Sitting of 8 August 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Clerks of Petty Sessions, etc.; Parochial Settlement.
3a. and passed:—Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. M. J. O'Connell, from Ireland (8 Petitions), for Repeal of the Union, and 13 against Charitable Bequests Bill.—By Viscount Jocelyn, from R. W. Brandling, for Inquiry (Coal Trade.)—By Mr. Cochrane, from Earl of Dundonald, alleging an Invention.—By Mr. Wyse (3), and Mr. M. J. O'Connell (1), for Inquiry (the State Trial).—By Mr. Masterman, from Merchants and Shipowners, for Alteration of Law of Steam Boat Companies.

MERCHANT SEAMEN'S BILL.
Mr. S. Herbertmoved that the Lords' Amendments to the Merchant Seamen's Bill be agreed to.
Admiral Dundaswas opposed to the Bill altogether. It was a most unfair thing to press forward a measure of that nature at that period of the Session, when seamen had had no opportunity of expressing their opinions on the subject. They would, in the course of next Ses-
*The effect of this is, that the Lords do insist.

1923
sion have the Table covered with petitions praying for a repeal of the measure.
Mr. S. Herbertsaid, that the Bill had been well considered, and so far from the merchants or seamen being displeased with the measure, he had received several letters expressing their approval of it, and thanking the Government for having introduced it.
Captain Pechell, although he admitted that much misapprehension existed regarding this measure, thought it was most unreasonable to press it forward at the present time. It was impossible to discuss it properly, or to ascertain the opinions of seamen and shipowners respecting it. It was very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that the interests of landlords and that of agricultural labourers were identical — that fallacy had been pretty well exposed by his hon. Friend below him; but the agricultural labourers were now beginning to be awake to their own interests, and to discover that their interests were concerned in having cheap bread. So the seamen were well aware that their interests were not identical with the interests of the shipowners. The House of Lords, by one of their Amendments, had reduced the amount of remuneration to be awarded to seamen for loss of their provisions from 1s. to 8d., thus depriving the seamen of 4d. This, he apprehended, was interfering with a money clause, and was an Amendment which the Lords had no right to introduce. He should wish the Speaker to settle that point. The hasty manner in which that measure was pressed forward was calculated to excite suspicions that there was some object in view, which the Government was afraid should come to the knowledge of the seamen. Meetings had been held on the subject of the seamen at Newcastle, at Liverpool, and at Bristol, and he protested against the Bill being pressed forward in that manner.
Lords Amendments agreed to.

FISHERIES ON THE FRENCH COAST.
Captain Pechellsaid, that the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government had promised to state to the House, the course which had been pursued by the French Government on that matter; perhaps the right hon. Baronet would then state, whether any law had been passed by the French Chambers in respect to it.
Sir R. Peel: The question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has put, re-
1924
fers to the convention which has been made between the two countries, and the regulations which have been established in respect to the Fisheries by the Commissioners who presided over that convention. It was provided by that convention, that regulations should be drawn up and submitted to the two Governments, in order that they might adopt legislative measures thereupon. In accordance with the regulations of the Commissioners, regulations were drawn up, which received the sanction of the Legislature last Session. I must explain that the French Government is differently situated to the English Government with respect to the making of laws, the French Government having greater powers, and being enabled to effect that by an ordinance which we require the sanction of the Legislature for. I apprehend that it is unnecessary for the law to pass the French Chambers before due effect can be given to it by the French Government. When the Commissioners were prosecuting their enquiries certain legal difficulties stood in their way; for here it is necessary to have vivâ voce evidence for the conviction of any prisoner. The French Government proposed that written evidence should be deemed sufficient, to which they (the Commissioners) replied that that would be altogether opposed to the principles of British law where penal consequences followed upon conviction. There was also another difficulty arising out of the difference of the law in the two countries in respect to murder on the high seas, for, according to the French law, a Frenchmen committing murder upon a foreigner on the high seas was not subject to the penalties of murder. It is altogether different with respect to the English law, by which there is no more difficulty for committing an Englishman for the murder of a foreigner on the high seas than there is for committing an Englishman for the murder of a countryman. The law, however, in respect to these fisheries was passed in April. I do not understand the anxiety of the hon. and gallant Officer in respect to the regulations which have been passed. The two countries have the right of fishing within three miles of their respective coasts; these regulations have been sanctioned by the convention, to which the force of law has been given. The law which passed last Session, provided that any subject of the King of the French breaking this con-

1925
vention, might be punished, and a penalty of 10 l. inflicted, and in case of non-payment, the vessel detained as a surety for such payment. Our interests are completely protected; the interests of the French are much more concerned than ours in this law passing the French Chambers; and it is for them to consider whether it should be passed at once or not. I am sorry that no law has been passed, but the inconvenience chiefly attaches to those engaged in the French fishery. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his constituents clearly understand that, if any infraction of this law by the French takes place on the coast off Brighton, that such infraction may be dealt with and punished, by the Magistrates of the county of Sussex.
Subject at an end.

TRANSACTIONS IN GUERNSEY.
On the Motion that the Order of the Day be read,
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, it was with very great reluctance he proposed to occupy the attention of the House with anything personal to himself, but publications were sometimes made with respect to what took place in that House, and made, too, under the sanction of persons in high office, which rendered it necessary to take notice of them. It would be in the recollection of the House that a short debate had recently taken place on the affairs of Guernsey. Certainly the report of that debate in the newspaper was curtailed and inaccurate. Shortly after it was published he received a letter from the rev. Mr. Dobree, whose name had been mentioned in that House by himself and the right hon. Baronet. A letter denying the accuracy of his statements regarding Mr. Dobree had also appeared, two days previously to his receiving that of which he spoke, in the Times newspaper, under the sanction of the Lieutenant Governor, and which appeared to have been inserted, because a letter from the Lieutenant Governor headed the correspondence, requesting of the editors of the Times redress by that publication. The letter which he had received was dated "Forest Rectory, 28th of July, 1844," that day being Sunday, and it was not for him (Mr. Duncombe) to say whether it was the sort of correspondence which a minister of the Gospel ought to indite on such a day. The letter was as follows;—
"Forest Rectory, Guernsey, July 28.
"Sir,—In the Times newspaper of the 24th inst. I observe, with much surprise, a speech Attributed to you, in which you think fit to charge me with 'perjury' and 'insanity.'
"Permit me, Sit, to assure you that I am neither perjured nor insane; and as I am entirely unacquainted with you, and have never given you the least cause (that I am aware of) of personal offence, I confess that I am totally at a loss to account for so virulent and unprovoked an attack on your part.
"The utter recklessness of your charges will be better understood by the absurd inaccuraracies into which you have fallen with regard to facts;—

"1. Mr. Moullin did not die at my house.

"2. He made no death-bed confession.

"3. The Lieutenant Governor did not order a post mortem examination.

"4. There is no such thing as a jury in the Island of Guernsey.

"5. The proof of a plot did not rest entirely on my evidence alone.

"6. I never entertained an idea in my life that I was to be shot at, although I certainly was fired at on the evening of Moullin's funeral.

"7. I never nailed down my windows; nor were they ever nailed down by any one else, at any time whatever.

"8. I never have been in the habit of wrapping the union jack round my pulpit, &c.

"9. I never was reputed insane at any time, until you were kind enough to make the discovery; nor any of my family. I have had the honour to be brought up at the same school with Ralph Etwall, Esq., M.P.; Sir Edward Filmer, M.P.; Captain Archdall, M.P. &c, and I believe they will tell you I was not considered quite a fool at that time.

"Neither am I ashamed of those testimonials I obtained during my University career at Pembroke College, Oxford, and which are at your service if you desire them.
"At a later period, I have filled the responsible situation of first classical master at Elizabeth College, Guernsey, for six years of my life, with the entire approbation of the former and present principals of that establishment, as their testimonials will show, and I have now the honour of being senior director of that College.
"I have received the public thanks of the late Lieutenant Governor-General Ross for my humble exertions during the cholera in this island, and General Napier is perfectly satisfied I have done no more than my duty in the present melancholy affair.
"I also enclose you the certificates of the highest medical authority in this island as to my perfect sanity at the present time, and those gentlemen have known me from my boyhood intimately.
"And now, Sir, having given you every proof a man can offer of the falsehood of the infamous allegations contained in your speech

1927
(if such it be), I call on you to retract them or to give up your authority for making them. If not, I hold you personally responsible for what you have uttered. Really honourable Gentlemen should not be so ready to destroy the reputation and prospects of men with whose character they are totally unacquainted.
"The humble clergyman, whom you are pleased to style 'a perjurer' in the House of Commons, is proud to tell you, that he has more than once perilled his life and his liberty, when his honour was concerned, and he is not yet so utterly helpless as to suffer you, high though your station be, to be the first to throw a slur on his character with impunity either public or private.
"I, therefore, distinctly call upon you to disavow your assertions, to prove them, or to give up your authority for making them. If not, I hold you personally responsible for publishing a tissue of the most infamous falsehoods against me. I have little doubt but that you have been miserably deceived by some party advocate on this side of the water, and, as a gentleman, you can have no objection to furnish me with his name immediately.
"I have the honour to be, Sir,
"Your most obedient, servant,
"DANIEL DOBREE, M.A.,
"Rector of the Forest and Torteval.
"Thos. Duncombe, Esq., M.P., &c."
The hon. Member also read several certificates as to Mr. Dobree's state of mind, and the following letter from General Napier:—
"Haviland Hall, July 23.
"Sir—As I see that your enemies, as unscrupulously as they are locally powerful, have determined to destroy your character and prospects, I give this testimony in all sincerity of belief in its truth, and in accordance with what I have more than once written to the Secretary of State for the Home Office. From personal observation, from the assurance of British officers, natives of Guernsey, and others not natives of Guernsey, from your general character, and from the straightforward, frank, earnest, and unvarying testimony you have given to me in private, to Mr. Dampier, and in my presence at the so-called secret inquest of the Royal Court, I have the most implicit confidence in the truth of your depositions. I feel sure that you are totally incapable of falsehood, and that perjury is as incompatible with your notions of honour, as it is incompatible with your sacred character of a Minister of the Gospel. All persons of honourable minds who know you, must start with indignation and horror at the infamous attempts now made to charge you with such a crime.
"W. NAPIER,
"Lieutenant Governor.
"To the Rev. Daniel Dobree."
"And now, Sir, pray tell me what is Mr. Thomas Slingsby Duncombe?
"I am, Sir,
"Your obliged and grateful servant,
"DANIEL DOBREE, M. A.
"Rector of the Forest and Torteval, Gurnsey,
"Forest Rectory August, 6."
He was justified in asking the Government whether they sanctioned the Crown Solicitor taking any part in this personal squabble between the Rev. Mr. Dobree and himself. It would be recollected that he appeared there in the discharge of his public duty. He knew nothing of any of these parties, he was merely the channel of communication between that House and the great body of the people of Guernsey. Mr. Dobree had charged those people with disaffection and disloyalty; a charge which was quite unfounded. It had been proved in a court of justice that Mr. Dobree was unworthy of credit. The following extracts from the account of the proceedings for using violent and seditious expressions, instituted against M. Lepelley, in the Royal Court of Guernsey, contained in the Guernsey Star, of the 15th of July, might throw some light on this matter. [The hon. Member quoted the paragraph.] What he complained of was, that when he moved for the correspondence which had taken place between the authorities of Guernsey and the right hon. Baronet, he should be told that the production of that correspondence would be injurious to the public service, and yet the Crown Solicitor and the Lieutenant Governor of Guernsey should be allowed from time to time to refer to it in the newspapers. He thought it but just that the correspondence should be produced, or that it should not be referred to by a subordinate of the Government such as he apprehended Mr. Dampier was. As to the charge which he (Mr. Duncombe) had made, he could only say, that he was borne out by the local press of Guernsey, which teemed every week with charges against Mr. Dobree, and which defied that Gentleman to indict them for libel. He wished to know whether the Government sanctioned its officers mixing themselves up with such matters as these?
Sir J. Grahamsaid, it was evidently late in the Session, or the hon. Gentleman would never have taken up half an hour of their time to discuss such a question as this. If the hon. Gentleman had asked him whether the letter which had been ad-

1929
dressed to him was a letter a clergyman ought to have written, he should have said at once that it was not. But if the hon. Gentleman thought it was worth while to enter into a discussion on this matter, he was bound to say that he entertained a very different opinion. He thought it was unworthy of prolonged discussion in that House. The hon. Gentleman stated that Mr. Dampier was in the employment of the Government. Now, the hon. Gentleman ought to be better informed before he made his accusations. Mr. Dampier held no situation under Government. He was sent to Guernsey to inquire into the state of affairs there, in consequence of the information he (Sir J. Graham) received, and which had led to the trial to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Having finished that inquiry, he was as independent of any relation with the Government as was the hon. Gentleman himself. With regard to the conduct of the Governor, he had never read the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He had never seen nor heard of it till the present occasion. His time was too much occupied to read the Guernsey papers, from which the hon. Gentleman quoted so largely. The Governor had known Mr. Dobree, but the hon. Gentleman had not; he had formed his opinion on grounds which the hon. Gentleman had not, and he stated that he thought Mr. Dobree was a sane and a true man; and, being of that opinion, he could not say it was at all inconsistent with his duty to certify to that effect. He thought the hon. Gentleman should be, therefore, more certain of his information. The hon. Gentleman had also, yesterday, stated that he had received positive information that Sir J. Walsham had interfered as a Poor Law Commissioner in Durham and Northumberland, and had introduced Welsh labourers to defeat the colliers who had stood for higher wages.
Mr. Duncumbedid not say that. He had read a paragraph from the local paper which he held in his hand at the time, and he wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether it was true? It was because he did not know that it was true that he made the inquiry. With regard to another point the right hon. Gentleman had made another misstatement.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, he had yesterday stated that Sir J. Walsham had not interfered as a Poor Law Commissioner to put down the strike for wages in a district
1930
with which he had no connection. He (Sir J. Graham) stated that Sir J, Walsham had been an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, and had resided in Northumberland—that he was a proprietor both in Lancashire and South Wales, and that he might, as an individual, have induced persons to go to those places and obtain wages. He did not mean to say that it was in the least dishonourable for an individual. He had not then seen Sir J. Walsham, but he had since an opportunity of referring to him, and he was authorized by Sir J. Walsham to say that he had never directly or indirectly, interfered in his individual or official capacity in the manner alleged. Nothing therefore could be more unqualified than his contradiction of the statement.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, he had never stated that he had received positive information. He had founded his question on a paragraph in the newspapers, and he had asked him whether it was true or not. The right hon. Baronet had also fallen into an error in supposing that it was he who stated that Mr. Dampier was the Crown Solicitor; it was Mr. Daniel Dobree who had stated this in his letter to the Times.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS.
Mr. Brothertonwished to ask the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it were in the contemplation of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any Bill in the next Session of Parliament, either totally to abolish Capital Punishments or to extend the number of cases of exemption from that punishment? He was quite convinced that these public exhibitions had a very injurious effect on public morals, and the melancholy occurrence which had taken place at Nottingham was a full proof of that. If the House would permit him he would just read an extract from a letter which he had received. He really thought it was more worthy of the attention of the House than some subjects which were introduced in that House. The hon. Member read an extract from a letter relating to the accident which had just occurred on the occasion of an execution, in which thirteen persons lost then lives, and stud he wished to know whether it were the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any measure to put an end to these disgraceful exhibitions, which, in his

1931
opinion, did not tend to prevent crime, but only to harden the minds of the people?
Sir J. Grahamhad no hesitation whatever in telling the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government had no intention to introduce any measure on that subject. His opinion was entirely the reverse of that expressed by the hon. Gentleman, as regarded the moral effect of executions in cases of murder. At the same time he must express his deep regret at the fatal occurrence which had taken place at Nottingham; though he must say, he had never heard an inference which appeared to him to have so little foundation as that this fatal catastrophe was at all to be ascribed to the bad moral effect of a public execution. The event might have occurred at a horse race, or even, through sudden panic, in a chapel. He repeated that he had no intention of proposing either the abolition or the remission in certain cases of capital punishments.

CAPTAIN WARNER'S EXPERIMENT.
Captain Pechell: As the right hon. Baronet had laid papers on the Table concerning Captain Warner, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. He had received a model of a vessel from Shoreham, the port from which the ship destroyed by Captain Warner had sailed; and from that it appeared the ship had ropes fitted on board her, fastened from stem to stern, and that after the process it appeared that from 150 to 200 fathoms of line had been thrown overboard from the steam-vessel applied to the barque blown up, showing that a direct communication had been established between the steam vessel and the ship. He wished to know if the Government had received from the naval officers any communication calculated to explain or to affirm the suspicions which most people entertained with regard to that experiment.
Sir R. Peelhad seen the reports which had been made to the Admiralty upon the subject by naval officers; but those officers had not been admitted into any very close communication with the vessels. He could not either confirm or deny the Report to which the hon. and gallant Member had referred. The experiment, he would not deny, might have been performed in the manner in which Captain Warner represented; but with respect to the ropes, he had no opportunity of satisfying him-
1932
self on the subject in such a manner as to enable him to answer the question, not that he meant to imply that the vessel had not been blown up in any other way than the one which had been represented. If the hon. Gentleman had read the correspondence he would see that it was not likely that he (Sir R. Peel) would enter into any incautious engagement. He would not give 400,000 l. or even 100,000 l. for the blowing up of a vessel, without having the vessel pretty closely examined beforehand; but he again repeated, that he did not mean to insinuate that there had been any unfair proceeding on the part of Captain Warner.

THE LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
Sir J. Grahamrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law of Settlement; and, important as was the discussion which took place on the subject of the Poor Law only a short time ago, the branch of that law which he was now to bring under the consideration of the House was not to be considered of secondary importance. The difficulties of the subject were best illustrated by the numerous ineffectual attempts which had been made to effect an alteration in the law. He could not better state to the House the magnitude of the question before them than by pointing out the number of orders issued annually in England for removals and the large number of persons affected thereby. From a Return which he held in his hand, it appeared that during the year ending September 29, 1841, there had been upwards of 11,000 orders of removals executed in England, and that no less than 32,000 persons had been affected by those orders. This was independent of the removals to Scotland and Ireland, which amounted to more than 7,000, and affected at least as many as 14,000 persons. The House would thus see that according to this estimate, which was based in actual returns received from 485 Unions, there had been in this country 18,000 orders of removal in a single year, by which the fortunes and happiness of not less than 46,000 persons had been materially affected. The word "removal" implied a great amount of human suffering and sorrow, and its operation was no doubt very painful to the poor upon whom it was inflicted. At the same time, however, it was a necessary law, and it was the duty of the House to consider under what circumstances it ought to be upheld, and how any modifications might be effected in the evils pro-

1933
duced by it. It had been well observed by no less an authority than Adam Smith,
"That there was no poor man who had reached the age of forty years, among the working classes, who had not some reason to complain of the Law of Settlement in England; and the cause of this was, that the law in this country was of so remarkable a character and that the boundaries of the parishes in England were so indistinct. In other countries, mountains, rivers, and arms of the sea divided parishes, but in England it was not so."
He made that quotation to show the importance and difficulty of the subject. The course which he proposed to the House was to repeal all the statutes at present in existence on the question, and to proceed to legislate de novo. It would thus be necessary to repeal between thirty and forty Acts of Parliament. The Bill would, therefore, bring into operation a new Law of Settlement, it would regulate removals and appeals on removals, and it would also stand out in bold contrast to the existing statutes, as it only consisted of thirty-four clauses. The subjects disposed of by it were first the right of settlement, next the power of removal, and then the law of appeal upon orders of removal. First, with respect to existing settlements, he proposed that where the settlement had been ascertained by a past order, fixing the settlement, which had been confirmed by a competent authority, or by an admission in writing, such a settlement should not be disturbed, but be held final. The means of acquiring a settlement at present were eight in number—viz., by parentage, by apprenticeship, by renting a tenement of a certain value, by holding certain offices, by payment of rates, by birth, and by marriage. A year's hiring was a ninth mode, but no past settlement could be gained in that manner. Since 1834, although removals on the ground of settlement so gained previously, might still take place. He proposed to repeal all these, and his proposition was, that henceforth birth, and birth only, should be the ground of settlement, and that the place of birth should be held to be the place of settlement, if proved; but that (failing that proof) derivative settlement should be allowed in two degrees, and two only. First, in the case of legitimate children, he proposed to admit the father's settlement, and, failing that, the mother's settlement should be good. In the case of children, who were not legitimate, the place of birth should first determine the settlement, which failing to be proved, the mo-
1934
ther's settlement should determine the question. He did not, however, propose to carry the derivative settlement any further and no person should desire any settlement from his grandfather or grandmother. He would then declare that no other mode of obtaining a settlement could be received, while he provided, that on proof thereof, every unsettled person should be relieved where destitute, and that relief must be continued until the destitution ceased, or a settlement were found for him. He would also declare by the Bill, that the registry of births, and the baptismal registry, so far as they supplied proof of the place of birth, be received as evidence of birth, and that a married woman should not be removed from the place of her husband's settlement. The place of birth was not at one time, by an oversight, included in the registry, but by a subsequent Act that mistake had been remedied, although in consequence of the error it had been omitted for a small period. There might probably still be many imperfections in the plan which he proposed, but he could not help thinking that it had the advantage of great simplicity contrasted with the old system. He had thought it better that the law should take its stand on one common ground of settlement, rather than on four or five different principles of less general application; and on the whole he was of opinion that birth and the derivative settlements which he had mentioned were the most defensible, the most sure, and in all respects the best. He now proposed to draw the attention of the House shortly to the second branch of the question,—the law of removal. In dealing with this matter, it was most difficult to reconcile the interests of the two great classes of the community—the town and the rural population. Any change in the law which impeded the gaining of a settlement, and which facilitated removal, was acceptable to large towns; while, on the other hand, any change which facilitated the gaining of settlements and impeded removals was acceptable to the rural districts. The proposition he had first made, fixing birth and parentage as the groundwork of settlement, would be acceptable in one quarter; and he now sought to balance that advantage by Ids proposition in the respect to removals. His object was to impose restrictions upon removal. He proposed that parties should not be removable in the following cases—first, in that of a man who had ordinarily resided and worked in or near the

1935
parish for five years, and who had not been convicted of felony or misdemeanour. This provision would be applicable to natives of Scotland and Ireland as well as to the people of this country. Secondly, he proposed that no woman residing with her husband at the time of his death in the parish of his settlement should be removable to her own parish after his death. Thirdly, he proposed that no widow whether living in her husband's parish or elsewhere, should be removable for twelve months after his death. Fourthly, he proposed that no legitimate child under sixteen years of age should be removable from its father. Fifthly, that no legitimate child after its father's death and no illegitimate child under sixteen years of age should be removable from its mother; and sixthly, that no one becoming chargeable by sickness or accident, should be placed under order of removal till he or she had received relief for forty days consecutively. He also declared, that persons requiring relief should be relieved wherever they were resident, irrespective of their settlement. He now came to the third branch of the subject, which related to appeals against orders of removal, and to the execution of them. He proposed to enable parties, as it were by agreement, to give effect to orders of removal without having recourse to the intervention of Courts of Law. If an order of removal was obtained, he proposed that the overseers of the removing parish should be required to send a copy of the order and a statement of the grounds of removal, to the officers of the parish to which they proposed to remove the pauper, within seven days of the issue of such order. He proposed to allow to the parties to whom such statement was sent within twenty-one days after the receipt of the notice, to determine whether or not they would resist the removal if they objected to the order of removal, they would be required to scud to the removing parish a statement of their reasons for so objecting. If no notice of objection was given, the overseers of the removing parish might remove the pauper at the expiration of forty days after giving notice of their intention. He proposed also that an appeal should be tried at the next Sessions, after the expiration of fourteen days from the time of giving notice of such appeal; and that no grounds of removal or of appeal should be gone into, except those contained in the statements of the respective parishes. He would now call the attention of the
1936
House to some special enactments with reference to the Scotch and Irish poor. There was, as many hon. Gentlemen would probably be aware, great hardship with respect to the removal of these paupers. He proposed that rules should be made by Justices of the Peace, in their respective districts, providing for the removal of Scotch and Irish paupers as far as was practicable, to the places nearest to those of their birth and original residence. He believed that removals of Scotch and Irish paupers were frequently made upon very light and insufficient legal grounds; and that such removals would certainly be set aside upon appeal in England. This evil he ascribed to the absence of the power of appeal; and he was, therefore, most anxious to afford the power of appeal with reference to the removal of Scotch and Irish paupers. He proposed to effect that object in this manner: — When any removal should have taken place, upon illegal or insufficient grounds, either to Scotland or Ireland, on the representation of local bodies, or of parties interested in such removal, he would propose that the Poor Law Commissioners, on representations being made to them, should have power to cause an appeal to be prosecuted at the Sessions against such order of removal; and that, if the order was quashed, the parish by which the order had been obtained should pay all the costs of the removal, and of bringing back the party removed to the parish whence he or she had been removed. He was aware that objections might be urged against his proposition; but he believed that, on the whole, it would conduce to the advantage of the whole kingdom. He was satisfied that this measure contained most salutary and humane provisions with respect to Scotch and Irish paupers. The measure would repeal thirty or forty existing Statutes; it would place the whole question on a clear, succinct, and intelligible footing; and, although some alterations in detail might be necessary, he believed that to the principle of this Bill there could be no objection. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the laws relating to parochial settlement, and the removal of the poor.
Mr. Hawesthought the course adopted by the Government was most beneficial, since it afforded the country ample time to consider these important matters before they came under the consideration of Par-

1937
liament. He could hardly be expected at once to pronounce a decisive opinion, but this he would say, the spirit which had characterised the observations made by the right hon. Baronet was most praiseworthy. There was, however, one branch of the subject to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet, and that was the total absence of all superintendence over the removal of paupers to Scotland and Ireland after their embarkation. He had that morning received a letter on the subject from a man in humble life, and he would read it to the House, believing they would not think it was altogether unnecessarily occupying their attention:—
"Augusts, 6, 1844,
"I happened to be a deck passenger, and sailed from Cork to London last week; the misery of the deck passengers I cannot possibly tell; there were a great number of men, women, and children, cows, calves, pigs, and dogs. Some of the pigs died. They were nearly all huddled together, and almost all sea-sick together, Christians and cattle alike; the Christians, old and young, had no place to sit down upon, or rest on, but the level deck; they were absolutely sick upon each other, without the power of moving, or of giving themselves any relief. They had no water-closet that they could go to from Friday till Monday in the next week. There they were left to lie, and nearly die upon deck, old and young, men, women, and children, crouched in every nook they could find. Now, surely, the shipowner ought to have some place for these poor destitute creatures to go into out of the cold, dirt, and wet. They ought also to have buckets left for them; they ought to have something to sit or lie upon. Well, in the morning, it is the custom for the sailors to wash the decks, which is much wanting; but how are the poor creatures to manage? The hose is opened at all sides, they have no dry spot to creep to, and if they are not quick to shift for themselves and their little luggage, they will be wet through, and their little stock of provisions spoiled. What I have stated here is but a tithe of their sufferings."
He thought the provisions of the proposed Bill would greatly lessen the number of paupers to be removed, and he hoped power would be given to the Poor Law Commissioners to see that a proper person should be appointed to superintend the embarkation of these paupers, so that they might not be left utterly destitute. He hoped every hon. Member would well consider the Bill during the recess, and he, for one, should come to the discussion of it rather with a view to assist the right hon. Baronet in his attempts to
1938
amend the existing law than in a spirit of opposition to the Government.
Mr. Brothertonwas well aware that there was a great jealousy existing regarding the law of settlement as between the town and country districts. He was not disposed to regard the principle of the Bill unfavourably, but he would not pledge himself to details. There existed great hardships in consequence of the removal of persons who had been residents in a place for many years. It was seen, with regard to the Irish and Scotch paupers, who, probably, had been in a manufacturing town in England for thirty years, when in need of some temporary assistance, have been removed to Ireland or Scotland, where they had no settlement. He considered this a very great hardship. Then with regard to the removal of paupers in England, the right hon. Baronet had stated that there were 30,000 removals in England in the course of the year. In the borough of Salford, consisting of 50,000 inhabitants, the removals were more than 300 per annum. The expense averaged about 2l. each. In the last three years the expense of the township of Salford was 1,800 l. for the removal of these persons. A great portion of this sum consisted of law charges. If this money were laid out in relieving these parties until they could again obtain employment, it would be for the benefit of the township. The right hon. Baronet proposed that relief should be granted for forty days before the parties were removed. For this the country was much indebted to the right hon. Baronet. He should willingly give every possible support to the measure.
Mr. Wakleythought the Bill would have an opposite effect to that anticipated by the hon. Gentleman, and that it would necessarily throw the burthen on the agricultural districts. He thought, therefore, considering the position of the Government, it was a measure of great boldness, and one for which they were entitled to much credit. Since the Bill had been announced, it had been looked forward to with great anxiety by all who were interested in the law of settlement. He was glad the hon. Member for Lambeth had called attention to the hardships attending the removal of paupers. The frightful sufferings endured by these poor people under the present system could hardly be conceived. Every kind of

1939
cruelty was inflicted on them; and if the right hon. Baronet had tried to make out a case to excite the feelings of the House he might have done so with the greatest possible fairness, for he could hardly have exceeded the reality. They were treated almost as if they were criminals, or shipped off as so many slaves. He could not understand how it happened that Irish Gentlemen were so quiet on this subject. If this Bill did not provide against the continuance of this evil it would be exceedingly defective. He was very glad to find the practice commenced of bringing in Bills at the end of the Session, so that the country might become acquainted with their principle and details before they were discussed in Parliament. He thought this was a great improvement in their practice. Whatever were the defects in the Bill of last night, the fact of its being introduced at the end of the Session proved that the right hon. Baronet believed it to be right, and was satisfied both with the soundness of its principle and of the details by which it was to be carried into execution. He hoped that an example so good, and so fully and completely began, would be followed in all future Sessions and by all future Governments.
Mr. Wysesaid, that Irish Gentlemen had long felt deeply interested in the subject of the removal of paupers. He thought the present Bill calculated to remove many of the evils of the present system. He did not understand whether it was proposed to extend the Bill to Ireland; but he believed that without some such measure it would be impossible to repress mendicancy in that country.
Sir J. Grahamthanked the House for the cordial reception they had given to the Bill, and said he would offer one or two observations with respect to what had fallen from hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member for Finsbury had said, that by laying measures of this importance before the House at the close of the Session, the Government gave time for deliberation, and evinced a consciousness that they were doing right. But they did more than this—they showed a willingness to correct error, should it be discovered, by bringing public opinion to bear on these questions. They had felt it their duty to take this course in dealing with such an immense subject as that of the medical practice of the United Kingdom, and in presuming to propose an altera-
1940
tion in the law of settlement. The hon. Member for Salford had fallen into an error which had been corrected rightly by the hon. Member for Finsbury. He thought the burden of parentage would not be thrown disproportionably on he manufacturing districts, or on the population of towns; but, on the contrary, that the objections would arise from the rural population. The attraction of manufacturing industry was from the country, and the effect of periods of manufacturing distress was to throw pauperism back on the rural districts. Allusion had been made to Irish paupers, and the mode in which they were said to be sent to their settlements; but the hon. Member (Mr. Hawes) who gave the House the particulars had forgotten to state that the amalgamation of men, women, pigs, calves, &c., was a description of Irish labourers coming over from Cork to England as deck passengers to seek employment, and not of Irish paupers sent from London to Ireland. The alleged sufferings were voluntary sufferings, sustained by the labouring Irish at particular seasons when they went in search of work to England at haymaking and harvesting.
Mr. Haweshad read the letter with a view to show what were the sufferings to which poor people (not paupers, as the right hon. Gentleman had described them), were liable on their passage between England and Ireland, leaving the House to infer what must be the sufferings of paupers.
Leave given.
Bill brought in and read a first time; to be read a second time in three months.

APPOINTMENT AND FEES OF CLERKS OF THE PEACE, &C.,
Sir J. Grahamsaid he was happy to announce to the House that he had now arrived at the last Bill which he had to lay before them at the close of the Session. It was a Bill to which he attached great importance, for regulating the duties, and the amount of fees, to be discharged and received by Clerks of Magistrates, Clerks of the Peace and Clerks of Assize. He would take them in order:—including Clerk of the Arraigns, Clerk of the Indictments, and Clerk of the Assize, and various other officers who go with the Judges on the Circuit. The great object with respect to the two first classes, namely Clerks to Magistrates and Clerks of the Peace, was to substitute salaries in lieu of

1941
fees. Another object of the greatest importance was, that the Magistrates in Petty Sessions should hold their Courts in public—that they should meet in a fixed place, and on fixed days, instead of meeting, as they now often did, in their own Houses, where the business was conducted in private. By this Bill that object would be obtained. He further proposed, that the Clerk of the Magistrates not now acting as such, but hereafter to be appointed, should be an attorney of a certain standing. He knew that the hon. Member for Fiusbury would object to this, because it was the opinion of that hon. Gentleman that the law was not best executed by lawyers, and that professionally educated men were not the best practitioners. The county would be divided into petty Session divisions, and each division would have a Clerk and the salary of each Clerk would be fixed by the Magistrates in Quarter Sessions. Any fees legally payable to the Clerk, would be carried to the county stock. This, he thought would secure regularity in the despatch of the public business, and impartiality to the parties seeking justice. With regard to the Clerks of the Peace, they would be required to make out an account of the fees which they had received for the seven years preceding the 1st of January, 1844, and he proposed to legalise all fees which had been received for fifty years previously. These lists of fees were to be sent to the Secretary of State, who would require them to be tested by the proper parties. The salary would be paid upon an average of the fees received during the last seven years. But fees received that were not found to be legal would not be included in the average. The lawful fees would still be received by the Clerks of the Peace; if they amounted to more than the salary assigned to him, the surplus would be paid to the county stock; and if they fell short of the amount of his salary, the difference would be paid to the Clerk of the Peace out of the county fund. Power would be given to the Secretary of State to prepare a uniform scale of fees to be received by the Clerks of the Magistrates, Clerks of the Peace, Clerks of the Assize, Clerk of the Arraigns, Clerk of the Indictments, and the Associates of the Judges, and all other officers attending the administration of justice. He proposed to abolish all fees on traverses, as well as upon proclamations and the discharge of prisoners. And if any person should take fees which were not allowed and fixed by the Secretary of
1942
State, he should be liable to a penalty of 5l. The right hon. Baronet then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the appointment and payment of clerks and other officers of the court of Petty and Quarter Sessions of the Peace, Oyer and Terminer, and Gao-delivery.
Captain Pechellconsidered the Bill would improve the existing state of things. He hoped, however, that Petty Sessions would not be granted to those places which had not proper accommodation for the Magistrates. He thought that the practice of holding sessions at inns and public houses ought to be done away with; and he considered that those places which failed to provide a proper building for the bench ought not to have the privilege of Petty Sessions. With respect to the alteration in the appointment of Clerks of the Peace and to Magistrates, he hoped those attorneys who were violent political partizans, would not be allowed to be eligible to the office.
Mr. Bickham Escottsaid, one of the highest objects a Secretary of State could aim at was the purification of the country from that gross system of extortion which had been hitherto practised in those departments which the Bill particularly referred to. He would not enter upon the details; he would content himself with one remark in relation to the provision for abolishing fees. It was proposed that fifty years' usage should be taken as an evidence of the legality of such fees. But what he submitted was, that in cases where fifty years of gross extortion had existed, the clerks, before sending in their average incomes, should first have this system of extortion put an end to. He recollected an instance when three persons had been indicted for perjury at Dorset Assizes, when the expenses they were put to before they were suffered to plead amounted to 9l. sterling. He had known another case, in which two respectable persons in nearly the same circumstances, anxious to come immediately to their trial, had been put to an expense of 24 l. before pleading, and told they could not come to their trial immediately without the consent of their prosecutor. The same had happened even at the Quarter Sessions. Now, this was occasioned in part by men who knew they were by their extortionate conduct liable to indictment and a penalty. All he wished was, that before the House was called upon by

1943
those parties for remuneration under this Bill, the House should be furnished with information as to which of those parties had been guilty of unjust exaction, so that they might not be suffered to forward an exorbitant claim upon the amount of their own extortions.
Mr. Wakleywould recommend the appointment of a Committee in the next Session, to ascertain by whom, and to what extent, fees had been extorted. He highly approved of the nomination of a lawyer to be Clerk to the Magistrates, for as Justices proverbially had little knowledge of law, it was fit some person who at least pretended to an acquaintance with it should assist them. He congratulated the country on the variety of excellent Bills which within only a few days had been introduced; and as the real business of the country was better done by a small than by a large number of Members, he saw every reason why the Session should be prolonged, at least until these beneficial measures had been passed. While Government was in such a happy mood it would be a pity to deprive it of the opportunity of doing so much good.
Mr. Gally Knightsaid, that he could not refuse himself the pleasure of tendering his best thanks to the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for his introduction of a Bill, which he was sure would be considered as a boon by every Magistrate in England. Magistrates had long been as alive as the hon. Member for Finsbury could be to the objectionable consequences arising from the present state of the law respecting the Clerks' fees. The law, as it now stood, obstructed the administration of justice. Magistrates continually felt themselves compelled to make unseemly bargains with the delinquent, and not to convict when they ought to convict, rather than subject a man who had committed some trifling offence, and whose means were very small, to so severe an infliction as, in many cases, the fees alone on conviction at present entailed—over which fees the Magistrates had no control. The Clerks must be paid, but they ought to be paid in a different way. The hon. Member for Finsbury had spoken slightingly of the country Magistrates; but there could not be a greater mistake than to suppose that they were disliked; and, if the hon. Gentleman would only make an excursion into the country, he would, find that the Ma-
1944
gistrates and the people went on very well together. But he (Mr. Knight) had not risen to discuss the merits of the Bill. His sole motive in rising was to thank the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, not only for the introduction of this Bill, but fort he manner in which he had done his work during the whole of this long and trying Session; for the labour which he had devoted to the public service; for the temper and conciliatory spirit which he had evinced in that House; for the prudence and firmness with which he had restored and maintained domestic peace, and for the ameliorations which he had sought to introduce into many laws more immediately connected with his own department. Never, he would take upon himself to assert, had the high office which was held by the right hon. Baronet, never had it been more ably or honourably filled.
Leave given.
Bill brought in and read a first time.
The House adjourned at ten minutes to nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—3a. and passed:—Poor Law Amendment; Duchy of Cornwall Assessionable Manors; Grand Jury Presentments (Dublin); Fisheries (Ireland); Arms (Ireland); Protection of Purchasers, etc. (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Marquess of Clanricarde, from City of York, for Inquiry into the State of Ireland.—From Guardians of Nenagh Union, for Exemption from charges upon the Union for Government Advances for Rebuilding the Workhouse.—By Marquess of Clanricarde,
1912
from Leeds, for restoring the people of Tahiti to the possession of their Civil Rights and Religious Freedom.—From Bydwellty, and Rhymney, for the Establishment of Local Courts.

MISSIONARIES AT TAHITI.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he had thought it right on the preceding evening, to give notice of the Petition which he was about to present to their Lordships, not only on account of the importance of the subject to which it related, but also with reference to the public feeling and opinion that prevailed, connected with the late proceedings at Tahiti. It was not, however, his intention in discharging this duty, to say anything that could provoke discussion in relation to those proceedings. The petition was agreed to at a public meeting held in the borough of Leeds, on the 5th of August, and purported to be the petition of the undersigned friends of the Protestant Missions residing in that borough. The noble Marquess then read the petition in which the petitioners stated, that the Missionaries had directed their attention to the South Sea Islands about fifty years ago, and had laboured most successfully in that part of the world. They complained of the recent conduct of the French at Tahiti, which they considered to have been most unjust; they deprecated all hostile feeling between the two countries, but they at the same time condemned the measures that had been adopted at Tahiti as being totally unworthy of the French nation, the petitioners prayed their Lordships to adopt such measures as they might think fit to secure due protection for the Protestant Mission at Tahiti. He had thought it necessary that the petitioners should speak for themselves—he was sure that the prayer of their petition, in which he entirely concurred, would be attended to. With respect to the proceedings at Tahiti, he could not but say that he felt most strongly that the gentleman (Mr. Pritchard) who had been so harshly treated had not, at the time, in any manner, forfeited that position which, as a British subject, he had a right to claim. He did not think that any temporary or unauthorized resignation of his functions deprived him of his fair and just claims to the protection of the Government. He did most sincerely trust and hope when those to whom this petition referred had their grievances and apprehensions thus stated to the House, that no future conduct on their part might add

1913
to any difficulties that now existed between the two countries. They must feel that the benefits of civilization, and the extension of the blessings of religion, depended on the continuance of peace; and he confidently and earnestly hoped that peace would be maintained at any price short of the sacrifice of national honour. And he was sure that was a price which this country would never be disposed to pay for it, much to be desired as it was. If they did so, if they made such a sacrifice, they would ultimately find that whilst they achieved a seeming good, they would by that means deprive themselves of all the security and advantages of real peace—that security and those advantages which could only be founded on the mutual respect of nations.
The Earl of Aberdeen, said the noble Marquess in presenting this petition had not thought it his duty to enter into any lengthened remarks on the recent transactions that had taken place at Tahiti. Yet, nevertheless, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) wished to offer a few observations connected with the petition itself, which had reference to those transactions. Many of their Lordships would recollect, that early in the last Session of Parliament, when they first heard of the establishment of the French in Tahiti, a noble Friend of his (the Marquess of Lansdowne), who was not then in his place, and who had formerly been President of the Council, had put some questions to him on the subject; and had then stated that he did not regard with any jealous feeling the establishment of the French in the Pacific, and the extension of their system of colonization in that sea; but he expressed an anxious wish that British interests might be properly protected, and, above all, that the security and freedom of the missionaries employed in Tahiti should be provided for. In answer to the noble Marquess who had put the question, he said that in those opinions he entirely concurred, and he could assure him that the Government had received all the guarantees which they could possibly demand, with respect to their perfect freedom, and security in the exercise of their functions, of the British mission established in Tahiti; and of such others as might also seek those countries as the scene of their labours. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) afterwards laid on the Table of the House a correspondence with the French Government on the subject; and,
1914
such of their Lordships as might have taken the trouble of perusing that correspondence, would, he believed, be disposed to admit, that under all the circumstances, it was satisfactory. Now, from that day to this, Her Majesty's Government had received no complaint whatever from any of the missionaries established at Tahiti; and at the last interview which he had had with the heads of the London Missionary Society, on putting a question to them on this subject, they assured him that they had no complaint whatever to make as to the treatment of the missionaries by the French authorities in Tahiti. They, indeed, deprecated the establishment of the French authority at Tahiti, but stated that they had no complaint to make with respect to their conduct towards the missionaries. He, therefore, took it for granted, that in regard to that part at least of the subject in which his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) expressed the greatest interest (a feeling in which he entirely concurred), he took it, he said, for granted, that on that point, there was no ground for complaint; and he might add, still further, that in some communications between the French Government and Her Majesty's Government, the former referred, in terms of eulogy and of special approbation, to the endeavours of the missionaries to preserve tranquillity in those islands. Therefore, he repeated, he took it for granted, that they had no reason to complain—that no grounds of complaint had been given to them. If they had, those grounds of complaint certainly had not reached Her Majesty's Government. Having said thus much, he thought it prudent to follow the example of the noble Marquess who had presented this petition, in not being tempted to say more on the recent outrage that had taken place at Tahiti. He must, however, observe that whether the gentleman to whom allusion had been made was or was not a Consul at the moment when that event occurred, made in his mind very little difference. He looked upon that individual as a subject of the British Crown, and, therefore, entitled to that protection and treatment which, as a British subject, he had a right to claim. The question, whether a person could resign and denude himself of his official character and functions, was a question between him and his own Government, and not between him and the Government to which he was accredited. He knew not how a foreign Government could

1915
do otherwise than take the declaration of an individual in such a capacity as to whether he continued to possess, or ceased to posses the authority which at one time he professed to hold. That, however, was a question which made no material difference in his mind as to the character of the transaction, or as to the course to be followed. He did not understand the noble Marquess opposite to bring any charge or accusation against the Government, or against him (the Earl of Aberdeen). He must say, that in that House he had not heard any censure with respect to any part of the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government. Had any Motion with that view been brought forward, he would have been quite ready to meet it. In another place, he believed, they had not been quite so fortunate; at the same time, nothing of a very formidable nature had been brought against them; for, when "the head and front of their offending" consisted in measures which had received the thanks and approbation of both Houses of Parliament, the attack was not likely to be felt very deeply. The noble Marquess had expressed a hope, and he had no doubt the noble Lord was sincere in that expression, that neither that event to which his petition referred, nor any other, would endanger the continuance of the existing peace; but he (Lord Aberdeen) had also heard the noble Marquess say something about the honour of the country, and the necessity for maintaining that honour. He concurred entirely in the sentiment thus expressed; and he thought that if peace was not preserved in a manner entirely conformable to the honour of the country, it would be purchased at too great a sacrifice. But let noble Lords only look at the language that had recently passed between the public organs of France and England. Both parties accused each other of a desire to commence aggressions or to insult each other, and the organs which habitually advocated the views of the noble Marquess and his party had accused the Ministers of making base concessions, which had lowered the consequence of England in the eyes of Europe. Only let their Lordships look at the language of the French press also, and they would find that the writers there accused their Ministers likewise of base subservience to the English Government. In Spain, which was a great source of accusation and of irritation, the French writers described their Ministers to be acting in a manner
1916
entirely subservient to the intrigues of English diplomacy. The accusation was altogether untrue; but it was not more so than those brought against the Cabinet of which he (Lord Aberdeen) was a Member; and, moreover, he would say, that in his opinion, the French writers did not believe one word of what they were saying in giving vent to these imputations, though he could not say the same of the writers in this country. He would not assert of them that they put as little credit in their statements and anticipations as those to whom he had referred abroad; he would rather assert, that in England the people and the press shared the opinions expressed on this subject by the noble Marquess. That was not the case, however, in France. He knew there was a war party there which desired to push matters to extremity; but the war party in England was rather, in his opinion, confined to hostilities against the Bench on which he sat. He was aware that it was necessary to proceed with the utmost caution; and he was strongly impressed with the belief that the justice and the moderation—and he used the word "justice" in its most emphatic sense, because the term "moderation" might be misapplied—the justice and moderation of the demands of England led him to entertain a sanguine hope that the present subjects of discussion between the two countries would not lead to any disastrous consequences.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he would not reply upon the general topics to which the noble Earl had adverted, after the express declaration made by him that silence was the best course to be pursued. He must not, however, upon that account be supposed to acquiesce in the whole of the policy which the noble Earl had stated to be that which he had acted upon. He begged, however, to express his particular satisfaction with the manner in which the noble Earl had treated the particular question which formed the subject of the petition presented by him.
The Marquess of Clanricardeso entirely agreed in the view taken by his noble Friend of the speech made by the noble Earl, that he would not make any remarks on it; though be could not help complaining that the noble Earl's remarks on the war party in France, almost implied that in this country Ministers were not altogether in a fit state of preparation for the attempts of those foolish and wicked

1917
people who in France were termed the war party. He would take the present opportunity of putting a question to the noble Earl, which related in some degree to the topics tinder consideration, namely, with reference to that unfortunate class of persons who were so unlucky as to be the creditors of the Spanish Government. In the year 1834, the Spanish Minister, Count Toreno, put the claims of the foreign creditors of the Spanish Government in such a train of settlement as led them to indulge in hopes of their being, at no very distant period, practically settled. The creditors were divided into three classes, namely, into holders of active, passive, and deferred debt. It was then stipulated that certain portions of their claims should be immediately converted into active bonds, and that the remainder should be styled passive and deferred debt, to be gradually converted also into active bonds (or bonds bearing interest), in a gradual though certain progression, so that in the course of about eight years from that date (1834) the whole debt would be thus converted. Now, he needed hardly to observe, that no such conversion had ever taken place; and he begged to ask the noble Earl whether he had any reason to hold out hopes to these unfortunate persons that the foreign creditors of Spain would hereafter be treated in any better manner than they hitherto had been? He was quite aware that he had no right to call upon the Government to make any declaration on this subject, for the speculators in foreign loans entered into such transactions entirely at their own risk. Yet, although the Government would be to blame to encourage such dealings, he should be sorry to see a state of things established, that the opinions of the Government of this country with respect to loans of this description were disregarded and exercised no influence upon the Ministers and people of Spain; and he therefore wished the noble Earl to say if he could hold out any expectations on the subject.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that the transaction referred to by the noble Marquess was one of those operations in Spanish finance which, promising at first the most complete success, led afterwards to disappointment and failure. He would not hold out any greater hopes that those prospects would be realized than those which had been indulged in when they were originally entertained in 1834. The
1918
noble Marquess had justly described the course which the Government was called upon to pursue with respect to such transactions. He had very truly said that the present was not to be considered in the light of an engagement to which the British Government was any party. And he had also truly promised that no influence which the Government could fairly exercise would be neglected to be used on behalf of those British subjects who were creditors of Spain. In fact, there had been no reluctance on the part of Her Majesty's Government to endeavour to produce an effect in this respect on that of Spain, nor would such exertion be spared in future. But their success depended entirely on the view which the Ministry of Spain took of the interests of the country, and the chances of reimbursement to the holders of Spanish bonds rested more upon that contingency than upon the interference of any foreign Government in the way in which such interference could be made by either the British or any other Governments. The actual Finance Minister of Spain was a man much more likely to be actuated and guided by honourable views of the engagements of his Government than any of his immediate predecessors in office, and to that circumstance he would rather encourage the noble Marquess to look for hopes on behalf of the creditors of Spain than to any efforts which Her Majesty's Government could make in that respect. But he would willingly assure the noble Marquess that within the limits which he had himself prescribed—for to hold out any hopes that the influence of the British Government would be exerted in the matter would be to add the security of England to that of Spain on these bonds—but within those limits, he repeated, he (Lord Aberdeen) would assure the noble Marquess that all that could fairly be done should be done, and the interests in question should not be lost sight of.

POOR LAW.
Lord Wharncliffemoved that this Bill be read a third time, which was agreed to.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Lord Teynhambegged to draw their Lordships' attention to a Clause which he had to propose, relative to the alterations introduced by the bastardy Clauses of the present Bill into the Poor Law. The subject was one to which he had already drawn their Lordships' attention, by pre-

1919
senting a petition last year from a Board of Guardians, relative to the regulations enforced towards women in a state of pregnancy at the Union Workhouses. There were several classes of persons to whom these regulations were equally applicable, and in all cases alike. On the one hand, there was a number of poor creatures, who were already contaminated by their constant contact with the debased and the profligate; on the other hand, there were some to whom it would be an act of kindness as well as of Christian charity, to remove them from the scene of their temptation and guilt, and from the constant associations of that nature to which such contact exposed them. Whether this was to be best effected by the entire removal of these unfortunate creatures from the workhouse, he would not say. And thirdly, there was a class of women, who came within the operation of the law in question, who had never, up to the moment when they were thus situated, been found in contaminated or habitually vicious company. Now, nothing, in his opinion, could be more lamentable, than for young women who had committed a first offence of this kind, probably through inexperience or weakness, to find themselves condemned to pass their days and nights, whilst undergoing the consequences of their folly or guilt, in such contaminating society as that to which he had referred. Nothing could be better, in his opinion, or more calculated to recal these young women to a sense of shame and to the paths of virtue, than to restore them to their mother's care. If their Lordships took the same view of the case that he did, they would probably agree to the Clause which he had to propose; and he must in defence of it observe, that there was universally to be observed a distinction between the first offence of the nature to which it referred, and every subsequent lapse of that kind. The course which he proposed would restore the character of young women who might have the folly to commit the crime referred to; and in further justification of the views which he had so imperfectly explained, he must refer their Lordships to the contents of the petition from an extensive parish, which he had presented on a former occasion. The noble Lord concluded by moving a Clause, which enacted that out-of-door relief should be given to young
1920
unmarried women in a state of pregnancy, in all cases where that was the first occasion upon which relief of that nature, or upon such a ground, was required.
Lord Wharncliffeobjected to the Clause, and described it as another branch of the out-door relief part of the Poor Law Bill. If any case of real hardship, such as the noble Lord contemplated to afford some mitigation or relief to, were to come under the notice of the Boards of Guardians, there was, he would venture to assert most confidently, no doubt whatever, that in all such cases the Guardians would, upon application to the Commissioners, obtain permission to administer out-of-door relief; he therefore objected to the Clause as wholly unnecessary.
Clause negatived.
Lord Teynhambegged to trouble their Lordships again, whilst he stated the object of a second Clause which he had to propose, to the effect that whenever it should be necessary for a married pauper to quit his wife and family, for the purpose of seeking work out of his own immediate neighbourhood, it should be lawful for the Board of Guardians to administer relief to the wife and family of such pauper during his temporary absence. The subject of the Clause which he had just read to their Lordships was one not unworthy of their deepest consideration. On looking at the Returns relative to the number of the vagrant poor, and their committals for having deserted their families, he found that no fewer than 3,930 persons had been so committed, out of whom, the number of those who, it appeared, had left their homes and families with the bonâ fide intention of seeking; work, and of providing for them by their labour, was no less than 3,591. These persons had been considered as equally guilty—many of them, being honest and well-intentioned, industrious labourers, had been punished; the fact of their having left home being construed into an act of vagrancy, and themselves in consequence treated as rogues and vagabonds—and some of them had been accused of absconding with the view of deserting for a permanency their wives and children. What was the effect of such treatment? It was to place a man in the highest degree praiseworthy on the same level in point of guilt and of punishment, with one of the wickedest of human beings. A man loving and cherishing his wife and

1921
family is thrown out of employment, he leaves them for another neighbourhood, in order to find work, and to give them that, subsistence which he cannot procure at home. Having no friends, and being deprived of all resources, he sees the Union Workhouse before him, and he goes away from home to seek for work. This man, acting in the praiseworthy way he had described, and stimulated by the most laudable motives, stood in the situation of a culprit, as far as the Poor Law was concerned. He found himself classed as a person absconding from his family, and charged with an intention never to return to it; and it was frequently, too often he might say, found, that whilst every feeling in such a man's breast was a right and proper one, he was placed in the same category with the guilty person who deserted his family, and punished as such. It was found, practically speaking, that one labouring man was really and truly criminal in this respect, whilst another was only nominally apparently so; and yet the same measure of punishment was awarded to both, for they were confounded together in the eye of the law. If the Amendment which he had to propose were to be adopted, there would be none of the stringency of the Vagrant Act taken away; it would still retain all its force, and persons really culpable, would still be liable to punishment. But what he desired to introduce into the present Bill was an enactment, by which those who could prove to the satisfaction of the Board of Guardians that they intended to provide for the subsistence of their families, by leaving their homes in search of work, and that they had a fair prospect of procuring work by so absenting themselves, should be relieved from the stigma to which they were at present subjected, in consequence of such laudable exertion. And that consideration led him to make another reflection upon the subject, and to ask their Lordships how many labouring men there might not be who, dreading such a charge, or suffering under the consequences of it, would not rather stay at home and remain in idleness at the expense of the parish, than, by leaving their families in search of work, expose themselves to an accusation of that nature. On the grounds, therefore, stated by him, though he was aware the Amendment might be resisted—as, indeed, there might be grounds alleged for resisting
1922
every suggestion—he begged to move the Clause to which he had referred in his opening remarks.
Lord Wharncliffeobjected to the Clause, because it held out a premium to those persons who should hereafter abscond from their families. If the labourer out of work was honest and industrious, and bore a trustworthy character, there would be no difficulty whatever in finding him work in his own parish.
Clause negatived. Bill passed.

COUNTY CORONERS BILL.
Lord Wharncliffemoved that this House do not insist upon their objections to the Commons' Amendments of the County Coroners Bill, respecting the mileage.
Lord Beaumonthoped the House would, not agree with the Commons' Amendments. The Bill, in its present state, had "job" written upon the face of it.
The Marquess of Normanbysupported the Amendments.
Their Lordships divided on Question, "not to insist:"—Content 14; Not Content 14.
The numbers being equal, it was (according to ancient rule), resolved in the negative.*
House adjourned.