of visit, and contended that it was a trespass. If it were a trespass, it was wrongful, and if wrongful, it

671
might be resisted; if resisted, British sailors, in asserting it, might kill American citizens; and if they were carried to an American port, they might be tried and hanged for murder. This dispute still remained unsettled, between Great Britain and America; Great Britain maintained that it was a right, and America that it was a trespass. That it was a right, and a perfect right, he (Lord Campbell) entertained no more doubt than the noble Earl who had so ably and conclusively argued the question in his letters to Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Everett. He hoped that the noble Earl would persevere in this opinion, notwithstanding the assertion of America, that she was competent to avenge any insult upon her own flag, and that she did not require the interposition of Great Britain. It was quite evident that without this right of search it would be impossible to put an end to the slave-trade, and he would ask if this eighth article of the treaty was not retrogressive, and did not place this country in a worse position as regarded the extinction of slavery and the slave-trade? If so, was there any ground for the song of triumph which his noble Friend would raise, founded on the eighth article? If, indeed, America, had complied with the claim of the noble Earl, there might be some reason for rejoicing; but not only did America refuse to concede it, but the refusal had already had a most injurious effect upon our negotiations with other powers. It had afforded a strong motive to France, not only to refuse to ratify the last treaty, but to rescind those into which she had formerly entered. Another point related to the destruction of the barracoons, and it was understood that the noble Earl had desired that such attempts as that of Captain Denman were not to be repeated. [Lord Denman: "No, no."] He was glad to hear that such was not the case, because he considered that such gallant efforts were essential to the suppression of the slave-trade. While the subject of the 8th article was still in dispute, how could he or any noble Lord concur in the terms of the motion, that there had been a restoration of the good understanding between the two nations? The two nations were directly at issue, and it was not a question like that of the disputed boundary, which might be postponed for years, but it might lead to open hostilities in a single day. Had goodwill then been re-established? There was another matter of dispute. Lord Ashburton had hardly quitted the shores of America,
672
when a bill was introduced into the senate, asserting that the whole of the Oregon territory belonged to the United States. This question, of itself, might lead to the employment of a military force, and might, even shortly, bring about a war. The feeling in the United States was, that they had gained an advantage over this country; that Great Britain had yielded to the high tone assumed by the United States, and that if they continued to make demands in the same spirit, they would be followed by similar concession. On the whole, therefore, he thought that his noble Friend would have done better not to bring forward this motion, notwithstanding the notice given in the other House. It was entirely unprecedented, must produce an unpleasant discussion, and, perhaps, an angry feeling on the other side of the Atlantic. Why had his noble Friend introduced it, he could not imagine; but he was sure it was not for the sake of sneering at the noble Lord lately at the head of the Foreign Affairs of this country. At all events, nobody would join with his noble Friend in the sarcasms he had uttered against that great statesman; for every man who had marked his conduct during the last ten years, could not fail to entertain the highest opinion of his abilities, and of the success which had attended their exercise. Was there not the greatest danger of an European war, when his noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) assumed the office of Secretary for Foreign Affairs? And yet had he not, during the period of ten years that he held office, saved the country from that danger? Not a gun had been fired throughout Europe to disturb the public tranquillity. But his noble Friend had done even more than preserve the general peace; and he should have thought, that the service his noble Friend the late Foreign Secretary, had rendered towards the abolition of the slave-trade, might have propitiated his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham). Had not his noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) done more than any other man in Europe for the prevention and suppression of that inhuman traffic? His noble and learned Friend should have borne in mind that Lord Palmerston had preserved the influence of England in every part of the world. In Spain had not his conduct been most successful? Had he not by his energy and firmness saved Spain from the domination of France? There was no statesman to whom this country was more indebted than to his

673
noble Friend (Lord Palmerston), and he could only wish that when the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen) should quit office, that he might leave the British name as much respected, and its influence as powerful abroad as he found them. If the noble Earl should be able to do this, then, in his opinion, the noble Earl would be entitled to be reckoned one of the greatest and most successful statesmen of whom his country could boast.
Lord Colchesterconsidered the outcry raised upon those parts of the case which related to the right of search and of visit was by no means justified by facts, and he believed it to be made to suit other political purposes. He had been employed on the coast of Brazil, and had, on several occasions gone on board both American and French vessels to inspect their papers, and no complaints had ever been heard of by him. No doubt there was a difference between the right of search and the right of visit. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had given up the first, but had very properly maintained the latter. He might boldly say, from considerable experience, that under ordinary circumstances a visit to a vessel for the purpose of verifying her papers would not delay the ship more than fifteen or twenty minutes. It appeared to him, that the 8th article of the treaty, so far from being a retrograde step, had improved our hopes of ultimately putting down the slave-trade. The great object for which Lord Ashburton was sent to the United States was to bring to a close the differences existing between those States and this country in a manner honourable and fair to both parties. His humble opinion was, that the noble Lord had completely succeeded in that object, and, therefore, he should cordially give his vote for the present motion.
Lord Denmanwould not trouble their Lordships with any lengthened observations. He joined in the expression of satisfaction which appeared to prevail on both sides of the House at the settlement of the important difference between the United State, and this country, more especially with respect to the boundary question and the question relating to the ship Caroline. So strong indeed was his desire, that those questions should be settled, that he was unwilling to enter into any inquiry at what price that great good had been obtained. There were, however, ex-
674
pressions used in one of the despatches of Lord Ashburton with regard to the instructions which he recommended the noble Earl at the head of Foreign Affairs to issue to the governors of our colonies with respect to the mode of executing the laws with reference to particular exigencies, in the use of which expressions he (Lord Denman) thought the noble Lord had gone further than any negotiator ought to go; because the laws must be executed according to their own exigency, and by their own authority. If any governor, under any instructions, were, for the sake of promoting any political or other purposes, to warp or distort the laws, that man would deserve to be impeached. He thought it therefore right to enter his protest against the expression used by Lord Ashburton, although he trusted it would not at all interfere with the settlement of the question relating to the slave-trade, upon principles perfectly satisfactory to all the world, or rather upon the principle which already existed with regard to our own laws, by which it was perfectly notorious, that the touching the English soil by the foot of a slave, emancipated him at once. He believed, however powerful any Ministry might be, however great their majority, however triumphant their success, they never would persuade either House of the British Parliament to alter the law is the slightest degree upon that important question. He could not refrain from alluding to an act on the part of the noble Earl which had been regarded in some degree as a retrogradation from the policy and principle adopted by this country in respect to the suppression of the slave-trade. A letter had been written by the noble Earl, which he (Lord Denman) had not been prepared to hear spoken of in the way in which it had been by the noble Earl. It seemed to him (Lord Denman) whether he looked at it as a question of injustice to an individual, or as a matter of importance to the public service, it became a question how far it was proper that such a letter should have been written. He, however, would not make it a question affecting merely an individual. He stood up for the liberty of mankind, for the natural rights which belonged to us all. He did not consider the abolition of the slave-trade as conferring any rights on us. He regarded the trade and system itself as an enormous crime, which all mankind were bound to

675
unite to put down. But the question had never, in his opinion, been sufficiently regarded in this light. It was en extensive and gigantic evil which individuals, as well as nations, had a right to interfere with and prevent, as much as they had to prevent the kidnapping of their fellow-creatures, or to prevent murder; and every one would be abandoning his duty if he should allow such a crime to pass in his presence, having himself the power to put it down. Every civilised nation had agreed that it was a crime that ought to be extirpated from the face of the earth, and the question that now remained was, by what means was this to be done. He would not enter into a distinction between the right of search and the right of visit. But he stood up for the right of prevention, and every restriction and limitation which was imposed upon that right was the abandonment of a sacred duty incumbent on all men, but more particularly so upon England, which owed an act of retribution to Africa for the many years of wrong she had inflicted by the slave-trade upon that unhappy country. It was quite clear to him that there was no other means for the suppression of the slave-trade than the employment of cruisers on the coast of Africa. He knew there was an objection to the system of granting bounties for the capture of slaves, because it was supposed that it held out an encouragement to the officers to connive at the slave-trade, in order that they might afterwards capture the vessel and obtain the bounty. But he was happy to bear testimony, which he could, to the fact, that there was not the slightest ground for believing that any British officer had been actuated in his conduct by any means such as those which were, at one time, thought to affect his mind. It was perfectly clear that when the cargo of human beings was placed on board the vessel, half the mischief was done. They might escape to Cuba, or to the Brazils, where that infernal traffic was encouraged. Besides, the very fact of chasing and detaining those vessels was a great evil, for it was generally accompanied by wholesale murder, by throwing overboard many of the victims, in order to ligthen the vessel, that it might escape. If, then, a man having command of our cruisers should say,
"These human beings shall not be put on
676
board the slave vessels; I will arrest them on the coast; I will liberate them, as was done at the barracoons,"
Who would deny that such a man entitled himself to the approbation of his country? He, on his own responsibility, gave orders by which no less than 1,000 men were saved in the barracoons. He (Lord Denman) was therefore much surprised to see new instructions given with reference to the conduct of the cruisers at the Galenas and New Cestus, at which places these acts also had been performed without the loss of a drop of blood, and with the sanction both of the late Board of Admiralty and of the present. He was satisfied that the noble Earl did not believe that these instructions would have produced the effect they had; but they certainly had led to great mischief, on the coast of Africa, where the French papers were read—the French nation having eagerly taken advantage of the circumstance to disparage this country. With regard to the 8th article of the treaty of Washington, he did not think this country was placed in a worse situation by its adoption, but he hoped it would be carried out in accordance with the principles laid down in the despatch of the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) addressed to Mr. Everett, and which it was impossible that America could quarrel with. It was to be regretted, however, that America should be allowed to say that her citizens should traffic in slaves if they thought it right to do so; and that England should ever have allowed any nation upon earth the power to make such a declaration. However, he was disposed to take the most favourable and practical view of the treaty in all respects, and he hoped, for the future, that they should see these great nations of the world laying aside that miserable jealousy by which they were made the instruments of the worst and basest of mankind—the buccaneers, or the still more base wretches who sat at home, using their capital for the degradation and torture of their fellow creatures. He trusted he should see France, America, and all the nations of the earth deeming it to be nothing more than their duty to join the greatest naval power in the world in putting down this horrible and disgraceful crime.
The Earl of Carnarvonexpressed his cordial approval of the treaty which his

677
noble Friend (Lord Ashburton) had concluded, and declared his entire concurrence in the vote of thanks now proposed.
Lord Broughamreplied: He must take the opportunity of denying most positively what his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) had imputed to him—namely, that he (Lord Brougham) had adopted a sneering tone towards another noble Friend of his, the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He had done no such thing. If he had used any such tone, it was directed towards a totally different description of person—a person of very considerable distinction no doubt, but not to the noble Viscount (Lord Palmerston). He should be truly sorry to have it supposed that he wished to make any reflections upon his noble Friend, with whom be had had the honour of being a colleague for four years. He begged most distinctly to say (what, but for the observations which drew it forth, he should never have thought it necessary to say), that no man ever had a colleague more faithful, more honourable, and more perfectly fair to deal with, or one more able to discharge those important duties confided to him. This he was bound to say. He bad said it at all times in his absence, awl he would now say it most distinctly on the present occasion. Nothing would give him greater pain than to find that it was the opinion of any man that ho wished to a peak Sneeringly of his noble Friend. He knew that with regard to his noble Friend's conduct in 1840, though he was opposed to him with respect to his policy on the Eastern question, at that period which he greatly lamented, still he knew that there was a greet deal of groundless clamour raised against his noble Friend, more especially on the other side of the channel, and that he was considered as an enemy of peace, when he sincerely believed that there was but one object in common with him and his noble Friend, and that was to preserve peace throughout the world, and especially to preserve peace and friendship with France. Having received the buffetings of his noble Friends in the course of the whole battle, he thought he felt stronger and stood higher—on higher ground than ever. It was said that this motion was unprecedented. He had two instances to the contrary, one on a treaty of peace, and other the vole of thanks to Karl St. Vincent for his naval administration, a motion
678
which was made by Mr. Fox, and only opposed by Mr. Canning because no notice was given. The noble and learned Lord concluded by calling upon the House to do justice to a meritorious public servant.
Amendment negatived, the original motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past one.