Sitting of 16 July 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Corporate Offices; Church Endowment.
2o. District Courts and Prisons.
Reported.—Trafalgar Square.
3o. and passed:—Soap Allowances.
Private.—1o. Ladbroke's Estate; Leeds Vicarage; Werrington, etc. Curacies.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Macaulay, from Society of Solicitors (Scotland), for Alteration of Common Law Process Bills.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from W. Baddeley, against Damage by Fire Bill.—By Mr. M. O'Ferrall, from R. Fitzgerald, Esq., for Inquiry.—By Captain Pechell, from P. Stead, respecting Harbours.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Distillers, for Alteration of Metropolitan Buildings Bill.—By Mr. J. Heathcoat, from Solicitors of Tiverton, against Poor Law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Penshore, complaining of Opening Letters.

METROPOLITAN BUILDINGS.
The Earl of Lincolnmoved the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Metropolitan Buildings Bill.
Mr. Hawesobjected to the Bill. There were extensive alterations, as it appeared by a paper laid on the Table that morning, upwards of 100, which Government proposed to make in the Bill, and it was impossible during the present Session to consider them fully. The same improper course had been adopted with regard to other measures; and if it was intended to proceed with the Bill, affecting as it did important interests, he should move the previous question.
The Earl of Lincolnconsidered the objection taken by the hon. Member one of the most unfair he had ever heard in that House, and it was more particularly unfair as a preliminary objection; as, with the exception of five or six, the whole of the Amendments were merely verbal. These Amendments had been printed, and circulated among hon. Members in order that the business in Committee might be facilitated. It was said that he was acting unfairly in asking them to go into Committee on the Bill; and yet, late last night, or rather early that morning, the hon. Member himself had stated that he had an immense number of Amendments to propose in the Bill, not one of which had been printed. He appealed to hon. Members whether that was not a most un-

913
usual course? It could not be denied that, by having his Amendments printed, he had afforded an accommodation to the House which the hon. Gentleman had not been gracious enough to afford. Having given the House all the facilities in his power with regard to the further proceeding with the Bill before it, he trusted that a due consideration would not be denied it. Under all the circumstances he should regret, even for the hon. Gentleman's own sake, that he should offer any serious obstruction to the progress of a measure which he had good reason to believe would be very acceptable out of doors.
Mr. Hawesmaintained that many of the alterations proposed by Government were not merely verbal, but very substantial ones. He had general grounds of objection to state against the measure, and it was neither more nor less than a measure making war upon the whole trade of London; and the interference proposed was of so vexatious, minute, and intricate a nature, that, if its provisions were generally understood, the House would be inundated with petitions against it. To so much of it as proposed to improve the old Building Act, there could be no objection. But the Bill went much further than this. It even went to the oppressive extent of interfering with the poor man, in repairing and improving his little property. The House had a right to know the expences in the shape of fees and other official charges which the public would have to pay under its enactments. The amount of patronage would be extensive and mischievous. With respect to docks, warehouses, and large buildings in general, the public had already ample security for their strength, stability, and security against fire, as many of them were built under the regulations of Acts of Parliament, and nearly all under the superintendence of competent architects. If the Bill now before the House passed into law, every alteration made in any buildings, or institutions, including the British Museum, must be affected only under the direction of the Woods and Forests Surveyor. The progress of public works and improvements would be checked and impeded by such restrictions. If, for example, the Bill had been in force when the great railway works were in progress, they could not have been constructed without special permission from the Surveyor of Woods and Forests. It also interfered vexatiously with works of
914
a smaller kind. By some of its provisions a man could not build a bridge over a stream on his own ground unless he obtained the consent of the Board of Woods and Forests. If he built it without such permission, every person who walked over the bridge would be liable to a penalty of 500 l. A man would be subject to 500 l. penalty for walking over his own bridge! The Bill proceeded on the absurd hypothesis that the whole body of architects in this country were utterly ignorant of their profession. The franchise, too, would be materially affected by it. In Schedule D, page 77, under the head of party walls, and divisions of buildings, it was directed that in any building divided into two, with separate staircases and entrances, a party wall must be built, and the two compartments be regarded and rated as separate buildings. This would have the effect of extinguishing a great number of 10 l. votes. He (Mr. Hawes) felt sure that such an effect was not intended by the noble Lord. As the law now stood large buildings divided into separate tenements, as chambers or otherwise, were separately rated, and a vote allowed for each; but by the present Bill only one vote would be allowed, unless a separate staircase and entrance were made, and the tenements divided by a party wall. Though the Bill imposed large penalties it provided no appeal. In Clause 18 and 19, it was provided that any building not made in accordance with the Act should be deemed a nuisance, which the Commissioners of Woods and Forests would be empowered to abate by ordering it to be pulled down. And by these Clauses, not only was the builder to be punished by a fine, but every workman employed in the construction would be liable to a penalty of 50 l. The measure would be particularly fruitful in procuring litigation. It ought, at all events, to be postponed to another Session, that the public might at least have time to ascertain and understand how their interests would be affected by it. He must persist in moving as an Amendment the previous question.
Mr. Mackinnon—Sir: having been a Member of the Committee on the Health of Towns, and taking great interest in the subject, and having given some attention to it, I beg to say a few words on the Bill now under the consideration of the House. As far as buildings in Towns were concerned, the attention of the Committee on

915
Public Health was particularly directed to three points which required to be amended by the Legislature. The first was the necessity of allowing a free ventilation of air by not permitting blind alleys or streets not open at both ends to be erected in future, and I trust this measure will be adopted in the present Bill, every street or alley to be erected in future ought to have a way through, not to be choked up at one end, to be what the French call a "cul de sac," it appeared before the Committee that great unhealthiness prevailed amongst the poor in those districts in the metropolis, and in all large towns where such blind alleys or streets were occupied by any class of persons. The next point was, that houses should be ventilated by not being so constructed as to stand back to back; that is, if the front of the house was towards the street or the entrance, the back part should be open towards a yard or some open space, so as to allow a free current of air to pass from the front to the rear of the house, which could not be the case if a house had no open space behind, but in place of it there was another house built up behind, so that by no possible means could any ventilation take place, as no current of air could go through the house. I beg leave to call the attention of the House and of the noble Lord to this mode of building, that it may in this Bill be corrected. The next point that was deemed of the utmost importance was the drainage of houses and streets, that no house should be constructed without a direct communication under ground, either with the main sewer or branch drain leading to such sewer, so that a drain should be formed for every dwelling. That no cess pool or dead well should be under any house or dwelling, or within a certain distance from it, so that no miasma or noisome evaporation or gas should arise from such dead well or cess pool injurious to the health of the inhabitants, which noisome gas has been deemed by medical men (after that arising from churchyards) the most injurious to public health. In stating this, I do not mean to say that this metropolis is not well drained, it is by far the best drained town in Europe, but although much has been done, yet much remains to be done to improve the present drainage of London. Now, in reference to the Bill before us, it does not appear to me that the noble Lord at the head of the
916
Woods and Forests, has considered the several points which I have mentioned. I see a mass of legislative enactments to prevent chimnies from falling on the heads of Her Majesty's subjects, but who ever heard of chimnies falling by dozens on people's heads? Of what use can be this mass of legislation on very minor points and in detail, which ought not to come under legislative enactments. Under these circumstances, Sir, although I feel great repugnance in going against my noble Friend, and am fully aware of the anxiety he has to pass this measure, yet not thinking this Bill is that of my noble Friend, but that it emanates from some builders or architects, who are desirous of framing a job, and of extending the emoluments of their business, thinking it will prove injurious to the interests of the community by placing obstacles in the way of free building, and that no adequate benefit can result from it, I must, though unwillingly, oppose the further progress of the Bill.
The Earl of Lincolnnever saw a more practical illustration of the phrase "extremes meet," than the opposition of the two hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Member for Lambeth made a sweeping attack upon the Bill, and said, it went too far; while his hon. Friend seemed to think that it did not go far enough. He begged to remind his hon. Friend that the recommendation of the Committee to which he had referred, formed the basis of the Bill introduced by the Marquess of Normanby in the other House. After being considered in two successive Sessions, these recommendations were found so objectionable that they were referred to a Select Committee. This Committee took the opinion of architects, practical builders, and other competent persons, and it was then found that scarcely a single Clause of Lord Normanby's Bill could be retained. He had endeavoured to make the Bill as little retrospective as possible. There was no prohibition to placing buildings back to back, and be believed these buildings might be so contrived as not to be injurious to the health of the inhabitants, neither did the Bill include many provisions with regard to drainage, as there was at present a Committee sitting on that subject, and the result of those labours would be a general Bill upon the subject in the next Session of Parliament. The hon. Member for Lambeth had called for the postponement of the Bill, but he (Lord

917
Lincoln) could not see the advantage of such a course, the subject having been already most maturely and fully considered. He had personally consulted persons who were interested in its provisions; he had listened to their suggestions, and firmly believed that the measure as now brought forward, would effect great improvements in the cleanliness and health of the metropolis. He really saw no possible reason for delay. The assurances he had received from metropolitan Representatives, and from other individuals capable of forming sound judgment, justified him in calling on the House to proceed at once into Committee. The hon. Member for Lambeth was strangely inconsistent; he attacked the details of the Bill, and at the same time refused to go into Committee to amend them. The hon. Member (Mr. Hawes) seemed to make quite a point of getting up some plea of objection and opposition to every measure brought forward by Government. He had always some charge of grave culpability to allege against them. He supposed it was the intention of the hon. Member at the end of the Session to indulge the House with a slashing attack on Government, on the ground of the small progress that may have been made in the public business of the country. And if the hon. Member did this, the House would do well to remember that most of the delay would have arisen from the course pursued by the hon. Member himself. The hon. Member had, very unfairly, designated the measure as a war upon the trade of the metropolis. But he contended that it was a useful and valuable measure, and that it interfered as little as possible with trade or with private interests. Great complaint was made by the hon. Member of the interference which he (Mr. Hawes) said the Bill purposed with public as well as private works and buildings, and the hon. Member had instanced the British Museum. Now, the hon. Member was singularly unfortunate in taking the British Museum for an illustration of the truth of his objections; for a request had been made by the trustees of that establishment to include it in the schedule of the Bill, and similar applications had been made with respect to Guildhall, and other great public buildings. Almost the only parties who objected were one or two of the Dock Companies, and these he had declined to exempt for reasons he would be prepared to
918
state, if necessary, to the House. The hon. Member said, that many of the existing lines of railway could never have been completed, had this Bill been in operation at the time they were proceeding with it. But this he would tell the hon. Member, that had it fortunately been the case, they would probably never have heard of, for instance, the late lamentable accident at the Bricklayers' Arms station. He might easily prove the necessity of bringing places of public resort under the operation of the Act. The House and the public had not forgotten that not many years since, a theatre fell in, and a frightful loss of life ensued. He could assure the hon. Member with respect to the object-jection that the Bill would interfere with elective franchise, that no such intention had any part in the framing of the measure. He thought that no lawyer would say that it could have any effect to diminish the franchise. But to avoid all doubt on this point, he should be prepared in Committee to insert words that would probably remove the hon. Member's fears. He would now refer to the hon. Member's objection on the score of the amount of patronage which the measure would place in the hands of Government. Now, patronage was altogether a subject on which he might really say, the present Government was certainly not amenable to blame. It was, perhaps, quite possible for him to retort the charge on the hon. Member, and his (Mr. Hawes's) Friends. But this he was not inclined to do. The principal appointments to be made under the Bill, were the official referees, who must be architects, a registrar, and a clerk; and to call this an extensive addition to Government patronage, was really rather amusing than otherwise. Application had been made to him to increase to seven the number of referees, it being alleged that two could not possibly perform the duties. But he had steadily refused the application. In reference to the penalties and other details alluded to by the hon. Member, the consideration of these details would be more properly deferred till they went into Committee, and he should then be prepared to answer, and if possible to remove any objections that might be offered. The Bill was one of considerable public importance. It was not introduced till after consultation had been taken with many persons of judgment and authority on such subjects.

919
Several architects of eminence and authority Sir R. Smirke, Mr. Barry, Mr. Burton, Mr. Blore, and others, had been consulted. The Bill, he felt convinced, would be found materially conducive to the health, the cleanliness, and general improvement of the metropolis, and he trusted the House would now consent to go into Committee for the purpose of considering its details.
Mr. Tuffnellsaid, the measure was one of too great importance to be brought forward at that late period of the Session, and he thought the hon. Member for Lambeth was perfectly justified in opposing it. It affected every building in the metropolis, and was a most unwarrantable interference with the rights of property. No doubt the surveyors were in favour of the Bill, as it brought them a vast additional amount of business. He was somewhat suspicious as to the parties who were to be appointed official referees. There had been an alteration in the wording of the Clause relative to the qualification of these officers. [Lord Lincoln: It is a purely verbal alteration.] He thought it was a most suspicious alteration. The original words were, "an architect or surveyor," and the words substituted were "of the profession of an architect or surveyor." That looked as if a job was intended for some persons at present in the office who had formerly studied architecture. He believed under that Bill a person could not alter a door or window without sending for the Government surveyor. Under all the circumstances, he would recommend its withdrawal, in order that a good Bill, with a sewerage Bill, might be introduced next Session.
The House divided on the question that the question for the Speaker to leave the Chair be put:—Ayes 39; Noes 5; Majority 34.

List of the AYES.

Allix, J. P.

Flower, Sir J.

Antrobus, E.

Gardner, J. D.

Baillie, Col.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Baring, hon. W. B.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Boldero, H. G.

Greene, T.

Broadley, H.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Henniker, Lord

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Herbert, hon. S.

Cripps, W.

Hinde, J. H.

Damer, hon. Col.

Hodgson, R.

Darby, G.

Hope, G. W.

Egerton, W. T.

Ingestre, Visct.

Eliot, Lord

Jermyn, Earl

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Lincoln, Earl of

920

Meynell, Capt.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Mundy, E. M.

Trollope, Sir J.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Yorke, H. R.

Northland, Visct.

Young, J.

Peel, J.

TELLERS.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Pringle, A.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Lennox, Lord A.

List of the NOES.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Bowring, Dr.

TELLERS.

Buller, E.

Hawes, B.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Tuffnell, H.

House in Committee. Amendments made. The House resumed. Main question agreed to.

REVENUE INQUIRY.
The Chancellorof the Exchequer brought up the Report of the Commissioners of Revenue Inquiry, and said, that as there was a great deal of criminatory matter contained in the Evidence, he thought it would be better to have the Report printed, and to leave the evidence on the Table accessible to every Member of this House. He moved that the Report be printed.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that he did not think it would be considered satisfactory unless the Evidence as well as the Report was printed. They could not judge of the character of the Report unless they had the Evidence also printed upon which that Report was founded. He would suggest that the whole should be printed, and that hon. Members should be made responsible for the circulation of it beyond the precincts of this House. He moved to add the words together with the Minutes of Evidence.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he thought every object would be gained by leaving the Evidence on the Table, to be accessible to all the Members of this House. He thought that this would be a much better course than to run the risk, by printing the Evidence, of giving unnecessary pain to certain individuals, who would, no doubt, feel aggrieved by the imputations which were cast upon them.
Motion and Amendment withdrawn. Report laid on the Table.

INSURRECTION IN DOMINICA.
Mr. Hawes, seeing the noble Lord the Secretary of the Colonies in his place, wished to ask him whether he had received any accounts from the Island of Dominica? He had been informed that martial

921
law had been proclaimed in consequence of injudicious management on the part of the persons appointed to take the census of the population. One of his correspondents stated that more than 150 labourers had been arrested, tied together, and dragged to gaol, that three were killed, many more wounded, and in one case the head had been severed from the body, and raised on a high pole. Some of these disturbances arose in consequence of the authorities, who were taking the census of the island, not having taken proper precaution to inform the people of the nature and object of the census. They thought it had something to do with slavery. By a dispatch in 1839, Lord John Russell had exempted teachers in schools from serving in the militia. He wished to ask whether that dispatch remained in force, and whether under ordinary circumstances they were now liable to serve? Of course, on extraordinary occasions all who were capable of carrying arms ought to serve.
Lord Stanleysaid, that on the 3rd of last month, according to accounts which he had received, disturbances broke out in the island of Dominica, in consequence of the very absurd misapprehension which prevailed amongst the negro population that the census about to be taken in that colony was an attempt towards restoring slavery. He believed the revolt was principally headed by some refugees from French and other colonies, and by some newly-arrived Africans. It was almost immediately put down. Parties continued to commit some disturbances and outrages for four or five days. It was thought proper by the local authorities, to proclaim martial law. By the last accounts which he had received it appeared that the disturbances were completely at an end, and he had no doubt that, on the following day, martial law would be removed. In acknowledging the receipt of these dispatches he had noticed, with one exception, the general good conduct of the militia. He alluded to the placing a head upon a pole, and had expressed his regret at such an occurrence having taken place. He did not believe there was any ground for the general charge of cruelty; on the contrary the women and children who were taken were immediately released, and the trial of the others would be proceeded with, not before an extraordinary tribunal, but in the ordinary course of the
922
law. He had no doubt that by this time peace was entirely restored. With respect to the alleged exemption of the teachers of certain schools from serving in the militia, he had inquired whether there existed any dispatch of Lord John Russell's such as that alluded to, and he found that that noble Lord had, in 1839, sent out a dispatch, expressing his hope that some provision would be made for the exemption of those teachers from serving in the militia in the island of Jamaica, but that the dispatch had never been intended for or applied to any of the other West India Colonies. At the same time he might state that he had not heard of the schoolmasters in question in Dominica expressing any unwillingness to serve in the militia.
Mr. Hawesreferred to a letter apparently written by one of these gentlemen, who stated that on his arrival in the island in 1839, he was informed that the teachers of the schools in question would be exempted from militia service. If there was any misunderstanding in the matter, he hoped that it would be cleared up.
Subject at an end.

SLAVE TRADE.
Viscount Palmerston:*—Sir, In rising to move for the Returns connected with the Slave Trade, of which I have given notice, and to the production of which I presume that no objection will be offered, I wish to make some observations upon the Slave Trade itself; a subject of great interest and importance, not indeed new to this House, but which has now, for nearly half a century engaged the attention of the Parliament and people of this country. Almost all the men who, during that period of time, have been most eminent and distinguished in this country, whether on one side or on the other of this House, whether within or without these walls; have exerted the best energies of their minds to put an end to this abominable crime. And their labours have not been vain. They succeeded in rescuing this country from the foul stain of Slave Trade, and as a natural and necessary consequence soon followed the abolition of the condition of Slavery itself, throughout the dominions of the British Crown. These great results, however, were not accomplished without much labour, and a long lapse of time; the
* From a Pamphlet published by Hatchard.

923
descent to evil is rapid and easy; the return to good is hard and slow; and if there are nations who are still imitating our downward course, and who have not yet resolved to follow our upward footsteps, we should look upon their errors with more indulgence than we might otherwise feel, when we remember what long and painful efforts it cost us, to wean ourselves from these detestable practices. But, on the other hand, if there be nations, and many there are, who have entered with us, by the stipulations of treaties, into engagements, having for their object the putting down of this crime, we should be making ourselves again partakers in this guilt, if we were to release any of those nations from the smallest particle of their engagements. Many years have now passed away since those investigations took place, which, by laying bare in all their hideous deformity the disgusting atrocities connected with the prosecution of the Slave Trade, brought round the minds of men in this country to resolve that England at least should cease to be polluted with this crime. Those details are now well nigh forgotten; and though most men have a general knowledge that Slave Trade is a cruel thing, and that it is barbarous to tear men by violence from their homes, their families, and their country; to transport them by force across the Atlantic; and to doom them to pass the remainder of their shortened lives in painful toil, under the lash of a foreign tyrant;—though these things are known and felt by all, yet few can form to themselves any adequate conception how intense is the degree, and how extensive the range, of the cruelties of which the Slave Trade is the cause. It is difficult to ascertain, with any approach to certainty, the cumber of negroes who are annually landed on the islands and continent of America, to be there consigned to slavery. The Returns for which I am about to move will furnish the best information that can be obtained on this subject; but that information can only be acquired through our consular agents, our Slave Trade Commissioners, and our naval officers. The governments of the countries in which those negroes are landed, publish no returns; bat, on the contrary, endeavour to throw the veil of secrecy over such transactions. These Governments are those of Spain and
924
Brazil, for it is to Cuba and to Brazil that these importations take place. But both Spain and Brazil are bound by treaties concluded with us, to prohibit all their subjects from engaging in, or being concerned with the Slave Trade in any manner whatsoever, and they have, in pursuance of those treaties, promulgated laws denouncing severe punishments upon such of their subjects as may have anything to do with the Trade. But these Governments notoriously set at nought their engagements, and systematically disregard them, while they permit their own laws to be daily and openly violated with impunity. They endeavour, therefore, to conceal the importations which they connive at, and the information which we obtain about them must be necessarily imperfect. One thing, therefore, is certain, that the Returns which we receive must fall short of the truth; they cannot exceed it. Now, what is the number of negroes supposed to be annually landed in America? Mr. Bandinell, of the Foreign Office, in his able and valuable work on the Slave Trade, compiled from official documents, and comprising, in a small compass, more useful and authentic information than almost any work that has yet been published, calculates the number at something between 120,000 and 130,000. Sir Fowell Buxton, in his most interesting work on the Slave Trade, states the number at 150,000; but whether the one or the other number be assumed to be correct, what an enormous amount of human misery and of human crime does this single statement involve. When we look at an abstract statement on paper, conveyed in arithmetical figures, the mind is scarcely able to embrace within its grasp all the details and the full extent of the facts of which the knowledge may be so communicated. But let any man consider for a moment what an enormous mass of people 150,000 men amount to, and what an extent of ground they would cover. Many men have seen large armies; but few have seen an army of 150,000 men assembled in one spot, and at once within the reach of the eye. But let any one imagine that he saw 150,000 human beings drawn up on a great plain, and that he was told as they marched past him that they were all travelling to the same doom; that this vast living mass of fellow-creatures was driven on to suffer painful and premature death, under every variety

925
of bodily and mental torture. Let him further fancy himself told that this was not a single or an accidental calamity, but that every succeeding year the same ground would again be trodden by the same number of victims hurried forward to the same melancholy fate. What would be the just indignation that would burn within his bosom, and what would be the fervour with which he would call down the vengeance of Heaven, not only upon the authors of such enormities, but upon those who having the power to prevent such crimes, had culpably neglected to do so! But any man would be much deceived who should suppose that the number of negroes annually landed on the coast of America, could be taken as a full measure of the number of human victims annually sacrificed to the avarice and cruelty, I will not say of Christian men, for Christians they deserve not to be called, but of men belonging to Christian nations. It is calculated, and I believe not without good reason, that for every negro thus landed in America, two others have perished in the preceding stages of the slave-making process; so that we must multiply by three the number actually landed, to arrive at the total number annually swept away by the Slave Trade from the population of America. It is well known that the negroes are not in general collected from the immediate neighbourhood of the place where they are embarked. They come from the interior, and are marched down great distances to the coast. Some are captives taken in wars; in wars often waged for the express purpose of acquiring the gain to be made by the sale of prisoners. But the greatest number are obtained by the system of slave-hunting and man-stealing, which for the supply of the Slave Trade prevails all over the interior of Africa. The way in which that system is carried on, is this: when the time of year comes round for sending down the slave caravan to the coast; at the dead of night, some peaceful African village, whose unsuspecting inhabitants are buried in that repose, which nature has kindly bestowed upon man to fit him again for the useful occupations and for the innocent enjoyments of the succeeding day; at the dead of the night, some such African village is suddenly surrounded by the armed ruffians of some neighbouring chief. The huts of which the village consists are set on fire;
926
the inhabitants, roused from their sleep by the flames by which they are enveloped, rush forth; see their assailants and endeavour to escape capture, some by flight, others by resistance; but all equally in vain. The fugitives are intercepted and caught. Those who resist are over-powered, and either slain or made prisoners. Sometimes a hill village is attacked; there the intricacies of the ground afford greater facilities for escape, and some make good their flight to neighbouring caverns, or to hiding-places on the summit. The caverns are besieged, fires are lighted at their mouths, and those who have sought shelter there, are forced to choose between suffocation within and captivity without. The wells and springs upon which the people depend for their supply of water, are occupied; and those who have found a temporary safety in the higher grounds, are compelled by the unendurable torments of thirst to come down, and barter their liberty for a few drops of water. Then comes the selection. The hale and healthy of either sex, and children above six or seven years old, are set apart for the slave caravan. The aged and the infirm, the infant torn from its mother's breast, the child wrenched from its parent's grasp, are murdered. To march these down to the coast would be impossible, and if possible, profitless; to maintain them would be costly; and to leave them to die of hunger when deprived of those by whose labour they had been supported, would be too cruel even for slave-hunters. They are, therefore, at once despatched, and they are the least to be pitied. Their sufferings are over, those of their surviving friends and relations are only about to begin. When a sufficient number have thus been selected, the caravan sets out. Men, women, children, half naked, barefooted; the weak urged on by the goad and the lash, the strong restrained from escape by yokes and chains, are driven hundreds and hundreds of miles across the burning sands of the plain, and over the stony passes of the mountain to the place of embarkation. Hunger, thirst, fatigue, despair, disease of body, and agony of mind, make dreadful havoc in the caravan. Some drop down dead as they go; others, unable to keep up, are left behind to die the lingering death of hunger and of thirst, or to become the prey of the wild beasts of the desert; others, more mercifully

927
treated, when sinking under their fatigue, are knocked on the head and put out of their pain at once. Multitudes thus perish, and travellers who have visited the interior of the country tell you, that you may trace the march of these slave caravans across the pathless desert, and find your way to the wells that make their halting places, by the hundreds and thousands of human skeletons that lie bleaching and mouldering on the ground. At last the caravan reaches the place of embarkation, but it often happens that the slave ship is not arrived, and the negroes have to wait many days, and perhaps weeks, for its arrival. In the interval they are cooped up in crowded huts called barracoons, imperfectly clothed, fed, and medically cared for. The fatigue of the march begins to tell even upon those whose strength had held on to the end of it; diseases break out, and many deaths ensue. At length the slave ship arrives; the captain lands, and inspects the negroes. He picks out those whose apparent health and strength give promise that they will outlive the voyage, and be saleable at the market; the weak and sickly he rejects. Those whom he selects are embarked; those whom he rejects are either put out of the way at once, or left to perish on the coast by disease and want. It is reckoned that whatever may be the number of negroes thus embarked, at least an equal number have previously perished, in the seizure, the march, and the detention; and thus, if 500 are put on board the slave ship, 500 others have already been sacrificed in the preceding stages of the process. Then comes the voyage; and then begins a scene of suffering and of horrors, greater than anything that has gone before, and greater than any man who has not been an eye-witness, can either imagine, or attempt to describe. Whatever the size of the slave ship may be, whether great or small, whether fifty tons or five hundred, the slave captain takes on board a fourth or a third more negroes than the vessel can properly contain. Such is, and such always has been the practice. It is founded upon a dry arithmetical calculation. It is done on the same principle according to which a man who sends a pipe of wine from Madeira to England to go round by the East Indies, sends a quarter cask with it, in order that the waste by leakage and evaporation may be filled up, and that the
928
pipe may still be full when it reaches its destination. The slave captain knows, that however careful he may be in choosing his negroes, some, who are apparently healthy, will yet have imbibed the seeds of diseases which will break out and prove fatal during the voyage; and that others who are quite sound when they embark, will yet, from change of food, of habits, and of temperature, sicken during the passage, and die before they reach the port. He, therefore, takes on board a number of supernumeraries, to fall into the vacancies to be created by these casualties, so that he may still have a full cargo on arriving at his market. But this very arrangement aggravates the evils, against the effects of which it is intended to provide. The crowded state of the vessel makes all the causes of disease act with infinitely greater force; sea-sickness, ophthalmia, fever, dysentery, small-pox, make ravages among the negroes, and hardly a day passes but that bodies are thrown overboard. But is it dead bodies only that are thrown overboard? I am sorry to say not. The living as well as the dead are often consigned to the bosom of the deep. Sometimes the progress of disease is rapid. The negro who is well to-day, sickens at night, and is a corpse to-morrow, and in such cases the course is plain. But it often happens that the disease is of a more lingering kind; and then the keen and experienced eye of the slave captain foresees in the early stage of the malady that the poor negro, though he may struggle on for a week or a fortnight, must inevitably die before the ship reaches the port, or if he should live till then, would be unsaleable in the market. But he also knows that during the remaining days of his suffering the negro will go on consuming provisions which are valuable, and money's worth; he will at all events lose the price he has paid for the negro and the cost of his subsistence up to that time; why should he needlessly increase that loss? He resolves not to do so; he determines to save his provisions; and overboard goes the living negro. This is by no means an uncommon occurrence; it was not uncommon, I am ashamed to say, even in ships of this country, before our slave-trade was abolished. There is on record the case of the ship Zong, commanded by a man of the name of Collingwood, which sailed for Jamaica in 1781, on board of which it

929
was proved in a Court of Justice, that a transaction of this kind took place. The ship had a large cargo of negroes; she missed her course; her water ran short, and her negroes grew sickly. The captain reflected that the negroes who died would be a loss to the owners; but he thought that if he could make it appear, that a certain number were necessarily thrown overboard for the safety of the ship, their value might be recovered from the insurers; accordingly, he resolved to throw overboard those who were the most sickly, and the least likely to live to reach the port; and in three nights 132 of the negroes were thrown overboard alive. Many negroes are lost by shipwreck, and a remarkable instance of this kind happened in 1819. I have stated that the ophthalmia often breaks out in the slave ships. In 1819, this disorder raged on board the French slave ship, the Rodeur, bound with a cargo of negroes to Guadaloupe; the disease was so virulent, that only one man in the ship's company retained his eyesight sufficiently to be able to steer the ship. In this condition the Rodeur fell in with another large vessel, full of people, but apparently drifting at the mercy of the winds and waves. The vessels came within hail; the strange ship was St. Leon, a Spanish slaver, full of negroes; the people on board said that the ophthalmia had broken out also among them, and that there was not a single man on board who could see well enough to steer or work the ship. They begged for assistance, but none could be given them. The ships parted; the Rodeur reached Guadaloupe; the St. Leon was never heard of more. Sometimes calamities of a different kind occur. I have already stated how small and inconvenient the places are, in which the negroes on board these slave ships are confined. The bottom of the hold is filled with the casks, which contain the water and provisions for the people on board; over these casks is spread a platform, composed of rough unplaned boards, laid loosely together, and upon this rough and splintery surface the naked negroes are obliged to lie. Sometimes even this poor accommodation is denied them, and nothing but a few mats are spread over the uneven surface of the casks, and the negroes are to fit themselves to the inequalities of the surface as they can. The distance between this platform and the
930
upper deck of the vessel, varies according to the size of the ship; it is scarcely ever more than three feet and a half, and sometimes it is barely two feet, and a half. Into this black hole the negroes are thrust like so many bales of goods; linked two by two, with fetters, to prevent them from crushing each other by moving about; and so crowded together, that, as stated by a witness examined before a Committee of this House, in 1791, the negro in the hold of a slave ship has not as much room as a man has in his coffin. It may well be imagined how vitiated must be the air breathed by so many lungs; how intense must be the heat created by such an aggregation of living bodies in so small a space, under the vertical rays of a tropical sun; and how pestilential the effluvia occasioned by the circumstances of their confinement and condition. In order to mitigate these inconveniences, by admitting as much air as possible below, the hatch-ways of slave-ships are made larger than those of merchantmen, and are covered by open gratings, instead of with close hatches, and some have air-ports beside. In fine and even in moderate weather, these arrangements, to a certain degree, answer their purpose; but the slave-ships sometimes encounter a violent storm, the sea runs high and breaks over the vessel, and then the hatchways must be nearly closed, or the ship would fill and go down. Then ensues a scene of horror, of struggle, of agony, of death, which I will not attempt to describe. The results of such a calamity are related by the rev. Mr. Hill, in his pamphlet, called "Fifty Days in a Slaver." The captured slave-ship he was on board of, was overtaken by a storm; the hatchways were closed, and fifty-two negroes out of about four hundred died in one night, suffocated by want of air, or strangled in their struggle to get near to the small opening still left for the admission of air. Mr. Hill imagines that this was a singular instance, and that the misfortune arose from the inexperience of the prize crew, who were not accustomed to deal with such emergencies. But I fear be is mistaken. The loss of life was, indeed, greater, in consequence of the negroes having been released from their fetters, which would have prevented them from struggling so much with each other; but when slave-ships meet with storms, which not unfrequently happens, the

931
hatchways must be partially closed up, and many negroes die by suffocation. It is calculated, that from all these causes, about a third of the negroes that are embarked die during the passage; and if this third of the 500 embarked be added to the 500 assumed to have died in the seizure, the march, and the detention, it will be seen that for every negro landed, two others will have perished in the previous stages of the slave-making process; and thus, if 130, or 150,000 negroes have been landed annually in America, the yearly ravage committed on the African nations must amount to something like 400,000; and if this has been going on for the last century, how many millions must during that period have been swept away from the population of Africa. Why I will venture to say, that if all the other crimes which the human race has committed, from the creation down to the present day, were added together in one vast aggregate, they would scarcely equal, I am sure they could not exceed, the amount of guilt which has been incurred by mankind, in connexion with this diabolical Slave Trade. And is it not, then, the duty of every government, and of every nation on whom Providence has bestowed the means of putting an end to this crime, to employ those means to the greatest possible extent? And if there is any government and any nation upon whom that duty is more especially incumbent, is not that government the government of England, and are we not that nation? Political influence and naval power are the two great instruments by which the Slave Trade may be abolished; our political influence, if properly exerted, is great, our naval power is pre-eminent. Much, certainly, has been done in this matter in former times; and the British nation may look back with just satisfaction at the perseverance with which the efforts of Great Britain on this subject have been made, and at the partial success with which those efforts have been attended. The late Government did its duty in this respect. When we came into office in 1830, we inherited the fruits of the labours of those who had gone before us. We found Slave Trade under the British flag entirely abolished; we found it prohibited by law under the flag of France, and the traffic to the French colonies nearly extinguished; but a most extensive use of the French flag was still
932
made for carrying on the Slave Trade of other countries, and the French government had never consented to a treaty for that mutual right of search, which would have enabled our cruizers to put an end to that abuse of the flag of France. We found Spain, Portugal, and Brazil bound to us by treaty, to prevent their subjects from engaging in any way in the slave-trade; but Spain only, out of the three, had, by a law which was proclaimed in 1817, prohibited the traffic, and that law was openly violated. Portugal and Brazil had not even gone through the form of publishing any law against the traffic. We found treaties for the suppression of the Slave Trade, and for a mutual right of search for that purpose, in force with the Netherlands, with Sweden, and with Denmark; those treaties had been perfectly effectual, and no slave-trade was carried on under the flag of either of those three powers. A short time before we came into office, very important events had happened in France. A sovereign had ascended the throne, who owed his crown to the free choice of a free people, and the government was administered by men deeply embued with the spirit and principles of liberty; we thought that we might confidently appeal to such a sovereign and to such a government to co-operate with us in putting down this detestable slave-trade; and we did not appeal in vain. The French government of that day cheerfully and readily acceded to the proposals which we made them, and a treaty was concluded, by which the two countries gave to each other a mutual right of search, under specified restrictions, any merchant-vessels of either country, suspected of being engaged in the Slave Trade. That treaty was immediately successful, as far as regarded Slave Trade under the flag of France, and from that moment the French flag was rescued from the disgrace of being a cover for that crime. Let it not be imagined that this Treaty was not attended by a sacrifice of national feeling on both sides. Let it not be supposed, as some have endeavoured to represent, that the sacrifice was entirely on the side of France, and that France made on that occasion some concession to England. I respect national feeling, and the strong national feeling of the French is a very honourable part of their character; but I trust we have national feeling as well as they; and any man is greatly mis-

933
taken, who fancies that it was not quite as great a sacrifice on our part to permit our merchantmen to be searched by the ships of war of France, as it could possibly be on the part of the French, to allow their merchantmen to be searched by the ships of war of England; and I am certain that we never should have thought of consenting to render our merchantmen liable to be searched by the ships of war of any foreign power, except for the accomplishment of so great and generous an object as the suppression of the Slave Trade. But to the great honour of the two countries, they laid aside, on that occasion, all petty feelings of mutual jealousy, and joyfully concurred in the pursuit of a noble object, which both governments had equally at heart. In Spain, events had occurred of a character somewhat similar to those which had happened in France. Ferdinand died in 1833; and upon his death a change look place, in what for a century before had been the usual course of succession to the throne; and a contest arose between a princess, representing the principles of constitutional government on the one hand, and a prince identified with despotism on the other. The British Government, sympathising with a great nation in their efforts to obtain rational freedom, threw the weight of England into the scale of the Queen and the Constitution; and by the support thus given, they enabled the constitutional cause to triumph. We thought the Spanish Government owed us a debt of gratitude, which we might justly call upon them to pay. And how did we demand payment? Not by taking advantage of the weakness of Spain to extort from her any sordid or mercenary advantages for England, political or commercial; we demanded a better treaty for the suppression of the Slave Trade. We called upon those who were engaged in a glorious struggle for their own emancipation from political servitude, to join us in endeavouring to rescue the unoffending people of Africa from slavery infinitely more dreadful. My noble Friend, Lord Clarendon, then British Minister at Madrid, exerted on that occasion those talents and that zeal for which he is well known to be remarkable, and he succeeded in obtaining a treaty, which was concluded in 1835. That treaty gave us all the powers of search, which by treaty we could acquire for the suppression of that
934
Slave Trade under the flag of Spain, which had been prohibited and rendered penal by the law proclaimed by the sovereign of Spain, in December 1817. This treaty was a great discouragement to the Slave Trade, and gave it an immediate check; and whereas, in 1835, 40,000 negroes had been imported into Cuba; the importation, in 1838, fell down to 28,000. The course of events in Portugal was similar to what was happening in Spain. In Portugal also there was a disputed succession; there also the contest lay between a queen and constitutional government on the one side, and an usurping uncle and despotism on the other. There, as in Spain, our influence was exerted on the side of liberty; and there, as in Spain, the party attached to liberty prevailed through our assistance. We made the same appeal as to Spain, but not with the same success. The slave-traders were stronger in Lisbon than they had been in Madrid. But perhaps it is fair to say, that if our negotiation for a Slave Trade treaty had been carried on in Cuba, instead of in Spain, we might have been as unsuccessful as we unfortunately were in Portugal. Having failed in all our endeavours, we came to Parliament and stated our case; we showed that by existing treaties Portugal was bound to do what we asked, and we proved that she refused compliance. Parliament saw that the case was good; and gave us by law those powers which Portugal had declined to give us by treaty. That was a great step towards the suppression of the Slave Trade, which became no longer safe under the Portuguese flag. Another thing tended much to discourage the slave-traders. These people establish their barracoons, or slave-dépôts, upon the territories of the native chiefs along the coast of Africa. Some disputes with the people belonging to some of these barracoons, had led some of our naval officers on the coast to land, and destroy some of these barracoons, leaving the goods contained in them to the native chiefs, and carrying off the negroes for emancipation to Sierra Leone. We sanctioned what had been done, and ordered it to be repeated under similar circumstances. Nothing ever struck more dismay into the slave-traders, and many of them were preparing to withdraw their capital from an employment which was becoming too dangerous, and to transfer it to some safer investment.

935
By these various means we did effect, as far as can be judged of from official returns, a great diminution in the number of negroes annually landed in Cuba and Brazil. The number reported as having been landed in 1838, was, in Brazil, 94,000, and in Cuba, 28,000; making a total of 122,000. But the numbers so landed in 1840 were, in Brazil, 14,470, and in Cuba, 14,244, making in all 28,000, and being 83,286 less than the number which had been landed only two years before. Nor was this a single or an accidental diminution; for in respect to Brazil, it is stated by Mr. Bandinell, that the number imported into that empire, in 1838, was 94,000; that in 1839 the number fell to 56,000; and that in 1840 it was reduced to 14,244; while the number imported into Cuba, which in 1835 was 40,000, fell, in 1838, to 28,000; in 1839 to 25,000; in 1840 to 14,470; and by other accounts it seems to have further sunk, in 1841, to 11,857; and in 1842 to the comparatively trifling amount of 3,150. Thus it appears, that as far as the information in the possession of Parliament can be relied upon, the measures which we took did effect a great reduction in the number of slaves annually transported from Africa to Cuba and Brazil. But, besides all this, we laboured with great zeal, and with much success, in increasing the number of Christian Powers engaged in the general league against the Slave Trade. We obtained mutual Right of Search Treaties from almost every American state, except the United States of North America. We added Naples, Tuscany, and Sardinia to the European confederacy, and we intended to have gone farther. The Slave Trade treaty, which we concluded with France, in 1838, contained an article by which the two Powers engaged to invite all the other maritime states to accede to it; and, accordingly, England and France applied to Austria, Russia, and Prussia, Powers who had been parties to the declarations made against Slave Trade at the Congresses of Vienna in 1815, of Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1818 and of Verona in 1822, but who had not as yet actually concluded any treaty for the suppression of that trade. Not that the subjects of either of those three Powers were ever suspected of being engaged in Slave Trade; but the slave-traders of other nations, when deprived of the protection of
936
other flags, might fraudulently find shelter under theirs. Those three Powers replied that they adhered entirely to the declarations which they had signed; that they approved of the treaty which had been concluded between England and France; and would willingly sign a treaty, word for word the same. But as a matter of diplomatic etiquette, they wished to be originally contracting parties to a new treaty, instead of being merely acceding parties to a treaty already concluded between two other powers. England and France cordially accepted their co-operation on the condition so specified, and we set to work to draw up a new treaty. But the British Government thought that this afforded them a proper opportunity for correcting an imperfection in the French treaty, which, though it did not diminish the efficiency of that treaty, for the purpose of putting down the Slave Trade under the French flag, would have in some degree rendered it less effectual in regard to the Slave Trade of other nations. The geographical limits within which the mutual Right of Search is to be exercised under the French treaty, are zones of sixty miles radius round the coasts of Cuba and Porto Rico; along the coast of Brazil; all round the coast of Madagascar, and along the western coast of Africa, from fifteen degrees north of the equator, to ten degrees south. These limits exclude a considerable portion of the western coast of Africa south of the equator, where the Slave Trade is carried on for the supply of Brazil; and they do not include any portion of the eastern coast of Africa, where the Slave Trade extensively prevails. We therefore proposed to the French Government, to adopt in the new treaty, which was to be signed by the Five Powers, the larger limits mentioned in the treaties with Spain and with the Netherlands, and which included the whole of the eastern and western coasts of Africa, and the whole of the West Indies and of the eastern coast of South America. The French Government consented, and I, on the part of Great Britain, in conjunction with the French plenipotentiary, proposed a treaty so drawn up, to Austria, Russia and Prussia. After a good deal of negotiation about matters of detail, this treaty had been substantially agreed to by all the Five Powers, at the time when we were going out of office, and it might

937
then have been signed within the number of days necessary for writing it out in proper form. On two trifling points exemptions were asked for by Prussia and Russia, in regard to their timber ships, and to the Russian vessels engaged in she North American trade. I should not have refused to yield, if necessary, on those points; and that done, there was no other difficulty in regard to that Treaty. Now, that Treaty was calculated to be productive of important advantage: first, as associating with the league against Slave Trade the three great Powers, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, whose flag might have been fraudulently assumed by slave traders, though their own subjects never had engaged in the trade; and, secondly, as forming the foundation of a great European league against Slave Trade. It was our intention, when that Treaty should have been concluded, (and indeed an article was inserted for the purpose,) to have invited all the other powers and states of Europe to accede to it; and when it had thus been converted into a general European League, we should have proposed to our allies, the powers and states whose feelings and opinions on Slave Trade would have been embodied in that Treaty, that confederated Europe should have presented itself to the United States Government, entreating it to accede also to the league which we had formed. I will not presume to affirm what would have been the result of such an entreaty, but I think it fair to assume that it must have produced some effect. When the Government and people of the United States saw all the powers of Europe banishing from their minds all jealousy of each other in the pursuit of a generous object; when they saw England, France, and Russia, the three great maritime Powers of Europe, giving each other freely and without suspicion a mutual Right of Search; when they saw Austria and Prussia, two great commercial Powers, but destitute of any navy of their own, permitting, without fear or hesitation, their ships of commerce to be searched by the ships of war of their great maritime neighbours; when they saw all the smaller states of Europe engaging without the slightest apprehension of abuse, to submit their flags to be searched for this great end; when we, the states of Europe, should have exhibited to the Americans such a spectacle of mutual confidence,
938
and such an abandonment of selfish feelings for the attainment of a noble purpose, is it not fair to assume that the United States, who had themselves, in 1823, proposed to all Europe and to the rest of America a Treaty very nearly identical with ours, though they afterwards changed their mind, must have been induced to do something effectual to assist in suppressing the Slave Trade, and especially to prevent the yearly increasing abuse of their flag for the protection of slave traders. Such was the state of things when we went out of office in the first days of September, 1841. I am concerned to say that from that time to this, as far as my knowledge, and that of the public extends, these matters, instead of advancing, have gone rapidly backwards; and great strides have been made by the present Government, not towards the suppression of the Slave Trade, but towards its revival and encouragement. First of all there was that Treaty between the Five Powers which was on the point of being signed, and the signature of which we were given to understand was delayed by the French Government, only that it might be reserved as a compliment, for those who were about to succeed us in power. Now, if that Treaty had been signed within a fortnight, three weeks, or a month of the time when the present Government came into office, the two months allowed for the exchange of ratifications would have elapsed before the meeting of the French Chambers, those ratifications would have been exchanged as a matter of course, and the Treaty would now have been in full vigour. But great was my surprise when Parliament met, and when the Treaty was laid on the Table, to find that it had not been signed till the latter end of December, 1841, nearly, four months after the present Government came into power. I will not impute blame where I cannot show that blame is due; and this long delay may have arisen from causes beyond the control of the British Government; it is for them to show that it did; and hitherto no explanation on this point has been given. But the delay was peculiarly unfortunate in its consequences. The French Chambers met before the two months allowed for the exchange of the ratifications had elapsed; and General Cass, the American minister at Paris, foreseeing probably the embarrassment which that Treaty might eventually create for his

939
own Government, and thinking, no doubt, that it was his duty to avert that embarrassment, set to work and put every engine in motion to prevent that Treaty from being ratified by France. Pamphlets were industriously circulated; the press was excited; debates were got up in the Chambers; national jealousy was roused; ancient enmities were revived; the war party was called into action; the slave traders of Nantes were brought into play, and an address was voted to the Crown. But what was that address? Was it an address praying the Crown not to ratify the Treaty? By no means. That address assumed that the Treaty was to be ratified, for it prayed the Crown that in the execution of that Treaty, due care might be taken of the honour and interest of France. But a Treaty cannot be executed until it is ratified; and therefore that address assumed that the ratifications of that Treaty would be exchanged. The French Government, however, thought that this address, and the debate by which it was preceded, justified them in refusing to ratify the Treaty. Now I will venture to say that this refusal of theirs was the most signal departure from a diplomatic engagement that has happened in Europe for a great number of years. It is an established principle of diplomatic intercourse, that a Government is bound to ratify the engagements contracted in its name by a duly accredited Plenipotentiary unless it can show that such Plenipotentiary has acted without instructions or against instructions; the formality of a ratification being expressly established to protect Governments from being entrapped into engagements which they had disapproved or had not authorised. In this case, however, neither of these reasons could be alleged. The Treaty had been signed by the French Ambassador in London, in pursuance of specific instructions to do so; and the French Government had itself been a consenting party to all the previous steps of the negociation. But they justified their refusal by quoting an analogous case stated to have then lately happened between the King of Prussia and the King of the Netherlands, in regard to a commercial Treaty relating to Luxembourg and the German Customs Union; and as to the ratification of which, the King of the Netherlands, in consequence of remonstrances from his Luxembourg subjects, had demurred. But the
940
King of the Netherlands, upon further consideration, did ratify that Treaty, and that example, therefore, does not bear the French Government out. Now, I am far from saying that this refusal of the French Government to ratify their Treaty ought to have been a cause for estrangement or even for coldness between the two Governments. There were other and more pressing interests at stake, which required that the cordiality existing between the two Governments should not be interrupted by that event. But at the same time I do think that it was the duty of the British Government to record by some formal diplomatic note their protest against this entire departure from the established usage of diplomatic intercourse between European nations. But no such protest was made. We have it on the authority of a statement from the French minister himself in the Chambers, that the British Government made no complaint or remonstrance on the subject. I think, that looking at this transaction merely as a precedent for the future, I am entitled to say that the British Government did not do its duty when it abstained from placing such a protest upon record. The moment the French ratification of that Treaty was refused, of course there was an end of all idea of a European League; and accordingly, although the Treaty was ratified by Austria, Prussia, Russia, and England, the British Government has never yet thought of inviting Belgium, Hanover and Greece, to accede to it, although those States have flags which might be made use of by slave traders; and as to making any joint application to the United States of America, the refusal of France to ratify, put such a thing entirely out of the question. Surely this was a great step backwards. It may have been no fault of the Government, but only their misfortune; it is for them to show this; but there is no denying that this was a retrograde stride made during their management of public affairs. Then came a letter written by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office to the Board of Admiralty, in May, 1842; and which by some means or other found its way to the public. It was a letter on the subject of those proceedings which we had sanctioned and encouraged on the coast of Africa against the slave barracoons. The letter really, and in fact, says little, but it appears to imply a great deal, and

941
it produced a very injurious effect. The letter does not, indeed, distinctly affirm that the proceedings which we had authorised and directed, were against the law of nations, but any man who reads it loosely must believe that such was the impression which it was intended to convey. That letter did not, indeed, direct the Board of Admiralty to forbid our naval officers from continuing the proceedings which we had directed them to undertake, but it was well calculated to create a belief that such proceedings would not in future be allowed. The only thing that is positively stated in that letter is, that the Lords of the Admiralty are to forbid naval officers from applying in their despatches the term "blockade" to the operations carried on in Africa for the suppression of the Slave Trade; and that one and only thing which the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office positively forbids our naval officers from doing, has nevertheless been since done by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, who announced to us in the beginning of the Session that he was going to establish a rigid and complete blockade for the suppression of the Slave Trade, along the whole of the coast of Africa. This letter produced a great sensation among the slave dealers. We had woried and harassed them, and fairly worn their hearts out by the measures which we had adopted. I heard from various sources of information that they were universally dejected, dispirited, and dismayed, and were withdrawing their capital from their old pursuits. That letter, written at such a crisis, must have greatly encouraged them, and must have made them believe that the present Government intended to leave them alone in peace and quiet, and not to imitate our meddling policy, by which the slave-traders had been so much annoyed. I look upon this as a great misfortune. Then again there came the Ashburton capitulation, by which we not only surrenrendered a great extent of territory which rightfully belonged to us, but gave up of our own accord all claim to demand from the American Government a faithful execution of that Article of the Treaty of Ghent, by which the United States bound themselves to use their best efforts in conjunction with us for the extinction of the Slave Trade. I do not mean to say that the next Administration would not be at
942
liberty to repudiate that interpretation of the Washington Treaty; but towards the present Government, the United States would have a good answer to any demand for anything further in regard to the Slave Trade. Well, then, I may safely say that the present Government has at least been most unfortunate in their proceedings on these matters, and that things have happened under them which have fended to raise the drooping spirits of the slave-traders; and I much fear it will be found that the number of negroes imported into Cuba and Brazil, in 1843, has greatly exceeded the number imported in either of the two preceding years. The Returns which I am about to move for, will show how that matter stands. It is very likely that we may be told to-night, as we have been on former occasions, that Her Majesty's Government are most sincerely anxious to put this Slave Trade down, and intend to use every possible degree of activity for that purpose. I have an entire belief of their sincerity; but I wholly doubt their activity. I am sure they are sincere on this matter, because every Englishman must be so, but I put no trust whatever in their energy and exertions. They are going it seems, to blockade the whole coast of Africa; our cruisers are to be withdrawn from the West Indies and Brazil, and our whole force is to be concentrated on the African station. I have no doubt this may be thought a good plan by officers who have been employed on the coast of Africa: they have there seen the evil in its origin, and think chiefly of the means of preventing it there; it is quite natural that they should think, that the best thing that can be done, is to station the whole of our watching force on the coast of Africa. But I should like to know the opinion of officers who have served in the West Indies, and on the coast of Brazil; and if the right hon. Baronet can tell me that those officers concur in the expediency of transferring the whole of our force from thence to the coast of Africa, I could not well set up my opinion against that of such practical men. But, as at present informed, it does not appear to me to be folly to lose one chance out of two of intercepting the slave-ships. As to really blockading the whole extent of the coast of Africa with the force which the British Government, even united with that of France, can command, aye, even if assisted

943
by the eighty guns which the United States have promised to send, such a notion is quite absurd. To talk, indeed, of effectually blockading such a vast range of coast as that which extends from the northernmost point on the west, where the Slave Trade begins, round to the northernmost point on the east, where that traffic ends, is to promise a physical impossibility. That which can be done is to increase the number of our cruisers, to give them smaller ranges of space to work upon, and thus to render their vigilance more effectual. But the difficulties they have to contend with are great, and some parts of the coast are so studded with islands, with good anchorage within them, that a cruiser running along the coast, may go within a mile of a slaver lying in one of these nooks, and taking slaves in, without being able to see her. In fact, the number of places where negroes may be embarked is so great, that to establish along the whole coast a blockade in the sense in which we are accustomed to speak of the naval blockade of sea-ports would be impossible; and if, in order to attempt this impossibility, all our cruisers are withdrawn from Brazil and from the West Indies, a slaver who could escape the watching squadron on the coast of Africa would have a fair run for it across the Atlantic, and would go in perfect security to the port of her destination. But have Her Majesty's Government considered the difficulty which will arise in regard to this arrangement from the narrowness of the geographical limits for the mutual Right of Search in the Treaty with France? These limits, in respect to the coast of Africa, are, that part of the western coast which lies between latitude fifteen degrees north, and latitude ten degrees south. But there are nearly fifteen degrees of latitude further south of the line on the western coast, and I know not what extent on the eastern coast, where the Slave Trade is much carried on but where we have no mutual Right of Search with France. This does not much signify as long as we have cruisers in the West Indies and on the coast of Brazil; because if a French ship were to attempt to carry on the Slave Trade from these parts of the coast of Africa, she could not indeed be meddled with in the beginning of her voyage, but on her arrival on the coast of Brazil, or in the West Indies, where we can exercise the Right of Search, she would be in dan-
944
ger of falling in with our cruisers; and of being searched, detained, and delivered up for punishment to the tribunals of her own country. The fear of this deters French ships from engaging in this trade. But if our cruisers are withdrawn from the West Indies and Brazil, while, by the refusal of France to ratify the Treaty of 1841, there remains a large portion of the African coast to which the mutual Right of Search does not apply, it is highly probable that the greater part of the Slave Trade of Brazil will be carried on in French ships, and we shall be entirely unable to meddle with or to stop it. I think this point deserves the attention of Her Majesty's Government; and it will be no answer to me to say, that the parts of the African coast to which the mutual Right of Search, given by the French Treaty, does not extend, will be watched by French cruisers; because, with every respect for the naval service of France, knowing as I do, that there is not in the French nation the same feeling about Slave Trade which happily prevails in England, I cannot for this purpose place the same reliance on French cruisers that I should upon our own. I shall not now discuss again the notable project of the Government for putting down the Slave Trade by an adjustment of the duty on sugar; by prohibiting the importation of slave-grown sugar into this country, while we are to raise the price of that sugar in the market of the rest of the world, by taking a large quantity of free-labour sugar out of that market. That matter has been sufficiently discussed already, and if that scheme is to be our main dependence, I fear there is but a small prospect of any diminution of the Slave Trade. We have heard much of late about the cordial understanding and perfect agreement which subsist between the Governments of England and of France. No man can rejoice more than I shall ever do at seeing the best understanding, the most intimate friendship, and the closest alliance established between England and France. I know well that a real and sincere friendship between these two great Powers must, if properly applied, be productive of great advantage to them, and of infinite benefit to the rest of the world. But as yet, I am concerned to say, I do not think the fruit has been worthy of the tree. The only practical result which has hitherto arisen from this Union has been, that po-

945
pular institutions in Spain have been for a time put down, and that a military despotism has there been erected upon the ruins of constitutional freedom. Now, I would have the union of England and France directed to nobler and more generous ends—I would have them unite to set free the slave, instead of combining to enslave the free. England and France, when united for a lawful and just purpose, have a power which is irresistible. Who are the offending parties in this matter? Spain and Brazil. Portugal is only an aider and abettor. She does not import slaves, she conveys them, and indeed the export of negroes is one of the chief branches of trade carried on from some of her African possessions. But Spain and Brazil are the principal offenders. These two Powers have contracted with us engagements in the most solemn form, of the most stringent character, binding them to prevent their subjects from carrying on directly or indirectly this infamous traffic: they have both of them promulgated severe laws against Slave Trade, in pursuance of those engagements, and we have a right to insist that those laws shall be carried into execution. Let England and France, if they are united, as I wish them to be, address themselves to Spain and to Brazil, and employ the whole weight of their united influence to obtain from those two Powers a true and complete fulfilment of the engagements which we are entitled to require them to keep. A blockade of the whole coast of Africa is a chimerical attempt, but if the Government are so bent on blockading, I could suggest a better application of that measure; and I will venture to say, that if they were only to try it for a short time upon the Havannah, and on Rio Janeiro, they would find it produce the most satisfactory results. But if England and France are really united, and choose to exert in unison that powerful influence which they can wield, it is impossible that they should not accomplish some great and immediate result. In the way of laws, Spain and Brazil have done almost all that can be necessary, if those laws were only put into effect. Ferdinand of Spain, in December, 1817, in pursuance of the Treaty which he had signed with this country in September of the same year, promulgated a law by which all his subjects, whether in Europe or America, were forbidden from going to the coast of Africa to buy slaves under pain of the fol-
946
lowing penalties:—That every negro so purchased should be taken from the purchaser, and should be declared free at the first Spanish port at which the vessel conveying such negroes might arrive; that the ship and her remaining cargo should be confiscated; and that the purchaser, the master, and some of the other parties on board, should be condemned to ten years imprisonment in some fortress in the Philippic islands; and this law is still in force. The Emperor Don Pedro, of Brazil, promulgated in November, 1831, a law very similar in effect, and Brazil is bound by treaty to treat and punish Slave Trade as piracy. If these laws were enforced, the Cuba and Brazil Slave Trade would soon be at an end. I do hope then that the union of England and France, of which we have heard so much, will be directed to the accomplishment of an object which will redound to the glory of all Christendom. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government stated on a former occasion that one of the great motives which led him and his Colleagues to undergo the toils, and vexations, and harassments of office, (and they who have been themselves in office know that burthen is not light,) was the desire and hope of obtaining thereby posthumous fame. I am sure the right hon. Baronet did not by that expression exclude from his view the desire and the hope also of that approval of a satisfied conscience, which is the certain reward for duties well performed; I am sure he did not mean to exclude that higher sanction, in comparison with which all human approbation sinks into utter insignificance; but the right hon. Baronet stated, that, one of his objects, and a fair and honorable one it is, was the hope of acquiring fame in after ages. They, however, who are charged with the Government of a great nation, can obtain fame only by conferring some great benefits on their own country, or on the rest of mankind. Now the peculiar position in which the present Government stands renders it difficult for them to do the first. They cannot emancipate the commercial industry of the country, nor open to us that full career of prosperity on which we might be able to enter; they are prevented from doing that, by the prejudices of the great body of their supporters. They cannot lay the foundations of any large and liberal system of education for the great numbers who are every year rising up in the manu-

947
facturing districts in the darkest ignorance, intellectual, moral, and religious; they are prevented from doing that by prejudices which they themselves partake. They cannot give contentment to the six millions of Catholics who inhabit Ireland: they are prevented from doing that by obstacles which they themselves in former times have contributed to create. They cannot take a leading part in the settlement of any great European question, if any such should arise in their time, because, dissatisfied apparently with the front rank position in which they found the country when they took the helm, they thought it more consistent with the modesty of our national character that Great Britain, under their command, should drop quietly astern, and take up her berth in the wake of all the great Foreign Powers. But there is one field still open in which they may gather unfading laurels; they may abolish the Slave Trade. In their efforts to accomplish that great end they will be thwarted by no resentful supporters, by no disapproving opponents. They will have the country unanimously with them, and the will of this great nation, when unanimously expressed for a noble cause, is able to accomplish great results. If the present Government shall have to say that they succeeded, in their time, in extinguishing a foul traffic, for the suppression of which those who had gone before them had laboured for many years, and with only partial success, they will bequeath to posterity a name that will live in the grateful remembrance of the most distant ages. But if it shall justly be laid to their charge, that whereas the Slave Trade had been much checked, and nearly extinguished by the efforts of those who preceded them, it had in their time acquired fresh life, and had again reared aloft its hideous and gigantic head, they will indeed attain an everlasting fame, but it will be a fame in comparison with which the most perfect and entire oblivion would be deemed an enviable lot. The noble Viscount concluded by moving an Address for—
"Return, showing the total number of African Negroes landed for the purposes of Slavery on the Islands and on the Continent of America, from the year 1815 to the year 1843, both inclusive; distinguishing the number so landed in each of those years, and distinguishing also the number landed in each year on the territory of each separate State or Power, so far as the same
948
can be made up from Documents in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, also, Cases adjudged under Slave Trade Treaties, and number of Slaves emancipated in consequence at Sierra Leone, Rio de Janeiro, Havannah, Surinam, and other places respectively, from the year 1829 to the year 1844."
Sir R. Peel: Sir, I could hardly have inferred from the modest terms in which the Notice of the noble Lord who has just sat down is worded, that it would have afforded him an opportunity for making the rhetorical display in which he has just indulged—a more harmless Motion than that which I read on the notices of this day I can hardly conceive. The noble Lord calls for, "A Return, &c." [The right hon. Baronet read the Motion.] Why, really, Sir, a more innocuous Motion never yet was made in this House, and it reminds me of the course pursued by the noble Lord in former Sessions, when, after a period of comparative inactivity, he was wont to come down to this House not for the purpose of stimulating or inviting Ministers to activity, but in order to deliver a factious speech in making a Motion to which the most captious Minister could not raise the slightest objection. I recollect that at the early part of the Session the noble Lord exhibited some inclination to deliver the speech which the House has just heard. I give him credit for the extent and fidelity of his memory. Having, so long ago as the 11th of March, entertained this intention, the noble Lord has, notwithstanding the multitude and variety of public business that has intervened been the present time and that period, not only retained the recollection of his Motion, but also the very words in which it was put forward. The noble Lord had, at the date I have referred to, a Motion on the Paper, which was of importance. On the 11th of March, I find a Notice of Motion—
"That an humble Address to be presented to Her Majesty, representing that this House, sharing the deep abhorrence with which the people of this Country regard the Slave Trade, most earnestly beseech Her Majesty not to consent to any alteration or modification of any of the Treaties now in force between Her Majesty and Foreign States, for the suppression of the Slave Trade, which by weakening the means which those Treaties now afford for the prevention of that piratical offence, might tend to render more easy the perpetration of that detestable crime."
Now, the object which this Motion was framed to effect was, I admit, most im-

949
portant; it was nothing less than to ask the House of Commons to request Her Majesty to reject all proposals for the modification of the Treaty relative to the Slave Trade between this country and France. The noble Lord wished the House of Commons, by the expression of its opinion, to restrain the exercise of the Queen's Prerogative; but the noble Lord had met with very little sanction to such an attempt on the part of those who generally act with him. The noble Lord himself seemed to shrink from his own attempt. Week after week of the Session passed over and the noble Lord postponed his Motion as they passed, always promising to bring it forward, but as often shrinking from the fulfilment of his promise, as he observed amongst those around him symptoms of the disapprobation with which his course was viewed. The noble Lord persevered in renewing his Notice, till at length the noble Lord was fortunately relieved from his Notice by the House being counted out on the night when he was to have brought it forward, that very circumstance being sufficiently indicative of the opinion which his own immediate Friends and supporters entertained of the Motion. The noble Lord, I must confess, appeared to me to be greatly relieved when he was thus extricated from the dilemma in which he had placed himself; for, notwithstanding the perseverance with which he constantly renewed the Notice of his Motion, he had the good sense to abstain from bringing it forward at last. At the same time the noble Lord was unwilling to lose the speech which he had prepared for the occasion; and he has now, in my opinion, pursued a much wiser course by not provoking the opinion of the House in opposition to the Royal Prerogative, while we have reaped all the advantages which we should then have derived from listening to the noble Lord. I shall, in dealing with this question, separate all those parts of the noble Lord's speech in which he refers to the Slave Trade, from those parts of it in which he has indulged in reflections on Her Majesty's Government. It is most important that upon those points on which men of all parties cordially concur we should express that concurrence in a way that cannot be mistaken, and that we should not permit our party or political differences to affect the weight and authority which we may
950
carry when there is a common concurrence upon such a question as that of the abolition of slavery and the Slave Trade. In all the first part of the speech of the noble Lord, I most cordially concur. I do believe that this is the most iniquitous traffic that was ever carried on; that it engenders more misery—that it stimulates more crime—than any public act ever committed by any nation, however regardless of the laws of God or man. I do not believe that the noble Lord has the slightest wish to exaggerate; but I think the noble Lord has perhaps rather over-rated the number of slaves landed upon the coast of America at the different periods to which he has referred. Possibly I may differ from him on the point that the number of slaves amounted to 150,000. Perhaps it might rather be estimated at 100,000. But, however that might be, if my estimate be more correct than that of the noble Lord, I still fully concur with him that the number landed is no test whatsoever of the misery inflicted upon the people of Africa by the continuance of the Slave Trade. I do not believe that the noble Lord overrates the number sacrificed in the attempt to gain property in the blood and sinews of these unfortunate men. In what light I ask must we exhibit ourselves to these savage nations—what must they conceive of the doctrines and precepts of that common religion which we profess, when Europeans descend to become parties in this iniquitous traffic. And that I consider to be one of the great evils attendant upon the Slave Trade, that it is an impediment to the diffusion and spread of Christianity, for surely savage people never can believe those men to be really impressed with the truths of the religion they profess, when they can be parties to the infliction of so much human misery as that which is the consequence of the perpetration of these crimes. I say too, with the noble Lord, and it ought to be known, that there are two countries and two only, which are now mainly responsible for the continuance of those crimes. There is on the part of every civilized country, with the exception of these two, a desire to co-operate in the suppression of the trade in man. If Spain and Brazil would zealously apply themselves to the suppression of the Slave Trade in those parts of the world within which they can exercise jurisdiction, my opinion is that the Slave Trade might be, and would be suppressed. France,

951
Portugal, and also Denmark—to her honour be it spoken, she led the way; she set the example—the United States, this country, Russia, Prussia, Austria, every power is ready to co-operate in the suppression of the Slave Trade. But whilst these two countries oppose themselves to the abrogation of that traffic, no effectual progress can be made in abolishing it. The public guilt is upon their heads, who derive a profit from this trade, and who are therefore unwilling to suppress it. It can be shown that these two, Spain and Brazil, are the only countries which lend their sanction to the trade, and are the only two who derive a profit from it. They have the power of suppressing the trade, and without their assistance it will be almost impossible to suppress it. Whatever the exertions we may make, whatever the zeal and gallantry of our officers and men, whatever the sacrifices we may impose upon the people of this country for the accomplishment of the object, it is almost impossible for us, nearly unaided as we are in active exertions, to suppress the trade on the coasts of Brazil and Cuba. But we can do much, we have done much, though perfect success we cannot hope for without the co-operation of Spain and Brazil. Whatever may be the public burthens we are willing to incur, we are constantly counteracted and defeated by the connivance and evasions of the local authorities. It would be easy to show that Spain and Brazil might, if they chose, suppress the trade. Brazil made the effort in 1840 and 1841, and the effect was immediate during the period that the Government of Brazil and the authorities acting under the direction of that Government did actively interfere, and did discourage this traffic. During that period there was a great diminution in the number of slaves imported into Brazil. With respect to Cuba, the experience of the last two years proved conclusively that if an honest and active Governor were in earnest to set his face against the Slave Trade, he would, notwithstanding all the incitement to its encouragement which avarice and love of gain interpose, be successful in its ultimate abolition. I do think that the gallant officer who recently administered the affairs of Spain, I mean General Espartero deserves, together with the Government of which he was so distinguished a member, the utmost credit for the efforts which were made to
952
carry the law against the Slave Trade into effect. He appointed an officer, who proved to be a most honourable man, to take the command of the Island of Cuba—General Valdez—who refused to participate in the gains which his predecessors had shared with the slave traders, and who also called all the planters and merchants before him, in order to acquaint them with the orders of his Government, and of his determination to discourage the continuance of that trade. General Valdez adhered most strictly to this determination as long as he administered the Government of Cuba, and the result, I am informed upon the highest authority, was most extraordinary and satisfactory. During the year 1842, when that officer was at Cuba, the importation of slaves did not exceed 3,100, it having been 14,000, in the first year that General Valdez was Governor of the Island. In the second year of his Government the number was reduced 8,000, and in the year 1842 it had fallen, as I before stated, to 3,100. I have thus shewn that when the Government of the Brazils in 1841 acted honestly and exerted itself to suppress the Slave Trade the effort was successful; and that when the same determination was manifested by the Spanish Government, an honest Governor acting on its instructions was able to suppress it most effectually in Cuba. These instances furnish in my opinion decisive proofs that without the authority of those Governments being interposed for the purpose of putting an end to this traffic success is totally impossible, and that with their concurrence the trade may be speedily and effectually put down. I, therefore, without hesitation, charge the Governments of Spain and of the Brazils with being the sole abettors and encouragers of this crime among all the Christian Powers of the world, and with being exclusively responsible for the sufferings it causes. I do most earnestly hope that the Governments and people of those two countries will, with that regard which is due to their professions of Christianity, feel the grievous responsibility that now rests upon them: that they will consider themselves to be under the eyes of all Europe, and that they are now the only nations calling themselves Christians amongst whom this crime still prevails. But, if higher considerations will not sway them, and if by such motives as those which I have urged

953
the people of Spain and the Brazils will not abstain from this inhuman traffic; if, I repeat, motives of gain are found to prevail over the dictates of justice and humanity amongst them; then let me warn those who persist in this course of the crimes which they are committing, and of the retribution which is certain to follow upon such offences against God and man. Let me remind them of the examples which have been recently afforded of slaves rising in insurrection, let me warn the Government of Spain of the condition of Cuba, where the tenure of power over slaves is more than precarious—where those unhappy beings have been known to declare that death even was preferable to the intolerable evils of slavery—where the application of torture to those who had rebelled had only elicited the confession that slavery itself was the state to which they were irrevocably opposed. The feelings which prompted them to rebel were not those of dissatisfaction at any particular law, or at being obliged to perform a certain amount of labour, or at having to move from one place to another, but the total denial on their part of the right of one man to hold another in slavery, a sentiment which it is stated is now spreading throughout a slave population that exceeds in number those who hold them in slavery. They are animated it is said, by a determination to emancipate themselves, and the most determined amongst them, and the most active are, those who have been most recently brought from Africa, and who, though entirely uneducated, and unable to form a general combination are smarting under the pangs which they had endured in being torn from their homes and their families. They have communicated the sentiments which I have described to their fellow-sufferers, a great impulse has been given to the negroe mind, and if higher and purer motives fail to influence the Governments of Spain or the Brazils, those of interest and policy must force themselves on consideration. What I am now stating is the truth and nothing but the truth, with respect to the state of the slave population in Cuba, and the feelings which I have described to exist there, are only repressed by the military, and by the extreme rigour of the law, which is enforced and sustained in a manner, which I shall not here stop to detail, but which only confirms my impression with respect to the future. I therefore,
954
viewing all these circumstances, think it right to make this appeal, in the face of the British Parliament, to those two nations who are now alone responsible for the continuance of the traffic, and I make this appeal, but more on consideration of duty and of submission to the declared will of that Great Being, whom they in common with ourselves forget to worship, than on considerations of sound policy and enlightened self-interest. I trust I have said enough to show that public men in this country are not disunited when they approach this great question, but that on both sides of this House we are alike the organs of public opinion in England. That public opinion reacts upon other parts of the world, and being thus expressed, must add to the difficulty and danger that attend the prosecution of the traffic in slaves. I now approach the consideration of the very invidious contrast which the noble Lord has thought proper to draw between the conduct of the present Government and of the Cabinet of which he was a member. Whatever difference there may ultimately be proved to exist between the lines of conduct respectively pursued by us with regard to this important subject, there is none to be found in our principles; and, whatever may be the accusations against me of the noble Lord, I shall certainly not deny him the credit which is due to the efforts made by him to induce other countries to join this in making an attempt to suppress the Slave Trade. I am, however, fully prepared to defend the acts of Government in this respect also. The great ground upon which the noble Lord's strictures were based was, the conduct of the Government in regard to the last treaty entered into with France in 1841 for the suppression of the Slave Trade. In the year 1838, France concurred with this country as to the policy of inviting the other European states to unite in suppressing the Slave Trade, and of inducing them to join in a common league for this purpose. France was, at that time, willing to concede the Right of Search. No objection was offered by her on the score of national honour. We called upon France to make no sacrifice, in this respect, which we were not prepared as a nation to concede to a much greater extent. France must admit we had no motive in suppressing the Slave Trade except a sense of public duty, and that

955
no country could suffer more, if considerations of national dignity were to interpose, on account of the extent of our marine, and consequently the greater frequency of the visits to which we must be subjected. France, therefore, did give, not a reluctant, but a cordial assent to the proposal to enter into a common league, and for the right of search. The noble Lord said the treaty was made ready for signature, and was signed on the part of the French Government by the representative of that Government having full authority; there was no allegation that that representative had exceeded his power; and certainly, under the ordinary rules which governed transactions of this description, we had a fair right to expect that a treaty so signed would have been ratified. So far as the King of the French and the Government of France were concerned, I believe every honest effort was made to fulfil that expectation. But certain feelings of national pride did oppose themselves to the ratification of that treaty, and for raising those feelings I hold the noble Lord responsible. Before the ratification of that treaty, that important event occurred which interrupted for a time the cordial and friendly relations between France and this country. I will not enter into the policy of the treaty of July, 1840—it is beside the present question; nor will I enter into the policy of the campaign in Syria. But engagements were entered into between this country and three others, to the exclusion of France, with respect to Syria. Whether that were a politic treaty, or whether it were not, I have merely to state the fact, that it was the sole cause of the representatives of France having placed obstacles in the way of Ratifying the Slave Trade Treaty, and I must here declare that those obstructions did not proceed from the Government or the Court there, but were bonâ fide the effect of popular sentiment, which the King of the French could not restrain or suppress. Can the noble Lord have forgotten the debate which took place in the French Chamber relative to this matter. Can he have forgotten the speech of M. Thiers on this subject? M. Thiers said,
"He was not the Minister, either in 1838 or 1839, when this arrangement was first in contemplation. He was however informed by their Ambassador at London that the protocol was signed and everything arranged for the
956
signature of reciprocal engagements relating to the Slave Trade. But (said he) I wrote to the Ambassador of France that I was about to examine this matter,—that I had a long time neglected and but little understood it; but, for myself, I had the greatest reluctance to sign a treaty with a Government which had so conducted itself as that Government had done with respect to the treaty of the 15th July."
In the same speech M. Thiers also added,
"He was quite ready to admit that from 1831 to 1838 might have been notice sufficient to justify the concession then made; but he did not understand how, in 1841 and 1842, after the treaty of the 15th July, the enormous concessions contained in the treaty relative to the Right of Search would be justifiable."
That was the opinion of the Minister of France, speaking in the year 1842, respecting events which occurred during his Government. The language of M. Berryer and other heads of parties was of the same tenor. Then, I say, if we could not get a ratification of the Treaty signed in December, 1841, the noble Lord is the cause of its non-ratification. The Treaty of the 15th July, 1840, which interrupted our friendly relations with France, was the cause of that excitement in the public mind which, being represented and having its effect in the Chamber, prevented the Government from ratifying the Treaty. The noble Lord said he would not call upon us to go to war on account of the non-ratification of the Treaty. If the noble Lord admits that, I must say I doubt the policy of further remonstrance if we are not ready to follow it up with something more decisive. The noble Lord may pride himself on the Syrian campaign, and the Treaty of the 15th of July, but he is the last person who ought to taunt the present Government with difficulties which have arisen on account of the hostile feelings which the noble Lord's measure occasioned in France. Year after year in the Queen's Speeches the noble Lord took credit to himself, and congratulated the country on the maintenance of a good understanding with France. It is for the noble Lord therefore to state, and I have never yet heard it fully stated, what were the reasons which interrupted the understanding of which for many years the noble Lord was so justly proud. The next point which the noble Lord urged as a proof that we had not made those advances towards effectually suppressing the

957
Slave Trade, which he considers we were bound to do, is the fact of our not having taken the same view that he did with respect to the barracoons on the coast of Africa. The noble Lord described his proceedings very summarily, by stating that he gave the officers in command of the cruising vessels stationed there orders to seize the barracoons, carry off the negroes they found in them, and to destroy those receptacles without regard to the strict letter of the Law of Nations, or being too nice in that respect. No doubt we are a powerful country, and it is possible to land on the coast of Africa and destroy these places, but it is important for us to ascertain whether the Laws of Nations or Conventions justify such acts as these. They may be savage nations, and may make no demands on us, but there are European interests on the coasts of Africa; and if we choose to disregard the laws which govern the intercourse between nations, we may have to decide whether we will persevere in the acts we have committed, resolved to sanction or defend them at all hazards, or on complaint acknowledge that we are wrong and make compensation. The ordinary course in such points is to take the opinion of the legal authority who is the adviser of the Crown in civil matters. This very question was referred to the Queen's Advocate. He was told that we were most anxious to exercise every power we possessed for the purpose of destroying these barracoons; that it was said that no law gave us a right to do this; that if lives were lost, and we could be amenable to any tribunal, we should be chargeable as murderers; and he was asked whether the Law of Nations justified us in destroying these barracoons. His opinion was to this effect; "Unless you have a convention with the native African princes, you are not entitled to destroy the barracoons; this is not an act of piracy which the Law of Nations would take notice of, and if a murder be committed, you will be responsible for the Act." Under these circumstances, we did think it right to give information to our naval officers that if they did destroy these barracoons they would do it without sufficient legal authority, and we did advise them to abstain from it until they were justified in it by the circumstance mentioned by the Queen's Advocate, as it was the opinion of that authority that unless we had a treaty with the native princes, such an act was not justify-
958
able. But, at the same time, we informed them, that "Wherever you can make such a treaty—with the free will and consent of the native princes—in that case the destruction of the barracoons is justifiable." Now I ask, under these circumstances, whether there is good grounds for the noble Lord's imputations on the Government? I say ours is the wiser course. The noble Lord might perhaps liberate here and there a thousand slaves, and alarm the slave-traders of Cuba by exercising powers beyond the law. But, in my opinion, it is better to exhibit ourselves to the native African princes as bound by the same rules with other Powers, and that whatever may be the extent of our power, we will not effect even good and laudable objects except in the spirit of law and justice. The next point to which the noble Lord referred, was a measure which he appeared to think was eminently absurd—and that was, the increase of the naval force on the coast of Africa, to prevent the departure of vessels laden with slaves. The noble Lord may be able to form a very competent opinion on that point, but, I can only say, that if he denounces this as an ineffectual measure, his opinion varies from the opinion of various distinguished naval officers, who have served on the coast of Africa, and who concur in representing to the Government, that the most effectual measure that can be adopted for the suppression of the Slave Trade, is to have a force stationed on the coast of Africa, whose efforts should be directed to prevent the departure of slave ships. That is the opinion of Captain Matson, who I believe is a most distinguished naval officer, and most competent to form a judgment upon this point. The noble Lord seemed to think it disqualified that gentleman that he had served on the coast of Africa; but I cannot conceive any better means of qualifying a man to form a good opinion on the subject than such a service. Captain Matson says the present arrangements on the coast of Africa are most inefficient. You appoint separate commands, he then explains, but the Slave Trade is carried on; that there is a constant communication over the whole coast of Africa between the confederates of the Slave Trade; that they just watch an opportunity when our vessels are at a particular part of the coast; that they convey their information by means of signals, and then carry on

959
the Slave Trade: but, says Captain Matson,—
"If a greater force than there now is were placed there under a superintending control, no notice given of the particular station to which they were allotted, but to occupy various positions, and to watch the whole coast, he would undertake to say that in two years you would do more to suppress the Slave Trade than if five times the same force were sent out to the coasts of Brazil and Cuba."
Captain Denman gives his opinion in the very same terms; he is an officer equally distinguished, having great experience on that coast, and he details the mode in which the Slave Trade is carried on, in which these wretched beings are brought to the coast for the purpose of being shipped to Cuba or Brazil, and he gives the same opinion as Captain Matson. Captain Tucker speaks in the same way. These three distinguished officers then, without any concert between them, but each giving their own spontaneous views of the policy to be adopted, come to the same conclusion, and say that it is in vain to have large vessels with masts that can be seen at a great distance, advise smaller vessels to be employed, and ask for permission to purchase the Portuguese vessels which were condemned there; that was the only mode in which they thought an effectual check could be put to the Slave Trade. Acting then upon that authority, and knowing how great the line of the coast is, we have felt it to be our duty to make this experiment, and in a rigorous manner; in order to suppress the Slave Trade. But this was not the opinion alone upon which the Government acted—we did not take it for granted that this opinion must be correct—the authority to which we referred this point was the honoured authority of my right hon. Friend, Sir George Cockburn, and who, I believe, having seen the statements of these naval officers, took time, as his habit is, to consider the subject, and not to give a precipitate opinion, and upon that opinion we came to the conclusion, not that we should inevitably suppress the Slave Trade, but that there would be a greater chance of doing it by an increase of ships on the coast of Africa than on the coast of Cuba or Brazil. I appeal then to the House, whether or no the imputations which the noble Lord has thrown upon the Government are not without foundation, and whether the unfavourable con-
960
trast which he has drawn between the acts of the present Government and their predecessors is not founded in error? I am not aware there is any other point which the noble Lord mentioned in connexion with the suppression of the Slave Trade, but at the same time I must observe that the noble Lord is wrong in supposing that it follows as a matter of course, that because we are to have a larger force on the coast of Africa, we must withdraw all precautions from the coasts of Cuba and Brazil. There is this great advantage in having a large force on the African coast,—that if you are acting on the coast of Brazil or Cuba, there is a constant demand upon you for the application of your power to other purposes—with every wish to make a great sacrifice to suppress the Slave Trade, yet upon those coasts some demands will be made connected with the protection of the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects, to which you cannot but pay attention. There is a war between Buenos Ayres and Montevideo, the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects are in danger. The force destined to take precautions against the Slave Trade in Brazil is suddenly required to leave the station to which it is appointed, and so far to interfere as to prevent any injury to Her Majesty's subjects. You may say they ought not to attend to these requisitions, but I am afraid that according to the ordinary course of affairs there would be a temporary withdrawal of any force you might station off Cuba or Brazil; and, therefore, you would have a greater chance of continued action in Africa from its local position than you could have from Brazil or Cuba. It does not follow that we should give up all precautionary measures in Cuba or Brazil; but I agree with the noble Lord, that if we entirely withdrew our force from these places and trusted altogether to precautionary measures in Africa, there would be a great fear of evasion, and that ships might be laden with slaves. I should, therefore, by no means advocate an immediate cessation of precautionary measures in Cuba or Brazil. But considering at what great cost and sacrifice this country has undertaken this duty of police, a feeling of honour, duty, and independence ought to induce Brazil and Spain to undertake for themselves their share of it, with a view to the positive prohibition of the Slave

961
Trade. The noble Lord referred in the course of his speech to the good understanding that exists between France and this country, and the noble Lord says, he is always glad that a good understanding should prevail; but he spoke in terms which seemed hardly calculated to improve or strengthen it. I also entertain the same opinion on that point, and I am sure that it cannot be forwarded by any compromise dishonourable to this country. But at the same time, if with regard to their mutual interests that good understanding between France and England can subsist, it is essential to the interests of civilization, of peace, and of the welfare of the whole civilized world. I believe that it is the earnest wish of the great body of the people of this country to maintain that good understanding so long as they can do so without any sacrifice of honour, or the essential interests of the country. I believe that that is the predominant feeling of this country, and although it may be subject to occasional taunts of making concessions here and concessions there, yet I believe that the feeling of this House and the country is to support the Government in the maintenance of that good understanding, subject to the conditions I before stated. But the House must be aware to what each of these two parties, the Government of France and that of England, is exposed in pursuing that steady, and I think honourable course. In this country we used to be taunted for concessions which we made to France—in France they were taunted for concessions which she made to England; and there are parties who seem to have their own peace of mind disturbed by any such good understanding, and desirous to do everything in their power to inflame and to taunt, forgetting the honour of their own country, and throwing every impediment they can in the way of that course which leads to an honourable peace and the preservation of mutual interests. Then, says the noble Lord, it is a great misfortune we did not unite for the purpose of inviting Brazil and Spain to abolish the Slave Trade. I give credit to France for desiring that abolition. I believe she had as sincere a desire for promoting the abolition of the Slave Trade as this country. I am quite sure that her interest is not opposed to that abolition. I believe the wishes of her enlightened Government are in fa-
962
vour of it, and were France united with us in inculcating on Spain and Brazil the necessity of their observing treaties, I assure the noble Lord that it would not be neglected by us. We have brought before the Spanish Government the conduct of the present governor of Cuba in dishonourable contrast with the conduct of General Valdez, and we have told the Governments of Spain and Brazil that we must insist on the fulfilment of the treaties we have made with those two countries, which imposed upon them a duty, not merely a moral duty, but a duty which they have contracted with us to perform, and for which we have given an equivalent, a duty imposed upon them, not by a moral consideration merely, but the obligation of a Treaty, to adopt such measures as would lead to the abolition of the Slave Trade. Then the noble Lord says he wishes we had combined with France to release the oppressed from their fetters, but not to enslave the free. Where can the noble Lord find any ground for that imputation that there was any combination between France and this country to enslave the free? Does he think it can be for the interest of France or of this country, governed as they are by free institutions, to see a despotic Government established in Spain? For my part, I wish that Spain may be governed by free institutions. I believe that such institutions under the superintendence of a limited monarchy is the best guarantee of peace of Spain with other countries, and of her restoration to that high position which she once occupied amongst the nations of the world; and France, I think, can have no other advantage with respect to those institutions than this country has. But does the noble Lord think it would have been right for us to have interfered actively for the maintenance of General Espartero in Spain? I hold the character and services of General Espartero in high respect. I think he was an honourable man—that he was doing his duty towards Spain, and being determined to obtain for it a constitutional government, he would not assume to himself powers at the time of a political crisis which the constitution forbad him to assume. Probably his forbearance and moderation, unsuited to Spain, may have led to the termination of his rule; but whatever our grateful acknowledgments to General Espartero may be for the friendly feelings he manifested to this

963
country—whatever our respect for his forbearance and determination to govern according to the Constitution, and for his intention to place the power in the hands of the infant Sovereign when she was entitled to exercise it, and to abdicate for himself all the powers he held, with all these acknowledgments — if the noble Lord means to say that we should have actively interfered to maintain General Espartero in Spain,—that we should have actively interposed there, I totally differ from the noble Lord upon that point. I think that no country should resort to that kind of domestic intermeddling. I conceive then that the imputation thrown out by the noble Lord upon the Government, that they have combined with France to enslave the free, so far as it applies to Spain was as groundless as his other charges. We have always held the opinion that the people of Spain are the proper judges of the domestic government they will have, but that we will support the Government so long as we can by advice when called for, and they manifest a friendly disposition towards us, but I protest against the doctrine of the noble Lord, that it is the duty of England actively to interfere, for the purpose of dictating any form of Government to Spain. If I have mistaken what the noble Lord meant by the expression, which was very strong, of our combining with France to enslave the free, I am sorry for it; but that is the inference I draw from the observation of the noble Lord. I do not recollect that there was any other point referred to by the noble Lord which I have omitted to notice, except the noble Lord's peroration, which I think was the main object of the noble Lord in making his speech. I think the noble Lord admires it very much, because he would have hardly made such a trumpery Motion as this for Papers, which I assure the noble Lord I gave directions to be furnished as soon as I saw his Motion, were it not for that peroration. Perhaps the noble Lord would wish to add to the Papers an account of the condemnations at Sierra Leone and the other courts; for, seeing the noble Lord's motives, and concurring with him as to the horrors of the Slave Trade, I was considering in which way I could give effect to his Motion. But what ground has he for his accusations against the Government? I will go through them all. First, there is the French Treaty of 1831; secondly, the
964
destruction of the Barracoons; and, thirdly, the increase of the force on the coast of Africa. I really think I have shown that the noble Lord has not one single ground for his accusations against the Government; but then the noble Lord had only that ground for the peroration of the speech he intended to have made in March. He had prepared it at that time, and had since been repeating it to himself, and did not wish to lose the opportunity of making it; and then the noble Lord took for the foundation of his peroration something which I said two years ago, that those who consented to make the sacrifice which office imposed, and who had to undergo the toils of it, looked not to the power which they exercised, or the pecuniary reward they might receive, but to the hope of establishing a claim to the gratitude of their country by their services; and the noble Lord then says that I did not mean merely that fame which rests upon human opinion, but that I must have had regard to those higher considerations which are connected with a sense of duty. I believe that permanent fame can only be acquired by performing the obligations of public duty. I think all that sort of fame which depends on temporary popularity is exceedingly evanescent. I believe the only way in which it can be gained is by pursuing that course to which the noble Lord referred, and regardless of temporary popularity. Therefore, when I said that I and other public men looked for a permanent reputation as a reward for public labour, I meant to imply that their labour should be conducive to the welfare of their country, and prompted by that high sense of duty to which the noble Lord alluded. But then, said the noble Lord, "You have cut off, by proceeding in your present path, many of the avenues to fame, for," he said, "as to increasing the commerce of the country, or to loosing commercial enterprise from the shackles that bound it, it was impossible for me to do it, on account of the parties with whom I am connected." But we have, at any rate, done a great deal more than the noble Lord, or than he ever contemplated until his expiring moments, when it was necessary to make a desperate effort to secure a reputation by becoming a free trader, and "releasing commerce from the shackles that bound it." But in 1841, when the noble Lord's Ministerial ex-

965
istence was in the greatest peril, it was hardly till then that we heard of these magnificent declarations of commercial liberty which the noble Lord tells me we cannot obtain. But I repeat it again, that we have done more without destroying any existing interests, though they were frightened at first—we have done more for the relaxation of commerce, and contributed more to the restoration of commercial prosperity, than any Government that has preceded us. Then the noble Lord says we cannot do justice to Ireland. He referred to the emancipation of the Roman Catholics from the civil disabilities under which they laboured, and says we cannot do them justice. The noble Lord should scarcely have addressed that to me, for without claiming credit for differing from the course I had previously taken, so far as the measure for removing those disabilities was concerned, and encountering the hazard of such a step, I think the noble Lord had no great right to taunt me with not doing justice to Ireland. The noble Lord then made reference to the Motion respecting the Irish Church last year. I recollect the speech of the noble Lord on that Occasion, in which he stated distinctly that he was perfectly ready to maintain the Church as he found it. The noble Lord thought there would be no advantage from any such measure as that which the hon. Member for Sheffield proposed; and he made a very stout speech on the maintenance of the Church in its present state. I therefore cannot well understand the taunt of the noble Lord upon that subject. Then he says the opposition of the parties by whom I am surrounded prevented my suggesting any measure of education for the people. We made the attempt last year, and I cannot say we were defeated by any hon. Members on this side of the House. We made the attempt last year to establish a system of education on a great scale—there were obstacles in the way of the measure, but it was not opposed on this side. However, the attempt we did make, and, if it were so very limited, the greater the misfortune that it was so opposed. [Lord Palmerston: Our objection was to the principle.] Oh! the principle; but I do not wish to revive that debate. We proposed an extensive measure, it was opposed by the noble Lord and other Gentlemen on his side of the House; but it was not on account of any opposition from Gentlemen on this side
966
that it was defeated. But the noble Lord said there were four great avenues leading to fame which were open to us. The first was the removal of the grievances under which the Roman Catholics laboured; the second was the Irish Church; the third was loosing the shackles that bound commercial enterprise; and the fourth was some plan of general education. But, said the noble Lord, all these avenues are closed to you,—but there is still an avenue open to permanent distinction—an effectual measure for the suppression of the Slave Trade. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are resolved, if that be the only avenue by which they can hope to acquire lasting reputation and permanent honour, that they will not neglect to enter it. They feel deeply impressed with the importance of the subject—not from any narrow, exclusive interests of this country—not from the absurd imputation that, having abolished slavery in our own dominions, we have some interest in the Slave Trade being carried on by other countries—not from those imputations which ignorant and unjust persons may throw upon this country,—for they have a right to refer to the efforts this country has made to abolish the Slave Trade in our own dominions, and to overlook all such imputations,—but our position as to the Slave Trade is peculiar. In any attempt we make to suppress the Slave Trade we must endeavour to suppress it by means recognized and sanctioned by the Law of Nations. We must not in a hasty and inconsiderate attempt to suppress the Slave Trade unduly and unjustly hazard the maintenance of amicable relations with other Powers. To injure those relations by any injustice on our part will only impede the attainment of the objects we have in view. We must keep ourselves in the right, and impress on others the necessity of observing moral engagements for the suppression of this trade; but with the reservation that we should proceed temperately and justly, that we should act upon the Law of Nations, and ask for nothing more than positive engagements give us a right to obtain, that we should observe the principles of justice towards the weak as well as the strong—with this reservation, I assure the noble Lord and the House that the Government are deeply impressed with both the duty and policy, from the highest considerations of the public welfare of

967
suppressing the Slave Trade, and if that be the avenue to fame, it will be open to us so far as constant and persevering exertions can insure the means of securing it.
Sir C. Napierwished to ask what instructions had been given to British cruisers on the American coast, and whether if an English vessel saw a vessel hoisting the American flag, she would have any right to board her—not to search her, but to ascertain whether she was bonâ fide an American vessel? He regretted, as much as did the noble Lord, the failure of the treaty between this country and France; but he did not think it fair on the part of the right hon. Baronet to taunt his noble Friend with being the cause of that failure. France had carried on for a considerable time, in concert with this country, what he might term a "promenade" in the Levant; the most amicable feeling subsisted between the squadrons of the two countries; but France thought fit to refuse to ratify this treaty. He regretted that; but he did not think the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was justified in attributing that failure to the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston). One would suppose, from the speech of the right hon. Baronet, that England had broken with France, whereas it was quite the contrary, France having broken with England. With respect to the prevention of the Slave Trade, he hoped the right hon. and gallant Member opposite would inform the House on the subject of the instructions given to the British cruizers.
Sir R. Peeltrusted his right hon. Friend would not give the required explanation. We had received no particulars of the instructions furnished by the American Government to their cruisers, and he did not see the expediency of giving such an answer as was sought for by the hon. and gallant Member. The last accounts which had been received were of a satisfactory nature. Captain Foot's letter to the American commodore, offering his cordial co-operation to prevent slavery, had been met in a friendly spirit, and Her Majesty's Government had been assured that every hope existed of a continuance of the friendly understanding which at present existed with the cruisers of the United States. As he could not give the hon. and gallant Officer the particulars of the instructions, so he hoped his right hon.
968
Friend who had been appealed to would follow this example.
Mr. Borthwickthought it was of the utmost importance that the plan of the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet, since they appeared agreed on the same plan, should be immediately adopted against Spain and Brazils, which were the only two outstanding powers who did not join to put an end to the odious traffic. He was glad to see that the speech of the right hon. Baronet displayed equal firmness and caution, for it appeared to him that the want of due caution had been mainly the cause of the evils and impediments which had occurred. It had been said that Spain was under peculiar obligations to join this country and other Powers in putting an end to the Slave Trade; but the noble Lord had for the first time made an admission that it was the influence of this country brought to bear on one of two conflicting parties in Spain, which had led to the triumph of the Queen and liberty. He did not think, however, that either the noble Lord or the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had any right to say that Don Carlos was more the representative of despotism than Queen Isabella. The one talked about the Inquisition: the other established it.
Captain Pechellsaid, the right hon. Baronet had, with his usual caution, prevented the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty giving a reply to the question of his hon. and gallant Friend. He was most anxious to have an explanation of this part of the question, of how the officers on service were to conduct themselves on this difficult question? He concurred in the plan for increasing the force on the coast of Africa, and he approved of the determination not to leave the coasts of Brazil and Cuba unwatched. He was very glad to find American vessels co-operating with ours, and he hoped this good feeling would continue. With respect to the exertions of the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) to suppress slavery, he thought the thanks of the whole of civilised Europe were due to that noble Lord for putting down the detestable traffic.
Viscount Palmerstonthought the right hon. Baronet at the beginning of his speech, did injustice to himself in complaining that the notice of the Motion did not afford him an opportunity of preparing himself for all the subjects adverted to in his speech; for every one who knew

969
the resources and great powers of the right hon. Baronet must be aware that it was next to impossible to take him at a disadvantage on any matter connected with his public office, even though no previous notice was given to him. But the right hon. Baronet had also done him an injustice, for upwards of a week ago he had stated to the right hon. Baronet his intention, when the Motion came on, to discuss the whole question of the Slave Trade. He was very unwilling to let the Session go by without referring to this important subject; and he wished to bring it forward because he thought the present Government had not shown the same energy as their predecessors, and had not done so much to accomplish the extinction of slavery. In bringing forward the subject he should have felt greater pleasure in receiving a complete answer to any insinuations or accusations against the Government which he might have thrown out, than in gaining a party triumph. He assured the right hon. Baronet it would have been the source of far greater satisfaction to him to hear the Government vindicate themselves from the charge of supineness and want of energy, than to find that his charges were established. With regard to the topics which had been referred to, the right hon. Baronet had answered some satisfactorily, others not quite so in some respects. He alluded to the explanation in regard to the refusal of the French Government to ratify the Treaty after it was signed. He readily admitted it was not proper for this refusal to make any difference in the friendly relations between the two countries; but he did think it would have been proper to have put a friendly protestation on record to prevent the proceeding from being drawn into a precedent. The right hon. Baronet said he was responsible for the non-fulfilment of that Treaty. He could not consent to admit that this was correct. As to the relations between France and England, he would venture to assert there was no man living who attached greater importance to the maintenance of cordial relations between the two countries than himself, and for a great number of years the right hon. Baronet admitted that this cordial union did exist. The right hon. Baronet, however, had asserted, it was his fault that this cordiality ceased, and that it was owing to some act of his that the cordiality between the two countries was put an end
970
to. He did not admit the accuracy of that assertion. What was the history of the negotiation? He would not go into the details of the Syrain negotiation, but it was well known that at the commenceent of the negotiations between England and France, each country had the same objects in view. He would remind the House, that at the beginning the proposition of the French government was, with other powers, to sign a declaration to maintain the integrity of the Turkish empire. Would the right hon. Baronet venture to question the policy which led the late Government to the resolution to maintain the integrity of the Turkish empire? No one who sat on the other side of the House would say he disapproved of the policy which had for its object the maintenance of the Turkish empire, and the conservation of the peace of Europe. It was admitted in the French chamber that not England but France had abandoned her original policy, He did not say this by way of reproach; he alluded to it merely as a fact, that France was the power which had abandoned the course of policy on which she first embarked. He admitted that the change that afterwards took place did create irritation in the mind of the French nation. No one man regretted the circumstance at the time nice than he did; but, because irritation arose, that was no reason why England should have desisted from the course of policy which she had entered upon. The change of policy did irritate the French nation to a certain extent, and this he was not disposed to deny; but this was not the reason why the Treaty was not ratified. Had the present Government signed the Treaty soon after they came into office, the Treaty would have been in force. It was this delay which caused the Treaty eventually not to be ratified. He had heard with pleasure the intention of Government to reinforce the squadron off the coast of Africa; and it was because he was under the impression that an intention existed of withdrawing the cruizers from the coast of Cuba and Brazil, that he made some observations in his opening speech. He quite agreed with the statement, that it was most important to guard the African coast, and to take the slave ships before they got the slaves on board, as by this means the horrors of the passage would be prevented. But what he also contended for was, that it would be un-

971
wise to withdraw the cruisers from the coasts of Cuba and Brazil; and he was now glad to find that with respect to this proceeding he had misconstrued the intentions of Government. As to the application of the force, there could be but one opinion on hearing the name of the distinguished officer. The right hon. Baronet had said that uncivilised tribes on the coast of Africa must observe the international laws which were consecrated by the usages of Europe; but in the course of the present Session, in a discussion on the affairs of India, when the matter treated of was the mode in which we were to conduct ourselves towards the Ameers of Scinde, the right hon. Baronet had said that the Laws of Nations applicable to Europe could not be applied in all their vigour to such half-civilised people as the people of Scinde. He was glad to find that he and the right hon. Baronet were not likely to differ as to the question of barracoons. It was useful that slave-traders should know that it was the intention of the Government to avail themselves of the power which the convention with the native chiefs gave, of rooting out those nests of pirates which infested that part of the African coast. He was exceedingly glad to hear a confirmation of the good effects of the distinguished administration of General Valdez in Cuba. If the Spanish governors were honestly disposed to do their duty, the task of the British Government in the suppression of the Slave Trade would be light indeed. He trusted that the course of friendly representation and strong remonstrance which the Government intended to pursue towards the governments of Spain and Brazil would produce the effect of awakening those governments to a sense of the obligations which they owed, not merely to us, but to themselves and to the faith of treaties. In allusion to what he had stated in his peroration, the right hon. Baronet had said, with regard to our commerce, that his Government had abolished more restrictions than their predecessors. Without disputing the arithmetical correctness of that statement, who was it that prevented them? He would say to the right hon. Baronet, "Is it not too bad, that persons who, when we were in office, prevented us from removing those restrictions, should now boast that the same majority which enabled them to tie our hands enabled them to pursue the course we wished to
972
adopt." To be sure they were aided by unexpected assistance from other quarters which was not only necessary, but acceptable. He hoped, however, that the leaders of the Government would be encouraged by the success which had hitherto attended their efforts to carry out the views they professed; and that next year at this time, they would have greater reason to boast of their achievements. Then, with regard to the question of education, the right hon. Baronet had stated that the Government proposed a scheme of education which was defeated by an opposition not emanating from their own immediate supporters. He contended that that scheme of education was so clogged by restrictions that those persons, of all creeds, who wished for a large and enlightened system of education, were unable to give it their concurrence. That scheme of education did not meet the views of the liberal party, and they therefore felt it their duty to oppose it. But he repeated the assertion he had before made, that the prejudices existing amongst the Government themselves, prevented them from proposing a scheme of education on large and comprehensive principles; and it would be remembered, that the right hon. Home Secretary (Sir J. Graham) had distinctly said that he would not go one step further in the way of relaxation with regard to that measure. The right hon. Gentleman had also referred to his observations with respect to Ireland. He had stated that the Government was unable, in consequence of the obstacles they had themselves contributed to raise, to induce contentment amongst the Catholics of Ireland. The right hon. Baronet had reminded the House, that it was mainly owing to him that the Catholics received the great boon of Emancipation. No man could be more sensible of the merit of the right hon. Baronet in that respect than he was; he had always contended that there was a sacrifice, on his part, of private feeling and personal advantage to public duty, which did him the highest and greatest credit; but was it enough to emancipate a great body of men, if you did not practically give them access to those situations to which by law you rendered them eligible. The complaint he made against the Government was, that whatever might be their personal wishes and feelings, they were compelled, owing to the peculiar situation in which

973
they stood, to exclude from all share in the Government 6,000,000 of the people. He had heard with the greatest pleasure, the concluding part of the right hon. Baronet's speech. He was glad that the Motion which he had made, be it too long or too short, had afforded the Government the means of stating those intentions, and feelings, and opinions on the subject of the Slave Trade with which the right hon. Baronet had concluded. He hoped that all nations in the world would see that in England there were not two parties upon this subject—that, however people might differ on domestic questions,—that whatever might be their opinion on foreign questions on this question of the Slave Trade, they were united as one man — that let who would be in power, there would be no change of policy—that it was the fixed and settled determination of the British Government that this odious and detestable Slave Trade should be brought to an end. When that was well known—and the speech of the right hon. Baronet, which did him great honour, would have the effect of making it well known—when foreign Governments knew that such was the settled determination of every British Government, and that it would receive the unanimous support of the British Parliament and nation, the resistance which private interests, local prejudices, corrupt feelings of all kinds, had hitherto opposed to the entire suppression of this trade might at length give way; and he could assure the right hon. Baronet, that if his Government should have the merit and the glory of putting a crowning hand to this great work, and should be able to state that by their measure the Slave Trade was either extinguished or brought to an almost imperceptible degree of resistance, no party feelings or personal considerations would diminish the pleasure with which he should receive the announcement or his readiness to give every credit to the Government which made it.
Motion with Amendment agreed to.

TIDAL HARBOURS.
Mr. Hume, in bringing forward his Motion relative to the Harbours of the kingdom, said, he wished it had fallen into the hands of Government, who might have given it official importance. Many harbours, formerly capable of receiving ships of large dimensions, could now scarcely admit boats, and the evil was going on from day to
974
day to an extent of which he had had no idea until his attention was directed to it. The right hon. Baronet had instituted an inquiry, which had led to the formation of harbours of refuge, where there were no natural harbours, and he trusted that that inquiry would be extended by a commission to Tidal Harbours. The law was not defective, because it had given a power to the Admiralty to prevent encroachments on Harbours; but by the practice of successive Administrations for the last two centuries, as far as he could get the records from some of the harbours, encroachments had been allowed till many of those harbours which formerly received ships of large dimensions were now entirely shut up. It was well known what was the state of the Cinque Ports in former days. In a decision about two years ago, one of the Judges speaking of the harbour of Rye, said, that it was impossible any time could bar the removal of embankments and impediments interfering with the navigation of this or any other port. In the reign of Charles II., a 64-gun ship could enter Rye, but latterly, until 1819, scarcely a boat could enter. It was the same with Newhaven and Southwold. In the latter case twenty-four clergymen were appointed Harbour Commissioners; and there was scarcely a harbour where proper Commissioners had been appointed. They were generally parties having local interests connected with the land, who enclosed the land over which the tide flowed, and thus prevented the scour of the river, and caused an accumulation of sand. In Southwold upwards of 3,000 acres were enclosed, and 30,000,000 of tons of water were excluded from the harbour. Similar effects had been produced at the harbour of Wells and Clay, in Norfolk, and at the month of the Exe. He believed that these evils arose from a desire, on the part of the Admiralty, not to interfere unnecessarily in these matters; they waited till complaints were made; but that ought not to be the conduct of a public body; they ought to have the supervision and care of every Tidal Harbour, and should not allow of any encroachments without an equivalent being given. His object was to point out to the Government the absolute necessity there existed, that they should awaken the Admiralty, and set them to work to prevent the encroachment going further. The hon. Gentleman then quoted from a Re-

975
port made by Mr. Samuel Nicholson upon the River Medway, also Reports from Messrs. Rennie and Walker, in order to show that the inquiry was absolutely necessary. He would even go further, and inquire whether those encroachments which had been made, were made against the law, and, if so, he would take immediate steps to have them abated. Any one going down the Channel must see hundreds of vessels spreading all along the coasts. What would become of them in case of a war, if they were shut out of our rivers in consequence of these bars and encroachments of which he complained? Steam had changed every feature of war; and if they were unable to take shelter in our harbours and our rivers, every one of them would be picked up by the enemy. To maintain this proposition the hon. Member quoted largely from the evidence given by the Duke of Wellington before the Shipwreck Committee of 1843. The Prince de Joinville had had the sagacity to see what was the weak point on the English side in case of a war—he urged his countrymen to increase their steam navy, because, by doing so, in case of a war with England, they would be enabled to harass her commercial navy, and so weaken the confidence of the English people in their insular position as would greatly advance the interests of France. He did not think there could be any opposition to his Motion. If the evil was allowed to go on, and if the encroachments were still permitted, our harbours would be lost in the same manner as the Port of Sandwich had been, and then their loss could never be supplied. He had many other authorities, but he did not think it necessary to detain the House by referring to them: the Motion, at all events, ought to be unanimously agreed to, because the matter was important and the case urgent. No doubt something might be said upon the question of expense, but even that might be obviated in a great degree by very simple means. Instead of leaving it to private individuals to make complaint to the Admiralty, he would have our whole coast parcelled out and placed under the superintendence of public officers. He would have every creek surveyed and opened to as large boats as possible—he would have engineer officers appointed to a certain portion of the coast and it should be their duty to remove improper obstructions and encroachments in harbours and
976
rivers, and prevent them in future. He was one who deeply deplored the encroachments and embankments which had been made in the Thames. He opposed the embankments for the new Houses. He knew that many thought by narrowing the stream they would deepen it, but in that they were in error; it was the great flow of water which operated for good. The Government must not allow any municipal officer to usurp their authority; if the Lord Mayor were the conservator of the Thames, the Admiralty must be the conservator of the Lord Mayor, so as to see that no injury should arise to the public from his carelessness. He considered his Motion of so much importance that he did not anticipate any opposition to it; he would, therefore, detain the House no longer, but move,
"An address to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission, to inquire into the past and present condition of the several Tidal Harbours, Ports, and Creeks of the United Kingdom, with the view of ascertaining the state of navigation, and the depth of water of these Harbours, &c.; whether the depth of water was greater formerly than at the present time, and whether any and what extent of land over which the tide flowed at any former period has been enclosed; under what authority the several enclosures were made, the effects of such inclosures of land, and of the erection of Piers, Jetties, &c. In decreasing the depth, or in improving or injuring the navigation of the several Harbours, Creeks, &c.; to call for and examine all general Reports of Civil Engineers and Public Commissioners, relative to the construction, improvement, or preservation of the several Ports, Harbours, Creeks, and Navigable Waters of the United Kingdom which have been regulated by Act of Parliament since 1800, the operations under such Acts, and whether the result has been beneficial or injurious to the navigation of the said Ports:—Also, to inquire into the nature of the powers intrusted to the Board of Admiralty, under any Acts of Parliament, for protecting the navigation of the Ports and Harbours of the United Kingdom, and in what manner they have exercised those powers, and whether more extensive and more defined powers may be requisite to enable them to protect and to improve the Harbours of this Kingdom."
Captain Plumridge, in seconding the Motion, wished to ask the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, whether they might expect, before the rising of the House, any Report from the Commissioners on the Harbours of Refuge.
Sir R. Peelwould answer the question of the gallant Captain first. He could

977
assure him and the House that the Commissioners who had been appointed to report upon the proper places for harbours of refuge had, ever since their appointment, been diligently and assiduously applying themselves to the subject referred to them. He rather thought they would not make any Report before they had made a personal examination of all those places which came at all into competition as suitable for harbours of refuge. He believed the first Report might be expected soon after the 1st of August, but he would be very sorry to urge them to make a Report in any hurry, as it would be much more expedient that they should well weigh all the circumstances belonging to each place, rather than make an ill-digested Report. With respect to the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, he really thought the public were under deep obligations to the hon. Gentleman for paying so much attention to, and directing the attention of the public to, a question of so much national importance, he would willingly give his assent to the Motion, but he begged it to be understood that he did so assent in reference to the mercantile view of the question, and without any reference to the warlike consideration suggested by the hon. Gentleman. He would offer no objection to the proposed inquiry, but he might quarrel with the terms of the Motion. However, as he understood the hon. Gentleman, all he wanted was, that there should be, on the part of the Crown, a searching inquiry into the matters alluded to. He promised that that should be done, and, therefore, the terms in which the Motion was couched, were of little importance. It must, however, be understood that all he consented to was a preliminary inquiry. If ulterior measures were to be taken the Parliament must be consulted again. But he hoped that the hon. Member would not in his old age lead them into any extravagant expense, which in his younger days the hon. Member had deprecated. The hon. Gentlemen said, that on every part of the coast there must be harbours of refuge to protect the trade of this country in the contingency of war. Now, if we were likely to be attacked, and were to go to the extent of expense which this proposal of the hon. Gentleman would involve, he thought we should never diminish, but, on the contrary, materially increase, the present amount of the national debt. In some
978
of the cases which the hon. Gentlemen had mentioned, he thought that natural causes, such as the retiring of the sea, and not individual encroachments, had operated to destroy the harbours. These natural causes it might be difficult to contend with by any engineering schemes. Sandwich and Richborough were probably ports in which the operation of such natural causes had been going on; but he was willing to have an inquiry, postponing, however, all further steps until he saw what was the result of the inquiry, and what the expense of any measures that might be recommended. One thing he thought was certain—that the Admiralty was not to blame in this matter; they had frequently endeavoured to get the control over the harbours, but had always been defeated in the other House. With respect to the Thames he quite agreed with the hon. Gentlemen, that Parliament ought to require that no encroachments be made on the Thames, to interfere with the navigation. He would add that he meant to have the commission composed of a few professional men, with limited remuneration, and he made this known in order that there might not be numerous applications for the appointments.
Sir C. Napiermerely rose to advise the right hon. Baronet not to treat with too much contempt the Prince de Joinville's pamphlet. The right hon. Baronet might depend upon it, that in the event of a war steam would be found to have given France such a power as it would not do to despise. Steam had given an attacking enemy such power that you never knew from what quarter you might expect an attack. A great many harbours would be wanted to save our merchantmen from attacks, which might be made from any quarter.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that Tyre and Sidon had lost their harbours for want of looking after them; probably they might have been preserved if due means had been taken. In days like these, and in a country like this, nothing ought to be omitted to deliver to future ages the advantages we had derived from the past. France had lost various excellent harbours from neglect, and we ought to exert every nerve to prevent the same result.
Motion agreed to.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
Mr. E. Denisonrose to move for an ac-

979
count in detail of sums received and expended by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England. A return had been made, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, but of so barren and jejune a nature that it was impossible to derive any information from it. At the same time, he found that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland had made a Return containing all the information that any one could wish. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had since stated to him that he would no longer object to the return of the particulars which he (Mr. E. Denison) wished to elicit; therefore it would not be necessary for him to lay any further grounds for his Motion; but, he must say, that he regretted some part of the course taken by the Commissioners, especially their determination to grant no renewals of leases for lives. They seemed to him in this to push to an extreme length the powers vested in them by Parliament, when they exercised them neither for enfranchisement nor renewal of leases, but, for the purpose of letting the leases run out, and taking possession of the land. This caused great hardship on individuals and large bodies of men. This mode of management was, he conceived, expressly opposed to the opinion of Parliament, as expressed by votes of the House of Commons and the Reports of Committees, and the Speeches of influential Members. When these Returns were presented, it was his intention to bring this subject before Parliament. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—
"That there be laid before this House, a Return of all Payments made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England in each of the last six years;—

"1. Of the salary, fees, and emoluments, paid to any counsel or solicitor, with the name of each counsel or solicitor so paid:

"2. Of the salary, fees, travelling expenses, and emoluments paid to each architect, with the name of each, and the amount of per centage (if any) allowed to each:

"3. Of the salary, fees, and emoluments, paid to each agent or surveyor employed, with the name of each, and the amount paid to each:

"4. Of the payments made in each year, particularlizing what Sees have been augmented, for what Episcopal Residences house rent has been paid, what Episcopal Residences has been provided, and the cost of each; what Reversions have been sold, and for what amount; and what Estates have been pur-
980
chased, and for what amount, for any Episcopal See."

Mr. Elphinstonesaid, it would probably be in the recollection of the House, that in 1835 the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had proposed that the Bishops should have certain fixed incomes; the Archbishop of Canterbury was to have 15,000 l. a year; the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of London 10,000 l. each, and the Bishop of Durham 8,000 l. and so on. An Act was passed accordingly, the intention of Parliament being that the Bishops should receive those particular incomes from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but in consequence of an error in the Act, when the sums came to be fixed by order in Council under it, the Privy Council reversed this, and fixed the sums which should be paid over annually by the Bishops to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The consequence was, that the Bishop of Durham in one year, if he was not misinformed, had put into his own pocket 30,000 l. As the Motion as it now stood would not ascertain the actual amount received annually by each of the Bishops, he begged to move the addition of these words, "also the total income of each of the Archbishops and Bishops of England and Ireland for each year since 1837." There would be no difficulty in making the Return, because, in point of fact, the Bishops had delivered the accounts to the Commissioners.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, the hon. Gentleman who made this Motion had referred in public to a private conversation he had with him (Sir J. Graham). For the public discussion of the subject of that conversation he (Sir J. Graham) was not prepared; the hon. Gentleman had done him the honour to speak with him on the subject; he stated to the hon. Gentleman the doubts he then felt as to acceding to the Motion, but he was not prepared to have this made public. He told the hon. Gentleman subsequently that the Government would not object to the returns; he found that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland had made returns of the character of those the hon. Gentleman desired to be made by the English Commissioners, and he then stated that, upon the whole, he should consent to the Motion. In doing so, however, he must declare that he could not consider the funds placed under the management of the Ecclesiasti-

981
cal Commissioners were in any way under the control of Parliament; they were placed under the direction of a Commission, consisting principally of ecclesiastics, for the purposes of the Church, but not under the control of the State. He was sorry to see the hon. Gentleman was dissatisfied with the management of those funds by the Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman had signified his intention, when the Returns were produced, of calling the attention of the House to this subject; whenever the hon. Gentleman did so, he (Sir J. Graham) should be perfectly prepared on the part of the Commissioners to answer him, and to show that the principles adopted by the Commissioners in the management of Church property were equitable principles in themselves, and conducive to the interests of the body they represented. However, for those principles, be they what they might, the present Government were not responsible; they had been acted on since the commencement of the Commission; they were sound, in his opinion, and ought to be continued. With respect to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Elphinstone) he had not had time to consider it fully, but as at present advised he felt it his duty to resist it.
Mr. Humethought the right hon. Baronet could not resist if he recollected the Act of Parliament, which enacted, that after the deaths of the then Bishops no Bishop should receive more than the appointed incomes; yet the House had just heard that one Bishop who ought to receive only 8,000 l. a year had received 30,000 l. a year. Parliament never meant that should be the case, but as the statement had been made (he did not know with what degree of foundation), there ought to be laid before the House means of ascertaining the real state of the case.
Mr. V. Smithsaid, that under the existing arrangement the surplus went to the Bishop after he had paid a certain sum to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. He thought that there must be a mistake as to the sum that had been stated to be received by one Bishop in a single year; but supposing that he had received 30,000 l. in one year, the income would not be near so much the next, when he might have perhaps not more than 2,000 l.; therefore, to speak of the income as 30,000 l. a year was inadmissible.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas
982
understood to say that the hon. Gentleman was mistaken as to the intention of Parliament. It had never been intended to give the Bishops salaries, or deprive them of the management of their estates, but only to regulate the sums they should pay over from time to time to the Commissioners.
Mr. Gally Knightsaid, that he did not rise to oppose the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Malton; but as some slight censures had been put on the conduct, or the intentions, of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he begged leave to observe that it was the bounden duty of those Commissioners to make the most of the property entrusted to their care, in order to increase their means of promoting that most important of all objects, the further provision of spiritual instruction. Nor could it be pretended that the Commissioners had exceeded their powers. For himself he was not jealous of the Commission—he liked it all the better because it was of a mixed nature, composed of laymen as well as spiritual persons. He was not one of those who considered the Church to be nothing but the priest; he considered the Church equally to consist of priest and people, and the more the Laity and the Clergy were mixed and blended together, and the less they were kept distinct, the better it would be for both parties. He must repeat that the Commissioners had not exceeded their powers, because it could not be denied that the Church, like any other landlord, possesses, and has never ceased to exercise, the power of running out leases. On this point he spoke with the more confidence, because he was a Member of the Committee which was appointed by that House in 1838, to investigate the subject of Church Leases, and he would take leave to read to the House the opinion which that Committee had pronounced on this part of the subject:—"Largely, therefore, as your Committee must suppose this confidence of renewal to have extended, yet your Committee consider the tenant's right of renewal to be a claim upon custom, and the good will of the lessor, rather than any right capable of being enforced by law or equity." At the same time, looking to the general usage of renewal, the Committee were of opinion that, though the legal right could not be maintained, yet that the customary confidence of the lessees should not be entirely disregarded; and in the scheme for the Enfranchisement of Church Leasehold Property which that Committee had

983
recommended, a consideration of the claim of the lessees was one of its component parts. The same favourable consideration of the lessees was also insisted upon by the present Lord Monteagle when, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1837, he brought forward a plan on the same subject, though with a different object. If, then, this principle had been admitted and recognized on every occasion when a settlement between the Church and the lessees had been proposed, he should have thought that it would have been admitted and adopted on all similar occasions; and he confessed that he did not see how it could be consistent with justice that a certain number of lessees should be dealt with in a more rigorous manner than the rest,—that because a man happened to hold a lease under a suppressed stall, he was to fare worse than another man who holds leasehold property under a stall that is not suppressed. It was well known that the property belonging to the Church had always been let much below its real value. In this, though he held such property himself, he saw neither reason or justice. He could not desire that any lessees of Church property should continue to hold their land on the same easy terms as before,—but he did think that, in the case of suppressed stalls, the lessees should have the option of either continuing to hold the land at its real value, or of being permitted to enfranchise it altogether on reasonable terms. He hoped that, long before this, a general measure of Enfranchisement for all Church leasehold property would have been brought forward by the Government, on the plan recommended by the Committee of 1838. The present system of fines upon leases for lives or for terms of years was bad for the lessors, not the best for the lessees, and injurious to the estate. By an equitable plan of enfranchisement, a very considerable sum might be obtained for the Church, and at the same time the lessees would be placed in a better position. He wished to see the Church in possession of that sum as a fund for the building and endowment of new churches; and he should be glad if, in the case of lessees under suppressed stalls, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners would adopt a plan similar to that which was recommended by the Committee of 1838, for the enfranchisement of the whole leasehold property of the Church. What, after the fullest enquiry, was considered to be fair for the whole, must be fair for a part.
Sir R. Peelhoped, that no debate in this
984
House would induce the Commissioners to take any other course than that which their sense of duty pointed out to them. He thought the Orders in Council were in themselves just, and that the discretion which the Commissioners had exercised was a wise discretion, and he hoped this House would not attempt to interfere. It was a very delicate matter. The great object was to promote the interest of the Church, the property of which appeared to him to have been greatly dilapidated by the system of granting leases. In some cases the existing interest was purchased, and in others the reversion was sold. In case of a sale the reversion the option of purchase had been given to the tenant. In many instances leases for lives had been converted into leases for years: but in all cases they had given the option of a lease for years to tenants who had a lease for lives. In his opinion, in the case of the suppressed canonries they were right in refusing a renewal of a lease for lives; he thought it was better to have a lease for years, reserving a fair rent. There might be particular cases in which it was right that the Church should get possession of its property. It might be so dilapidated or neglected, or the local position of the property might be such as to justify the Commissioners in departing from that which was the legal course. He trusted, therefore, that the House would leave the Commissioners to act according to circumstances, and that no debate here would induce the Commissioners to depart from what they considered to be their duty.
Mr. Liddellsaid, that as Member for a county where an immense amount of property would shortly fall under the control of the Commissioners, he must say, that he was not without considerable apprehension for the interests of his constituents. The Dean and Chapter of Durham, as the House well knew, held a large amount of property in that county, and as it had been determined that one-half of the Chapter should be suppressed, and at the death of each Prebendary the property belonging to his prebend placed under the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, when he was told that they refused to renew leases—that the renewal of leases for three lives, which had been held for many hundred years to be as secure as any other tenure of property, would be refused on any terms, he could not but feel alarmed at this—he had almost called it—usurpation of property which had been so long held sacred. He could assure the

985
House that great anxiety and apprehensions were entertained upon this subject. His constituents had a deep and specific interest in the matter, and he should not do his duty towards them if he were not to prepare them from his place in Parliament for the coming event. He had no doubt that the distinguished Members of the Ecclesiastical Commission would govern all their proceedings by a due regard to the principles of justice; but he hoped the House would also recollect that the rights of the lessees had been on a variety of occasions distinctly recognised. In the Southwark improvement Bill, for example, the principle had been very plainly and very unequivocally laid down by the Attorney General, that the lessees had a beneficial interest, and could not with any show of justice be deprived of it.
Dr. Bowringobserved, that the present was merely a Motion for statistical returns, and he trusted that there would be no objection to the addition which his hon. Friend had proposed. There could be no doubt that the income of the Bishop of Durham had in one year amounted to 30,000 l., and it was equally true that they ought to have the facts of the matter fully before them.
Mr. Brothertonhad heard with great satisfaction the observations which fell from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. It had been said that the Liberal Members of that House were intent upon the ruin of the Church; but he would tell them that the pretended friends of the Church were the great spoliators—it was the laity who held leases that had the deepest interest in the matter—the landed interest wanted to have the property of the Church. The principle of which he approved was that laid down by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government—namely, that it was for the public interest to make the most of the property of the Church.
Mr. Liddell, in explanation, said, that neither he nor any member of his family were holders of ecclesiastical leases—they did not hold a single acre of Church-land.
Mr. Wawnsaid, that some of the greatest spoliators belonged to the Church.
Mr. E. Denisonsaid, he wished to say a few words before they proceeded to divide on the Amendment. He had had a conversation with the right hon. Secretary, when he inquired of him whether there would be any objection to the Return for which he then moved. The right hon. Secretary
986
said he should consult his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, and subsequently he said that he should not consent to the Return. Thereupon he (Mr. Denison) gave notice of the present Motion. If to state that occurrence were an improper use of a private conversation, he would ask how was it possible to hold communication with those who possessed the power to grant or withhold Returns of this nature? He would tell them why he made this Motion—it was because he desired that there should be frank and unreserved dealing with that House, and that no information should be kept from them. The right hon. Baronet himself had on a former occasion said, he had contended that though Church lessees possessed no legal right, they enjoyed an equitable right, founded upon long usage. But the principle which applied to those who held short and terminable leases did not apply when lands were transferred to those who had long and permanent interests. Those were the sentiments formerly expressed by the right hon. Baronet. It was well known, that the Commissioners had a long and permanent interest, and it was complained of now that they were taking the matter into their own hands.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Elphinston be added:—Ayes 27; Noes 55: Majority 28.

List of the AYES.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Pechell, Capt.

Bowring, Dr.

Plumridge, Capt.

Brotherton, J.

Rawdon, Col.

Busfeild, W.

Seymour, Lord

Forster, M.

Smith, rt. hn. R. V.

Gill, T.

Stock, Serj.

Hallyburton, Lord G.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Hawes, B.

Thornely, T.

Hill, Lord M.

Tufnell, H.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Wakley, T.

Martin, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Mitcalfe, H.

Williams, W.

Morris, D.

TELLERS.

O'Brien, J.

Elphinstone, H.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Hume J.

List of the NOES.

Bailey, J.

Clayton, R. R.

Bodkin, W. H.

Clerk, Sir G.

Boldero, H. G.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Borthwick, P.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Bowles, Adm.

Corry, rt. hn. H.

Broadley, H.

Cripps, W.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Denison, J. E.

Buckley, E.

Dickinson, F. H.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Dodd, G.

Burroughes, H. N.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Christopher, R. A.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

987

Flower, Sir J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Lockhart, W.

Fuller, A. E.

Marsham, Visct.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Mundy, E. M.

Gladstone, Capt.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Palmer, G.

Goulburne, rt. hn. H.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Peel, J.

Greene, T.

Plumptre, J. P.

Heneage, G. W.

Sibthorp, Col.

Herbert, hon. S.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Hodgson, R.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hope, hon. G. W.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Jermyn, Earl

Thesiger, Sir F.

Jones, Capt.

Thompson, Ald.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

TELLERS.

Knight, H. G.

Young, J.

Liddell, hn. H. T.

Pringle, A.

Main question agreed to.

NAVAL OFFICERS.
Captain Pechellrose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice respecting the claims of the Naval Officers in the Lunatic Asylum at Haslar. He said that no doubt it was well known to every hon. Member that an asylum had existed for a great number of years at Hoxton, in which Lunatic Naval Officers were afforded shelter, and maintained at the public expense, the Vote for which had always formed a part of the Navy Estimates. It appeared, however, that without any Order of the House the Officers placed in Hoxton Asylum had been removed to that of Haslar. He was not aware that any person complained of the change so far as treatment was concerned, because he believed the treatment at that asylum was of the first kind and worthy the institutions of this country. But the complaint which he had to make was, that none of the relatives of those Officers had been made aware of the change, and that they had only gained a knowledge of it when they found that one-half of the half-pay which they formerly received at the Navy Pay Office was withheld. To those who know the small income of half-pay Officers, the deprivation of that income would appear a tremendous sacrifice. The practice which existed for eight or nine years was to deduct half of the half-pay for the expense of maintaining the Officer in the Asylum, but when the right hon. Baronet opposite agreed to lower the charge to a fixed sum it was proposed that the Government should pay back the arrears. The Board of Admiralty of those days communicated to one of the parties that such was their intention; but in nine days afterwards, on the 20th of June, 1832, they intimated,
988
greatly to the consternation of the parties, that they were not disposed to consent to pay the arrears in consequence of the large amount of the sum which would be required. The hon. and gallant Officer opposite stated on a former occasion that he approved of the order issued by the Admiralty for cancelling the order for the payment of these arrears on account of the large expenditure which would be required. He had since then investigated the claims, and found that in number that they did not exceed forty, and that in amount they fell short of 3,000 l. He was sure that the hon. and gallant Admiral, when he reflected on the misery which was caused by the withholding of this small sum, would reverse the decision which he had come to on a former occasion. The hon. and gallant Member then alluded to the case of Lieut. Forbes, who, he contended, had become insane in consequence of the severe hardships which he underwent when he served on board the Vengeur, at New Orleans. The hon. and gallant Admiral, in 1822, stated, in answer to Mr. Buxton, that he considered the Officer who lost his reason in the service of the country as much entitled to a pension as the Officer who lost a limb; and he hoped the right hon. Baronet would admit not only that Lieut. Forbes was entitled to his pension, but that the other Officers were entitled to their arrears. As the Admiralty had always met this Motion with a negative, he had no other resource but to press the matter on their consideration.
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, this case had been so often before the House, that it would only be necessary for him to allude to it very briefly. The placing of patients at the Haslar Hospital was perfectly voluntary on the part of their friends, and they could be removed at pleasure. This being the case, it was not reasonable to ask for a return of any portion of the sum paid for their maintenance, because the charge had been subsequently reduced, and particularly since the original sum was not sufficient to defray all the expenses. He had the greatest sympathy for Mrs. Forbes, whom he believed to be a most respectable lady. But after a most searching investigation into the case he could not find any ground for believing that Mr. Forbes acquired his malady in the service, or that it was his duty to assent to the Motion. He was therefore reluctantly compelled to oppose it.—Motion withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Art Unions.
2a. Actions for Gaming Discontinuance.
3a. and passed:—Customs Duties (Isle of Man); Three-and-a-Half per Cents. Exemption; Vagrants Removal; Prisons (Scotland); Turnpike Acts Continuance.
Private.—2a. Gape's Divorce.
Reported. — Wells Lighting and Improvement; Delabole and Rock Railway; Paisley General Gas; Middle Level Drainage and Navigation.
3a. and passed:—Werrington, etc. Curacy, or Hele's Estate (Marchioness of Lothian's); Market Harborough and Coventry Road; Leeds Vicarage (Dr. Hook's).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Kenyon, from Cheshire, and Shropshire, for Protection to Agriculture.—By Lord Beaumont, from County of Lancaster, respecting Bequests to Roman Catholic Clergy; and for Revision of the Law relating to Patrons of Roman Catholic, Chapels.

ART UNIONS BILL.
Lord Monteaglelaid on the Table a Bill for legalising Art Unions under certain circumstances. The noble Lord stated, that the proceedings adopted by Art Unions had gone on for many years undisturbed, and had met with the support of many of their Lordships and some of the Judges; and the result of them had been, that a new field had been opened to the Arts, which had given encouragement to many artists. It appearing, however, that these practices were strictly in violation of the Lottery Act, they had been put a stop to, though he believed that it never had been contemplated to direct the Act against societies united merely for the distribution of works of art. The Bill which he laid upon their Lordships' Table, therefore, provided that the practice hitherto pursued by Art Unions should be allowed to be pursued from and after January next by such Art Union Societies as should obtain a Royal Charter of Incorporation, and also by smaller Art Unions who might not be able to go to the expense of a Charter of Incorporation, if their rules had been previously approved of by the Board of Trade.
Bill read a first time.

ACTIONS FOR GAMING DISCONTINUANCE (No. 2).
The Duke of Richmond,
876
in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that it was merely a Bill to continue an existing Bill which expired at the close of the present Session, for staying proceedings in certain qui tam actions for penalties. The Committee which had been appointed upon this subject had not led to any settlement of the whole question during the present Session, and this was the ground upon which the protection afforded to certain defendants was sought to be extended.
Lord Campbellsaid, that he should not oppose the second reading of this Bill; but he thought it right to state, that he had been requested by certain parties interested in these actions, to present a petition, praying that they might be heard by counsel at the Bar against the Bill. That petition he had not yet received; but he begged to give notice, that if he did receive it before the remaining stages of the Bill were gone through, he should certainly present it, and make a Motion in conformity with its prayer.
The Duke of Richmondsaid he had no objection to the parties being heard by one counsel, or two if they pleased; but he only put it to the House whether there existed any precedent for hearing a party against a Bill which did not destroy a right of action, but merely suspended it?
Lord Campbellsaid, that to suspend proceedings might in itself incur a positive pecuniary loss.
After a few words from the Lord Chancellor and the Duke of Richmond,
Bill read a second Time.

PARTY PROCESSIONS (IRELAND).
The Earl of Wicklowwished to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to a subject which appeared to him to be intimately connected with the peace of Ireland. When, some years ago, the Party Processions Prohibition Act was passed, although it was evidently directed against the Orange party in Ireland, yet it was so framed that it might be extended to all processions of political parties in that country. Unfortunately, since that time a new party had arisen, and the right of meeting had been turned into a curse. A description of processions was now common in Ireland, which arising out of circumstances in themselves great blessings to the country, had been made the occasion for practices which had tended to increase animosity and ill-will (the

877
noble Earl apparently alluded to the Temperance Societies). The whole of those who attended the meetings and processions to which he referred were of one particular religion and one political party, and they had their distinguishing emblems and banners. Under these circumstances, and in this state of things, his object was to ascertain whether it was the intention of Government to renew the Party Processions Act? and if so, whether under this alteration of circumstances, it was intended to put down this new description of processions? If these processions were allowed under the Act, a new principle would be introduced by the Government that would tend exceedingly to lower their character for impartiality. For his own part, he was perfectly convinced that there was not the slightest danger to be apprehended, if this Act were not renewed. The parties against whom it was originally directed placed the utmost confidence in those to whom they conceived confidence to be due, and they had not shown any disposition to march in procession—he thought, therefore, that the Government might abstain from renewing the Act altogether. But if it were renewed, it ought, he submitted, to include the processions of all those societies and associations that had recently sprung up. He begged leave to observe, that he had abstained from putting these questions until the anniversary days had passed when certain processions formerly took place in Ireland—and those days, so far as he was yet informed, had gone by without the slightest breach of order having been committed.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that although his noble Friend had, he thought, rather exceeded the bounds of order in the observations which he had made, he had no objection to give such answers as he could to the questions which he had put. His noble Friend, if he referred to the Votes of the House of Commons, would find that a Bill had been brought in on the subject he referred to, and that it stood for Committee this evening. In what state that Bill might come up to their Lordships it was impossible for him (Lord Wharncliffe to predict; he believed, however, that the Bill renewed till the 1st of June, 1845, an Act already existing against Party Processions in Ireland, which would give Parliament time to reconsider the whole subject. Under these circumstances he did not think it would be right for him
878
on the present occasion to enter upon any reply to his noble Friend's remarks. When the Bill came up from the other House there would be a proper opportunity for discussing the subject, and his noble Friend might propose any Amendment which he thought the Bill required. He would only add, however, that he thought he would find it very difficult to frame a Clause which would put an end to the temperance meetings which would not also put down all public societies whatever.

MR. ALEXANDER O'DRISCOLL.
Earl Fortescuesaid, he would make no apology for the Motion which he was about to bring forward, because he was persuaded that few questions could be submitted to that House of greater importance in their bearings on the social condition of Ireland than those which related to the conduct of her magistrates. And if he could shew from the papers which had been laid before the House, that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was borne out in the opinion which he had expressed "that Mr. A. O'Driscoll had not that command over his temper which was essentially necessary for the due administration of Justice," he Lord Fortescue thought, that their Lordships would feel with him that some information or explanation was due to that House and to the public, but more especially to the public of Ireland as to the grounds upon which in the face of this opinion of the Lord Chancellor recorded under his hand, Mr. O'Driscoll, after having been dismissed, was within six months restored to the commission of the peace. He should now shortly refer to the facts of the case, as they were detailed in the papers. The first of these is a memorial from one Daniel Dineen, stating that on the 2nd of November he was on the lands of Sulivan, a tenant of Mr. O'Driscoll, whilst a distress was taking for Mr. O'Driscoll's rent. That some cows of his (Dineen's) which had strayed on the land were seized, but soon afterwards rescued by parties unknown to Mr. O'Driscoll's Bailiff, in the presence of Dineen, who in consequence received a summons from Mr. O'Driscoll, calling on him to attend at Mr. O'Driscoll's own house. He attended accordingly on Saturday the 4th when he was required, on oath, to state who the parties were who committed the rescue. On his declining to answer, he was taken before another

879
magistrate; and persisting in his refusal, he was placed in the bridewell at Skibbereen, and confined there from the 4th to the 8th of November, when he was brought before the Petty Sessions, of which Mr. O'Driscoll was chairman, and in that capacity began to examine his Bailiff respecting the rescue, but on being reminded by the magistrates that he ought not to act in his own case, he descended from the Bench and continued his examination at the Table below. The magistrates did not consider that there was sufficient ground for a criminal information, but they remanded the prisoner for the purpose, as he considered, of obtaining further evidence. He was accordingly remanded to the Bridewell from the 8th to the 14th of November, on which day, without any application from him, he was set at liberty. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland sent this memorial to Mr. O'Driscoll for explanation, and he received an answer, giving a different colour to the transaction, but admitting the main facts, Mr. O'Driscoll adding that he had suspected the man of instigating the rescue. The Report of the Magistrates was very nearly to the same effect, except that they stated that it did not appear from the evidence that the man had instigated the rescue. Upon a revision of all the circumstances, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland made a communication to Mr. O'Driscoll to the effect that he ought not to have acted in his own case, but that he (the Lord Chancellor) did not intend to interfere any further in the business, but would leave the man to whatever remedy the law gave him. He made a similar communication to Dineen, who justly enough observed that this to a poor man like him was, indeed, no remedy at all. Whilst this inquiry was pending, Mr. O'Driscoll was again brought up before the same Bench of Magistrates on a charge of assault under the following circumstances:—a gentleman was shooting in the neighbourhood of Skibbereen, and seven or eight boys were looking on. Mr. O'Driscoll, who was hunting near the spot, hearing a shot, rode up to the boys, who dispersed in alarm. One of them, named Dempsey, he pursued to the cottage of a poor woman. The boy ran into the cottage and hid himself under a bed. Mr. O'Driscoll called on the woman to turn the boy out, and the woman, as she stated, in consequence of her own and her chil-
880
dren's alarm did so, whereon Mr. O'Driscoll asked him where the gun was. The boy answered, and he (Earl Fortescue) believed truly, that he could not tell, as he had nothing to do with it. Mr. O'Driscoll then, according to his own account, gave him a blow with his whip, but, according to other accounts three or four severe blows. It also appeared that language was used by Mr. O'Driscoll to the boy and afterwards to the woman, when she told the boy to "quit the house so that he might not be killed at her door," such as he would not disgust their Lordships by repeating, as it was not only unsuited to a person holding the office of a Magistrate, but utterly unbecoming any person with the common feelings and habits of a gentleman. On the evidence brought before the Bench, the Magistrates unanimously convicted Mr. O'Driscoll in the fine of 2l., one half of which was allotted to the boy as an indemnity for what he had suffered. On this decision being announced to Mr. O'Driscoll, he resumed his place on the Bench and stated in presence of all the Court that justice had not been done; and repeated this statement more than once on which an altercation) took place between him and the other Magistrates which could not have been very edifying to that portion of the public which was assembled in the court—but Mr. O'Driscoll was at last forced to make a public apology to the Bench. These circumstances having been brought under the cognizance of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, that learned Lord felt it necessary to notice what had occurred, and he called their Lordships' attention to the learned Lord's Minute on the subject. After detailing the particulars of both cases, the Lord Chancellor proceeded to say,
"In an ordinary case I should not feel myself called upon to take any further notice of this charge; but from Mr. O'Driscoll's explanation it may be inferred, that he would not have struck the boy if he had told him the name of the person who carried the gun that had been shot off. Mr. O'Driscoll states, upon his honour as a gentleman, that he merely gave him one slap of the thong of the whip across the shoulders; but this, like the first act, appears to bear the character of a punishment for not giving evidence to Mr. O'Driscoll in his own case. Mr. O'Driscoll after his conxiction committed one of the gravest faults of which a Magistrate can be guilty; he openly accused his brother Magistrates of not baving done justice in his case; he was,

881
however, greatly excited, and shortly after wards redeemed his fault, as far as a gentleman could, by returning into Court, and making a public apology, which was kindly received by the sitting Magistrates; and I should, under ordinary circumstances, be most unwilling to advert to his prior conduct on that occasion. But all these charges taken together satisfy my mind that Mr. O'Driscoll has not at present that command over his temper and actions, even when acting in his Magisterial capacity, or appearing as a Defendant before the Bench, which is so essential to the due administration of justice; he is, I am told, far advanced in life, and has suffered lately from occasional ill health, and I therefore beg to suggest to him that it will be advisable that he should retire from the Bench. If a supersedeas issue it will be solely on these grounds." E. B. SUGDEN, C.
Now, with all due respect for the eminent person who held the Great Seal in Ireland, to whose ability in the discharge of his high judicial functions, no one was more willing to bear testimony than he (Earl Fortescue) was, he must say that this minute appeared to him a most undignified, inconsistent, and inconclusive document. If a case of this kind had occurred in this country, which, he thanked God, he thought to be impossible, as the Magistrates in England, thanks to the control of public opinion, through the medium of the press, were better acquainted with and more observant of their duties, he should have been astonished, indeed, if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, or his noble Friend who preceded him there, after denouncing an individual as not having that command over his temper and actions which was so essential to the due administration of justice, should have superseded him, not on that ground, but merely on the grounds of age and ill health. But he should have been much more astonished if, after having got rid on any ground of a person who had so abused his functions, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack should have, within six months, without any disproof of the facts, restored him to the commission of the peace. Such was the case, as appeared from the Papers on their Lordships' Table; but, if he was rightly informed, this was not the first time that Mr. O'Driscoll had fallen under the censure of the Executive Government, nor the first time that he had been erased from the Commission of the Peace. In addition to this, he must observe, that during the
882
progress of these proceedings Mr. O'Driscoll had taken part in some proceedings of the Magistrates at Macroom Sessions, so improper, and so at variance with the provisions and intent of the Arms Bill, as to call down on that Bench the pointed animadversions of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland. On these grounds, he called upon their Lordships to support him in the Motion he was about to make for information respecting the ground of Mr. O'Driscoll's restoration to the Commission of the Peace. The Irish Government, he was afraid, had within the last twelve months done much to impair the confidence of the great mass of the people of Ireland in the administration of the law in that country by the sweeping removal from the Commission of the Peace, on the grounds of political opinions, of many gentlemen well qualified to be in it by character, station, and property, some of them also much experienced in the discharge of magisterial duties, and endeared to the great body of the people by the profession of those opinions which had led to their dismissal. But the Government would destroy all confidence in the administration of justice, and would take from the people every inducement to obey the law, except the fear of its penalties, if they retained, on the grounds of personal favour, or political partisanship, in the Commission of the Peace men who, like Mr. O'Driscoll, outraged the law which it was his duty to administer, and who, in his whole conduct, displayed a spirit and temper utterly unsuited to the magisterial office. The noble Earl concluded by moving:—
"That there be laid before the House, Copies of any Memorials or Representations addressed to the Irish Government recommending the Restoration of Mr. Alexander O'Driscoll to the Commission of the Peace."
Lord Wharncliffewished to observe in the first place, in reply to the noble Earl, that he had not heard any Parliamentary grounds for the information he sought for. The noble Earl had not shown any grounds for interfering; for he apprehended that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, like the Lord Chancellor of England, when he dismissed from or restored a person to the Commission of the peace, acted in a quasi judicial manner, and unless it could be shown that he had acted from personal favour or political motives, there could be no ground for impeaching his proceedings

883
on the subject. The Chancellor might put an exceedingly improper person on the Commission of the Peace, or he might remove a very proper person from it; but who was to be the judge of his conduct? It was not the noble Lord's opinion that was to determine the matter, even though he might have a strong opinion with respect to it; but that was no Parliamentary ground in calling for Papers. He did not, however, lay much stress upon that objection, which in its nature, he admitted, was a mere technical objection; and he should, therefore, come to the facts of the case at once. It was to be observed that, in all the attacks that had been made upon the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, there was no impeachment of his motives either in dismissing or restoring this Gentleman to the Commission of the Peace, nor any imputation that he was influenced by personal favour, or by any political reason whatsoever. It was very true that this Gentleman had behaved in a manner which every one must feel to have been very improper; but at the same time it must be allowed that both cases in which he was concerned had been greatly exaggerated against him. There was then, first, the case of Dineen. That person was a marksman; and let any one read his memorial to the Lord Chancellor, and they would instantly perceive from the style and manner of it that Dineen was the mere tool of somebody else, whatever injury he might have received. Then Dineen, it was said in the first place, was carried before Mr. O'Driscoll. That is, he had been told to come to Mr. O'Driscoll. He was taken to that Gentleman's room. He was asked to state what he had seen. [The Earl Fortescue: He was summoned to Mr. O'Driscoll's own house.] That was denied by Mr. O'Driscoll. He said there was nothing more natural than that when an offence was committed against a Gentleman, and he was informed that one of his neighbours had seen it done, there could be nothing more natural than that he should ask that person to come to his House, and give him whatever information he could. It was very natural. [The Marquess of Normanby: Yes; but here Dineen was summoned before Mr. O'Driscoll as a magistrate.] Dineen said, he was summoned: Mr. O'Driscoll said he was told to come—but what he (Lord Wharncliffe) meant to say was this, that whether Dineen was summoned or not, he at once went and called upon Mr. O'Driscoll, and
884
he was then taken by Mr. O'Driscoll before another magistrate. That other magistrate tried to get whatever information he could out of him, and then, certainly not in a mode in which matters were conducted in this country—they committed the man to bridewell. Again, however, they were to observe that the man was taken before another magistrate, and whether the man had or had not any knowledge on the subject on which he was questioned, he did not know; but the man was committed, and of course at the request of Mr. O'Driscoll. He was ready to admit that both parties, Mr. O'Driscoll and the other magistrates, were greatly in fault in committing the man, and he thought that the Lord Chancellor was bound to take notice of the fact, and to reprimand them. In the course of the memorial presented by this man (Dineen), it was said that Mr. O'Driscoll had, on one occasion, been censured by the Lord Chancellor, and that he had on another occasion been dismissed. Now, it was but fair to know what Mr. O'Driscoll said in his defence on this subject. He said that the suspension was made in mistake, and that it was immediately recalled; and that, at another time, he had been reprimanded, but it was in a mistake also. The censure was in mistake, and it had been notified by seventy magistrates on both sides of politics, with the Earl of Bandon in the Chair. They had, then, the fact of his having before been both reprimanded and dismissed—and then the explanation of Mr. O'Driscoll as to both cases—and, if Mr. O'Driscoll's explanation was the true one, it took the sting completely out of the charge. They then came to the boy Dempsey. He did not defend Mr. O'Driscoll's conduct on that occasion. He had lost his temper, he had not behaved as a magistrate ought to do, and he had, too, used very improper language to the woman. It was an offence, after all, which perhaps their Lordships would think natural, for a person to commit, Mr. O'Driscoll was out hunting, and he heard a shot, and he took it for granted, as he was afraid a great many gentlemen in this country would have done, that the shot was fired at the animal that was affording him sport. Mr. O'Driscoll, as, he was afraid, too many others would have done under such circumstances, lost his temper. He called to have the boy turned out to him, and then, it was said, he lashed him; according to the account of the boy himself, or rather

885
the account of Dineen, who appeared again in this case, although he had nothing to do with it, the boy was treated most cruelly. Let them now see whether the charge was made out. The boy himself said, that he was struck two or three times with the thong of the whip. Mr. O'Driscoll said that he struck the boy once, and Mr. Jones—undoubtedly an impartial party—said that the boy was struck with the whip; but there was no reason to call it an aggravated assault. He now put it to their Lordships whether or not they had seen persons excited under such circumstances, whether there was not very great excitement felt, if they had even seen a party of Gentlemen interrupted in their sports. How strong, he said, must be a person's feeling on such an occasion? for if there was one thing more than another that annoyed Gentlemen, it was to disturb them in their sports [cries of "Oh, oh."] He did not defend Mr. O'Driscoll's conduct. It was the duty of that Gentleman never to have put himself in such a situation; but then he did say, without letting that fact at all out of consideration, whether or not there was some palliation in such a circumstance for his conduct. He then came to the scene before the magistrates, and he must say that he entirely agreed with the Lord Chancellor, that whatever might have been his fault before, the greatest of all was his conduct to the Bench. He certainly, however, it did appear from the Report of Mr. Jones, repair it to a certain degree, by at once tendering an apology. That, then, being the case as to the grievous circumstances which led to the dismissal of Mr. O'Driscoll, let them now come to the restoration of that Gentleman to the Commission of the Peace. Mr. O'Driscoll remained for some time off the Bench, and the Chancellor took no step—had no intention of restoring him. There was an application, however, made to the Lord Lieutenant of the county, backed by a memorial, such as was very seldom presented in favour of any one, asking for his restoration to the Commission of the Peace. That memorial stated that Mr. O'Driscoll was now restored to his health, and that, though advanced in years, there were many older persons in the Commission of the Peace, and that he was now in the full and active possession of his mental faculties and physical powers; that as a magistrate he had always conducted himself with reputation and credit, and, though a Roman Catholic, was a favour-
886
ite with persons of every creed, that Protestants and Catholics had met with equal justice from him, and the memorialists desired that, by his restoration to the magistracy, no imputation might be allowed to rest upon him. This memorial was signed by five noblemen, thirteen clergymen, forty-one esquires, and 2,842 persons. He must say, that if this Petition were untrue, then all that could be said was, that not only noblemen and gentlemen, but 2,840 persons had told the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor that which was not the truth. Surely some credit must be given to these persons. They must believe that the character of the Gentleman was such as they described it to be, and that memorial being forwarded to the Lord Chancellor, he did restore Mr. O'Driscoll to the Commission of the Peace, having made a minute upon the circumstance. This minute was to the effect, that the Chancellor having considered with attention the memorial signed by 2,900 persons, at the head of whom was the Lord Lieutenant of the county, and which included men of all ranks, collected from the memorial that Mr. O'Driscoll's general conduct as a magistrate was such as rendered it desirable that he should be restored to the Commission of the Peace, that Mr. O'Driscoll's previous conduct was mainly attributable to the irritability arising from ill-health, from which he had now recovered; that he therefore reinstated him in his position, feeling confident that from his experience of the past, and from his having nearly 3,000 sureties for his future behaviour, he should hear no more complaints concerning him. He (Lord Wharncliffe) admitted that Mr. O'Driscoll's conduct justly exposed him to reprimand; and he thought the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had acted properly in dismissing him from the Bench; but, on receiving such a memorial as that he had referred to, the Lord Chancellor might fairly think, that after having punished the individual by reprimand and dismissal from the Bench, he might, nevertheless, give credit to the representations in the memorial, and re-instate the party in the position from which he had been dismissed, without danger, These were the reasons of Mr. O'Driscoll's restoration to the Commission of the Peace, and, as the noble Earl had stated no Parliamentary grounds for the production of the papers he had moved for, he (Lord Wharncliffe) must decline to give them.
The Marquess of Normanbyowned that he had listened with perfect astonishment to the speech which had just been delivered by his noble Friend, the President of the Council. From the very first word to the last he had heard that speech with astonishment—from the very first word in which his noble Friend laid down the extraordinary doctrine that no Parliamentary ground had been stated for this Motion, down to the very last sentence he had uttered, when he again repeated the opinion. His noble Friend had, on a former occasion, declared he would meet the question boldly. He knew his noble Friend sufficiently well to be aware that it was his disposition boldly to meet every question—to expose himself, even where he was not obliged to do so, in defence of others; and when his noble Friend proposed to meet this question, he only gave another extraordinary instance of readiness to fling himself into the breach—to defend, too, a proceeding, even when every word that fell from him must have convinced every one who heard him that he did not think that the step of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland could be justified. His noble Friend had said that he did not think there were Parliamentary grounds for this Motion; and yet how did his noble Friend come to admit that there were good grounds for the original Motion? When he had formerly moved for Papers on this subject they were conceded, and he took no further step in the matter. Why? Because he felt that substantial justice had been done by the removal of Mr. O'Driscoll from the magistracy. But then, when the unexpected, as well as the unexplained, step was taken by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland of restoring Mr. O'Driscoll, there was no person in or out of that House, who heard of it, who was not taken by surprise—and yet his noble Friend said there were no Parliamentary grounds for the Motion! Papers were granted to justify the removal of Mr. O'Driscoll, but when the Government reversed its own decision, were they to be told that no Papers were to be granted to justify his restoration to the magistracy? But, then, indeed, his noble Friend had said, that this objection was merely a technical objection. But his noble Friend said, that what the Lord Chancellor had done was from no political motive — he did not charge the Lord Chancellor with political motives. He
888
made no accusation against that learned personage; but, at the same time, when his conduct was justified by a memorial signed by 2,900 persons, he must own that he should like to know whether those 2,900 persons were not the habitual supporters of the Government; he should like to be satisfied whether they were not persons whom Her Majesty's Government would not like to offend. He was making no accusation against the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieutenant of acting from political motives; but he was anxious for further iuformation—he rather wanted to see who were the parties who, upon such slight grounds as that memorial had stated, had persuaded Her Majesty's Government so soon to reverse their solemn decision on this subject. His noble Friend in undertaking the defence, ought, he thought, to have read the Papers a little more completely. He said, that Mr. O'Driscoll had sent for Dineen, whereas Mr. O'Driscoll himself admitted that he sent a summons for him. He said, "I issued a summons to have him brought before me, or some other magistrates." Was he not justified, then, in saying that he ought to have read these papers more carefully? But then his noble Friend said that it was a matter of no consequence, whether Mr. O'Driscoll sent for the man to his own house or summoned him. Why, by the Petty Sessions Act, such a step was a violation of the law, except in cases of the greatest emergency. Now then as to Dempsey—he appealed to his noble Friend whether there was a palliation to be found for his conduct. He had himself looked over the depositions in this case, and he could say, that the language used by Mr. O'Driscoll to the woman who sought to protect the boy, were so disgusting that he would not utter them in the hearing of their Lordships, and they were such as to disqualify Mr. O'Driscoll for the situation in which he had now been restored. There was, then, another important ingredient in the case of Mr. O'Driscoll, which his noble Friend had rather slurred over. He came next to the proceedings in the Court itself. Now, when the Lord Chancellor undertook to give a minute of proceedings, he must say that he ought to give them fairly. The Lord Chancellor's account of the transaction was not that of Mr. O'Driscoll. Mr. O'Driscoll said that for his language to the Bench he had apologised instantly. Was that so? In short,

889
was that true? Let them turn to the account of Mr. Gore Jones:—
"After the Court had intimated to Mr. O'Driscoll the decision to which they had come, he took his seat beside them, and after many observations from him, in such a tone that the persons round the witnesses' table could not hear, and which the Chairman and other Magistrates seemed not to wish to hear, either, as they were proceeding with another case, Mr. O'Driscoll said aloud, 'I say you have not acted with justice.'
"Chairman (Mr. Somerville): Mr. O'Driscoll, you have used an expression which I would not expect from you; you have insulted the Bench, and I don't think you ought to have done so.
"Mr. O'Driscoll: I think I ought, and that I have grounds for it, and you may take it in any way you please.
"Mr. Somerville: Very well; then, Sir, I shall, and we shall see if you be permitted to insult a Bench who have had a most painful duty to discharge. [Here Mr. Somerville took down in writing the expressions used, and put the paper into his waistcoat pocket.]
"Mr. Fleming: And I tell you also, Sir, that I shall see if you can use such language with impunity.
"Mr. O'Driscoll: I have done so, and care little for the course you adopt."
"Mr. Fleming: Very well."
The Earl of Glengallhere observed across the Table—Mr. O'Driscoll had done nothing to apologise for.
The Marquess of Normanbyobserved, that it was said by his noble Friend, that Mr. O'Driscoll had done nothing to apologise for; and this after telling the Court and his brother Magistrates, that they had not acted with justice. But hear what was further stated of the conduct of Mr. O'Driscoll:—
"The case which was thus interrupted was then proceeded with, and after it was concluded, Mr. Gore Jones called Mr. O'Driscoll out of the Court, and after a short absence both returned, when Mr. O'Driscoll said in rather a low voice, 'I have been guilty of insulting the Bench, and I will apologise for it, except to the—.'
"Mr. Fleming: Don't be muttering, Mr. O'Driscoll; speak out! Do I understand you as excepting me?
"Mr. O'Driscoll: Yes.
"Mr. Fleming (to Mr. Somerville): Hand me the paper in which you took down his words.
"The paper having been handed to Mr. Fleming, he said (addressing Mr. O'Driscoll, and reading from the paper), 'You have, Sir, said, that this Bench has not acted with justice towards you. Remember these words.
'Mr. Somerville: An insult offered to the
890
whole Bench, and I will not receive an apology individually.
"Mr. Jones having again conversed with Mr. O'Driscoll, the latter said, 'Well, if I must, I must,' and continued in a low tone of voice, 'Well, I will apologise to the whole Bench.'
"Mr. Somerville: Then do so publicly.
"Mr. O'Driscoll (in a distinct voice): Well, I do apologise.
"Mr. Somerville: Then I destroy the paper on which I took down your words. [Here Mr. Somerville tore the paper.]
"Mr. Becher: I am glad of it, as the decision was unanimous."
He complained that although all the circumstances which he had related occurred before the apology was made, which Mr. O'Driscoll represented to have been instantaneous, Lord Chancellor Sugden took no notice of them. Ultimately, Mr. O'Driscoll said, "Well, I do apologise to the whole Bench," and then Mr. Somerville destroyed the paper on which he had taken down his words. He now came to the memorial. He should like to know whether those who signed it were aware of the facts to which he had just referred, and knew that Mr. O'Driscoll had given such an account of the matter to the Lord Chancellor, although he had shown so much pertinacity in refusing to apologise for an act which had admitted of no justification; and he was also anxious to know whether those amongst whom and those over whom Mr. O'Driscoll was to act, had signed it—whether Mr. Somerville and Mr. Becher and Mr. Fleming had signed it? He spoke with great respect of the noble Lord Lieutenant of the county and of those Gentlemen who had signed the memorial, but he said they ought not to have done so unless they had consulted the feelings of those amongst whom Mr. O'Driscoll had misbehaved himself. It was easy to produce an effect, and to procure signatures to a memorial by appeals, such as "Poor old O'Driscoll — he is breaking his heart about their having turned him out of the Commission—don't you recollect the capital run we had when he struck the boy?—it was all about that." But he (Lord Normanby) said that with the facts of this case before him, he should never have signed such a memorial. And how had this consistent Government acted with respect to other parties? What was Lord Lucan's case? He thought, and always had thought, Lord Lucan a very ill used man. He had, perhaps, under extreme provocation, forgotten himself, and

891
used one term of which he repented as soon as be was delivered of it; it was a very objectionable one, but it was to a person who was at the time irritating and aggravating him, and misbehaving himself in an extreme degree. But did Lord Lucan insult the Bench? Did he tell them as Mr. O'Driscoll did, that they had not done justice in his case? And his learned and noble Friend reminded him that Lord Lucan had first thrown himself upon the protection of the Bench. He had thus shown his innate good feeling until his temper was aggravated beyond control. He had never heard of so extraordinary a course as that pursued by the Government in the case of Lord Lucan. Could there have been any difficulty in Lord Lucan procuring a memorial in his favour if he had condescended to such a course? The Government, it was true, offered to restore him; but they stated at the same time that the condition of restoration would be the reinstatement of the person who had been the cause of the quarrel, who was his agent and who had no qualification for the Bench, except what he derived originally from the favour of the person whom he insulted. He held that the greatest weakness a Government could show was to be afraid of being thought afraid of doing justice in such a case as that of Lord Lucan. But this was not all that was to be expected with respect to persons dismissed from the commission of the peace, if the Lord Chancellor of Ireland persevered in his present course. He (Lord Normanby) had had the misfortune to recommend to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who acted upon his recommendation the dismissal of a gentleman of high character from the commission of the peace—he meant Colonel Verner. He much regretted it at the time, but felt it his duty to do so. The circumstances had been often before the public, and it was only necessary for him to remind their Lordships that when the Act against party processions was brought in, Colonel Verner, at a late hour in the evening, proposed a toast which was considered as necessarily exciting one class of the people against another. He (the Marquess of Normanby) wrote to him for an explanation, and should have been happy to have received such a one as would have prevented the necessity of his proceeding further; but Colonel Verner acting upon that feeling against the Government which the high Protestant party
892
in Ireland at that time cherished, refused to give any explanation; and he (the Marquess of Normanby) felt himself bound to take the step of recommending his dismissal; but Colonel Verner was in every way qualified for his station as a magistrate, and he said, that if Mr. O'Driscoll was restored, the Government would commit an act of great injustice to Colonel Verner if they did not also restore him to the commission of the peace: and he thought, considering the length of time since the affair had occurred, that such an act would be meritorious and praiseworthy on their part. There was nothing in the Papers to show where the Lord Chancellor had picked up the story about Mr. O'Driscoll being in ill health. He had certainly shown his vigour on Dempsey; but even supposing the Lord Chancellor to have been right in assigning the state of Mr. O'Driscoll's health as the justification of the course which he had pursued, he begged to ask how did these 2,800 people know of Mr. O'Driscoll's restoration to health? He (Lord Normanby) thought that if the dismissal of a magistrate was good for anything, it was only a good thing if the fair and honest grounds upon which it was felt to be necessary were stated to the public; but could any man read the minute of Lord Chancellor Sugden without seeing, that by way of softening the proceeding to Mr. O'Driscoll it was put upon grounds which were not the real ones? It stated—
"He is, I am told far advanced in life, and had suffered lately from occasional ill health, and I therefore beg to suggest to him that it will be advisable that he should retire from the Bench. If a supersedeas issue, it will be solely on these grounds."
He hoped the Lord Chancellor of Ireland would not persevere in giving such reasons for his acts. He had been the more anxious to take an opportunity of saying a few words on this subject, because at this moment a change of Government was about to take place. As to the noble Earl who was about to leave this country, he had every feeling of personal kindness for him, and it was notorious that from ill health that noble Lord had not been able to pay that attention to his duties which no doubt he otherwise would have done; but he (Lord Normanby) was not prepared to say at present that the Lord Lieutenancy ought to be abrogated. Although we must look for-

893
ward to the time when the two countries should be placed upon a footing of perfect equality, and when that office could be dispensed with, he was not prepared to say that we were yet arrived at the time when the protection arising from the presence of a resident governor could be withdrawn. But if a Lord Lieutenant was to continue to reside in that country, it must be understood that he did his own business. To the Lord Lieutenant every one looked, and the moment a question arose as to this being the act of one person and that of another, the whole system became one of intrigue, instead of being what it ought to be, and what he believed it must for some time continue to be, one of protection to the people. He did not know whether he rightly understood his noble Friend to say, that he would refuse the papers on the ground that no Parliamentary case had been made out for their production.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he had observed—rather as a protest than for any other purpose—that no Parliamentary ground had been made out for the Motion; but if the noble Lord wished for the Papers, he had no objection to their production.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid if his noble Friend had any doubt on the subject, he should recommend him to take the sense of the House upon it; but he conceived that the strongest possible parliamentary grounds had been shown. If his noble Friend did not refuse the Papers, he should say no more; but he thanked his noble Friend for bringing the case forward, and he thought the more such cases were brought forward, the more substantial justice would be done.
The Earl of Riponsaid, as his noble Friend did not mean to press his objection to the production of the papers, he did not think it necessary to enter into the particulars of the case. He felt no disposition to palliate or at least to excuse the conduct of Mr. O'Driscoll in the matter which was first brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor; but he thought there was nothing of which he was accused which implied misconduct in his magisterial capacity except the insult to the Bench. The noble Marquess had said that he did not wish to throw so much responsibility upon the Lord Lieutenant, because the state of his health had rendered him unable to attend to the duties of his office. Now he must, on the part of the Lord Lieutenant, disclaim all ex-
894
cuse on that ground. He would venture to say that those who had to deal with the Lord Lieutenant, however they might have witnessed the suffering which ill health produced had never seen any indolence in the discharge of his duties as one of its effects, or any disposition to permit himself to be urged to any course to which, in his conscience, he did not feel himself bound; and he would venture to say that whatever was the course he had pursued — whether it was right or wrong—it was the result of his own deliberate consideration, and not of putting his conscience at the feet of any other person.
The Earl of Wicklowalso bore testimony to the assiduity and vigilance with which Earl De Grey discharged the duties of his office. With regard to Lord Lucan's dismissal, he (the Earl of Wicklow) considered it, as he had before strongly declared, one of the most unjust transactions that had ever been known; and he thought that the conditions that had subsequently been proposed—viz. the concurrent restoration of Mr. O'Malley increased the impropriety of the conduct which had been pursued towards Lord Lucan; but with regard to Mr. O'Driscoll, he would not participate in the condemnation of the course pursued by the Irish Government, for he saw nothing in that Gentleman's conduct which would justify his permanent exclusion from the commission of the peace.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, he totally differed from the noble Earl who had just sat down, in the conclusion at which he had arrived, with respect to the degree of propriety in Mr. O'Driscoll's conduct. The report made by an authorised person, showed that after the Court had intimated to Mr. O'Driscoll the decision to which they had come, he took his seat amongst them, and, after many other observations, said aloud, "I say you have not acted with justice." [Lord Wicklow: He sat on the bench near the magistrates, as many persons do, but he was not acting in a magisterial capacity.] Mr. O'Driscoll began by saying "Let us do justice in this case, which was not done in the last," and it was clear that he did misbehave himself in his magisterial capacity in that case, as well as in the case of the man whom he summoned to his own house in defiance of the Petty Sessions Act, and of all the rules

895
for magisterial procedure. He (Lord Clanricarde) said that any man of whom such facts came out as were proved in this case, was incapacitated, both by his temper and his conduct, from being a proper and a good magistrate. It was new to him that any man was entitled by his property to be a magistrate, if he was not also qualified by his conduct and his temper. No attempt worth notice had been made to excuse the act of which Mr. O'Driscoll had been guilty with respect to the boy; but beyond that he said, that in this correspondence Mr. O'Driscoll was convicted of two, if not three distinct falsehoods. His statement that he had instantly apologised was inconsistent with the facts, and was an endeavour to mislead the Lord Chancellor, and he thought a person capable of such an attempt was not a proper person to be continued in the Commission of the Peace. Again, after it had been distinctly proved that the boy whom Mr. O'Driscoll struck was not poaching, but that it was a gentleman named Townsend who fired the gun, Mr. O'Driscoll, twice in his letter after that disproof, stated that the boy was poaching. He thought that there was not a shadow of justification for restoring him to the Commission of the Peace. The President of the Council, by way of excuse for Mr. O'Driscoll, said that he had been betrayed into violence in consequence of excitement produced by the sports of the field; but this Mr. O'Driscoll himself denied, and there was no reason to suppose that Mr. O'Driscoll would not again do what he had already done, for he showed not the least compunction for it. He had expressed his regret for his conduct to the magistrates; but with respect to Dineen, or the "poaching urchin," as he called the boy, he did not seem to think he had done anything wrong. Mr. O'Driscoll denied the fact of his temper being inflammable, except in the one instance, to his brother magistrates. This was the gentleman whom the Government restored to the Commission of the Peace, and then they wondered that the people had not confidence in the magistracy, and that they resorted to what was called the wild justice of revenge—this gentleman having been twice restored, for he had before been dismissed by the deliberate judgment of the Lord Chancellor. The President of the Council must have forgotten his own speech with
896
reference to votes of the late Government, although he (Lord Clanricarde) defied him to show that they did not rest upon as good grounds as this. The only excuse given for restoring Mr. O'Driscoll was the high character and the number of those who had signed the memorial in his favour. Why, if the Government were to restore to the Commission a gentleman, who no one could say had behaved as he ought, because he had been recommended in a Memorial signed by 2,800 persons, they might turn out of it for their political opinions persons in whose favour—he did not exaggerate when he said he could procure a million of signatures if necessary. If Mr. O'Driscoll was to be restored because there were 2,800 signatures in his favour, why should popular magistrates be turned out of the Commission because they entertained an opinion which, he was sorry to say, many honest persons entertained, that a Repeal of the Union was desirable. The facts of Dineen being a poor and illiterate man, and of the paper being written for him by some one else, were brought forward apparently to weaken the case. Why, he said that was the strength of the case. The best reason why Mr. O'Driscoll should have been removed was, because it was a person of the humbler class upon whom he had attempted to trample. Was there any proof that he assaulted Mr. Townsend, who was the person really shooting? No; but he directed his gross and violent language to a poor woman, treated a boy with severity, and attempted to act with oppression towards Dineen. He was sure the President of the Council did not mean that Dineen was not entitled to justice because he was a poor man; but the Lord Chancellor's minute showed that he considered his Memorial not entitled to so much attention, because it was written for him by another person, Dineen himself not being able to write. Was he not right in applying to a person who could put the case forward fairly and properly? But he believed that this was not a solitary case as regarded Mr. O'Driscoll, and he would refer as a proof of that to the statement made in open court of the cause for not serving a summons on that gentleman. The attorney for the complainant stated in open court, that the official of the court refused to serve a summons upon Mr. O'Driscoll; and what excuse did that official give?

897
He said the person who was in the habit of serving summonses stated to him that he dared not serve a summons upon Mr. O'Driscoll, because if he did Mr. O'Driscoll would drive a ball through him. [Lord Wharncliffe: That is a statement from a newspaper.] He said it appeared as a Report of the proceedings in a court of justice, but he was satisfied if the noble Lord wished to rest his whole case upon that. That reason assigned for not serving the summons showed pretty clearly how well the character of Mr. O'Driscoll was understood in the country.
The Earl of Bandonsaid, that he would not enter into the merits of the case, but he wished to state that he knew nothing of the memorial until it was brought to him numerously and respectably signed, and of course he had no previous knowledge of the intention to get up that memorial. Before the memorial reached him, it bore the signatures of nearly 3,000 persons of all political and religious opinions, and two of the Peers who signed it were of the politics, he believed, of noble Lords opposite; in addition to which, it was signed by a number of magistrates, who had been in the habit of acting with Mr. O'Driscoll, when he was on the Bench. He (the Earl of Bandon) had known Mr. O'Driscoll for a long time as a respectable magistrate, and he believed, when that memorial was brought to him, an old magistrate had been sufficiently punished by the degradation of being dismissed from the Commission of the Peace—a punishment which he would not say had been unjustly inflicted.
Lord Campbellsaid, that the noble Earl had shown a great deal of good feeling in the part he had taken; but he had shown strongly the truth of what fell from his noble Friend—he had shown that the memorial had proceeded merely from good nature. He stated that he was not acquainted with the facts.
The Earl of Bandonsaid, he was well acquainted with the facts; but he had said that he should not enter into them, as it was his intention to confine himself to the subject of the memorial, and the portion of the transaction in which he had been concerned.
Lord Campbellsaid, that the House had a right to be thankful to the noble Earl for the manner in which he had come forward to explain all the transactions with respect to the memorial. It was his
898
(Lord Campbell's) duty, as a Member of their Lordships' House, to give his opinion in the most frank and free manner upon this subject, and he should therefore say that the noble Earl sat down without showing one reason why the decision to which the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had come in dismissing Mr. O'Driscoll from the Commission of the Peace ought to be reversed, and that gentleman re-appointed. There were in such a case the true reasons and the ostensible reasons. Now, the true reason was his conduct with regard to Dineen, a man whom he had summoned in his own case to his own house, and did what amounted to the infliction of torture in order to obtain a confession of his knowledge of certain proceedings. He had, in fact, shown by his conduct that he was unfit for the office of a magistrate. There were offences in which those engaged in the administration of justice might be forgiven, but there were others which ought not to be forgiven. Now, with regard to the ostensible reason for dismissing Mr. O'Driscoll, what was it? The ostensible reason was, that Mr. O'Driscoll was a gentleman of bad temper, and bad health, and of advanced age. The memorial stated that Mr. O'Driscoll had recovered his health, but it was silent as regarded his temper—it had not stated that he had any. Homœopathic application recovered his temper with his health. Then there was another of the ostensible reasons which could not have been removed, namely, old age; he could not have grown younger unless, like a crab, he went backwards. It appeared that, taking the health, and the temper, and the conduct displayed by Mr. O'Driscoll into consideration, he was not considered fit any longer to hold the Commission of the Peace. Now, had the memorial, or had anything they had heard to-night, shown that these grounds were altered, and that he ought to be restored? If a magistrate were dismissed from the Commission of the Peace for a grave cause, which showed that he was unfit to be a magistrate, was it to be said that any memorial, however respectable, was to be considered sufficient ground for reversing the punishment? Did not the memorial itself show the evil that might by possibility arise from such a practice? The memorial was signed by 2,800 persons before it was brought to the Lord Lieutenant of the county, but if it were brought

899
to him in order to have his signature before any other—if he were consulted in the first instance, he would not have signed the memorial—he would have said, "By no means; the Chancellor has properly dismissed him, and he ought not to be restored." He (Lord Campbell) rejoiced to perceive that the Government were ashamed of the course which had been pursued with respect to Mr. O'Driscoll, and that they had altered the course which they had originally been prepared to take. The noble President of the Council at first said that there were no Parliamentary grounds for giving the information; but when the arguments appeared so strong, and the case irresistible, for once, although they possessed authority and power, and might have a large majority, yet they thought better of the matter, and agreed to give the papers required.
The Earl of Glengalsaid, that this was altogether a party proceeding from beginning to end, and the real motives which actuated persons in relation to it, were motives which did not appear on the papers that had been laid before their Lordships. People in this country were not aware how much persecuted magistrates in Ireland frequently were; the lowest, and meanest, and most contemptible species of attornies attended the petit sessions, for the purpose of picking holes in the conduct of the magistrates. Mr. O'Driscoll was a Roman Catholic gentleman, and like all the magistrates who were Roman Catholics, and were at the same time opposed to Repeal, was odious to the conspirators, who were destroying a country that, only for the detestable machinations of those persons, would be one of the most flourishing countries in the world. The case was made up against Mr. O'Driscoll in that low pettifogging manner—it was a case like that which was tried a few days ago in the county of Roscommon, in which the Repeal Association sent down 25 l. for the purpose of carrying on proceedings against a Conservative gentleman, who had made himself obnoxious to the Repealers. Two cases of nearly a similar nature happened in the county with which he was connected, and they afforded instances of the persecutions to which magistrates are frequently subjected in Ireland. Mr. O'Driscoll was obnoxious to the Repealers because he was opposed to
900
Repeal, and he had also made himelf obnoxious with respect to the Arms Bill, knowing what description of persons many of the Repealers were. But, at all events, the account of those proceedings which had been so much spoken of was copied from a Cork paper, the reporter of which made it up perhaps partly out of his own head and partly out of the facts of the case. The charge in reality against Mr. O'Driscoll was, that he was not a Repealer.
The Earl of Mountcashelknew Mr. O'Driscoll for a great number of years; that Gentleman had often visited at his House, and he was able to state from his personal knowledge that he stood very high in the opinion of the whole country. He had been a magistrate for a long time, and their Lordships were aware that magistrates in his condition were often obliged to do do things which tended to make them unpopular. Mr. O'Driscoll had been placed in that position and had found himself in the discharge of his magisterial duties opposed to a large number of those around him. He was a Roman Catholic gentleman, and being a Roman Catholic, he was also a Conservative, which caused him to be placed in the black list, and to be extremely unpopular. It ought to be recollected that Mr. O'Driscoll resided in a wild part of the country, where gentlemen were very scarce. [Laughter.] Yes, he repeated, where gentlemen were scarce, and it was desirable that in such a place men of independent character and property should be upon the list of magistrates. If there were not such men as Mr. O'Driscoll scattered through the country, he (the Earl of Mountcashel) did not know what might occur. They were very different from the low description of magistrates, of which so many were appointed during the late Administration. Mr. O'Driscoll might have been a little warm, but it was not always the man who was most easily excited that was the least worthy character; and he could assure their Lordships that this gentleman had earned the esteem of all who knew him. The real cause of this persecution against Mr. O'Driscoll was that which he stated himself in a letter, which would be found in page 11 of the papers relating to this subject, which were on their Lordships' Table. The Clause was, in his own words, "I am a Roman Catholic, professing Conservative principles." That would explain

901
the reason of this persecution against Mr. O'Driscoll.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he felt it his duty to offer a few words in defence of his learned Friend, that most excellent Judge, whose administration of justice was approved of by all Ireland—one of the most learned and able Judges that ever sat on the Bench—one of the most upright, honourable, and independent men that ever held the office which he now holds—a Judge who has on all occasions been actuated by no other principle and motive than the desire to perform his duty. In his (the Lord Chancellor's) opinion an attack had been made which, in severity and extent, was not warranted by the circumstances; and he believed in his conscience that it arose from nothing but what had been alluded to by two noble Lords who had last addressed the House, and who were well acquainted with the condition and the state of politics in Ireland—namely, the union in the person of Mr. O'Driscoll of what was considered by some as two opposite and inconsistent principles—namely, of being a Conservative Catholic and Anti-repealer. He attributed the attack more to that cause than to any other. What were the facts of the case?—He did not mean to justify Mr. O'Driscoll—but what were the grounds which had been adopted with respect to him. The first charge against him was a charge of committing a person to prison whom he had summoned to appear before him in his own case. He admitted the irregularity of that summons, but this man so summoned went with Mr. O'Driscoll voluntarily to the police barrack, where Mr. Galway, a neighbouring Magistrate, attended. He ought not to have summoned the man before him, but the man walked, not with a constable, but quietly with Mr. O'Driscoll to the police barrack, and Mr. Galway endeavoured to persuade him to admit the name of the party who had committed an offence, and it was because he refused to answer the question, which he was bound by law to answer, that he was committed to prison. The facts were greatly exaggerated.
The Marquess of Clanricarde: Why was he bound to answer the question.
The Lord Chancellor: It was a case of misdemeanour.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, there was a particular statute in Ireland relating to poaching, under which he might be committed to prison if he refused to answer.
The Marquess of Clanricarde: The
902
person against whom he was required to give evidence was not poaching.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he did not allude to the subject of poaching; the offence was driving away cattle, which had been seized under distress. The man was asked a question in reference to that offence, and did any man say that if, in such a case, he refused to answer a question which he was legally bound to answer, he could not be committed to prison, he would be committed to prison, and he must say that there appeared to be gross exaggeration and extravagance in the statements. Then there was the assault. It was quite ludicrous. ["Ironical Cheers."] What authority had they for this statement about the assault?
The Marquess of Clanricarde: It appeared in the papers, which gave an account of the proceedings.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland wrote for an account of the matter to the chairman of the tribunal before which the subject was brought, but it would appear that some noble Lords had not read that account. The Chairman said that it was by no means an aggravated assault.
The Earl of Fortescuesaid, that the Lord Chancellor had described it as a ludicrous assault.
The Lord Chancellordenied that it was an aggravated assault. He did not say ludicrous assault; but in reference to the extraordinary course which had been taken, he said that the exaggeration had been ludicrous. How was it proved by the documents? The Chairman's account which was sent to the Lord Chancellor, said, that it was not an aggravated assault. When they came to the affront—to the insult—he (the Lord Chancellor) admitted that it was very improper conduct on the part of Mr. O'Driscoll, according to the statement in the newspaper; but Mr. Jones in his account stated, that when the apology was made it was immediately accepted by the Magistrates, and the Chairman tore in pieces a written paper which he had in his hand (an account of the transaction), and threw it away as if he looked upon the matter as concluded by the apology. Did he (the Lord Chancellor) justify Mr. O'Driscoll in that conduct? Far from it. He thought his conduct highly improper, but he apologised for it, and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland stated to him that it was a grave offence of which he had been guilty. Fault had been found with the minute of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, but no terms

903
could be more apt and proper than those which he had used; and he would ask any noble Lord who had read it to say if the opinions in that minute could be better expressed. Mr. O'Driscoll had been a magistrate twenty or thirty years, during which time he had well discharged his duties; and what did the Lord Chancellor of Ireland do? The Lord Chancellor suspended him from the Commission of the Peace, he wrote to him that he ought in consequence of his conduct to be removed from the Commission of the Peace. He was dismissed, and he remained so for six months. What happened afterwards? The Lord Lieutenant of the county, who knew Mr. O'Driscoll well, and who was acquainted with all the particulars relating to this subject, attached his signature to a memorial requesting his restoration to the Commission of the Peace. This memorial was not only signed by the Lord Lieutenant of the county but by Magistrates and others of the greatest respectability, and of all parties of all political opinions. It was signed by upwards of 2,800 persons, by all respectable friends and neighbours of Mr. O'Driscoll who knew him and were acquainted with all the particulars. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland then restored the Commission of the Peace to this old Magistrate, who had for thirty years properly discharged the duties which belonged to the Commission. And this the more particularly, if he had reason to believe that the persecution against Mr. O'Driscoll was founded on the grounds he (the Lord Chancellor) had already stated, that being a Roman Catholic he had had the courage to be a Conservative and an Anti-Repealer.
The Earl of Radnorsaid the course of the debate had shown him that the subject was of more importance than he at first supposed it to be; and certainly his estimate of that importance was greatly enhanced by the speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The testimony which the noble and learned Lord had borne to the general manner in which the Lord Chancellor of Ireland discharged the functions of his high office was, he believed, from all he had heard, perfectly just, and thoroughly well merited. Yet it must be admitted by all dispassionate persons, that blame attached to that distinguished person for his restoration to the magistracy of Mr. O'Driscoll. It was stated by the noble and learned Lord, that the memorial in favour of Mr. O'Driscoll emanated from the Lord-lieutenant of the
904
county, whereas that nobleman distinctly said he knew nothing of the memorial till it was put into his hands to be forwarded to the Government. It was quite clear that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, after he had seen reason for dismissing Mr. O'Driscoll, on the ground of utter unfitness for his office, consented to reinstate him, not because he had revised his opinion of the individual's fitness, but because he yielded to the solicitations of the party with whom Mr. O'Driscoll was connected. He (Lord Radnor) quite differed from noble Lords opposite on the merits of the transactions in which Mr. O'Driscoll had figured. The noble Baron, for instance, was of opinion, that as Dineen was only a marksman, anything done to him was of comparatively slight importance.
Lord Wharncliffehad said nothing of the sort; what he stated of Dineen was, that he looked upon him as a person who had been made use of as the tool of other people for a particular purpose; but he had said nothing implying that because he was a poor man he was not entitled to equal justice with the greatest Duke in the land. All he said about his being a marksman was, simply that he was a marksman, and could not, therefore, write any such memorial to Government.
The Earl of Radnor: Well, then, and precisely because he could not write himself, was it necessary that, when injured, and seeking redress, he should get others to write for him, without subjecting himself to the charge of having been made a tool of by those whom he sought to aid him in this way. What alarmed him (Lord Radnor) most in this matter was, to hear the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack say, that the proceedings in reference to Dineen were regular and legal.
The Lord Chancellorhad said no such thing. The noble Earl really seemed disposed to misrepresent everybody.
The Marquess of Clanricarderose to order. It was altogether out of the rules of the House for any noble Lord to impute to another noble Lord that he had misrepresented a statement.
The Lord Chancellorwould admit that he should not have used the term misrepresented; he should have said misapprehended, and that in consequence of the noble Earl's misapprehending, he had, therefore, though not wilfully, misrepresented what he had said. Most assuredly,

905
what he had said was, that the proceedings were irregular and illegal.
The Earl of Radnor: Yes, the issuing of the summons, but the subsequent proceedings were not spoken of by the noble and learned Lord as irregular or illegal. Again, the noble and learned Lord spoke of the assault upon Dempsey as ridiculous and contemptible, just as if the administration of justice ought not to be alike for rich and poor. Suppose that instead of Mr. O'Driscoll assaulting Dempsey, the latter had assaulted O'Driscoll, would this have been treated as a ridiculous and trumpery affair, not worthy the attention of justice?
The Lord Chancellorhad not spoken of the assault as being ridiculous; what he had said was, that the nature of the assault had been ridiculously exaggerated.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that at all events it was perfectly clear on the face of these papers, on the face of the minutes of the Lord Chancellor, that Mr. O'Driscoll was an entirely unfit man to be in the commission of the peace, and the Lord Chancellor had been, therefore, greatly to blame in reinstating him merely on the ground of a party application in his favour.
Lord Wharncliffedenied that the memorial in behalf of Mr. O'Driscoll was a party application, it was signed by persons of all parties.
The Marquess of Clanricardeasked, if the memorial was not a party one, why were those who advocated the case of Dineen to be charged with party motives?
Lord Campbellbegged to repeat, in reference to what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, his conviction that Dineen was perfectly justified in refusing to answer Mr. O'Driscoll's questions, and that the committal of Dineen to Skibbereen Bridewell was wholly illegal.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that it was by no means an unusual thing, in getting up such memorials as that in favour of Mr. O'Driscoll, to get one or two names of persons of the opposite party, precisely for the purpose of giving the thing an air of impartiality.
Earl Fortescuebriefly replied: his noble Friend having, on second thoughts, abandoned his opposition to the Motion, he should trouble the House with very few observations, but he must protest against the doctrine, that when a grievance had been
906
inflicted on the public (which he maintained to have been the case in the reappointment of Mr. O'Driscoll), the Chancellor, was not amenable unless there were primâ facie grounds for attributing corrupt or improper motives. He had expected from the noble Earl, the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Cork, and from the other noble Earl, who spoke to the character of Mr. O'Driscoll, he expected to have heard from them some confirmation of Mr. O'Driscoll's assertion respecting his former dismissal, but not a word had been said by either of them on that subject. As the question had been put to him, he must say, that however numerously or respectably signed the memorial might have been, he should, as Lord Lieutenant, have thought it his duty to return a distinct and decided negative to the application for restoring Mr. O'Driscoll. He did not say that after years of good conduct he might not have been induced to reinstate him; but in the face of such an opinion as that expressed by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, he certainly would not have thought it consistent with his duty to the country to have restored him within six months. Nothing had fallen from noble Lords opposite during this debate which at all altered his impression that Mr. O'Driscoll was a most improper person to exercise the functions of a magistrate; and he was happy to find that the conduct on which he founded that opinion, though excused by some, had found none to defend it.
The Motion was then agreed to.

THE CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord Wharncliffe, in moving that this Bill be re-committed, said he had delayed proceeding with it for some time that he might find out what objections were urged against it, in order, if possible, to remedy them. He was very glad he had done so, because he had been enabled to amend the Bill in several points, which he hoped would render it completely satisfactory, although God knew in the present state of feeling in Ireland, it was very difficult to say what would give satisfaction in that country. But this he would say, the Bill was such as he thought should be taken by Roman Catholics as an earnest of the desire of Her Majesty's Government to do every thing they could consistently with their duty to support the Established Church, to place Roman Catholics and Protestants in all other respects on an equal footing.

907
First of all, he understood there was an objection to the word "minister," although he was surprised there should be, as that word in France was applied without disrespect to persons in Holy Orders generally. But the Roman Catholics, it seemed, considered it as a term applicable only to the pastors of Protestant Dissenting congregations, and therefore he had erased it altogether from the Bill. Then, as to the composition of the Board; the old Commission was composed of the Lord Chancellor, the Judge of the Prerogative Court, all the Judges, all the Bishops, and all the Ministers of all the Parishes in Dublin. That was, to say the least of it, a very clumsy body, and he was not surprised that the Roman Catholics had not much confidence in it. He proposed to leave out the Lord Chancellor from the Commission altogether, because it was the object of this Bill to enable the Commissioners to bring issues before the Lord Chancellor in order to enforce a right application of the funds. He would put in the Commission first of all the Master of the Rolls, then the Judge of the Prerogative Court; together with ten other persons, of whom five would be Protestants and five Roman Catholics. So much for the constitution of the Commission. But he meant to propose an entirely new Clause to remedy other objections that might be made. It might be said by Roman Catholics that the majority on this Board were Protestants, and yet they were expected to submit to a body so composed matters affecting the discipline and rites of their Church. He must say the bequests in Ireland for Roman Catholic purposes had increased immensely since the passing of the Emancipation Act; there were some enormously large funds in the hands of some individual bishops of that Church. There was one Roman Catholic bishop who had in trust, almost in his own power, one bequest of 55,000 l., and another of 35,000 l. Since the beginning of this year there had been bequeathed altogether for charitable purposes in Ireland above 30,000 l., of which 6,523 l. was for Protestant purposes, and 23,477 l. for Roman Catholic uses. The proportion of bequests, then, for pious and charitable purposes connected with the Roman Catholic religion was in Ireland in a very enormous proportion greater than on the part of the Protestants; there would, therefore, be great injustice and impropriety in leaving to the decision of a Board, of which the majority were Protestants, matters affecting the
908
discipline of the Roman Catholic Church in the first instance. He, therefore, proposed that when any question arose concerning the doctrine, discipline, or constitution of the United Church of England and Ireland, or of any body of Protestant Nonconformists, it should be submitted, in the first instance, to a Committee of five who should be Protestants on the Board; and when any question arose respecting the doctrine, discipline, or constitution of the Roman Catholic Church, it should be submitted to the five Roman Catholics on the Board, who would give a certificate of the facts relating to the case to the Committee at large, on which they would then act. This would be a material improvement in the Bill. He would also introduce a Clause compelling the Board to keep minutes of their proceedings, to enter them in a book, and make an annual report. The noble Earl then read the 11th Clause of the Bill as he proposed it should stand, which required that three months should elapse between the date of the deed and the death of the testator, in order to render it valid; but that provision applied only to real estate. Personalty might still be disposed of at the last moment. He had thought it right to set that three months against the English law of mortmain, which in fact required that a year should elapse. He earnestly hoped the amendments he had made in the Bill would give satisfaction. The greatest anxiety was felt by the Government that their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects should possess a fair and safe footing on which to rest their charitable trusts, to be executed according to the intentions of the founders and the law of the land. This was a fair and honourable tender, which he hoped would be accepted in that spirit in which it was offered.
The Marquess of Normanbysincerely presented his thanks to the noble Lord for every one of the alterations he had made in the Bill. From the fair and candid spirit which dictated those Amendments he felt confident the Bill would meet with general approbation.
Lord Beaumontsaid, that he rose for the purpose of thanking the noble Lord in the first place for the liberal Bill he had presented, and for the purpose of stating his regret in the second place—he might say, even his disgust—at the manner in which it had been received by those for whose benefit it was intended. He con-

909
sidered this measure to have been from its commencement to its final completion a most honest measure on the part of the Government, conceived in a spirit of true liberality, and carried out with sincerity of purpose, as well as with judgment, in respect to its details. Yet, monstrous as it might appear, this very Bill had been attacked by the Irish priesthood, and described as treacherous and atrocious, and "more oppressive than the penal Acts themselves." Yet what was this Bill, and what had the noble Lord done who presented it? He repealed the clumsy and unsatisfactory Bills which established the old Board of Trusts; and in their place set up a machinery, and constituted a Board, by which pious persons might secure their donations and bequests being applied to the objects they intended, and which could be called to account, did it divert them to any other purposes. In fact, the Board thus constituted, was an assailable body, obliged to keep a minute of its proceedings, and to make an annual return of its affairs; while the counter-proposition, the failure of which had caused the outcry against this Bill, was to create an irresponsible body, a corporation sole, who would have the control of the funds, without being obliged to account for their outlay. They would make no returns, keep no minutes—the donors would never know that the money was applied to the purposes they intended. On the other hand, the constitution of the Board, as proposed in the amended Bill of the noble Lord, was all that could be desired by Catholics; and yet he (Lord Beaumont) feared it would not satisfy the priests. The objection to the word "minister" was absurd, as the word was used as a title of respect by the French, in speaking of their priesthood. This objection, frivolous as it appeared, had, however, been made by the Irish priests; but the points on which they seemed to feel most, was the Clause requiring the deed to be executed three months prior to the demise of the testator. That Clause had been modified; and he (Lord Beaumont) regretted that it had been so, for he should have liked to have seen the same provision made in respect of personal, as had been made in respect of real property. He repeated what he had often endeavoured to inculcate, namely, that there was a Catholic laity as well as a Catholic priesthood; and that they were
910
bound to legislate for the protection of the one as much as for the conciliation of the other. Their Lordships must also bear in mind, that the priesthood had the means of making their complaints heard, while the laity generally endured in silence. If the priesthood had a grievance, their voices were loud at public meetings, and letters such as that which had lately appeared in the papers, signed "John, Archbishop of Tuam," were certain to attract attention; but the hardships of those families whose property had been bequeathed to other purposes than the support of surviving relatives, were not likely to come under the public notice. He (Lord Beaumont) was therefore convinced that though they might draw down the abuse of such persons as the writer of the letter he had just alluded to, by extending the principle of the Statute of Mortmain to personal as well as real property in Ireland, they would by such a provision merit and receive the grateful approbation of the Catholic laity. In reference to this subject he might quote an instance which had been reported in that day's paper, of a large amount of personal and real property being left to a Roman Catholic clergyman and the failure of the attempt on the part of the family to recover it, although the will had been drawn up by a priest and signed by the testator within two hours of his death. Convinced as he (Lord Beaumont) was, that undue influence was occasionally exercised by the side of the death-bed and that considerable sums were bequeathed to the Church in articulo mortis, he could not help regretting that any alteration should have been made in the original draft in the Clause. There was one more Clause and only one more to which he thought it necessary to allude. He (Lord Beaumont) differed with his noble Friend in respect to the exclusion of the regular clergy from the advantages of this Bill. If a priest in regular orders performed the duties of the parish he ought to be equally intitled to remuneration as a secular priest, and so far from the seculars being superior to the regulars, he (Lord Beaumont) knew many places in England where Jesuits from Stonyhurst did the duties of parish priests and were well suited by their unobtrusive manners to the task. He (Lord Beaumont) did not therefore see the necessity of the distinction. This was the last detail he would allude to. The Amend-

911
ments of his noble Friend were conceived in the same liberal spirit as the original Bill in its rude state, and he would therefore conclude as he had commenced, by thanking the noble Lord and hoping that certain parties in Ireland would change their tone and acknowledge, though tardily, their debt of gratitude for one of the most liberal and conciliatory Bills that had ever been proposed to the Legislature.
Lord Camoyssaid, that the Bill being an enabling Bill, leaving all parties to bequeath, as they may now do by law, he saw no necessity for naming the Roman Catholics in it, except as describing the constitution and duties of the Commission. In this view he was confirmed by the first improvement that was proposed, viz., to strike out from the title of the Bill the words alluding to them, and he, therefore, thought that it would be more consistent with its title if all further allusion to them were omitted. The adoption of this suggestion would merely have the effect of leaving the Roman Catholics to take the same advantage of the Bill that they could do if named in it, and would avoid an unnecessary distinction, because Protestants, who were not named, were to be benefited by its provisions equally with the Roman Catholics who were. If their Lordships would not accede to this proposition, he felt bound to object to the restrictions imposed in the 11th Clause, preventing bequests being vested in the Commissioners, if made within three months of the testator's death, not so much on the ground that such a restriction was uncalled for, as because it was imposed on Roman Catholics only, for if the principle is to be extended to Ireland, it ought to embrace Protestants also.
The Marquess of Clanricardehighly approved of the Amendments that had been made in the Bills.
The Earl of Wicklowbegged to caution his noble Friend against the confusion that might arise from the terms "real and personal property." By real property, land was, of course meant; but in Ireland much of the land, almost all the Church lands, and many of the leases, were held to be personal property.
Lord Monteaglethanked the Government for introducing the Bill, thanked his noble Friend (the Marquess of Normanby) for having called their attention to the subject, and expressed his gratitude, on behalf of the Irish people, for the
912
readiness with which the Government adopted the Amendments which he had suggested on a former occasion.
Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned.