Sitting of 7 February 1843

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—Ordered to be brought in:— Medical Charities (Ireland); Transported Convicts. 1°. Sudbury Disfranchisement.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Turner, from Truro, for the Repeal of the Property Tax.—By Captain A'Court, from Clifton, and Campville, for the Extension of the Church in England. —By Mr. Ferrand, from Coal Miners of Dalkeith, and Tranent, for an Alteration in the mode of Weighing their Work.—By Mr. Hume, from Bannockburn, and Greenyards, for the Repeal of the Mines and Collieries Act.

STATE OF THE COUNTRY.
Sir R. Peelsaid the noble Lord the member for Sunderland, on giving notice the other night of a motion for Monday next, had said that he was not sure whether a notice previously given by the hon. Member for Greenock for Tuesday next might not supersede the necessity for his (Lord Howick's) motion. He (Sir R. Peel) wished to know whether both motions were to be brought on.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he could only answer for his noble friend that he would bring forward his motion on the 13th instant. He did not know what the hon. Member for Greenock's intentions might be.
Mr. Wallacesaid, his notice of motion was given previous to that given by the noble Member for Sunderland. The noble Lord had given his notice for an order day. By what good fortune the noble Lord expected to bring it on be did not know; but if the noble Lord should not succeed in bringing on his motion, he (Mr. Wallace) would certainly bring forward his on Tuesday.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN HONG KONG—CONSULS IN CHINA.—
Sir G. Stauntonasked whether it were the intention of her Majesty's Government to bring any bill into Parliament, in the course of the present Session, for the purpose of regulating the administration of Justice in the island of Hong Kong, and

221
for determining the powers and jurisdiction of the British consular agents who are to be appointed at the several ports of trade in China, agreeably to the provisions of the treaty entered into with the Chinese Government. He had received private letters from Hong Kong, stating that the greatest inconvenience resulted from the state of incertitude at present existing respecting the administration of justice.
Sir R. Peelsaid, it would be absolutely necessary to introduce some legislative measure for the regulation of courts and other matters in the island of Hong Kong. It would, however, be advisable to postpone all legislation until the ratification of the treaty had been received. He had reason to believe that the Government would soon be in possession of the opinions upon the points to which the hon. Baronet's question referred, of Sir Henry Pottinger, to whose activity and ability he was happy to bear public testimony. It was impossible for any man to act with greater moderation, discretion, good sense, energy and firmness, than Sir Henry Pottinger had done. There was reason to believe that long before the Session could be brought to a close the Government would be in possession of that gallant officer's opinion upon several important points, and it was, therefore, considered that it would be desirable to defer general legislation until then. It was possible, however that legislation upon some detached points might take place at an earlier period.
Sir G. Stauntonexpressed his gratification with the answer of the right hon. Baronet.

CHURCH RATES—COUNTY COURTS— REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
Mr. T. Duncombewished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure this Session upon the subject of Church-rates; and also whether they meant to renew this Session two Bills which they brought forward last Session, namely, the County Courts Bill, and the Registration of Voters' Bill?
Sir R. Peelsaid, that a measure relating to County Courts would be introduced. With respect to Church-rates, he did not contemplate the introduction of any measure for transferring the present charge upon property, either to the consolidated fund or the ecclesiastical revenues; at the same time he did not wish it to be under-
222
stood that he concluded himself altogether from legislation on the subject.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that the right hon. Baronet had somewhat unnecessarily entered into a description of the measures which he did not intend to propose. All he wanted to know was whether Church-rates were to be abolished. As to County Courts, the Bill on that subject was laid upon the table last Session, in order, as it was said, that Members might digest it during the recess; now if a different measure were to be introduced, hon. Members would have been exerting their digestive powers to very little purpo e during the last six months.
Sir R. Peel:if the hon. Member had asked him a question to that effect, he would at once have answered in the negative; but as the hon. Member had asked whether the Government intended to introduce "any measure" on the subject of Church-rates, he had considered it necessary to qualify his answer. With respect to County Courts, it was much better that the person whose duty it would be to introduce that measure should state its details, than that he should now be called upon to enter into any explanation respecting them.
Mr. F. Mauleasked whether it was intended to introduce the County Courts Bill into this House or the House of Lords.
Sir James Grahamsaid, he should take an early opportunity of giving another notice of the introduction of the Bill into the House of Commons.

JUVENILE CRIMINALS.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he had a petition to present from the Cape of Good Hope, praying that the plan of sending young criminals to the Cape of Good Hope might not be persevered in. If, as he understood, the plan was abandoned by the Government, it would be unnecessary for him to present the petition. He wished to know what Government had determined upon.
Sir James Grahamsaid, it had been the intention of Government to send a small number of juvenile convicts to the Cape of Good Hope. Representations having, however, been made to his (Sir James Graham's) noble Friend, that there was a general feeling in the colony against their introduction, his noble Friend had thought it best not to carry his design into execution.

MEDICAL REFORM.
Mr. Fox Maulewished to know whether her Majesty's Government had it in contemplation to bring in any bill connected with medical reform?
Sir James Grahamsaid, he had bestowed the utmost attention upon the subject to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. In the course of last Session the Government had been in correspondence with the two great colleges connected with the medical profession, with a view to some legislative measure affecting the profession. They were now approximating to an arrangement with those two colleges, and he trusted that he should shortly be able to introduce to the consideration of Parliament two bills, one affecting the constitution of the charter of the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of London, and another affecting the medical profession generally throughout the kingdom.

POOR-LAW.
Mr. Walterbegged to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, whether he had any objection to lay before the House a document printed about the end of 1833 or beginning of 1834, entitled, "Measures submitted by the Poor-law Commissioners to his Majesty's Ministers." ft was further entitled, "Notes of Heads of a Bill altered and amended," and contained the recommendation of a course of treatment and of a dietary, gradually diminishing in quantity, and deteriorating in quality.
Sir James Grahamsaid, he hardly knew the particular document to which the hon. Member referred. The hon. Member had given him notice of his intention to put this question, and in answer he would say, that no such document was to be found in the department over which he presided. He had a faint recollection that a document such as that referred to by the hon. Member had been sent as a confidential communication to Earl Grey's Government, and as such he was not prepared to consent to its production. But if the hon. Member was desirous to have it produced, he had better give notice of a motion to that effect.
Mr. Waltersaid, he would not trouble the House by any motion on the subject. He did not require the document for his own use, as he was in possession of a copy, but for the general use of the House. He was perfectly satisfied with the right hon. Baronet's answer.

DISTRESS IN PAISLEY.
Mr. Wallacerose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the treatment of the unemployed and destitute inhabitants of Paisley, independent of the parochial poor, between the month of May, 1841, and the present time. It was not his intention to go into the details of that distress. What he wished at present was, to be informed of the treatment the people received at the hands of the local committee, and indirectly from the London relief committee. He had expressed his motion in such a way as to exclude from the inquiry the parochial poor within the borough of Paisley. He had no other reason for excluding the parochial poor than because it would perhaps be desirable that the inquiry into their condition should be left to the Commissioners lately appointed by the Government. He was also desirous of not alluding, upon the present occasion, to a recent resolution of the local relief committee, who had determined on excluding from the benefits of the money sent to them to distribute as charity, all Irish families whatever who had not been resident in Paisley for more than ten years. He should not then enter into the merits of that resolution, because he wished to simplify as much as possible the case to which he desired to call the attention of the House. If he could obtain a committee of inquiry, his object would be completely obtained, and he should only allude to the subject in question by saying that the number of Irish families thus excluded amounted to somewhere about 700, and the number of persons dependent upon these amounted to about 1,300; so that the number altogether was not less than between 1,500 and 2,000. Her Majesty's Ministers would take a heavy responsibility upon themselves if they refused this committee. He was there to plead the cause of an unfortunate locality; but before he did so, he thought it would be best to put it simply to her Majesty's Ministers whether they would grant the committee of inquiry which he was about to move for?
Sir J. Grahamwas sure the House would approve of the moderate and praiseworthy tone in which the hon. Member had introduced this motion. On the part of the Government, he felt bound to repeat the assurance which he had given last Session respecting this case of wide-spread, long-continued, and pa-

225
tiently-borne distress—namely, that it was a case which deserved the constant attention of the Government. If the hon. Member had on this occasion, sought to inculpate the Government, he should have felt it his duty to resist the motion; but he understood the hon. Member to say, that his object was not to try and criminate any party, but merely to obtain full information as to all the facts of the case — that he had no wish to carry it further, and that in the progress of the inquiry he would not go beyond the terms of his motion; under such circumstances, and considering the long-continued destitution of the inhabitants of Paisley, and the great patience with which it had been endured, he did not feel that he ought to refuse the motion. On the part of the Government, therefore, he gave his assent to the appointment of the committee. At the same time, he did not think it at all expedient to extend the inquiry into the treatment of the parochial poor, as there was already an inquiry going on by a commission into the state and treatment of that class generally in Scotland. The hon. Member had referred to that regulation of the local committee by which relief was refused to the Irish poor who had not been resident in Paisley for ten years. On the part of the committee, he must say, that some limitation must be made, and as it was necessary to make one, none could be more natural than that on which they acted— that those who had not been long resident in the locality should be the first who should be refused relief. While on this subject, he would suggest that the inquiry should extend to the relief afforded by the municipalities of London and Edinburgh. In consenting to this committee, and in tendering to it full information on the part taken by the Government, he was anxious to guard himself and the other members of that Government against being supposed to concur in an opinion expressed by a high authority at a recent county meeting in Renfrewshire, that the inhabitants of Paisley, in consequence of the long existence of distress in that vicinity, and the great and exemplary patience with which it had been borne, had a claim for relief from the public funds. No doctrine could, in his opinion, be more dangerous than that, and he was anxious to guard himself and the Government against being considered as acquiescing for one moment in a principle which
226
he conceived to be so pernicious. In conclusion, he would suggest to the hon. Member to withdraw the other motions (relating to the amount collected in England and Scotland under the "Queen's Letter"), and all the necessary information would be given to the committee.
Mr. Wallacethought, that the Government had done itself great credit by consenting to the motion; and he could assure the right hon. Baronet that his selection of the members of the committee would be such as to afford a perfect guarantee that the inquiry would be conducted with the strictest fairness and impartiality. With respect to the observations of the right hon. Baronet as to what had been stated at the meeting in Renfrewshire, it was true that the claim of the destitute in Paisley to relief from the public funds had been asserted; and he had now in his possession documents to show that there were precedents for giving relief from the public funds under circumstances similar to those of Paisley. He would adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet and withdraw the other motions, being satisfied that the committee would be the fittest place in which to elicit the information he desired.
Motion agreed to. Committee to be nominated.

MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND).
Mr. Frenchsaid, he had entertained hopes that some measure for the better regulation of the Irish medical charities would have been brought forward on the responsibility of her Majesty's Government. He trusted, that the most helpless class in the community, the destitute sick poor of Ireland, would have had the powerful advocacy, and the official influence of the noble Lord, the Secretary for that country exercised in their be half. An intimation had lately been made, through Mr. Hall, one of the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners in Dublin, that it was not the intention of her Majesty's Government to propose any legislative measure on the subject of these charities during the present Session of Parliament, which induced him (Mr. French) to renew his exertions to correct those evils that, from personal experience, he knew belonged to the system under which these charities were at present administered. In taking this course, he did not conceive he was about to place

227
himself in a position hostile to the Government. Though the noble Lord was not prepared to originate, there was no reason, if he and his Colleagues approved of the details, why they should not support a measure having for its end so desirable an object. The necessity for a change in the fiscal and other arrangements of the medical charities in Ireland had long been universally admitted; a large sum of money, upwards of 200,000 l., was annually raised, nominally for the relief of the sick poor, from which they derived little, if any proportional benefit. This sum would, he conceived, if secure, which it was not, and under proper management, be sufficient to attain the end sought for that really efficient medical aid, eleemosy nary aid, might be afforded to all those sick poor whose circumstances legitimately entitled them to apply for it, without any additional burthen being imposed on the country; but at present there was neither check over nor audit into its expenditure, and the extent to which the funds were misapplied would appear incredible, were not the evidence on this point so full and so satisfactory as it was. It was not necessary to detain the House by a recapitulation of the various acts of Parliament under which these institutions were at first created and still existed; it would suffice to lay shortly before them the number and nature of the medical establishments in Ireland. There were for gratuitous relief to the sick poor in Ireland 41 infirmaries, 88 fever hospitals, 626 dispensaries, 11 lunatic asylums, and 9 institutions in Dublin supported by Parliamentary grants, making altogether 774 establishments. The annual expenditure was, for infirmaries 45,006 l. 9s., of which sum 2,877 l. was from private subscriptions, 3,172 l. 8s. 2d. from Parliamentary grants, and the remainder made up by a grand jury assessment. For the fever hospitals, the annual cost amounted to 27,038 l., of which, 7,168 l. came from private sub scribers. The balance was made good by the county-rate. The cost of the dispen saries was 73,100 l.,—34,727 l. from subscribers, the remainder county-rate. The lunatic asylums cost 39,184 l., all paid by county assessment. The Dublin hospital cost 38,835 l., which was an annual grant from Parliament; showing a total annual expenditure of 223,165 l. 10 s. for these establishments. The number of persons annually relieved by them, were admitted
228
as intern patients in the infirmaries, 18,939; in the fever hospitals, 41,694; the lunatic asylums, 2,311, and the Dublin hospitals, 12,128; showing of intern patients a total of 75,122; independent of which, according to the average of three years ending 1838, they would find 1,200,000 persons had received relief from the dispensaries. He felt confident, that all parties in the House would coincide in the necessity of institutions so numerous and so important as these being placed on a proper basis, and that the funds for their support should be applied to well-regulated and useful purposes. He trusted, that the acknowledged evils under which the country was suffering would not be increased by deferred legislation on this important subject, and that the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, would not, to suit either the views or devices of the Poor-law Commissioners, consent to any further delay. It might certainly add to their chance of fixity of tenure in office could they get so important a branch of the public service as medical relief within their grasp; but this was no longer practicable, nor, if practicable, would it be desirable. In a country like Ireland, where so large a proportion of the population was placed at the extreme verge of existence, and where every failure of the crop on which they relied for support was uniformly accompanied by visitations of pestilence and famine, the establishment of well-regulated medical charities, by which the progress of contagion might be checked, became an object of the utmost importance, one which addressed itself no less forcibly to the powerful instinct of self-preservation than to the charitable feelings of every Member of the community; whether owing to the dampness of the climate or to the nature of the food on which they subsisted, the population of Ireland were frightfully subject to fever. In a pamphlet published by Drs. Baker and Cheyne, he found that in the space of two years and a half whilst fever was raging there, 1,500,000 persons, nearly one-fourth of the population, were attacked by it, of which number 65,000 died. The House had for the first time an opportunity of judging of the nature and extent of the medical aid afforded to the sick poor in Ireland; hitherto the inquiries on that subject had been partial and confined to districts — that lately carried on by Dr. Corr and Mr. Phelan had extended to

229
every portion of the country. The report of those gentlemen clearly proved the existence of every abuse hitherto charged against the administration of the medical charities; it showed also the utmost anxiety on the part of the medical profession and the public for the immediate alteration of a system under which the remuneration of a medical officer was made to depend, not on his professional character, not on his professional services, but on the number of subscribers he had succeeded in obtaining for the institution to which he was attached—under which the public were annually forced to pay large sums of money they knew to be almost uselessly and unprofitably expended, a system under which the medical treatment of upwards of 1,000,000 persons was thrown into the hands of those from whom no professional qualification was required by the law. Strange as it might sound, there were at that moment several persons presiding over dispensaries in Ireland, not having any qualification to practice in medicine, in surgery, or in pharmacy. The distribution of these dispensaries was most unequal, owing to the necessity of a subscription being obtained previous to the formation of a charity; the poorer districts, which required them most, were left wholly unprovided; in one part of the country they were crowded together; in another there were populous districts of ten and twelve miles square without any medical establishment whatsoever; here they were in proportion of 1 to every 4,000 souls; there, 1 to 120,000. Antrim, with a population of 317,000, had 18, being as 1 to 17,606 of its inhabitants. Down, with a population of 352,000, had but 15, as 1 to 23,468. Longford had 5, as 1 to 22,511. Leitrim 7, 1 to 20,218. Whilst Kildare with a population of 108,424, had 15, being as 1 to 7,228. Kilkenny, with a population of 169,945, had 20, as 1 to 8,497. West meath had 17, as 1 to 8,051. Meath 27, as 1 to 6,543. The fever hospitals were as unequally distributed; in Armagh, there was 1 to 220,000 souls; in Clare, 1 to 258,000; in Donegal, 1 to 289,000; in Mayo, 1 to 366,000; whilst in Kildare they were in the proportion of 1 to 36,000; in Kilkenny, 1 to 33,000; in Wexford, 1 to 26,000; in Carlow and Wicklow, 1 to 20,000; and in Longford, Louth, the Queen's County, and Roscommon, with
230
an aggregate population of 615,503, there was not a single establishment of the kind. There were 209 towns in Ireland, with populations varying from 1,000 to 17,000, without a fever hospital. The cost of patients in the different infirmaries and fever hospitals varied in a most extraordinary and unaccountable degree. In Longford it amounted to 3l. 5s. per head; in Wexford, 3l. 2s. 2d.; in Baltinglass, county of Wicklow, to 4l. 8s. 6d.; in Donegal, to 4l. 15 s. 11 d.; in Tyrone, to 5l 13 s. 3d.; and in Drogheda, to 6l.: whilst in Antrim it was but 1l. 19 s. per head; in Cavan, 1l. 8s. 5d.; in Kilkenny, 1l. 13 s.; in Westmeath, 1l. 1s.; and in Cork but 1l. 6s. In the fever hospitals, in the same manner, it would be found the cost of patients per head was on an average—in Clare, 19 s.; in the city of Cork, 15 s. 2d.; in the King's County but 14 s. 7d.; while in Ballinasloe it was 2l. per head; in Cork, 2l. 10 s.; in Bray, 4l. 14 s. 11 d.; and in Celbridge it rose to the enormous sum of 7l. 14 s. 7d., 7l. per head more than at Shinrone. In the lunatic asylums, the cost for each patient varied in the same manner. For in stance, in Belfast, which had accommodation for 250 patients, the average cost was 16 l. 2s. 6d., whilst in Clonmel, which could only accommodate ninety-six, it was 25 l. 14 s. 5d. There was a great disproportion between the salaries of the officers, and the accommodation of the institutions, were calculated to afford. The manager of the Carlow asylum, which received the smallest number of patients, was paid the highest salary. Notwithstanding the 6th and 7th of William 4th, c. 116, which declared the maximum distance the medical officer could legally reside from the institution with which he was connected to be 5 miles, he found at Abbeyfeale, in the county of Limerick, that the medical officer resided at a distance of 13 miles; at West Cove, in the county of Kerry 14 miles; at Glennemada, in Galway, 18 miles; Ardare, in Donegal, 14 miles; Atlea, in Limerick, 12 miles; Dunmere, in Galway, 11 miles; Doonbeg, in Clare, 11 miles; Kilmanagh, in Kilkenny, 11 miles; Riverstown, in Sligo, 13 miles; Tarmonbary, in Long ford, 13 miles; Dromore West, in Sligo, 21 miles; Arran, in Galway, 40 miles; Bingbamstown, in Mayo, 50 miles. Great as such abuses as these must appear to be, they were fully equalled by the abuses re-

231
lative to the supply of medicines. He found by the report of the commissioners, page 207, that at Foxford, in the. county of Mayo,—
"There was scarcely any medicine, although the large sum of 78 l. 17 s. 11 d. was alleged to have been paid for it within the year, and payment for the carriage of 30 cwt. of medicine from Dublin was charged in the account. In Dunmore, in the county of Galway, carriage of 17 cwt. of medicine within the year was charged; 9l. 18 s. 9s. for lard, 2l. 8s. 6d. for candles. In West Cove, county of Kerry, the medical man was discovered furnishing in correct accounts: charging 16 l. 6s. 7d. for me dicine, for which the druggist who supplied the institution had charged but 7l. 14 s."
In Pallaskenny, county of Limerick, the medical officer was permitted to sell the dispensary medicines, reserving to himself three-fourths of the money so received. At Ardfort, in the county of Kerry, not-withstanding the remonstrances of the subscribers, the dispensary medicines were kept in the doctor's private shop, mixed with his own. At Cookstown, in the county of Tyrone, the medicines were limited to a few articles, wanting some of the most necessary; those few thrown together in great disorder. Inquiry was made where the remainder was kept? and the reply was, there were no more; it then came out that though the gross expenditure of the institution for the last three years had amounted to 324 l. 17 s. 9d., the cost of medicines during the same period was but 13 l. 2s. 9d. In the Kenmare and other dispensaries the doctor was bound to provide 15 l. worth of medicine; the remaining portion of the funds went to him for salary. In Caherciveen the doctor paid himself 100 l.; the remainder, were it much or were it little, was to supply medicine. The commissioners stated the appearance of the stock of medicine left no doubt of the insufficient supply for the sick poor. In Killala, Ball, Letterburn, &c., though large sums were charged for medicine, the stock on hand was scanty, the bottles and drawers were empty, nor were there any arrangements by which the medicines, if ever they were there, could be properly preserved. Could there exist a second opinion of the necessity of abuses such as these being at once put a stop to? It might be urged, that by the 46th and 47th clauses of the Irish Poor-law, the Legislature had decided that the medical charities in that country should be placed under the control of the Poor-law commis-
232
sioners; that the nature of the relief for which these institutions were intended was in itself, virtually, a portion of the Poor-law; that pauperism, in many instances, arose from neglected disease or accident; that, as the source was checked, so in proportion would the result be diminished; that the systems were almost inseparable. Notwithstanding the plausibility of arguments such as these, he did not mean to propose the establishment of any connection between these charities and the commissioners,—first, because the medical profeesion in Ireland had, from one end of the country to the other, protested against it; and, secondly, because he believed it would prove fatal to the charities, were they in any manner to be connected with those whose ignorance and whose arrogance had rendered them strongly distasteful to every class of the Irish people, whose cumbrous and expensive machinery could not be much longer maintained, unless the nation was to be rendered bankrupt, and the soil again, as I it unfortunately had been, stained with, the blood of the people. There was, however, in the bill proposed by him many of the provisions contained in that introduced by the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland during the late Session of Parliament. There was the formation of an unpaid board in Dublin as a central or governing body, by which the future regulations for the management and control of the medical charities would be directed —a board not having the power to interfere with the fiscal authority of grand juries, but from the nature of its duties enabled to afford those bodies considerable assistance in their decisions relating to grants of money for charitable purposes, and to secure its efficiency, it was to be a mixed board of which the President of the College of Surgeons, the President of the College of Physicians, and the Governor of the Apothecaries Company, were to be ex-officio members. He proposed the appointment of lour medical inspectors, at 600 l. each per annum; in the words of the noble Lord, where the institutions appeared inadequate to the wants of the people, he proposed to give power to the grand juries to present for additional establishments, on the certificate of the Lord-lieutenant of such necessity. He proposed, that in future no unqualified person should be elected as a medical officer to any of these charities.

233
The sole expense of the machinery of this bill would be the salaries of the medical inspectors, a secretary, and the clerks that might be required in the office of the medical board. That expense, he calculated, would be 600 l. a-year each for the four inspectors and the secretary, making 3,000 l. a-year; and for office, clerks, travelling expenses, say 1500 l. a-year more, making altogether 4500. a-year. He did not consider it expedient that the country should be subjected to any additional expense for this purpose; but, as he had no doubt a very considerable saving would be effected by this means in the expenditure of the funds of these institutions, it was reasonable that those funds should contribute to this charge. He found, that 5d. in the pound, on the average annual receipts, would give a sum of 4,600 l., which would be quite sufficient for the purpose. By a competent medical inspection, at uncertain times, professional exertion would, he considered, be stimulated, and efficiency and regularity in the management of the medical institutions secured; the medical officer neglecting his duties would be liable to detection and removal, a check would be established on the irregularity of his attendance, particularly in domiciliary visits, a point at present much complained of, and a stop would be effectually put to the abuses of pluralities and non-residence, in neither of which cases could the duties be fairly attended to or faithfully discharged. The want of inspection had long been felt, and during the last thirty years, various attempts had been made by Parliament to provide for it; from the want of it had resulted the wasteful expenditure of the public money, and the giving relief to those whose circumstances did not entitle them to apply for it, thereby depriving of the use of these charities their proper and legitimate objects. The principle of inspection had been adopted in the army, in the navy, in the police, and in the national schools, and had worked in the most satisfactory manner; it was equally, if not more imperatively called for, over the medical charities, and had been recommended by every person who had turned his attention to the subject. The College of Surgeons, the College of Physicians, the grand juries, and all the corporate bodies had passed resolutions in favour of it, the prayer of all the petitions presented to the House were
234
for it— it had been adopted by the late, and was contained in the bill prepared by the present Government. From the establishment of medical inspection, he not only anticipated the advantages he had mentioned, but also others from the accurate knowledge which the central board by this means would obtain of the medical statistics of the country. They would be enabled to take precautions, and prepare measures against the sudden outbreak of contagious disease, the absence of which had frequently been severely felt. It was said, that the source of all knowledge was experience; in no branch of knowledge was it so valuable as that of medicine. If the definition was correct, that the art of the physician consisted in the accurate investigation of the phenomena of disease, and the influence of remedies upon it, it became a science of observation; how much would that science be advanced by the accumulated experience of the medical officers throughout Ireland, recorded in the tables, it would be the duty of the central board to prepare, documents which must prove a valuable acquisition to the public in general, and to the profession in particular? He should conclude by expressing a hope that the measure he had proposed would be as favourably received by her Majesty's Government, and the House, as he had reason to know it would be by the medical profession and the public at large in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in his bill.
Lord Eliotdid not rise for the purpose of opposing the motion of the hon. Gentleman, for he quite concurred with him that the subject was one of vast importance and deserving of the utmost attention of the House. In much that had fallen from the hon. Gentleman he entirely concurred. The hon. Gentleman had drawn a very faithful picture of the abuses which at present existed in the administration of medical charities in Ireland. He had been so strongly impressed with the number and the magnitude of the evils which prevailed, that he had been most desirous to find a remedy for them, and accordingly he desired the Poor-law commissioners to prepare a bill embodying the recommendations they had made, to him upon the subject. Certainly he considered medical relief as much a part of the Poor-law as any other kind of relief whatever—it was considered so in England, and it was ad-

235
ministered under the regulations of the officers appointed under the Poor-law Act, and he confessed he saw no good reason why the practice should be different in Ireland. Medical relief, like relief given in any other shape, must be afforded at the expense of the rate-payers, and it ought to be administered under the same control. The bill which he had drawn up was submitted to the consideration of the profession and the country. It met with much opposition, and afterwards underwent considerable modification. He must say that that bill had not received fair consideration; and agitation was got up against it; yet those who were most opposed to it, although invited to do so, never sent in one single suggestion for its amendment. The medical profession and a large portion of the magistrates of the country were opposed to the bill, yet not one suggestion was offered. He was not prepared to agree to another bill founded upon a different principle, although he had no objection to its being laid before the House. He would only caution the hon. Gentleman that he would find it much easier to point out the evils and abuses of the present system than to find a remedy for them. The hon. Gentleman found that it was so; for, although he had fully stated the abuses of the system which prevailed, he had very lightly passed over the plan he proposed to substitute for it. He proposed that the whole management of the medical charities should be confided to an unpaid board sitting in Dublin, the greater part of whom were to belong to the medical profession. Now, where would he find gentlemen who would devote the time necessary to overlook the accounts of upwards of 600 charities? Unless provision was made for remuneration upon a liberal scale, it would be impossible for him to obtain gentlemen to fill the office, for it would occupy their whole time. The plan would never work. The presidents of the College of Physicians and Surgeons were to be ex officio members of the board; but those officers were removed every year, and of course, they could obtain no knowledge upon the subject of their duties. The hon. Gentleman had lost sight of the great grievance, which was that three fourths of the whole amount expended was taken out the pockets of the poorer cess-payers. How was that master grievance to be remedied? The hon. Gentleman proposed still to leave
236
the power of levying such sums as they thought proper to the grand juries; but were there no longer to be any voluntary subscriptions, and, if so, how did he propose that the sums levied should be spent. When the hon. Member came to put his ideas into a practical form, he would find that they would be considered much more objectionable by the great body of the respectable population than the present system. But as the hon. Member had not stated by what machinery he proposed to carry out his ideas, it was useless to attempt to allude to that part of the subject. Thus much, however, he had thought it fair to say, to remove from the hon. Gentleman's mind any unfounded anticipations of Government support which might have been entertained.
Mr. Frenchthanked the noble Lord for his frankness and courtesy, and considered that the discussion of the objections urged, many of which he was sure he could prove unfounded, had better be postponed till the bill was presented to the House.
Bill to be brought in.

THE RAJAH OF SATTARA.
Mr. Humerose to move the following return, of which he had given notice:—
"Copy of the additional papers transmitted to the Court of Directors, in relation to the Commission of Inquiry held at Sattara, in October, 1836, and ordered by a General Court of Proprietors of the East India Company, held in Leadenhall-street, the 21st day of December, 1842, and printed for the use of the proprietors."
It was not his intention on the present occasion to enter into the case narrowly; it was one, however, which had attracted a great deal of notice, and was every day increasing in interest and importance, among the Indian public. He had during the last three years moved for papers explanatory of the proceedings against the Rajah, and the treatment he had received. Since the last Session, when the last papers were produced, a variety of new matter, previously unknown had been brought forward; he then held in his hand a paper published by the India House, for the information of the proprietors, containing statements given in by the Rajah on the 26th of August, 1839, wherein he requests an inquiry into the matters it contained. These papers had been most unaccountably kept back by Colonel Ovans, the resident at the court of the Rajah, and were only

237
now sent over in consequence of a debate at the India House, in which the Colonel's conduct was impugned. They had, also, a variety of documents which would be rendered useless if they had not all the original documents. Whatever these documents might prove—whether they might be in favour of or against the Rajah, it was but right, when he was deposed and his territories taken from him, that they should be laid before the House. He had intimated his intention to move for a Committee, in order that her Majesty's Government might direct a commission to be sent to India to institute an inquiry into this complicated subject. The Governor of Bombay, Sir George Arthur, gave his opinion that justice could not be done unless further inquiry were made. Whether that inquiry should take place in this country or in India, was a matter of opinion; but he (Mr. Hume) would prefer that the Commission was appoined in India, to hear the Rajah in the face of his accuser. He was the descendant of the, he might call them, original Mahrattas, and he was deprived of his territories without a trial. Public opinion in India was unsettled on the subject, nor would it be otherwise till a full trial took place. No native chief could be satisfied while the Rajah of Sattara was deprived of his territory on such grounds as those alleged. He (Mr. Hume) was only an advocate for inquiry—he believed the Rajah to be innocent. At a future period of the Session he would state to the House his opinion as to the best mode of doing justice to the Rajah; at present he only wished for the documents.
Mr. B. Baringsaid, that the papers for which the hon. Gentleman had moved had already been presented to the Court of Proprietors, and the Government, therefore, could, of course, have no wish to refuse the motion.
Motion agreed to.

CANADIAN POLITICAL CONVICTS.
Mr. Roebuckrose to move
"That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that pardon may be extended to all persons transported from Upper and Lower Canada to our penal colonies, for political offences committed during the late unhappy disturbances in those provinces."
He said, that he was aware that the task he was now about to undertake was one of extreme difficulty and delicacy, not
238
because of either the impolicy or the injustice of the measure, but because of the mistakes and prejudices which were very rife on this subject, both out of doors and in doors. It might be said that he was about to ask the House to interfere with the ordinary course of justice; but he trusted he should be able to show them that he was not interfering with the ordinary course of justice, and that on a wide view of our policy it was in the highest degree politic that the measure he recommended should be adopted; and, furthermore, he should be able to make out that nothing but bare justice would be satisfied by the motion he was about to propose. He had staled that he would show the House that his motion would be no interference with the ordinary course of justice; but he should reserve that proposition until he came to explain the circumstances under which those unhappy prisoners left their country. He should show the House at once that justice demanded that they should return to their friends and their homes. Let him, then, entreat the House, if he showed them that so far from its being impolitic it was in the highest degree politic and wise to do that which he now asked for, not to raise any objection to it on the score of its being an interference with the course of justice. Last year, if he had brought forward his motion, he should have been in a very different position from that in which he was now. The noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, on the first night of this Session, declared he was of opinion that, if Canada were not held by the affections of the inhabitants, our power there could not be maintained by a hostile army. He was glad to hear that expression of opinion from the noble Lord. This declaration of the noble Lord placed him in a different position from that in which he should have been last year. Since then the conduct of those who were acting under the present Government in Canada had placed that country in a position such as it had not been in for many a year; and the people of that country were, he was certain, willing to express to the Government their deep obligation for the justice, however tardy, that had been done them. He was extremely anxious, in every word he uttered, to guard himself against giving the slightest handle to a misconstruction or misconception of anything he might say, so that no words that

239
fell from him by mistake should do injury to the cause he wished to promote. He begged them to believe that he was not there to make imputations, and if perchance he should be in error in any one instance, let it fall on himself, and not injure the cause he was anxious to serve— the cause of hundreds who were now unhappy convicts in a distant hemisphere, far from their homes, and to which they were sent not in the ordinary course of law, but by proceedings which he regarded as highly illegal. Before he proceeded further, he must express how heartily glad he was at observing the conduct the Government was pursuing. He could not mention it without remembering that he had before asked the House of Commons to adopt that very policy which the wisdom of the Government had since deemed it advisable to pursue. But the House of Commons refused to do that which the responsible Ministers of the Crown had found it necessary to do, unless they intended to retain the colony by means of a hostile army. They had given up any such intention, and had found that they must govern in accordance with the feelings of the majority of the inhabitants. During the unhappy disturbances in 1837 and 1838, it happened after the departure of Lord Durham, when there had been an amnesty granted by that noble Lord, that various circumstances concurring led to a second outbreak. And on that second outbreak taking place, an ordinance was passed by which the country was in reality placed under military law. The ordinary tribunals of the country were silenced. The people were no longer tried by their peers, but by a court-martial. He was not mentioning these facts for the purpose of attaching blame, but to show that those people were not sent out of the country by the ordinary process of law, and that the House of Commons, if it should now interfere, could do so with perfect propriety, and without interfering with the ordinary tribunals of the country. They had not been sent away by those safeguards which the ordinary experience of mankind had taught them were necessary for the protection of society, but by an extraordinary tribunal acting under extraordinary circumstances; and now, inasmuch as they were still in a very extraordinary position, he might ask the House to depart from the general rule of conduct, which perhaps was right and proper, not
240
to interfere with the administration of justice, but under the peculiar circumstances to beg the Crown to give to those unhappy persons that mercy which was the peculiar attribute of the Crown, which the Crown could alone award, and which could be awarded now with justice and honour. When the late circumstances took place in Canada, no man could understand the extraordinary situation of that people who did not clearly understand the state of mind which preceded those events. The unhappy circumstance of the condition of the people was this—that, some how or other, he would not now inquire whether correctly or incorrectly, there had got into the mind of the French Canadian population, a notion that the Government of this country had formed an opinion that they were an inferior race, and were possessed of an irreconcileable hatred to the English Crown. Now he did not ask how it was that they had this opinion in their mind, nor did he mean to explain the circumstances which led them to believe that there was a settled determination on the part of the Government to carry out what was termed in a sort of cant phraseology the "Anglification" of the Lower Canadian people. But so it was. They had formed this belief, and it seemed to be justified by extraordinary circumstances (into which he did not inquire), which induced them to think that the Government had formed a settled determination to "Anglicise" their country to to attack their institutions, in fact, even to eradicate their religion; to make them, in short, English in language, in habits, in thoughts, and in feeling—to make their country as if for them it had never been; as if their ancestors had never lived there, as if they had not linked with that country any one of their dearest affections; but as if it had been from the commencement a mere English colony, peopled by individuals of different language, different habits, and different religion from themselves. That was what they called "swamping" the Lower Canadian population. He would not ask whether they were right in believing that to be the intention of Government; but at all events, that was their belief. A time might come, when the description of the acts which had forced them into that belief would become necessary; a time might come when the reprobation which such a determination demanded would fall upon the authors,

241
and when those who devised this scheme of policy would be exposed to the indignation they deserved. When this unhappy scheme of statesmanship should be brought before the proper tribunal, the country would understand the audacity and folly which gave rise to it. He would not ask by whose evidence the plan was made known; but the people of Canada entertained the opinion, that it was the settled determination of the then Government to do what they called "Anglicising" the whole of the Canadian population. This opinion created great despondency there. They were very unhappy, and they felt there was only one alternative for them, namely, either to submit to this scheme of "Anglification," or prepare themselves for a long, severe, and painful struggle with the British Government—a struggle not by arms but by the law; for they felt that the old times of Ireland were about to be re-enacted there, and that the moment was arrived when they must appear either in the character of a free people or a servile race. It was hardly necessary, perhaps, that he should speak upon this subject; but from experience, he challenged any one who knew aught about the people of Canada, aught about the turbulent continent on which they lived—he would challenge any one to refute him, when he asserted, that that country is now as if it were an oasis in the desert; that, as compared with any other portion of the American population, there they would find peace, gentleness, quietness, and patience, in the place of insolent vulgarity; they would find a polished people even among the peasantry, following and pursuing all the means of quiet enjoyment; and who were, if we had any barrier in that country against the overwhelming influence now exercised there, the sole stay for our dominion upon that continent; and the day would come, if the Government should ever again recur to the fatal policy of rendering entirely English that colony, when they would find, so soon as they had rendered it English, that it would become American; and that the very day which made it American, would be the forerunner of our expulsion from the continent. The power of Great Britain in Canada was in the peaceful, quiet, and virtuous disposition of the people of Canada, who were now rendered a loyal people. The curious state of that country when Sir Charles Bagot resorted to the wise
242
policy which he had adopted—the remark able exhibition which the country then showed, was calculated to instruct persons the least capable of paying attention to the changes that had taken place. The moment it was discovered that their compatriots and the leaders of the people were to be raised from their servile condition to the position of subjects under our jurisdiction, equal with any other persons—that instant, from one end of the country to the other, there was a feeling not only of triumph, but almost of piety in their rejoicings. From one end of the country to the other there was a general thanksgiving. They felt themselves relieved from an intolerable burden; but that joy and that triumph were not accompanied by anything improper or unfeeling towards that minority which had hitherto ill-treated them. Not one harsh word was uttered on that occasion. But when he said this, how was he to make the House understand it? He would give them an illustration, for the purpose of showing what was the state of the popular mind before and what was its state after. He would take, as an illustration, a man who was well known to many persons in this House. He meant Mr. Viger. He was seventy years of age. He had been a resident in that country for a considerable time, and for many years was a Member of the House of Representatives. He was a worthy, kind-hearted man, and at the age of seventy, he was, on mere suspicion, put into prison. ("Hear,hear.") The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) cried "Hear, hear;" but when he was stating a fact of this nature, he would be obliged by the hon. Member not interrupting him. When the constitution was suspended, that gentleman had been cast into prison, and remained there eighteen months. [Mr. C. Buller: Hear.] He was glad his hon. and learned Friend confirmed him. At the end of the eighteen months, as Mr. Viger had been brought in without inquiry, so he was turned out of prison without inquiry. He asked for a trial, but no trial was granted. He asked for an explanation, but no explanation was given; for redress, but none was given. That gentleman was lately elected a Member of the House of Representatives. Now, if it was possible to create a rancorous disposition in the human mind, it surely would have been in such a case; yet when the late change was effected by

243
Sir Charles Bagot, there was no man so ready and eager to hush all unwise exhibitions of triumph. He entreated his countrymen to forbear, and not to exhibit any contumelious expression of their success to any man. He was the first to set such an example to his countrymen; and the old man, looking to the few days which he had now to live, and to the days of joy which were beginning to dawn on his countrymen, was heard to repeat, in words which he considered as of touching authority, "LORD, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace." He was the man of all others to whom they should look as a leader of the people—as a Specimen of the Lower Canadians—of their piety, their forbearance, and their loyalty. In the midst of these disturbances many unhappy men—peasants almost all of them—were transported from Canada to Van Diemen's Land. He was not inquiring into the propriety or justice of sending them there. He was only asking the House and the Government, if they thought they could do any injury amongst the Canadian people by bringing back those unhappy men—few indeed as regarded the entire population, and wretched as having left their wives and children, their fathers and their mothers behind them? If they could not do any harm by stepping out of the way and bringing back these unhappy people, where would be the impolicy of such conduct? They might tell him that insurrection deserved rebuke and punishment. But it had received them already. They might tell him that he was interfering with the due punishment of criminals. He would not question that point—he would not inquire whether the punishment was due or not—but he would say the leaders of those people were now in the House of Representatives, and would ask how could they say that those misguided men should not be now brought back? He was not impeaching Mr. Lafontaine; he was not one of those to whom he alluded, and against whom no charge could be made. He was speaking of those who had returned, and were now walking the streets of Montreal, and who had been actually in arms, and had led these peasants at St. Denis. When these men were now in Montreal nnder the protection of the law which exculpated them, surely it would be something Very inconsistent if they should appear to have been brought back as it
244
were by accident, and that those whom they led should remain in banishment. Was this justice? Could there be impolicy in the course pursued towards those who were now in Montreal exhibiting themselves every day in the public streets?—("Name.") He knew their names, but he did not wish to tell them publicly, as it might injure the parties. He knew he was right. He was speaking of the policy of letting these poor men back. Nine out of every ten of them had been sent ont of the country by mistake, having been tried by courts-martial. He could not see the impolicy of bringing back these men while their leaders were now in their (the Government) councils. By doing this complement of justice they would the Canadians for ever attached to them, much more than by the force of bayonets, and the Canadians would defend the country as they had defended it before— against all invasion. The right hon. Gentleman had begun a new course which did him honour, and did the country good. The Canadians already saw the advantages of that peaceable and successful policy. If Canada was to afford settlements for our surplus population, and markets for the surplus proceeds of our labour, she must be happy, contented, and prosperous, and she could not be happy, contented, and prosperous, unless she should continue to be governed under the principles now adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted a new rule—he gave a responsible Government, not in name but in reality, to the Canadians, and resorted to no stratagems, to no means, to keep them down, corrupt, or frighten them. The representative of the Government in Canada said to them,
"You have a majority in the House of Assembly, and unless we choose to govern by 14,000 bayonets, the people of Canada, by their leaders, must be leaders of my councils."
That was language that had not been used before to them, and the French Canadians were now, for the first time, admitted, by their leaders, into the councils of their Sovereign. They had raised a noble structure, and he now only asked them to put this coping-stone on the arch, by bringing back that remnant of the misguided population, and binding them to Great Britain for ever by the strongest ties of love and gratitude. How could they refuse this boon, when they considered all the circumstancss of the case? Under the

245
former system of Government they had been driven to the adoption of military law, and under that law they had expatriated these men. But now, when under a different system they found them a quiet, loyal, and virtuous people, and the firmest supporters of their power on that continent, he begged and prayed of them to make one step more in advance—to forgive their past excitement, and grant what they prayed. He besought them to grant this motion, and to implore her Majesty to extend her mercy to this unfortunate fragment of the population, that they might be restored to their friends and families.
Lord Stanleyregretted that he felt it to be his duty to interpose between the exercise of that which was the highest prerogative of the Crown, the exercise of mercy, and those unhappy men who had transgressed the laws of their country. He was well aware of the impression produced on the House by the forcible and temperate manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman who had opened this question had appealed to their feelings on behalf of those who were now suffering under a sentence imposed upon them under extraordinary circumstances; but he must not shrink from the performance of his duty, however painful it might be, and he did earnestly hope that the House would not be so far led away by the eloquence of the hon. and learned Gentleman as to induce them to take a step which the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted to be one of a most unusual character, namely, to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown, and take into the hands of the House of Commons that grace and favour which, if bestowed at all, ought to emanate exclusively from the Crown. He was sure that under any circumstances it would be most unfavourable and most inexpedient that the House of Commons should interfere with those functions and that prerogative of the Crown; but under the circumstances which the hon. and learned Gentleman had himself detailed, he thought that even if the constitutional objection did not prevail, the objection of discretion as to the time and circumstances under which the motion was made was one that must have peculiar weight with the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that by the recent changes in the councils of Canada universal contentment had pervaded the people formerly dissatis-
246
fied, if not disaffected to this country, and that with the Administration as now formed in Canada the French Canadians—of whom the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared exclusively to have spoken in the address he had just made to the House, but who in reality formed a very inconsiderable portion of those to whom his motion referred; he said that at the moment when the hon. and learned Gentleman told them that that portion of the people was entirely satisfied with the just, equitable, and judicious course, as he considered it, which her Majesty had thought fit to pursue in Canada, he thought it would be most unwise that the House of Commons, upon the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, should recur to topics of difference and dissension, should revive the subject of former contests, and should interfere with a Government with which the whole people, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had told them, entirely concurred. When Sir C. Bagot first went out to Canada, the instructions given to him on the part of her Majesty's Government, were, that in the administration of the law and in the selection of those to whom he might think fit to call to his councils, no distinction of origin or race should be made, but that all men of all parties, of different origin and race, should combine together in that which was to be the great object of his policy and government—forgetting and passing by recent transactions and recent animosities—should combine together for the advantage of those great provinces which her Majesty's Government —he thought advisedly—had united under one Government and Council. He thought, therefore, that in the main—in all the essential features of the case,—Sir C. Bagot since is appointmehnt had acted entirely and cordially in concurrence with her Majesty's Government. It was in pursuance of the policy they pointed out—in pursuance of that determination they had taken to know no distinction of race or origin between those who were willing cordially to cooperate with the Government for the advantage and welfare of the colony. He was very unwilling to go back to the period at which the affairs of Canada were very different from what they now were. He would not go back to a period when the difficulties in the course of the Government—difficulties of which no man was more aware than the hon. and learned Gentlemen—presented

247
themselves at every turn from the conflicting views and the geographical position of the two provinces which he thought ought never to have been disunited, but being separated, it was impossible, in these days, with regard to British interests and the connexion of that country with this, that the affairs of the Lower Province, interposed as they were geographically between the Upper Province and this country, could be carried on without the accordance of that portion of the people who numerically were by far the largest, and who had wishes certainly in many respects at variance with British interests. But the two provinces of Canada were united; the difficulties formerly interposed, whatever other difficulties might have arisen, were at once at an end; from that moment there was no fear of the British population being over-whelmed by the dominant race interposed between themselves and the sea and communication with the mother country. From that time there was no reason why in the affairs of Canada this country should not feel herself bound to act upon the principles upon which, in all other colonies with legislative assemblies, she had felt it necessary to act—namely, to carry on the Government in accordance with the views and sense of the great bulk of the population, that without entering into the abstract theories which were put—and he thought needlessly—of a responsible government, and how far the Colonial Assembly must be overruled by the Parliament of this country, it was at once the duty of the British Government frankly to act upon the maxim of carrying on the Government in accordance with the views of the great bulk of the people, and in support of the great interests of the province; but in admitting that principle he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be so unjust to the great body of French Canadians as to think that because they were justly entitled to obtain a share in the administration of the affairs of the province, that determination so to introduce and admit them involved, as a necessary consequence, the utter oblivion of the crime of treason and the necessity not to vindicate the power of the law against those who had placed themselves in arms against the established Government of the country. He joined with the hon. and learned Gentlemen in the com mendation he had bestowed on the fair-
248
ness, moderation, and temper, with which the French Canadians had borne their elevation to a share of power. He believed there had been evinced among them a most cautious abstinence from everything that would excite an angry feeling, and he did cordially expect that universal harmony would hereafter take the place of discord, and that the colony would increase in wealth and happiness. But if the doctrine of the hon. and learned Gentlemen were now to be adopted—that, because the French population had been admitted to a share of the administration, that therefore those, whether French, British, or citizens of the United States, who are now suffering the sentence of the law for an aggravated act of treason were to receive at once, without discretion, her Majesty's free pardon and the benefit of a full amnesty and oblivion—he did say that those who in both provinces had stood loyally by the Crown—those who boldly repelled the hordes of plunderers from the neighbouring states who entered Canada, and burnt and destroyed the property, and sacrificed the lives of many of her Majesty's subjects—those who stood forward and denounced rebellion and treason within, and repulsed the lawless bands of invaders from without, would have reason to complain, and might sorrowfully ask, where was the remembrance of all these things—that their support and exertions should appear to be lost sight of; and that those who were now suffering very moderate punishment for their crimes should he restored to society, and at once placed on an equal footing with those who had never swerved from their duty. The hon. and learned Gentleman said they were mostly French Canadians. [Mr. Roebuck: Mostly peasants.] Well, then, if they were not mostly French Canadians, where was the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman who complained that the pressure upon them entirely led to this state of disaffection?
Mr. Roebuckwas sure the noble Lord did not intend to misunderstand him; but he never uttered one syllable to show why they entered into a state of rebellion.
Lord Stanleycertainly thought that every hon. Gentleman who had just heard what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said would have thought he was speaking in favour of the French population, and that they had entered into rebellion in consequence of the pressure upon them.

249
He would not enter into the question with whom this insult, this injury, this offence, which the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of under the term of "Anglification" of the country, had originated. There could be no meaning of the anglification of the country as to the British population. It was the French population, and those only, to whom that doctrine applied; and the whole of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech turned upon that—that it was in favour of the deluded French population that he was now arguing in the presence of the House. But the hon. and learned Gentleman would not deny that in speaking of those unhappy deluded men, they had visited upon them that punishment which ought to be visited upon their leaders, and he said, "The leaders of these poor deluded people have now obtained places in your legislative council." [Mr. Roebuck: The leaders of the people, not of the French people.] The hon. and learned Gentleman ought not to go so far as to state that those persons who led these people to revolt—who had been their leaders in rebellion—did now occupy places high in authority. [Mr. Roebuck: I never said one word of the kind.] The hon. and learned Gentleman must excuse him, but he took down the words, and his statement was "those whose leaders are now in our councils," and then the hon. and learned Gentleman qualified it by the exception of M. Lafontaine, and said, "but when I make use of this expression, I do not mean to include M. Lafontaine, against whom all the world knows there was not sufficient evidence to bring forward a charge, or even the shadow of a suspicion." Then the hon. Gentleman spoke of individuals who, under the protection of the act of exculpation, were walking about Montreal perfectly free. If he was not mistaken, the hon. Gentleman alluded to eight persons in particular? [Mr. Roebuck: Yes.] The hon. Gentleman alluded to eight persons who were found guilty, and ordered to be transported to Bermuda, but who, on Lord Durham's ordinances being declared illegal and unconstitutional, necessarily escaped punishment. Why, surely, the hon. Gentleman did not pretend to draw from the case of those persons his argument, that while the Government seized upon the inferior victims they allowed to pass with impunity those who from their superior station ought to have been also punished; and, whatever
250
fault the hon. Gentleman might have had to find with the Administration of the present or of former Governments in Canada, he could hardly be prepared, considering the magnitude and extent of the rebellion in Canada, to say that there was any great severity in the punishments, or that the penalties inflicted were, under the circumstances, disproportionate. The rebellion in Canada first broke out in the winter of 1837, and for that rebellion no persons were put upon their trial. In June, 1838, the rebellion having been suppressed in a short time by Sir John Colborne, now Lord Seaton, Lord Durham thought it advisable to take the most merciful view of the case, and passed a general amnesty as regarded all persons who had taken part in the rebellion in Lower Canada, with the exception of the eight persons to whom the hon. Member referred, and also of sixteen others, who, having fled from justice, were called on by proclamation to take their trial, and, failing to do so, became subject to the penalty of outlawry and attainder. These were all the penalties that resulted to indivi duals on account of the Lower Canadian rebellion of 1837 and 1838. In 1839 the rebellion in Upper Canada took place, and there were two executions in consequence of it. The parties executed were named Matthews and Love—persons who were taken in open rebellion, under the most aggravated circumstances. [Mr. Roebuck: No, no.] In June, 1838, just at the time Lord Durham was proclaiming the amnesty in Lower Canada, there came another irruption from the United States; and, in the course of the summer, there were two other irruptions of Patriots and Sympathisers, as they called themselves. A considerable number of persons were taken in arms against the Crown, and a number of persons were put upon their trial; but, although those invasions were marked by circumstances of peculiar atrocity, one person, and one only, was executed on account of them. Four others there were who were taken in arms under most aggravated circumstances, and they were sentenced to death, but Lord Durham recommended that their sentence should be commuted to transportation for life. Those four persons were amongst those for whom the hon. Member asked for an undiscriminating act of amnesty on the part of the Crown. A general amnesty was afterwards passed in October, 1838, with the exception, as

251
in the case of Lower Canada, of sixty-one persons who did not come in to take their trials. Those several acts of amnesty were passed, the one in the month of June, and the other in the month of October, 1838; and certainly at that period, no man could have said that there had been any great severity of punishment on the part of the Crown. Yet what followed? Why, on the 3rd of November in the same year, there broke forth simultaneously an irruption into Lower Canada and a rebellion within the province, and an invasion of Upper Canada by persons from the United States. Not a fortnight elapsed before the whole country was again in a flame; and before the winter, the colony was made a scene of horrors at the thought of which the mind recoiled, and which he would not disgust and weary the House by describing. But, even under these aggravated circumstanes, was it a fact that any great and undue severity had been exercised? In Lower Canada, after the second rebellion, there were arrested altogether 855 persons. They were arrested under various circumstances, and the evidence against many of them was not such as to justify prosecution. In Upper Canada there were arrested between 1,100 and 1,200 persons. Out of those arrested in Lower Canada, Her Majesty's Government brought only 106 to trial. But the hon. Gentleman complained that the trials of those 106 took place by court-martial. Unhappily the hon. Gentleman knew too well, and particularly be might remember the case of the murderers of Lieutenant Weir—that if the Government had proceeded by any other means than by court-martial, it would have been, under the circumstances of the case, but a mockery of justice; and the result would only have been to afford a triumph to men, who, though unconvicted, were notoriously guilty of treason. Of those who were tried, ninety-eight only were found guilty, of whom twelve were executed, and fifty-eight were transported. The hon. Gentleman would fain have the House believe, that the great bulk of those who suffered were French Canadians of the Lower Province. What was the fact? Why, that out of 2,000 persons arrested in Upper and Lower Canada, there were executed in Lower Canada twelve, and, if his memory were not at fault, in Upper Canada, seventeen. That was the total number of persons; and he need hardly
252
say, that the Government selected the most aggravated cases, and those that were made out by the clearest evidence. Of the whole 106, seventy-eight were from Upper Canada, persons who could not possibly be connected with the French Canadians; and he was bound to add, that of those persons also there were many who owed no allegiance whatever to the British Crown; and who, without having any authority from the government of their own country, were engaged in a murderous, predatory, and buccaneering warfare. Such were the persons on whose behalf the hon. Gentleman called upon the Crown to exercise indiscriminately the prerogative of mercy. He did not mean to say that there were not others among the convicted persons whose cases were more deserving of consideration than those of the persons to whom the hon. Gentleman had referred, but what he did complain of was, that the hon. Gentleman made no distinction between the ignorant peasant of Lower Canada, struggling under mistaken views for relief from unknown grievances, and those persons who, consulting nothing but their own treasonable dispositions, their lawless wishes, and their thirst for blood and plunder, did without any palliating cause invade a peaceful province, and deluge a whole country with blood. As a responsible adviser of the Crown, he could not advise her Majesty to take the case of those persons into consideration. An address of the legislature of Canada strongly recommended her Majesty to extend an act of amnesty to all parties concerned in the late rebellion; but the hon. Gentleman stopped short of this. The hon. Gentleman should have gone further still. Why did he ask for an amnesty towards those alone who, having given offence, were now suffering the penalty of their offences? Why did he not extend his demand on behalf of those who from fear of the possible consequences of their actions suffered a voluntary exile, and had never appeared at all to take their trial? Why did the hon. Gentleman limit it to one class, and that the most guilty of all? The Canadian legislature recommended an amnesty to all, but the death of Lord Sydenham prevented that address from reaching this country, and it was only in November of the last year that he (Lord Stanley) received a copy of it from Sir Charles Bagot. On its receipt, he wrote to Sir Charles

253
Bagot, pointing out the number of persons who were compromised in different degrees in the late rebellion,—those who were under attainder and outlawry for not coming in to take their trial,—those who were excepted from the amnesty, though not convicted of any crime,—many also in the province, against whom no steps had been taken, but in favour of whom it was desirable to extend the clemency of the Crown, and those also in favour of whom the hon. Member's motion was now made, without any distinction of their degrees of guilt. Some of these had been transported for seven years, some for fourteen, and some for the period of their natural lives. The sentences of some had been commuted, although their offences were of the most aggravated kind, such as warranted the Crown in visiting the severest penalty of the law; yet it was proposed on behalf of these different persons to interfere with the prerogative of mercy, and ask the Crown to grant pardon to all, without inquiry, and without any discrimination of their different degrees of guilt. He hoped he had not said anything that could imply a doubt on his part of the truth of that effusion of loyal feeling on the part of the population of Lower Canada to which recent events had given rise. He did not feel, in any degree, the slightest reluctance or hesitation in approving of the course which circumstances had rendered it necessary for Sir Charles Bagot to pursue; but, at the same time, he was loth, at the very moment when we were taking such steps—when we were giving to the Canadians the practical benefits of a free constitution—that we should couple with it an act which would amount to a triumph of sedition and treason, which would bring back those persons, whether they were Canadians or British, or those who had been Americans, who had justly subjected themselves to the penalty of the law, and with regard to whom her Majesty would not be left to form a judgment of their several claims according to the information that might be laid before her, and so to extend the mercy of the Crown according to the nature and degree of their several offences and the punishment they had already undergone. He did hope and trust that the House of Commons would not, in regard to such persons, attempt to take the function and prerogative of mercy out of the hands of the Crown, and, by inter-
254
fering in cases where gradations of offences and punishment existed, and no unjust punishments had been inflicted, at the same time compromise political affairs in Canada. For these reasons he did hope the House would not agree to the motion of the hon. Gentleman, while her Majesty was prepared to receive representations in each individual case, and to act with the utmost leniency towards those persons who were in the colonies: and here he might add, that out of those who were convicted those who were not imprisoned had tickets of leave, which amounted to comparative freedom. While this was the view taken by her Majesty's advisers he could not at the same time assent to a motion which had for its object the interposition of an undiscriminating mercy, and the reintroduction into a peaceful country of a body of those convicted felons.
Mr. Humesupported the motion of the hon. Member for Bath. Sir Charles Bagot himself had recommended that all past differences in the province should be buried in oblivion. He recommended, that the future Government of the country should be carried on in a conciliatory spirit. Could that be interpreted in any other way than that there should be a removal of all the irritation and excitement which would be kept up by the relatives and connections of these unfortunate men in Van Diemen's Land. It was a fair inference, from Sir C. Bagot's conduct, that he thought an amnesty should be granted. These men were the victims of bad Government, and for that reason the right hon. Baronet deserved the thanks of every friend of humanity for the change he had effected in giving a good Government to the Canadas. It was an opposite course of policy that had raised all the angry feelings they had seen excited, till at last actual rebellion prevailed. The Government would do well to complete the good work they had begun. In every case of this kind, there were different shades of guilt, but as the Government had admitted the evils arising from the former mismanagement, he hoped it would come round to give the people that which alone was wanting to give full satisfaction. The hon. Member for Bath had only recommended the House to follow up the advice of Sir C. Bagot, that no remains of this unfortunate feeling should be allowed to exist. He admitted, there was some force in the argument of the

255
noble Lord, that there was an evident distinction between the cases of the men who rose in Lower Canada, being natives of that province, and those who entered it from another country, perhaps only for purposes of plunder. He admitted, that an indiscriminate pardon to these men would be unjust, but still they must balance the inconvenience of their remaining as they were, against the effect of granting a pardon. He thought, that where there was a doubt, mercy ought to prevail. If his hon. Friend had satisfied them of the recommendation of Sir C. Bagot, and had proved that the whole united population of Canada asked the boon, he submitted that it would be a wise policy to advise her Majesty to grant a pardon to these unfortunate men. Agreeing, as he did, with his hon. and learned Friend, in his desire to see the mercy of the Crown extended to those unfortunate persons; yet, perceiving the decided opposition with which the motion had been met, he could not advise his hon. and learned Friend to take the sense of the House on his Motion. He had elicited from the noble Lord one most important statement, — namely, that the noble Lord was ready to consider, individually, every case. That was yielding in no inconsiderable degree to the desires of his hon. and learned Friend. He regretted that mercy could not be extended to all; but, under the circumstances, he advised his hon. and learned Friend not to press his motion.
Mr. C. Bullerhad never seen any notice of motion with deeper regret than that of his hon. and learned Friend, because, though he entirely concurred with him in the practical object he had in view, and considered that it would be an act of the wisest policy as well as an act of mercy, and, of enlarged justice in the Government to wipe out all traces of the late disturbances in Canada—still he could not but think that his hon. and learned Friend had taken a course by no means calculated to attain the object he had in view. It was, of course, with the greatest reluctance that he referred to any of the circumstances connected with the rebellions in Canada. There were associations connected with them of which he could never think without infinite regret, and which led him at the present moment to abstain from alluding to the horrors of that insurrection. He should object to the motion of his hon. and learned Friend
256
in any case, as being an interference with the prerogative of the Crown, which was better left to act, as it was always ready to do, on its own spontaneous good-will; but he objected to the motion, also, because, on principle, he was opposed to the interference of the Imperial Parliament in colonial matters, except in cases of absolute necessity, and as a last re sourse against an ill-disposed Government. He must say that he could see no such necessity in the present case. There was no case made out of the government of Canada obstinately resisting thef eeling of the people, or the expression of the Legislature of the province. On the contrary, he was bound there publicly to give his strongest approving testimony to the policy which had recently been pursued in Canada. He was afraid he should only do it harm in the eyes of a majority of that House if he were to say that he claimed a portion of the credit for others: and he would only say that he regarded the recent arrangements which had given so much satisfaction as the natural consequence of the union of the two provinces. [Lord Stanley: Hear.] — which settled those unhappy questions of nationality that had given rise to the disturbances in one of those provinces, and added strength to the local Legislature. These were the circumstances which had rendered it absolutely necessary to have an executive in harmony with the Legislature. But it depended on Sir C. Bagot, the present Governor-general of Canada, and on those who had sent him out, to determine in what way he should meet the new necessities imposed upon him,—whether he was to struggle to conduct affairs as former governors had done and oppose for a while an unavailing and mischievous opposition to the will and power of the people speaking through their Legislature, or cheerfully and at once accept those necessities, and without a struggle adopt a new and better and more liberal system, in such a manner as to conciliate the good-will of the people, while he yielded to their inclinations? He was bound to say that Sir C. Bagot's government had taken the wiser and safer course; that he had, in a manner which could never be more than sufficiently commended, adopted the right course, and in the best possible way. The past acts of the present Government in Canada inspired him with confidence in their administration of the affairs of the province,

257
and he looked to the future with equal security, because he saw in the appointment which her Majesty's Ministers had lately made—an appointment influenced by no party feeling, but resulting from a wise selection of the very fittest person that could be found in the country for so arduous an office—he saw in that appointment a guarantee that the Government of Canada would be conducted on just and sound principles. He must say, then, there was nothing in the conduct of the Government at home, there was nothing surely in the state of affairs in Canada, nothing in the working of the new system, tried and proved by the recent appointments, nothing in the conduct of the people, which had been so eloquently and truly described by his hon. and learned Friend— nothing above all, in the preceding acts and general public conduct of the new Governor, that could create any distrust of his intentions. He would not now enter further into the question; indeed, he thought the noble Lord had entered rather unnecessarily into some of the details. Having sent such a man as Sir C. Metcalfe to govern Canada with a free Legislature, and an Executive in harmony with it, their obvious duty was to leave him as unfettered as possible. Their opinions in this country, wise as they might be, and guided by the most enlightened principles, could have no weight in his judgment compared with those which an enlightened Governor would form on the spot when conversant with the circumstances with which he had himself to deal. He wished to inculcate upon both sides of the House that in this case there was no reason for distrust; on the contrary, that the exercise of the largest trust, the fullest confidence, was the safest and most prudent policy for them to follow. If he found his expectations disappointed —if the course which he thought absolutely necessary for the safety and harmony of Canada was obstinately rejected by the new Governor-general or by the Government, he would join his hon. and learned Friend in interfering to arrest their progress; but so convinced was he that the circumstances of Canada were such as to make an instantaneous impression on the mind of the Governor-general, and render absolutely necessary that course which he was sure would accord with his own just, humane, and merciful disposition, that he felt not the slightest
258
hesitation in leaving matters entirely with him and the Government, in the perfect confidence that the House would never again be called upon to interfere with the subject. Under these circumstances, he did hope this motion would be withdrawn. He should now sit down, but for a personal allusion that had been made to him in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. He wished that hon. and learned Member would be a little more cautious when he thinks it necessary to attack persons, and that he would make himself thoroughly acquainted with the facts before he comments so severely on them. He could not avoid cheering the observation which his hon. and learned Friend had made with regard to the respectability of that aged gentleman, Mr. Viger, who had certainly been imprisoned for a very long period. In consequence of this cheer, his learned Friend had thought proper to take him to task for not having, while in office, released Mr. Viger. Now he could not discharge this gentlemen from prison for the best of all possible reasons, because Mr. Viger never was in prison during the entire time he was in Canada.
Mr. Roebuck,in reply, contended that his motion would by no means interfere with the prerogative of the Crown, inasmuch as he merely called upon the House, by an humble address, to pray her Majesty to exercise it. He denied having said that the leaders of the rebellion were in the councils of the Crown; what he had said was, that the leaders of the people were in the councils of the Crown; and it seemed hard, consistently with justice, that the poor uninstructed Canadians should still suffer the penalties of the law. He acknowledged that the noble Lord had pointed out one error in his motion, and that it must be confined to such prisoners as were subjects of her Majesty, leaving the American freebooters, as the noble Lord designated them, to be dealt with on separate grounds. He should, however, withdraw his motion, his object having been obtained by the engagement of the noble Lord to pay attention to such circumstances in each case as should be brought before him.
Motion withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter to eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public—2ª. Law of Evidence.

RIGHT OF SEARCH—STATEMENT IN THE FRENCH CHAMBER.
Lord Brougham said: I said yesterday that I should call the attention of your Lordships to a matter of great importance—I mean the real state of the question between the United

215
States of America and England, during the years 1823 and 1824 on the important subject of the right of search. I am the more inclined to do so from, doubtless, the misapprehension in France of the plain and undeniable (for it was no matter of controversy) terms adopted by the Congress and Government of the United States, during the negotiations I have alluded to. This misapprehension has been fallen into by a a gentleman for whom I have a sincere friendship, and of whom I can justly say, as all who know him can bear witness, that he is esteemed, respected, and admired for his brilliant talents and his great learning, the distinguished lawyer who holds the high situation of Attorney-general of the Court of Cassation. I need hardly add that I allude to Monsieur Dupin. He has been misled into an exceedingly inaccurate statement of what took place between America and England, and (what is more important, for on this the whole question turns), between the two houses of representatives, and the executive government in America, as to the right of search. He has been misled to the extent of permitting himself to state, in his place, that the Senate of America refused to touch the question of the right of search, or to ratify a treaty on that right, under whatever form it could be presented to their attention. Nay more, that they deemed any such question inconsistent with the independence of the nation, and the honour of their flag. Now in that assertion, he and I are at issue. I am wrong in the statement I made to your Lordships, at the very same time that my learned friend was asserting the contrary in his place in that legislature, of which he is a most distinguished ornament, and I am now entirely wrong, if I cannot prove to demonstration, that not only the Senate of the United States did not refuse to touch the question under any form, on account of the supposed inconsistency of such a course with the honour of the flag and the independence of the States; not only did it not refuse to adopt the principle of the right of search, in the form in which it was presented, but it volunteered to enter into the question, and itself proposed the concession of that right of search. The Congress passed an almost unanimous resolution — first of the two houses of representatives, and then of the Senate, the one house represents all the people,
216
the other all the property of America, embodying the public opinion of America on this question—embodying their feeling of national independence, and embodying their feeling as to the honour of the flag of America in connexion with the right of search, and that all but unanimous resolution called on the President, who rather differed from them on the subject, and who entertained some lingering prejudices with respect to the flag of his country, to overcome his scruples, and induced him, in execution of that resolution, to press on the minister of this country the adoption of the views of America. I defy any man who has read the records of the American Congress, to contradict the statement which I now make; or any man, who reads the official records of the negotiations which I hold in my hand, and which passed between the two countries on the subject, to gainsay, contradict, or, in the most minute particular, alter, affect, or modify my statement. The proposition came over, not only in the form of a despatch, but in the form of a despatch enclosing a draft of a treaty, which had been previously recommended by the Senate of the United States. Your Lordships are aware that the American executive does not represent the United States as the Sovereign here represents our country. The executive, in making peace or war here, represents the community; and Parliament can only ratify by vote that which the Crown, as the representative of the country, has determined upon. But in America, the Senate as well as the President, ratifies every treaty, and no treaty can be concluded without the satisfaction of the Senate. The executive power is for this purpose in commission. [Lord Ashburton: Two-thirds of the Senate must agree to any treaty.] True, and the Senate prospectively exercising the power which it might be supposed well-inclined to exercise, suggested and the President sent over the draft of a convention, which was laid before the Secretary of State in this country, a late right hon. Friend of mine, Mr. Huskisson, and a most able negotiator, Mr. S. Canning, now Sir S. Canning. It was to this effect:
"That the cruisers of each party may detain, examine, capture, and deliver over for trial vessels engaged in the Slave-trade, and carrying the flag of either power."
Now such was the proposal sent by America, which was adopted by this country,

217
and signed on the 7th March, 1824; and this was sent back to America for ratification by the President and Senate. It was signed by Mr. Rush on the part of America, and by Mr. Huskisson and Mr. S. Canning on the part of this country. On being sent back to America, it was there ratified with one alteration: the bounds within which the right was to be exercised were proposed to be Africa, the West Indies (including the Spanish Main), and America; but when this proposal was considered by the President, who had been an old stickler for the privileges of the American flag, whose repugnance had been overruled by the unanimous voice of his countrymen, he said (and I think with some show of reason, advocate though I am of this right)—
"Why should you have a right to search in Baltimore or New York Harbour, where nobody pretends the slave trade was ever carried on, unless you are prepared to allow the same right to Americans in the Medway or the Thames? The principle of this treaty is that of reciprocity, and let us act on it strictly."
Therefore he struck out the word America, and the Senate ratified the treaty so corrected. The signature and seal of ratification having been thus appended to it, the treaty came over to this country, where it was rejected, but on what ground? Not peremptorily and finally, but on the specious allegation,
"This was your own treaty—you sent us over the convention, which we adopted; and when it goes back, you choose to make an alteration which was never thought of before."
But for that trifling omission, an alteration wholly immaterial as to the principle, if possible still more immaterial to the French government because no one now dreams of any search except on the African and West Indian coasts; but for this trifling change in the bounds, this would have been the binding and authoritative treaty existing between the two countries from that time to this. Now, in order to show those who are longing to revoke the treaties of 1831 and 1833, between this country and France, on the ground that America refused to admit such a right, I will just remind them of the "universal crusade" (for such were the words of Sir William Scott, a strong supporter of the maritime supremacy of this country), which that very America entered upon in defence of, and for the promulgation of this right. And with the phrase I have no quarrel;
218
for surely never was the cross inscribed on a more appropriate banner; never dd a Christian soldier contend more gloriously for the propagation of the gospel of peace and goodwill amongst men, and never was the spirit of that gospel more embodied in outward and visible signs, than in the negotiations which Sir William Scott was pleased to designate as an "universal crusade." Well, not only did they send their convention here, but to Mr. Everett, at the Netherlands—not my respected friend who is here at present, but, I believe, a near relative of his. They made a similar communication to another gentleman who represented them at St. Petersburgh; likewise to their representative in Austria, in Prussia, in Denmark, in Lisbon, and they even interceded with Columbia, where they were not likely to meet with so good a reception as in England. They communicated with my noble friend Viscount Chateaubriand, whom though differing widely from him in opinion, I highly respect as a man of great political consistency as well as of great genius, who, though strenuously opposed to the slave-trade himself, met their appeal with this remonstrance:—
"Really it is so very lately we have been at daggers drawn with England; it is so very lately that victories have been achieved which we still feel the results of; our territory has been so lately occupied, that there exists a soreness of feeling among our people and in our Chambers, and we cannot venture to propose this right of search; it would be looked on as an additional 'concession' (the very word now used in France), and I should very much wish to postpone the matter for the present."
Now you will observe how important this declaration is. It utterly refutes the notion lately set up, that the treaties of 1831 and 1833 were adopted per incuriam. It demonstrates, on the contrary, that they were adopted post litem motam. Sofar were "maritime rights and sovereignty of the sea" from being overlooked in 1831 and 1833, that the question said to affect them was agitated several years before, and the right of search was then confirmed, because the jealousies of former years had died away, and the questiou was then ripe for such an adjustment. This state of the facts should not be lost sight of by our neighbours on the other side of the channel, to whom I acknowledge I am directing, kindly and respectfully directing, my observations rather than to your Lordships. I come

219
back to the instructions which the United States gave her representatives at all the courts of Europe. The following was the language held by Mr. Everett at Brussells, in his note to Baron Nagel:—
"The pretended commerce bears all the characteristic of piracy — that is of felony committed on the sea; and as it has been denounced as a crime by the greater part of civilized nations, it ought to fall into the particular class of crimes to which it naturally belongs, and undergo the penalty which usage and the law of nations impose upon it. A unanimous declaration of the Christian Powers would inevitably produce an entire cessation of the practice. The public ships of each nation would then be authorised by the law of nations to cruise against all persons who might be engaged in it, without regard to the colour of the flag under which they might pretend to be sheltered, whilst if the trade is only treated in each country as an offence against municipal laws, it would be lawful for any one nation alone, and this is the foundation of the argument, and the reason why we wish the right of search to be universally conceded—it would be lawful for any one nation alone, by permitting it, to afford an asylum under its flag to the pirates of all other nations."
If my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign department were to devise a despatch indited in the strongest and most forcible language, for the purpose of inducing other governments to coincide in his righteous undertaking, he could not employ words more apt and appropriate than those addressed by the American minister, representing the people of the United Slates. I do then venture to express a hope that we shall no longer hear our neighbours shelter themselves behind the example of America, and maintain they cannot ratify the treaty of 1841, and that they must revoke those of 1831 and 1833, on the ground that the United States were irreconcilably hostile to any right of search whatever. They are, on the contrary, the patrons of the right of search. They are its proposers; they are its advocates; they are its champions; they are "crusaders" (to use the language of a great English judge) in favour of that right of search which they would be the last to believe was the slightest impeachment of national independence, or exposed to the possibility of fixing the most remote stain on their national flag. I understand my Lords that the six despatches to which I have referred, as well as that containing the draft of the convention, are in the possession of the House, with the usual
220
documents. I wish, however, that my motion may be considered as a motion for the production of them unless the papers have already been put in the possession of the House.

LAW OF EVIDENCE.
On the motion of Lord Denman, the Law of Evidence Bill was read a second time.
Lord Campbellhoped it would be borne in mind elsewhere that this bill was universally approved of in that House.
Adjourned to Thursday.