Sitting of 22 July 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Three-and-a-Half per Cents. Dissentients; Fisheries (Ireland); Transfer of Licenses (Post Horses, Ireland).
2o. Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions.
Reported.—Church Endowment.
3o. and passed:—Joint Stock Companies Remedies at Law and in Equity; Metropolitan Buildings; Municipal Corporations; Land Tax Commissioners Names.
Private.—1o. Harris's Estate; Passingham's Estate; Wilson's Estate; Bishop of London's Estate; Gape's Estate.
2o. Ladbroke's Estate.
3o. and passed:—Ayr Bridge (No. 2).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By several hon. Members, from Sussex (3), against Repeal of Corn Laws.—By Mr. Hawes, from Merchants, for Alteration in mode of Levying Timber Duties.—By Captain Jones, from Medical Practitioners of Londonderry, and Antrim, against Coroners (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. M. Gibson, from S. Gordon, for consideration of his case.—By Captain Jones, from Londonderry, against Extending the Joint Stock Companies Bill to Ireland.—By Mr. Acland, from Wellington Union, against Poor Law Amendment Bill.—By Colonel Fox, from G. J. Guthrie, against confirming Charter of the Royal College of Surgeons.—By Colonel Wood from Brecon, and Boughrood Bridge, for Alteration of Turnpike Trusts (South Wales) Bill.

CAPTAIN WARNER'S INVENTION.
Captain Pechell, hearing that a very

1177
extraordinary experiment had been made on Saturday off the town of Brighton, and that Captain Warner had succeeded in utterly destroying the merchant vessel experimented upon, wished to know whether the experiment had been made at the expense of Government, and with its sanction, or whether they had received any official report upon the result?
Sir R. Peelhad not seen any account of the matter except that given in the public journals. The experiment had not been made at the expense or in consequence of communication with Government. It was true that Government had been in communication with Captain Warner upon the subject, and had proposed to allot a certain sum for the purpose of making the experiment, under the direction of certain officers to be appointed by Government. Captain Warner declined this offer upon the grounds of the insufficiency of the sum proposed. The vessel upon which the experiment of Saturday had been tried was furnished, as he understood, by a private individual, and the experiment made at his expense.
Captain Pechell: Then Government has received no official report?
Sir R. Peel: None whatever.
Captain Plumridgeseeing the noble Lord, the Member for South Staffordshire, in his place, begged to ask him if he had any objection to state what his opinion as a naval officer was with respect to the recent experiment tried by Captain Warner off the coast at Brighton?
The Speakerinterposed, and reminded the hon. and gallant Member, that the noble Lord, not holding any official position in Her Majesty's Government, was not called upon to answer any question of the nature put to him, unless it pleased him to do so.
Lord Ingestresaid, he had no manner of doubt that it was notorious to the hon. and gallant Member, as it was to the whole House, that an experiment had been tried, on Saturday last, upon a large ship, which had been shattered and sunk by the force of certain projectiles, the invention of Captain Warner. He was not at liberty to disclose either the materials by which the destruction was effected, nor the manner in which it was done; but perhaps it would afford some pleasure and satisfaction to the public if he read a document to the House which had been drawn up entirely with reference to the
1178
subject. The noble Lord then read the following certificate:—
"We, the undersigned, hereby certify that the operations against the John O'Gaunt, of 300 tons, conducted by Captain Warner, off Brighton, on Saturday the 20th instant, were under our management and control. We further certify that the explosion did not take place from any combustible matter either on board or alongside the ship, but was caused by Captain Warner, who was on board the William Wallace steamer, having the ship in tow at a distance of about 300 yards, and that the explosion took place in consequence of a signal made by us from the shore, the time of which was not previously known by Captain Warner.
"We further declare our belief that Captain Warner has never been on board the ship since she left Gravesend.
"INGESTRE, Captain, R. N., C. B.
"T. DICKENSON, Captain, R. N.
"W. H. HENDERSON, Captain, R. N., C. B."
The insertion of his own humble name might excite some ridicule; but that of Captain Henderson would at once excite respect, and he had that gallant Officer's authority for stating that his opinion entirely coincided with that which he (Lord Ingestre) had formed relative to this matter, and when the time came for further communications respecting this most important invention, he was perfectly ready to come forward and take such steps as might be necessary.

JOINT STOCK BANKS.
On the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee on Joint Stock Banks Regulation Bill,
Sir William Claysaid, that as an Amendment on the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair, he should move, that "it is expedient that facilities should be given for the formation of Joint Stock Banks, with limited liability of the shareholders." He was induced to take this course as a more convenient mode of accomplishing the object at which he had aimed, by the Motions in Committee on the Bill now before them, of which he had given notice, viz., the taking the opinion of the House on the question whether limited or unlimited liability of the partners were the best principle on which to constitute Banks. It had appeared to him on reflection that the Motion he proposed was a more intelligible form of raising that issue than a mere proposal to omit from the Bill the Clause imposing unlimited liability. That omission, moreover, would

1179
not leave the Bill in a form well adapted to carry into practical effect the principles he advocated. Were the House to concur with him in opinion, it would be necessary to remodel the Bill. It was quite unnecessary to enlarge on the importance of having sound and well constituted banks, banks so constituted as to afford ground for anticipating that they would conduct their business with prudence, and that their operations would not be of a kind to create danger or inconvenience to themselves or the public. Without entering on the disputed question of how far banking deposits, and the cheques by which they were transferred from hand to hand were to be considered as paper money, it would be admitted on all hands that the functions discharged by banks, apart even from issuing notes, were a most important part of our monetary system, and that the security, so far as such security could be obtained by law, that those functions should be adequately and safely discharged, was an object only inferior in importance to the regulation of the currency itself. The suspension of payment by a bank in large business was an occurrence always deeply to be deplored, from the widely-spread inconvenience and suffering it created; and under certain circumstances, and at particular periods, it might even be considered as a national calamity. In the case of the Northern and Central Bank of Manchester, which failed at the latter end of the year 1836, a period, it would be recollected, of much commercial pressure, so great was the alarm created by the prospect of its suspension of payments, and so strong were the reasons for thinking that its stoppage would be the commencement of a series of failures throughout the manufacturing districts, of which it was impossible to foresee the extent or conclusion, that the Bank of England, justifiably, perhaps, under all the circumstances, though contrary to sound principle, was compelled to interfere, to avert the calamities which all felt to be impending. Nor would it have afforded any sensible alleviation of the wide-spread misery and ruin which the non-payment at that time of the obligations of the Northern and Central Bank would have produced, that ultimately and after the lapse of years, their obligations should be paid in full. That a failing bank should eventually pay 20 s. in the pound, was but a small compensation to its creditors, and none whatever to the
1180
public. No man has his whole fortune—never, perhaps, any very considerable portion of it—in the hands of his banker; but it is precisely that portion of his means which he has prepared to meet immediate demands, and the abstraction of which he can accordingly worst bear. To a person not in trade, the failure of his banker is an inconvenience; to the tradesman or merchant, whom it compels to dishonour his acceptances, it is loss of credit, bankruptcy, perhaps. To such a person what compensation was it that the bank, the failure of which has ruined him, pays at last 20 s. in the pound, not to himself, but to his assignees? To the community at large, it is, of course, absolutely immaterial whether the creditors of a failing bank be or be not paid in full—all that the public have an interest in, is to avert that derangement of the monetary system, and that paralysis of commercial credit and enterprise, which the stoppage of banks is sure to create. The object of a wise legislation on this matter should therefore be, not so much ultimate, as immediate solvency—not so much to ensure that after suspending their payments banks should pay 20 s. in the pound, as to take the best precautions against their suspending them at all. Now did the Bill before the House embody such precautions? Was it founded on the principle most likely, in its working, to create sound banks? He (Sir W. Clay) did not think so; on the contrary, he believed it retained a principle which had distinctly the tendency to produce unsound banking, and to tend to the suspension of payment of banks constituted on that principle. The Bill proceeded on the principle of unlimited liability of the partners of a bank; it was supposed, of course, that this would produce caution in the management of the concern. He (Sir W. Clay) did not know why it should be expected that this principle should produce good management in banking more than in any other trade—what reason there was à priori for expecting that the hope of greater gain should not tempt men to overstep the bounds of prudence equally in banking as in any other pursuit; but, at any rate, all experience was against the presumption. The ruin that had swept at various periods over the banking system of the country, in the half century previous to 1825 was notorious, and at last the failures of that year and the following induced the Legis-

1181
lature to attempt the application of a remedy. It was supposed that the unsoundness of our banking system arose from our only having private banks—banks with a limited number of partners. The Act of the 7th George IV., therefore was passed in 1826, permitting the establishment of joint-stock banks. What had been the result of the experiment? Why, that it had wholly failed in producing sound and safe banking. A suspicion that it had done so, induced him to move, in 1836, for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the proceedings of joint-stock banks; and the evidence given before that Committee, which sat for three Sessions, as well as events which had since occurred, and were sufficiently notorious, showed, beyond the possibility of doubt, that there had been a recklessness of mismanagement, and a consequent injury to the public by joint-stock banks, to which private banking, in its very worst periods, probably afforded no parallel. They had, therefore, the amplest experience of the working in every shape of the principle of unlimited responsibility, and it was found to be inefficacious. If the feeling of cupidity, the desire of gain, was less strongly felt among the partners of a joint-stock than of a private bank, the sense of responsibility, by being more diffused, was also weaker, and the opportunities of mismanagement were greater. The credit which could be obtained by a joint-stock bank, and the consequent temptation to improvidence, were incomparably greater than in the case of a private bank. But that credit was utterly spurious, and dangerous to the community, because it was commensurate not with assets which were, but with assets which were not available. Nothing could be more false in principle, nothing more dangerous to the community, than that five hundred or a thousand persons, whose legitimate means of obtaining credit were separately, perhaps, taxed to the utmost, should, by joining together, obtain a fresh credit grounded on their possessions—possessions such as lands or houses, for instance, not convertible at need into money. This was the principle on which the Ayrshire bank, animadverted on by Adam Smith, was founded, and which led to its failure—this was really the principle on which Law's famous scheme for issuing a paper currency, grounded on the responsibility of all
1182
the land of France was based. This principle would never enable a bank in moments of difficulty to meet its engagements; but there could be no doubt, unhappily, that it enabled it to obtain credit. Theoretically, it was certain that it would be so; but the fact was equally shown by experience. The Northern and Central Bank obtained a loan of 150,000 l. from a London bank, a wealthy and well-conducted Joint-Stock Bank. The very able manager of that Bank admitted to the Joint-Stock Banks Committee that the money was lent, not on any investigation of the affairs of the Northern and Central Bank, but on the credit of the known property of some of its members. Now there could be no doubt that it would have been far better if the Northern and Central Bank had not obtained that assistance. They were already in difficulties; their really available means were exhausted; every step they took afterwards added to the danger to which the public were exposed and to the losses of their own proprietors. So utterly vain was it to expect that the unlimited responsibility of partners should constitute any resource in times of emergency, that not one single instance could be cited where a bank in difficulties had succeeded in raising money from its proprietors. The Northern and Central Bank had a proprietary said to be worth in the aggregate 10,000,000 l.; the managers were asked why, in the time of their utmost need, they did not make a call on their proprietors. They said, from their conviction of its utter inutility. But the Bill before them, it might be said, provided for the paying up a large proportion of the nominal capital: that was a good provision, but it was not enough; the Northern and Central had a paid up capital of 800,000 l. There was but one real security—by limiting the responsibility of the shareholders of banks—by rendering those establishments real corporations—by making it clear that those who dealt with them could have no security but the amount of their paid up capital, and the prudence with which their business was conducted—to sharpen the vigilance of the public, and to put a stop to that spurious credit grounded on the private fortunes of the shareholders—credit commensurate, as he had said, not with assets which were, but assets that were not, available at need; credit, therefore, alike dangerous to the public and to the banks themselves. The experience of

1183
this country was not only against the presumption of security being derived from unlimited liability, it was also in favour of banks of limited liability—not to mention the banks of England and Ireland, there were the banks of Scotland. Among the banks of unlimited liability in that part of the kingdom, though all Joint Stock, there had been failures; the then chartered banks of Scotland, as they were the oldest, had also stood highest in reputation. There was only one other consideration which it seemed to him important to state to the House, it was the tendency of unlimited liability to lower the character of the proprietary body of a bank, and thus to lessen the chances of good management. He was far from saying that there were not highly respectable persons members of joint stock banks, but it was clear that such must be the tendency. When a man's whole fortune was to be liable for the engagements of a bank, and not only his own, but of those who succeeded him, it was quite certain that prudent men would hesitate before they exposed themselves for the sake of one or two per cent. additional on a thousand or two thousand pounds, to the remotest probability of a risk so terrible. And it was precisely the persons the most desirable for the partners of such institutions whom they excluded. Exactly in proportion as a person was wealthy, was conversant in affairs, was well known in any particular neighbourhood, would he feel reluctant to become a partner in a joint stock bank, from the full conviction that he would be the first person, in case of misfortune, selected for attack by creditors. In one respect the Bill now before them did, by its very merits, enhance this inconvenience by facilitating and expediting the recourse of creditors against individual shareholders. There were before legal difficulties and delays in the way of recovering from any shareholder a debt due from a bank. Now there would be none, and a man holding a few shares in a joint stock bank might have his whole property taken at once in execution, in discharge of its debts, and himself left to seek reimbursement from his brother shareholders, many of whom might have taken care to get out of his reach. He might add, that what he now proposed was substantially the same as Lord Althorp had intended to propose, as part of his plan in 1833, on renewing the Bank Charter. He had intended to give
1184
Charters of limited liability to banks not issuing their own notes. But finding, as he says in his correspondence with the Bank of England, "the opposition of the country bankers too strong for him on the question of limited liability," he did not persevere in his proposition. It was scarcely a want of charity to suppose that it was not the fear that limited liability would produce bad and weak banks, that prompted the opposition experienced by Lord Althorp; but rather the consciousness that the application of that principle would create banks of the highest character, and, therefore, the most formidable rivals to those already existing. The right hon. Gentleman, more fortunate than Lord Althorp, would not need to couple the privilege of limited liability with the obligation not to issue notes: for by the sound and salutary measure he had already carried, the currency was placed under regulations which prevented the power of issuing notes from becoming dangerous to the public; and he might, therefore, encounter less opposition than had been arrayed in this matter against the noble Lord. With these observations he should commit his Motion to the House. Of course, if the right hon Gentleman were opposed to him, he could not hope to succeed; but, impressed as he was with the great importance of the subject, and with the conviction that they must ultimately adopt the principle he advocated, he should have felt himself wanting in his duty, if he had not given the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the question.
Sir Robert Peelopposed the Motion, Limited responsibility would be apt to make persons of influence and property who became shareholders in banks comparatively careless about the management of the establishments, as their chance of loss in consequence of mismanagement would be limited to the probable trifling amount of shares held by them. He did not see why banks should be exempt from the general principles of the law as to co-partnery, which was, that when all equally shared the profit, all should share the loss. All authority was against the hon. Baronet. The evidence of practical bankers taken before Committees of the House went clearly against the principle proposed by the hon. Baronet. The new regulations to be established as security against abuse would diminish any fear upon the

1185
part of persons of property of the application of unlimited liability, while the security to be given to the public, as to the solvency of banks, would be increased.
Mr. Hawessupported the Amendment. Its principle was not condemned by all authority, as the right hon. Baronet had stated. He hoped that the question would be hereafter raised. He contended that the unlimited liability of the directors of a bank was a sufficient security, without subjecting the shareholders to the same principle.
Mr. Morisonsupported the Government proposition. In America the banks, after having tried the system of limited, were establishing the system of unlimited liability. In this country it had not been found necessary to insist upon limited liability. He contended that it would be highly impolitic to introduce it. However, the banking system here was in many respects unsatisfactory, and must sooner or later be changed.
Mr. P. Stewartdoubted if any gentleman connected with banking would be found to support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet. The proposition was a hobby of his hon. Friend, but he hoped that having delivered his speech he would withdraw it.
Mr. Turnerthought the system of limited liability would not be tolerated in the country for a moment.
Amendment negatived.
House in Committee.
Clause 1 agreed to.
House resumed. Committtee to sit again.

RAILWAYS.
On the Motion for going into Committee on the Railways Bill,
Mr. Morisonthought that it would have been better, both for the public and railway proprietors, had Government some years ago taken some such measures as that which they proposed now. Government, however, then appeared to be averse to any such interference; and now, if the present Bill passed, as no doubt it would, the only way in which the public could be benefitted would be by competition, which would be of serious injury to the old established lines. A general tariff of fares might have been early established, and would have been found extremely beneficial to the public. As to the proposed interference with third class passengers, he thought that if some change had not
1186
been provided by the Bill, public opinion would soon have necessitated it. He thought that second class carriages had been too much neglected, and that the persons who travelled in them were too much exposed. Another grievance was the partiality of railway directors towards some carriers in preference to others. Railways ought to be compelled to publish the rate of carriage for goods as well as the fare for passengers. As to the liability of railroads to pay for lost goods, he thought that as they loaded, surrounded by their own servants and their own police, that they should be subjected to a greater amount of liability than were coach or waggon proprietors, who were more exposed to depredations upon their journeys. He hoped that great improvements would shortly take place in the construction of railroads. He had great faith in the atmospheric principle superseding locomotives. He could not thoroughly approve of the Government measure, although he quite acknowledged the excellence of its intention.
House in Committee.
On Clause 1,
Mr. Gladstoneadmitted that it was proper that a statement of the leading alterations made in the Bill should be laid before the House; and after he had made that statement, he would explain why if appeared to him reasonable that the measure should be at once allowed to proceed. The principal alteration which had been made he would describe as well and as shortly as he could, omitting those of minor importance. The great change in form of the Bill, which had reduced its bulk by one-half, was caused by the omission of twenty Clauses, which consisted of the executory provisions and provisions of detail, laying down the manner in which the option of revision and purchase should be exercised. He confessed that when these Clauses were inserted in the Bill, they had been inserted, as they thought, to give satisfaction to the railway proprietors. However, a body of Gentlemen connected with railways took a different view of the matter. They represented to Government that its profession was, that the question of the policy of this option was to be altogether reserved; if so, why specify the details at present? rather show by the omission of all details, except those essential and fundamental, that the policy question was to be really not

1187
merely professedly reserved. He thought that there was much weight in these representations, and he had therefore consented at once, and without reluctance, to abandon the whole of these Clauses. He did not think that the public interest was prejudiced by that abandonment; and he might say that his reason for asking that the Bill might pass through at once, was because he did not think that the public interest had in any degree been prejudiced by any of the alterations which it had undergone. He had heard it stated that as the Bill formerly stood, the option of revision and purchase was made applicable to existing lines of railroads. He could assure hon. Gentlemen that this was not the case. The option of revision and purchase always stood as it did now in the measure, only applicable to new companies. As regarded protection to the poorer classes, the Bill was now applicable not only to future companies, but to all companies future and existing, provided only that they had been during the present, or should be in any future Session, applicants to Parliament for an extension of their powers. Indeed, the practical effect would be, that any company in the kingdom, with a very few exceptions, would be at once subject to the provisions of the Bill with respect to the accommodation of the poorer classes; and he had reason to believe that those companies which would not be compelled to come within the powers of the Bill, would, of their own accord, adopt its provisions. There was, then, in this respect, no change made in the Bill since it had been printed, with the exception of this, that lines of railway under five miles of length should not be deemed new lines under the Bill. There was one material relaxation in the terms of the option of revision and purchase. It was now provided that the right of option and purchase should not accrue until twenty-one years, instead of fifteen years, after the 1st of January, subsequently to the incorporation of the company. This was a material relaxation, but it would be recollected that the committee upon railways had strictly guarded itself against indicating positively any number of years as that after the expiration of which the option of revision and purchase should accrue. They had done so, because in their opinion it was right to avoid the great error of discouraging the application of capital to railway enterprise at home,
1188
and turning the public mind towards other modes of investment not so beneficial to British skill and industry. On that account, and considering the great risks run, and the great difficulties experienced in this mode of investment, considering the feeling created out of doors by the measure, and actuated as he was by the strongest desire to give no shock to the formation of new railroads, he thought it was a safe and wise relaxation to extend the term of accruement from fifteen to twenty-one years, and he did not imagine that any gentleman would object to the extension upon the ground of public interest. There were some other changes to which he might shortly allude. It was provided by the Bill as it stood, that if the right of revision had been once exercised, that it was not again to be called into employment for twenty-one years; and that if any company at the end of twenty-one years should be making more than 10 per cent. of profit for the last three years of that period, that instead of the railway being purchasable at a price estimated upon the amount of the then divisible profits—it should be open to the company to require that any other circumstances, such as increasing value of stock or prospects of an increased rate of traffic, should be taken into consideration, and a proper allowance made. By this arrangement railways would be purchased at their real value, whatever that might be. This stipulation was, he believed, an improvement in every respect. He had made this relaxation upon the same principle as that which had guided him in substituting twenty-one for fifteen years as the period before the accruement of the right of option, and, as he believed, in conformity with the pledges given to the House that their intention was not to go beyond the recommendations of the third Report of the Select Committee, as against railroads. That recommendation was to the effect, that railways making 10 per cent. or upwards, might be purchased by Government at a price reckoned upon their divisible profits for a certain number of years, but they did not advise that twenty-five years should be the maximum of that period. He considered that in the alterations made, therefore, he was returning to, rather than departing from, the intentions of the Committee. There was another relaxation deemed essential by Railway Directors, and not as he thought

1189
prejudicial to the public, which he had granted. It was this, that if there were a branch line liable to the option of revision and purchase, connected with a main line which was not liable to this option, and if the Legislature should think fit to purchase the branch line, it should be in the power of the company holding the main line to insist that the Government should take it upon similar terms as those upon which they purchased the branch line. This was an equitable provision, and he had no difficulty in acceding to it, the more so as it would not lead, in any respect, to public injury. The Bill now stood on the footing on which it was endeavoured to place it on the second reading. So far as respected the clauses of option, the Bill might be termed an act for reserving the discretion of the Legislature. That was its bonâ fide intention. There was no intention of Government becoming the manager of railways, that it should interfere and purchase one railway to run down another. There was one other alteration, important in itself, but innocent in its effects towards the public, to which he might allude. Words had been introduced by way of preamble, declaring that which had been enounced in debate—that the policy of interposition upon the part of the State was not to be prejudged by the Bill itself. He had acceded to this because it was right that there should be an indication of the views and intention of the Legislature embodied in the Bill. With respect to any useful practice, he looked upon the Bill as exactly corresponding to what it was before the second reading. He did hope that it might be the view of the Committee and of the House that the Bill should be speedily passed through its remaining stages.
Mr. Wardthought that the Bill had been much improved by the alterations made. It should have his support.
Mr. Hawesexpressed his satisfaction with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. He believed that the measure would practically affect all railroads.
Mr. Vernon Smithsaid, that after the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade he had no objection to the Bill going through Committee. He supported the option of purchase, as the only mode by which railways could be kept in check and abuses prevented. He thought that the interests of the poorer classes had been
1190
very much neglected by railway proprietors, and that some provision for their protection was absolutely necessary.
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6, "Companies to provide on every week day a train for third-class passengers."
Mr. Thornelysuggested an alteration which would make the provisions of the Clause imperative on Sundays as well as week days.
Mr. Gladstonestated that he would not be a party to compelling a company to run certain trains upon Sundays.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that it was only contended that if first and second classes should be run on a Sunday, that third-class carriages ought to be run under the same restrictions.
Mr. Thornelywould then move an Amendment requiring that third-class trains should be run upon all days when first and second-class trains were run.
Mr. V. Smithsupported the Amendment. If the rich man could travel on a Sunday, why should not the poor man also?
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that if the hon. Gentleman would persist in his Amendment, he would move that the Chairman report progress.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that he could not see why, if Dives was allowed to travel on a Sunday, Lazarus should be prevented.
Mr. Denisonhoped his right hon. Friend would give way on this point. He knew that many working people travelled from one point of the country to another on Sundays, and if they were prevented from doing so, it would be depriving them of a great advantage.
The Committee divided on the question that the words "week day," stand part of the Clause:—Ayes 41; Noes 73; Majority 32.

List of the AYES.

Ashley, Lord

Fielden, W.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Barneby, J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Barrington, Visct.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Beckett, W.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Boldero, H. G.

Hodgson, R.

Bowles, Adm.

Hope, hn. C.

Broadley, H.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Lincoln, Earl of

Clerk, Sir G.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Collett, W. R.

Morgan, O.

Dodd, G.

Mundy, E. M.

Eliot, Lord

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Entwistle, W.

Norreys, Lord

1191

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Peel, J.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Russell, C.

Trollope, Sir J.

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

Vernon, G. H.

Somerset, Lord G.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Sutton, hn. H. M.

TELLERS.

Taylor, E.

Pringle, A.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Lennox, Lord A.

List of the NOES.

Adderley, C. B.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Bannerman, A.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Barnard, E. G.

McGeachy, F. A.

Bellew, R. M.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Borthwick, P.

Manners, Lord J.

Brotherton, J.

Masterman, J.

Buckley, E.

Milnes, R. M.

Buller, C.

Mitcalfe, H.

Chute, W. L. W.

Morrison, J.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Muntz, G. F.

Collett, J.

Napier, Sir C.

Denison, J. E.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Denison, E. B.

O'Brien, A. S.

Denistoun, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Dickinson, F. H.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Divett, E.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Douglas, Sir H.

Pattison, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Philips, G. R.

Duncan, G.

Philips, M.

Duncombe, T.

Plumridge, Capt.

Dundas, Adm.

Polhill, F.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Protheroe, E.

Ewart, W.

Ross, D. R.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Forster, M.

Scott, R.

Fox, C. R.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Gardner, J. D.

Sibthorp, Col.

Gibson, T. M.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Gore, hon. R.

Standish, C.

Guest, Sir J.

Strutt, E.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Thornhill, G.

Hawes, B.

Towneley, J.

Heneage, E.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Howard, P. H.

Vivian, J. H.

Howick, Visct.

Wawn, J. T.

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Ingestre, Visct.

Warburton, H.

Kelly, F. R.

Thornely, T.

Words "days on which passengers are conveyed," inserted. Clause agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported and ordered to be read a third time.

THE CONVICT DALMAS.
Captain Polhillbegged to ask the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary whether there was any foundation for the reports contained in the public papers relative to the commutation of the sentence on Dalmas, and also whether he had any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, the certificates and reports of the medical men who had visited Dalmas in prison by order of the Government.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that he was not aware of the purport of the Reports to which the hon. and gallant Member alluded; he had no objection to say generally that he had advised Her Majesty to reprieve Dalmas, but he should most certainly object to lay upon the Table of that House any information by which he was guided in tendering that advice.

FRANCE AND MOROCCO.
Mr. Sheil: On Saturday, I informed the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government, that instead of moving for a Committee to inquire how far our commercial interests were involved in the events which are passing in the Barbary States, I shall content myself with moving for papers, of which I have since given him notice. My first impression was, that the extent to which the trade of this country has been affected by the heavy imposts which have been recently laid upon the tonnage of British vessels, and the products of British industry in all the ports upon the coast of the Mediterranean, of which France has made herself the mistress, required a minute investigation; and that the effects of the ordinance, which issued on the 16th of December last, doubling the duties on English shipping, and of the augmentation of duties upon our cottons to 30 per cent., would best be proved by the evidence, oral and documentary, which could be produced before a Committee of this House; but I have heard objections raised to the form of the Motion, of which I had given an intimation, and in order that a debate on the mere form should be avoided, by which the attention of the House would be in all likelihood distracted from the consideration of more momentous matter, I have thought it more advisable to move that the copies of certain documents should be laid on the Table of the House, in which much of the information which I seek to obtain may be disclosed. There is another motive for the adoption of this course. It is that which is least calculated to give offence to a gallant, but exceedingly susceptible people. It is not my intention (and I shall prove that it is not by the tone with which I shall treat this important subject) to say anything by which a debate, at which France could legitimately take offence, will be produced. Nothing shall fall from me, by which a pretence shall be afforded for imputing to me the more

1193
than reprehensible purpose of exciting a sentiment of animosity between two great nations, both of which are deeply concerned in the maintenance of peace, and whose collision would disturb the world. But while I am fully convinced of the importance of preserving our pacific relations with a country, whose institutions are so nobly assimilated to our own, I am also convinced that with a perfect absence from all irritating language, a candid statement of facts can be readily reconciled; and I think that if circumstances have occurred, or are likely to occur, by which the commercial interests of England may be seriously affected, nothing will be gained by concealing the truth, or by turning our eyes away from those objects which must sooner or later be forced upon our contemplation. On the 5th of March, 1830—I pass at once at the hazard of abruptness, which is more excuseable than prolixity, to the facts to which I mean to advert—in 1830, on the 5th of March, Lord Aberdeen wrote a despatch to an ambassador at Paris, Lord Stuart de Rothesay, with regard to the great armament which France had prepared for the invasion of Algiers. That despatch contains views the most just, expressed in a most prudential and conciliatory spirit; indeed, the entire of the official correspondence of Lord Aberdeen in 1830 is remarkable for a most striking contrast between the soundness of his judgment and a certain infirmity of purpose, owing to which he omitted to obtain from France the assurances, of the necessity of which he appears to have been himself most fully convinced. Lord Aberdeen appears to have been perfectly aware that it was of the utmost consequence to get from the French Government a pledge that the occupation of Algiers should not be permanent, and to have felt that our commercial and maritime, and therefore our political interests, were deeply at stake, in the events to which the French expedition would give rise. The whole correspondence is a curious specimen of diplomacy, in which, upon one hand, a plain Englishman asks that a pledge should be given in plain language, and, on the other hand, a French Minister, polished and well lubricated escapes in sinuous diplomacy from his grasp. Those portions of the correspondence which are illustrative of the present position of affairs I shall select, taking care not to read anything which
1194
is not appropriate and interesting. On the 5th of March, 1830, Lord Aberdeen writes—
"My Lord,—The extensive scale of the preparations for the expedition against Algiers, and the declaration in the speech of his most Christian Majesty upon this subject, have naturally engaged the attention of His Majesty's Government. Your Excellency is already aware of the sincere desire which His Majesty entertains that the injuries and affronts which have been endured by the King of France from the Regency of Algiers may be duly avenged, and that His Most Christian Majesty may exact the most signal reparation from this barbarous state; but the formidable force about to be embarked, and the intimation in the speech to which I have alluded, appear to indicate an intention of effecting the entire destruction of the Regency, rather than the infliction of chastisement. This probable change in the condition of a territory so important, from its geographical position, cannot be regarded by His Majesty's Government without much interest, and it renders some explanation of the intentions of the French Government still more desirable. I have communicated these sentiments to the Duke de Laval, and have received from his Excellency the most positive assurances of the entirely disinterested views of the Cabinet of the Tuileries in the future disposal of the state of Algiers. Notwithstanding his Excellency has promised to write to his Government in order to obtain the means of making an official communication, I have thought it right to instruct you to bring the subject under the notice of M. de Polignac. It is probable that the French Minister may be desirous of affording all the explanation we can desire. The intimate union and concert existing between the two countries give us reason to expect that we shall receive the full confidence of the French Government in a matter touching the interests of both, and which in its results may be productive of the most important effects upon the commercial and relations of the Mediterranean States."
Prince Polignac, to whom the contents of this despatch were communicated on the 12th March, 1830, wrote to the Duke de Laval a long despatch, in which he says nothing bordering upon an understanding beyond this statement:—
"The King, whose views on this grave question are quite disinterested, will consult with his allies, in order to determine what should be the new order of things."
Lord Aberdeen saw at once that this communication was most indefinite, and was not in the least binding, and on the 23rd of March, 1830, he wrote,
"Whatever may be the means which shall

1195
be found necessary to secure the objects of the expedition, the French Government ought, at least to have no difficulty in renouncing all views of territorial possession or aggrandizement.……. Monsieur de Polignac is doubtless aware of the great importance of the Barbary States, and of the degree of influence which, in the hands of a more enlightened Government, they could not fail to exercise over the commerce and maritime interests of the Mediterranean powers."
Lord Stuart de Rothesay made several efforts to obtain a positive assurance, but failed. On the 21st of April, 1830, Lord Aberdeen writes as follows:—
"Is it unreasonable to expect from the French Government something more than a general assurance of disinterestedness, and an engagement to consult their allies, before the future fate of the regency shall be finally decided? A French army, the most numerous, it is believed, that has ever crossed the sea, is to undertake the conquest of a territory which, from its geographical position, has always been considered of the highest importance; no man can look without anxiety at the issue of an enterprise, the ultimate objects of which are so uncertain and so undefined. … If we could so far forget what is due to our Sovereign and to ourselves as to rest satisfied with vague explanations, in a matter so deeply affecting the interests of British commerce, as well as the political relations of the Mediterranean States, it is certain that the people of this country would not hesitate to pronounce the most unequivocal condemnation of our conduct."
How applicable are these observations to what is passing at this moment on the coast of Africa, and on the frontier of Morocco, and how justified is a Member of the British Parliament in the expression of a hope that Lord Aberdeen has been more successful, in 1844, in extracting an engagement from M. Guizot, than he was in 1830 in eliciting it from the unfortunate statesman who succeeded in baffling him, and from whom no written engagement could be procured. Two months were passed in correspondence, yet nothing was attained in the form of a distinct stipulation. On the 4th of May, 1830, Lord Aberdeen wrote to Lord Stuart de Rothesay:—
"Monsieur de Polignac expresses a hope that our expectations may not be so unreasonable, as to urge him to declarations which must prove injurious to the Government of His Most Christian Majesty. If the projects of the French cabinet be as pure and disinterested as is asserted by Monsieur de Polignac, he can have no real difficulty in giving us the most entire satisfaction. A concise and simple de-
1196
claration could not answer the purpose better, but it would appear to be more natural than the course which your Excellency states that the French Minister has been commanded by His Most Christian Majesty to adopt, to envelope in such reasoning, and to mingle considerations of national dignity and punctilio, with the statement of intentions such as I have mentioned, appears less calculated to produce conviction, and to convey the impression of sincerity and frankness."
Lord Stuart de Rothesay, of course communicated these well-founded complaints to the French Ministry; but the latter, instead of writing a plain promise, such as Lord Aberdeen asked on the 12th of May, 1830, wrote to the Duke de Laval what I perused with some amusement as a specimen of evasions, which it required some disrespect for Lord Aberdeen to have attempted. He says that the fleet was about to sail, and adds,
"His Majesty from that moment, namely, the conquest of Algiers, ought to give an assurance to his allies, that he will present himself to those deliberations, ready to furnish all explanations which they might still desire, disposed to take into consideration all rights and all interests,"
and so on. After this dispatch had been written, a remarkable incident occurred. The Sultan had directed Tahir Pacha to proceed to Algiers, in order to adjust the differences with France. The French squadron would not permit Tahir Pacha to land, and he was forced to go to Toulon, where he was detained. Lord Stuart de Rothesay writes—
"At Toulon he will be without doubt detained in quarantine, and if he intends coming to Paris he may possibly not reach Algiers till long after it shall be too late to take part in the negotiations which are likely to follow the capture of the place."
Algiers was taken on the 5th of July, 1830. The French General told the French that the stars mingled with the lights which they had kindled on the brow of Mount Atlas, and on the 16th of July, Lord Stuart de Rothesay wrote to Lord Aberdeen that he had waited on Prince Polignac to congratulate him, in the conviction that he would keep faith with his court. His Excellency answered, "by declaring his readiness to repeat his former assurances," and in a few days after, he was a prisoner in Ham; Charles the Tenth, who could not learn anything even from the misfortunes of the Comte d'Artois, was driven

1197
from his dominions and from his country, and from the barricades. There arose a throne, which the Duke of Wellington and Lord Aberdeen hastened to recognise as the legitimate result of the national will. But is it not wonderful that the new Government was recognised by England, without any sort of stipulation in reference to Algiers? Lord Aberdeen had not obtained any specific engagement from Prince Polignac. He acknowledged himself, he was fully aware of the vast importance of the results which must follow the permanent occupation of Algiers and her three provinces by France, and yet it does not appear that when Louis Phillipe was recognised by the Tory Government, they made a single observation in reference to Algiers. The Tory Government remained in office for four months after the French had taken possession of Algiers, and after they had pushed their acquisitions into the adjoining territory, and yet Lord Aberdeen had no observation to make. The Whigs, finding the French army in possession of Algiers, and not being able to refer to any engagement, took no steps one way or other, and stood passively by. I pass from 1830 to 1841, avoiding any detail of the means pursued by the French to secure their conquest, and thinking it unnecessary to say anything upon the expedients by which civilization had been extended, and Christianity has been diffused, by those peculiar propagators of the faith. In 1841, Lord Aberdeen had been scarce a few weeks in office, when the Count de St. Aulaire engaged him in a conversation upon Algiers, to which Lord Aberdeen attached no importance, but which the French ambassador turned very promptly to account. The King of the French introduced into his speech, made on the 15th of December, a statement that he had taken means to secure the possessions of France from all external complication, a paragraph which remained unintelligible, until M. Guizot, as a proof of the influence of France over the Tory Government, stated the conversation which had taken place with Lord Aberdeen. I read the speech of M. Guizot in the journal Des Debats, and I inquired from the First Lord of the Treasury whether the conversation of Lord Aberdeen had been correctly reported by the Count de St. Aulaire. The right hon. Gentleman said that the report was substantially correct, except that
1198
Lord Aberdeen denied that he had said that he had no objection to make. Lord Aberdeen himself stated the conversation was accidental, and on the 28th of January, 1842, wrote a despatch to Lord Cowley, in which he denied his having stated that he had no objection to the French retention of Algiers. This despatch was communicated to Monsieur de Guizot. Monsieur Guizot made no observations on the subject, but I cannot help thinking that the course subsequently adopted by the French Government was influenced in no small degree by the imputed declaration of Lord Aberdeen. The French Government issued an ordinance on the 16th of December, 1843, imposing a duty of four francs a ton on our shipping, and 30 per cent. on our cottons. What has been the result? I beg to call attention to the following letter, which appeared in the Times of July 18. It was written by their own correspondent, and is dated at Oran, July 6:—
"The commercial system lately adopted here by the Government has completely shut out British commerce from this port. Formerly several British vessels came here, but no more now, except with coals, are expected. The port duties on all foreign vessels are four francs per ton. French vessels rarely pay anything. Sardinian vessels are favoured by Treaty, and pay only two francs per ton. English cotton manufactures, which paid last year only 15 per cent., now pay more than 30, which amounts to exclusion."
Who is there that hears these facts who will say that the subject which I have submitted to the attention of the House is one of which the consideration ought to be avoided? The fulfilment of all Lord Aberdeen's propositions in 1830 is found in the fiscal exclusion of English manufactures. A blow has been aimed, not at the honour of England, but at her industry; and those who laugh all the idealism of national dignity to scorn, the utilitarians of politics must, in this prohibition, find a cause, not only to regret the past, but to look with solicitude to the future. The proceedings adopted with reference to Morocco cannot, in a commercial view, be regarded with indifference. They have commenced, like the expedition to Algiers. A squadron has proceeded to the coast, which is only divided by the distance which a cannon shot could almost traverse from Gibraltar, with 12,000 men. The French army has invaded Morocco, and

1199
France demands not only the expulsion of the valiant Abd-el-Kader, the hero of the desert, but an indemnity and a guarantee. Morocco may soon fall under the protection of France; and if it does, the results to your commerce are obvious. Mr. Macgregor, in his recent and very admirable work on the commerce of this country, has given the statistics of our trade with Morocco. We almost monopolize the market of a country inhabited by 8,000,000 of people. Are we not entitled, under these circumstances, to ask of Lord Aberdeen what course he has followed, and to call on the Minister to lay on the Table of the House any engagement entered into by France in reference to the State with which we are allied, and which it is so much our interest to save from the domination of a Power of whose acquisitive tendencies some evidence has been afforded? To Morocco the French protective system will be beyond all doubt extended, whenever Morocco is annexed to Algiers. In this state of things it is not unnatural that we should inquire, first, what explanations have been given and demanded, and in the next place what force Her Majesty's Government have had the precaution to assemble in the Mediterranean? With regard to the first, as Lord Aberdeen appears not to have obtained any very satisfactory engagement in reference to Algiers, we ought to have proof afforded us that some stronger security for Morocco has been given; and with respect to the second, the Government are bound to show that for any emergency which may arise, they are not unprepared. What should be the amount of our naval force? It is my good fortune to be able to refer to two very high authorities, the Duke of Wellington, and the right hon. Baronet, with regard to the inexpediency of leaving England destitute of that Force on which not only her strength, but her existence, depends. In August, 1838, the Duke of Wellington declared that "his great object in speaking at all was to impress upon their Lordships and upon the Government, and upon the country the absolute necessity of having a stroug Naval Force in all parts of the world." What was our Naval Force in 1838, which the Duke considered insufficient? Ships of the line, 18; frigates, 29; sloops, 39; brigs, 39; steamers, 22. In 1839, on the 11th of March, the right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord
1200
of the Treasury, made a most remarkable speech on the Navy Estimates, in which he complained that our Government had not sent a squadron to the Coast of Mexico when St. Juan de Ulloa was attacked by the French. He reproached the Government with having omitted to assemble a great Naval Force at the point where events of signal magnitude were likely to arise. He insisted that the Whig Government had permitted the Naval Power of England to decline, and laid it down as a rule that we should have a large fleet ready for immediate employment, and for the protection of our own shores, as well as for the exhibition of our power in remoter seas. Let us see what Naval Force the right hon. Gentleman thinks sufficient, when he is in office, and when events are casting shadows before them by which the Mediterranean is darkened. Here is a tabular statement of our Force in 1841 and 1844:—

Ships in Commission on 1st July, 1841, and 1st July, 1844.

1st July, 1841.

1st July, 1844.

Ships of line

26

Ships of Line

9

Frigates

36

Frigates

32

Sloops

40

Sloops

31

Brigs

39

Brigs

24

Armed Steamers

22

Armed Steamers

32

Foreign Mail Steamers

14

Foreign Mail Packets

4

Foreign Mail Brigs

22

Foreign Mail Brigs

6

Let us now look to the distribution of the Force in reference to the Mediterranean in both those years:—

Distribution of Force.

Mediterranean, 1841.

Mediterranean, 1844.

Ships of the Line

17

Ships of the Line

1

Frigates

7

Frigates

4

Sloops

4

Sloops

3

Brigs

3

Brigs

0

Armed Steamers

9

Armed Steamers

6

Mail Packets

4

Mail Packets

4

Total

44

Total

18

One ship of the line in the Mediterranean! And for this utter neglect of British interest—for this most discreditable helplessness to which we are reduced in that sea, where the fate of Empires has been so often, and will be again, determined, what is the excuse? I read the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty with astonishment, that our Naval Force was employed on the coast of Ireland, and could not be spared for the Mediterranean. Is not this a most la-

1201
mentable admission? A man who was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and who is First Lord of the Admiralty, over whom the Orange flag was unfurled in one country, and to whom the honour of the union-jack is confided in the other, openly in the face of the Parliament, of the country, and of the world, announces that the honour of England is to be perilled, in order that Ireland should be kept down. Do not imagine that I condemn you for having a large Force in Ireland; you have made it indispensable by your misrule, and a further augmentation of that Force will be, whenever you shall be at war, required—that I complain of. What I most profoundly lament is, the policy by which you have exposed the country to the most fearful peril; when you could, by means so obvious and so easy, convert Ireland, now a source of weakness, into a monument of your strength; and in the affections of a loyal and devoted people, by common justice, raise up a bulwark of your empire infinitely better than any which Richmond Penitentiaries can afford. But let me not permit myself to depart from Algiers to Ireland, although the First Lord of the Admiralty has associated them together; let me revert to and resume the topics which will appear to be more immediately connected with the Motion with which I mean to conclude. I have traced the circumstances under which the French possessions in Africa were acquired; I have shown how completely our Government were baffled when the expedition first landed in Algiers; I have shown the effects upon our commerce of the extension to Algiers of the principles of French colonisation; I have adverted to the aggressive proceedings adopted with regard to Morocco, and to the miserable impuissance to which our navy has been reduced; and as I began I conclude. I stated at the outset of what I said, or meant to say, that I should studiously take care not say anything at which Frenchmen the most sensitive could reasonably complain. I hope that I have kept my promise; I was anxious to do so. I look upon the French as a most noble people. I regard the present Prime Minister of France as a man of surpassing abilities, and among men of high intellectual stature, as standing pre-eminent. The King of the French is one of the most remarkable men whom his country, fertile in greatness, has produced. He has proved
1202
that the uses of adversity are sweet, and with a diadem upon his head, has preserved that jewel which adversity is said to bear—a precious one—and finer than the brightest brilliant that glisters in his Crown. But, however we may be disposed to admire the people of France, and the Minister and the King of the French, we must bear in mind, that between France and England there exists, and there has always existed a feeling of competition, which should induce us to look for the proof of cordial friendship to something more substantial than mere professions of amity, however prodigally bestowed. My noble Friend, the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs, was said to have alienated France, at all events, he did not lower England. But in what regard have his successors in office succeeded in obtaining from France anything beyond those phrases of diplomatic endearment, which we should be taught by what is passing to appreciate at their real value. What have you got from France since you have come into office? A commercial treaty has not been signed—no single advantage for the trade of England has been secured. Your predominance in Spain is gone; the Escurial is but an appurtenance to the Tuileries; and upon the coast of Africa, whence Spain is commanded, before the armies and the armaments of France the influence of England has vanished. Talk as you will of the friendly feelings of France, and of the better understanding that prevails between the two countries than existed before you came into office, that you have gained a single point, either political or commercial, I think you will find it difficult to establish. Sir, I beg leave to move
"For Copies of the Ordinance of the 16th of December, imposing increased duties on our shipping and manufactures, and a Return of the amount of our Naval Force in the Mediterranean on the 1st of July, 1844."
Sir C. Napierseconded the Motion.
Sir R. Peel: Sir, I cannot make any observations in reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman without in the first instance expressing my regret that he felt himself compelled by a sense of duty to bring forward a Motion calling upon the House of Commons to express an opinion on this subject. Sir, we are occupied in doing what we can to prevent any hostile collision between France and Morocco, that may be either injurious to the in-

1203
tegrity or independence of Morocco, or compromise the commercial or political interests of this country. I must say that our efforts are not aided but impeded by discussions in this assembly, producing necessarily counter discussions in another popular assembly; exciting a hostile feeling between the countries, and obstructing the efforts of the two Governments, desirous of maintaining amicable relations between France and England, by calling into action the passions of popular assemblies. The right hon. Gentleman has asked the House to give him credit for good intentions in making the Motion. And, I must acquit the right hon. Gentleman of any intention to cause animosities between this country and France; but, if that had been his intention, he could hardly have taken any course more calculated to ensure it. The right hon. Gentleman to-day moves for Papers, but as an indication of the spirit in which the Motion has been made, let me refer to the Motion of which the right hon. Gentleman gave notice on Friday night last, and which was printed with the papers and circulated with them on Saturday morning. The right hon. Gentleman then gave notice that he would move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances under which the French possessions in Africa were acquired, and how far their extension is consistent with the political and commercial interests of this country. A Select Committee! of which the right hon. Gentleman was to be the Chairman, to inquire into the manner in which the French possessions in Africa were acquired, and how far their extension was consistent with the political and commercial interests of this country. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind the feelings of this country if the French Government had proposed a Select Committee of the Chambers to inquire into the mode in which we got possession of Hongkong, and how far it was consistent with the interests of France that we should extend our possessions in the Chinese seas. I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman would have thought of such a motion. I presume the right hon. Gentleman does not act without mature deliberation. He is a Privy Councillor; he has been in office; conversant with all the affairs between this country and Algiers, and yet upon Friday last having had his
1204
attention directed to the subject, he absolutely gave notice that he would to-day move for a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances under which the French held military occupation of Algiers, and how far it was consistent with our interests. That was tantamount to a motion that he should at once be made Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and I wish he had made such a motion: it would have been infinitely better that he should be made Secretary of State, and take into his hands the government of the Foreign Office, than that we should take upon ourselves the task of governing foreign countries by means of a Select Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman is to be Chairman; but, the right hon. Gentleman thought better of it; I told him then, that I gave him credit for the most extraordinary notice of Motion that had ever been given by any hon. Member. He did not admit it at the time; but he went afterwards to the Clerk, and begged that his Motion might be altered, and deprecated its being printed. The right hon. Gentleman this evening began his recital of events with the year 1830. He says that the despatches of Lord Aberdeen, then Minister of Foreign Affairs, showed the greatest sagacity, but that his conduct was not in conformity with his precepts. The House will bear in mind perfectly well, from the importance of the events that characterised that year in Paris, what took place in 1830. France having had a quarrel with Algiers, directed a considerable force against that power. Explanations were required by my noble Friend. The right hon. Gentleman says those explanations were entirely unsatisfactory. The explanations which were given at the time by the French Government, the Government of the Restoration, the Government of Charles X. were to this effect:—On the 12th of May, 1830, Prince Polignac assured us,
"That although the King was resolved not to lay down his arms or recall his troops from Algiers until he had gained satisfaction, yet he announced to his Allies that he was desirous to take measures in concert with them in the event of the dissolution of the Government then existing in Algiers, in the struggle that was about to take place." (He said) "that the object of that concert would be to discuss the new order of things which it might be desirable to establish in that country for the great benefit of Christianity, and he assured his Allies that he would enter into those deliberations

1205
prepared to afford every explanation that might be required, disposed to take into consideration all rights and interests freed from every anterior engagement, at liberty to accept any proposition which might be made to obtain the object in question, and free from every feeling of personal interest."
That was the declaration of the Prince de Polignac at that time. Success crowned the efforts of the French in Algiers, and, on receiving the information of that success, Lord Stuart de Rothesay expressed a hope that the French Government would not forget the assurance it had given with respect to the abdication of any intention of territorial aggrandisement, and on the 16th of July Prince de Polignac then repeated his former assurances, and he also assured the British Government that the French Government were not inclined to depart from them. What followed? There was an insurrection against Charles X.; it continued on the 27th, 28th, and 29th of July, and on the 30th the elder branch of the house of Bourbon ceased to reign in France. We left office on the 15th of November of that year, having previously recognised the Government of Louis Phillippe, which we thought was appointed with the general goodwill and assent of the people of France. The country was in a state of great, excitement — the tenure of power was, of course, precarious. The other Continental Powers were hesitating as to the course they should pursue. This country felt it to be its duty without hesitation, seeing that the will of the people of France was unequivocally expressed in favour of a change of Government, of a transfer of power from one dynasty to another, to set the example to other countries, and did recognise that Government which appeared to be in unison with the affections of the people. The right hon Gentleman would have advised, at the moment that recognition was made, a demand for the evacuation of Algiers; but to have insisted on that might have had an unfavourable effect on the new Government. There were communications between the French and British Governments on that subject subsequently to the accession of Louis Phillippe. Lord Aberdeen moved for these communications in the House of Lords in the year 1832, and it was at the instance of Earl Grey who, animated by the same desire by which we are now animated, at
1206
a time of great excitement, and when there was a tendency to great irritation expressed a wish that Lord Aberdeen would not press for those Papers, that he withdrew his Motion, and showed that he had no wish to embarrass the Government of that day. It was in consequence of that expression of Lord Grey's wish that those Papers were not produced. On the 15th of November, 1830, we were succeeded by the Government of Lord Grey, and the two noble Lords whom I see opposite came into office; and what passed as to Algiers from 1830 to 1841? Our opponents were in possession of power for a period of eleven years. The facts were all before them—they acquiesced in the occupation of Algiers by France for the whole of that period. There was no remonstrance whatever against that occupation, and I think I shall not be contradicted when I say that the tenor of the communications made by that Government during the period of eleven years that they held office from the 15th of November, 1830, to the 18th of August, 1841, were to this effect — that the conquests of France in Africa, if limited to the Algerine territory, would not endanger the harmony and good understanding between the British and the French Governments. I am not blaming the late Government for the course they pursued. I am stating to the House what were the motives by which they were actuated; they were desirous of maintaining the Government of Louis Phillippe in France; they found that the subject of the evacuation of Algiers was one which excited the irritable feelings of the French nation; they were convinced that any attempt to press upon that Government the fulfilment of that engagement made by the Government of the Restoration would weaken the authority of that Government in France, and subject it to considerable hazards, and it therefore forbore from pressing on the Government of France the evacuation of Algiers; they maintained silence; they acquiesced for these eleven years in the continued occupation of Algiers by France. But what a difference does that make in the question of occupation—what a practical difference is there between pressing for the evacuation of Algiers in November, 1830, and in November, 1841, after eleven years of tacit acknowledgment! And was it without notice that you acquiesced? Was it not publicly declared in the French Cham-

1207
bers at an early period of your assumption of power that the French Government intended to retain Algiers? Do you recollect that in the year 1832 or 1833 Marshal Clausel, who had held an important command in Algiers, put these three questions to the then existing Government of France:—
"Do you intend to colonise Algiers? Do you intend to abandon Algiers? Or do you intend to yield Algiers?"
To which Marshal Soult expressly declared in the Chambers, in the face of Europe,—
"We do intend; I repeat that it is the intention of the Government to favour as much as possible the colonization of Algiers. Up to the present time it has never entered into our thoughts to evacuate Algiers—our whole conduct in that country, and on the whole coast of Africa, shows that we contemplate permanent occupation, and that we have nothing to fear against any one that meditates any disturbance there."
That was the public declaration made in 1832 by Marshal Soult on the part of the French Government, and therefore the Government of England were aware of the fact that the French Government did intend to remain in the occupation of Algiers; but after the public intimation of the intention of the French Government, there was no remonstrance against it; and I will state thus far, that whatever communications took place between the French and British Governments in the interval between July, 1830, and November of the same year, were at least to some extent, addressed to that Government, wherein the noble Lord held the situation of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, subsequently to these occurrences. I am not trying to throw blame on the Government that succeeded us; but, considering the position in which France was placed, the danger to which the throne of Louis Philippe was exposed, considering the lamentable consequences that must have arisen from the displacement of Louis Philippe, from the attempt on the part of the legitimate Government to restablish itself in power, I cannot say that I think that the Governments of Lord Grey or Lord Melbourne were acting unwisely in acquiescing in the retention of Algiers by the French. They did acquiesce — they made no remonstrance against it. Our Consul continued to act, as he does now, under the exequatur of the Dey of Algiers, and I ask whe-
1208
ther it would be consistent with wisdom or prudence, that after eleven years occupation without remonstrance, would it, I say, have been consistent with wisdom or common sense that we should have gone to the French Government and said — notwithstanding this silence and acquiescence on the part of our predecessors — "We now recall to your attention the engagements of Prince de Polignac, and insist on the evacuation of Algiers." These were the circumstances under which we found the occupation by France of Algiers in 1841. The right hon. Gentleman, as a proof of the inconvenience and embarrassment arising to this country from that occupation, referred to the ordinance imposing a duty on the importation of English goods into Algiers on the 16th of December last. Such an ordinance certainly was issued, but no doubt was not directed against English ships and English manufactures, but was establishing a discriminating duty in favour of French manufactures as compared with foreign manufactures. But, says the right hon. Gentleman, "that which I object to is the principle of that ordinance;" but I will shew that that principle was decided long before, as far back as 1835. [Mr. Sheil: But the facts are new.] The right hon. Gentleman says, now that the facts are new; but I was going to show you that the principle was established before. He was imputing to us negligence in permitting France to issue this ordinance without remonstrance in 1843, which exposed British produce to a discriminating duty favourable to France; but he concealed the fact—unintentionally, no doubt—that in 1835 an ordinance was issued, establishing the same principle, though not in the same degree, of a discriminating duty in favour of French produce. That ordinance was issued at the latter end of 1835, when the noble Lord was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. [Mr. Sheil: Yes, but the facts were different.] But the principle was not new as to the establishment of a discriminating duty in favour of French ships and French commerce. Now, the ordinance of 1835, is in these terms:—
"That considering our ordinance of the 12th July, 1834, concerning the general administration of our French possessions on the north coast of Africa, and being desirous of regulating all that concerns the duties upon navigation, and the customs to be received in the same possessions, with report of our Ministers,—"

1209
And then it proceeds, "nous avons ordonné, &c. The principle of the ordinance was precisely the same; there was exactly the same amount of acquiescence in 1835 that there was in 1844. The example of acquiescence was set by our predecessors. There was certainly a difference in the amount of duties imposed at those periods, but the principle was precisely the same. In 1835 a discriminating duty of 2f. was imposed; in 1844—the words of the ordinance of 1835 being quoted—the duty was raised to 4f., but it was not directed against British commerce or British navigation. What inference would the right hon. Gentleman opposite have us to draw from this fact? Would he have us go to war on that point? Would he have us insist upon controlling the French in the right of imposing their own commercial duties? I will say that I deeply regret the exercise of this power by the French Government. I deeply regret that these discriminating duties have been imposed; but that is a widely different thing from questioning the right of the French Government to determine the amount of their duties, especially after the precedent established in 1835. The right hon. Gentleman doubts the sincerity of the declaration made by the King of the French with respect to Morocco. The right hon. Gentleman has said, that the King of the French is a great statesman and a virtuous man; but he seemed to apprehend that the same course may be adopted by the French with regard to Morocco that has been pursued with reference to Algiers. The right hon. Gentleman says, he has not the slightest wish to involve us in war, but that he thought it necessary to make his speech to-night in order to draw public attention to this subject. I am, on this occasion, speaking necessarily under great reserve. The right hon. Gentleman opposite possesses a great advantage over me. He knows that I cannot enter fully into details with reference to this question; and as to the amount of our naval force, without compromising the Government. He knows I cannot speak on this subject with the same freedom of discussion with which we speak upon ordinary questions relating to internal politics. The right hon. Gentleman knows, from the experience of the last six weeks, that I could not speak freely without provoking excited feelings in France—without subjecting the French Government to
1210
taunts that they are mere instruments in the hands of the Government of this country—and without exciting against the Government of France such accusations as the right hon. Gentleman has directed against my Colleagues and myself. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that these public declarations are of no account—if he thinks there is no respect for national honour — there can, I apprehend, be very little additional safety in treaties which, in these cases, are inapplicable. But the declarations of the French Government were made to the British Government; they were made in the face of the world by the Minister of Foreign Affairs—the organ of the French Government. M. Guizot publicly declared in the French Chamber, that the French Government had no desire to provoke hostilities with Morocco, that they had been most anxious to maintain peace, and that they have no natural or national cause of conflict with that state. I see that the right hon. Gentleman distrusts that assertion. I think, if he entertains such an opinion, he might have spared the elaborate compliments he has to-night paid to the King of the French, for the right hon. Gentleman spoils the effect of those compliments by sneering at the declaration to which I am now referring. The right hon. Gentleman must not claim popularity when he visits France, on the ground of his compliments to the French people and to the King of the French, if he shows his regard for them by sneering at the declarations I have mentioned. [Mr. Sheil: I did not sneer.] No; you said nothing. But the right hon. Gentleman is so naturally eloquent, that a look on his expressive countenance has the effect of a speech from an ordinary individual. I repeat that the declarations I have quoted were made by the organ of the French Government, who stated that Abd-el-Kader, having disturbed the tranquillity of the French territories for some years, had taken refuge in the territories of Morocco, and that from that position he had directed fresh assaults upon the possessions of the French in Algiers. M. Guizot then declared, as to the policy of the French Government, that they had no views of conquest with regard to Morocco, that they had formed no project of territorial aggrandizement, that they found that the territory of Algeria was quite sufficient for France. M. Guizot states again—

1211
"I am convinced that it would be senseless, on our part, to cherish any views of aggrandizement or conquest; we disclaim anything of the sort; all we demand of the Emperor of Morocco is what we have a right to demand—to live in peace, and that our frontier shall have security;"
M. Guizot then states the demands made by France upon the Emperor of Morocco; he says what they demanded, and what they had a right to demand, was that the assembling of troops by the agents of Morocco or of Abd-el-Kader should be prevented,—that those officers who infringed the law of nations should be recalled or punished,—that if a Mussulman Sovereign felt himself bound to afford Abd-el-Kader an asylum, he should either be directed to repair to the interior or to the coast, that a fixed residence should be assigned to him, and that a guarantee should be given to the French Government that Abd-el-Kader would not be allowed to direct hostile attacks against them from a friendly state. This intimation was given by M. Guizot in the French Chamber without any reserve. I before stated, in answer to a noble Lord opposite, that the general purport of the instructions given to the French naval and military commanders in Algiers had been communicated to the Government of this country. I did not mean that the precise detailed instructions had been sent to us, but only that the purport of those instructions had been communicated. I am borne out in this respect by M. Guizot, who states,—"The instructions the Prince de Joinville has received are in exact conformity with the policy with reference to Algiers I have now stated to you." M. Guizot says, that the instructions given to the naval and military commanders are in general conformity with the policy he had announced. I stated in this House—and the circumstance shows the danger and inconvenience of discussing matters of this kind — that the purport of those instructions had been communicated to us. It was then reported that I had said, the naval and military instructions issued by the French Government with reference to Algiers had been communicated to the Government of this country. A flame was immediately kindled in the Chambers of Peers and Deputies, and it was said, "Communicate to us what you have communicated to the British Government." all this arising from an erroneous construction of my state-
1212
ment. The right hon. Gentleman then referred to the state of our Naval Force. Now, I trust the House will support me in declining to enter into any discussion with the right hon. Gentleman as to the present amount and condition of our Naval Forces. The right hon. Gentleman taunts us on this side of the House with having stated in 1838, that the Naval Estimates ought then to have been increased, and with having, at a subsequent period, neglected to effect that increase. I think, however, I can show that we have not neglected the exigencies of the Naval Service. The right hon. Gentleman says, that in 1838 I complained that the Naval Force of this country was insufficient. In that year the estimate for the effective service of the Navy, discarding from consideration the packet service and the revenue service—was 3,085,000 l., while it is now 4,004,000 l. The estimates for the last four years have been larger by far than any estimates for the ten years preceding; and what has been the result? It may be quite true we have not the same number of ships in commission; but within a very short period this country would be enabled with the consent of this House to make a naval demonstration worthy of its fame as a maritime country. The right hon. Gentleman has compared the number of ships in commission now with the number in commission at a former period. I beg to remind the right hon. Gentleman that we have taken 36,000 seamen and marines for our Naval Force for the present year. I don't think the hon. and gallant Officer opposite (Sir C. Napier) ought to have cheered the right hon. Gentleman when he was alluding to the number of ships in commission; for, I think I have heard the hon. and gallant Officer say, at a former period, that though there were several ships in commission in the Mediterranean, they were so ill-manned that they were in a most unserviceable state. I assert, then, that the number of ships in commission is no test of your naval strength. You may have a small number of ships in commission well manned and appointed, and may yet be more strong as a naval power than if you had a large number of vessels in commission without their proper complement of hands. The hon. and gallant Officer (Sir C. Napier) may, perhaps, recollect the complaints he made respecting the condition of the ships employed on the coast

1213
of Syria; and I think, when the hon. and gallant Member is considering such a subject as this, he ought to look to the present condition of the Navy with respect to manning and appointments. The right hon. Gentleman asks for an account of the Naval Force now employed by this country in the Mediterranean; but I think he can hardly desire the production of details of this nature. [Sir C. Napier: A statement on the subject has appeared in the public papers.] But that is very different from a statement in Parliament. I have attempted to show, that if in 1841 we did acquiesce in the continued occupation of Algiers by France, we did so in consequence of the course of events, in consequence of the preceding acquiescence of our predecessors which I do not blame—in consequence of the statement made by them that this country would not disturb France in the occupation of Algiers, but that it did expect from France a disclaimer of any intention to extend its conquests either in the direction of Tunis or of Morocco. Such declarations were frequently repeated; with those declarations the late Government professed themselves satisfied; and since that Government quitted office corresponding declarations have been made. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston) will, no doubt, remember that this question relating to Algiers was discussed when he was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. If, then, I appear reserved in the communications I am now making,—if, from a desire to promote an honourable peace between Morocco and France, I am necessarily obliged to confine myself within narrow limits in discussing this question. I must remind the noble Lord that he has asked for the same forbearance, and has exhibited the same reserve when called upon by the Motion of Sir Samuel Whalley to discuss this question under similar circumstances. In 1833 the noble Lord was called upon to speak upon this subject in reply to an hon. Friend of mine, and he then stated, that with reference to the possible designs of France on another portion of the coast of Africa, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the strongest assurances had been given by the French to the English Government, that notwithstanding the occupation of Algiers they had no designs upon Tunis or Morocco; but, that as the matter then stood, he thought he would best consult
1214
his duty by abstaining from expressing opinions which if might be neither useful nor convenient to utter. On that occasion I abstained from taking any part in the debate, for I felt the difficulty of the position in which the noble Lord was placed. The noble Lord was asked by a noble Member of this House (Lord Mahon) to state what was the date of the declaration to which he had alluded. The noble Lord replied that those assurances had been given within the last few months, that they had been chiefly verbal, but that he must decline to lay before the House the communications that had taken place. I think, then, under the circumstances, it would not be advisable to lay before the House communications between this country and that of France as to the events in Algiers. I do hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will not provoke any difference of opinion, but that he will allow the Motion he has made for the production of papers to be negatived. While I have been anxious to vindicate the Government, I should be most unwilling to treat any Motion made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite with anything like disrespect; but, at the same time, I have been most anxious to avoid any expression or any intimation of opinion that could by any chance diminish our authority, exerted as it now is for the maintenance of an honourable peace.
Lord J. Russellsaid: So far as my own views are concerned, it was not my intention to have made any Motion on this subject, after the statement of the right hon. Baronet in answer to a question I put to him at an early period of the Session. In the present state of affairs as to France and Morocco, I should have delayed asking for any further explanation as to the course the Governments of this country and of France have pursued. I think, however, that nothing could have been more temperate than the speech of my right hon. Friend who has judged it expedient to bring forward this subject,—that no language could have been more guarded; and I believe that the right hon. Baronet opposite, objecting as he does to that Motion, has misunderstood a great portion of the observations of my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend referred to what took place in 1830 with respect to the occupation of Algiers; and the right hon. Baronet says, "Is it to be supposed that we,

1215
who were out of office from 1830 to 1841, should in the autumn of 1841 insist upon an evacuation of Algiers by France?" My right hon. Friend, as far as I heard, never made such an intimation; and nothing can be more gratuitous than the supposition of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet is an able debater when he deals with substantial arguments; but when he fights with shadows he endeavours to deal with them with still greater energy than he bestows upon the substance. I think the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) has correctly slated, generally, the course pursued by the late Government with respect to the occupation of Algiers by the French. We certainly never thought it conformable with the policy of England to make any demand upon France for the relinquishment of the territory of Algiers; and I own, that on reviewing the circumstances, I cannot think that we were mistaken in our views on that subject. We did, upon more than one occasion, ask for explanations with respect to any further aggrandisement of France in Africa, but with respect both to Tunis and Morocco, we obtained assurances which we considered satisfactory. To those declarations the right hon. Baronet has alluded, and he has stated that similar assurances have been given to the present Government. I will not ask the right hon. Baronet for any further explanation than that he chose to give of the assurances he had received from the French Government with respect to this subject; and the right hon. Baronet has said that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in France, M. Guizot, stated in the French Chambers what were the complaints made by that country against the Emperor of Morocco. All I will say on this subject is, that though the demands of the French Government appear, on the face of them, fair and reasonable, they involve very delicate questions; they involve the question as to how far the power of the Sovereign of Morocco may be exerted to prevent Abd-el-Kader, or chiefs who are friendly with him, from making aggressions upon the French territory; they involve, also, the question—supposing this demand of France is not agreed to—as to the manner in which the war shall be hereafter carried on. These questions I view without any apprehension; and, seeing the great delicacy of these subjects—seeing that from week to
1216
week, or from time to time, the complexion of these affairs may change, I am not disposed to press for any other explanation than that which the right hon. Baronet opposite has already given as to the policy of the Government with respect to this subject. I think also, it may be well that we should consider what is the position of the Sovereign of the French nation, and of the Ministry of that country, with relation to this question. It is impossible not to see that there is, and has been for many years, a party in France which has a blind passion for war — which does not seek hostilities for the reparation of an insult to the national honour, or for any object necessary to the establishment of French interests, but from envy of other European nations, or from a desire of that delusive military glory which they think can be obtained by war alone. This party is continually pressing the Chambers and the people of France to take occasion of any trivial occasion that may present itself for involving that great country in war; and I have rejoiced to observe, that the present Government of France, while—as far as I could see—duly considering the honour and interests of the nation, have manfully opposed themselves to that passionate desire which prevails among certain sections of their own people. While this is the case I should be less disposed to press upon that Government for anything which is not essential to the establishment of English honour and interest, and which might be grating and irritating to the French people. If this is the course adopted by the Government of this country, it ought to be—and I trust it will be—a course followed by Parliament. The Ministry of this country, I conceive, occupies a more fortunate position in this respect than the French Government. There is not, I believe, in this country, any party ready to seize every occasion of quarrel, or disposed to make demands upon another country, with which that country cannot comply consistently with its honour and dignity. I think I may congratulate the right hon. Baronet, that he is not now labouring under this kind of pressure. If he were, I believe he would be determined to resist it, for I am convinced the right hon. Baronet entertains a sincere desire to maintain peace. But while I say this, I do not think the Government justified in the course they have taken with respect to our own naval defence. It is a very dif-

1217
ferent thing to say that the House of Commons should not interfere to direct and control the negotiations carried on by the Executive with a foreign power, and to say that the House of Commons shall not ask those entrusted with maintaining the military and naval forces of the country in what manner the supplies voted cheerfully (and the hon. Member for Montrose might, perhaps, say lavishly) by Parliament are applied. The right hon. Baronet has to-night renewed the protest he has made on former occasions against being interrogated in this House as to the condition of the naval force of the kingdom. Why, nothing could be more constitutional than such inquiries—nothing is more justifiable by precedent. If you look to the conduct of Chatham, Pitt, and Fox, you will see, that when they were out of office, they frequently criticised and condemned the use made by Government of the votes granted at that time for the purposes of the Navy. Certainly the late Government was exposed to continued attacks on this subject. Some time ago, on the question of going into Committee of Supply, I ventured to make two or three observations on this subject. I said, "I see a difficulty arising between France and the state of Morocco, and it appears, according to the public prints, that you have only one sail of the line in the Mediterranean. Now, I am fully prepared to maintain that it is much better to have a force ready for service in times of peace, rather than to have to fit out a force upon a sudden emergency." The only answer I obtained was one in a tone of levity from the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Gentleman having no joke of his own at command, borrowed one from a rev. friend of mine, the rev. Sydney Smith, a very good joke in its way, and better perhaps than any that could have been uttered by the right hon. Baronet; but the right hon. Gentleman did not vouchsafe to give an answer to my inquiry. As to the employment of the 4,000,000 l., to which the right hon. Baronet has alluded as voted in the supplies as to whether there are ships or men forthcoming to defend the interests and commerce of the country, — those, no doubt, are very impertinent questions to be asked by a Member of the House of Commons. I find, from the statement referred to by the right hon. Baronet, (Sir R. Peel) on this subject, that about September, 1838, when a violent attack was
1218
made upon the late Government for the insufficiency of the Naval Force at their disposal, there were 18 line-of-battle ships in Commission. In July, 1844, there are only nine. The total number of line-of-battle ships, frigates, sloops, and brigs in 1835, was 125; at this time it was only 96. [Sir R. Peel: But we have increased the number of men.] Still I don't think that is a sufficient answer. The late Government may have been in the wrong on this subject, but they adopted the opinions of great naval authorities, beginning, I believe, with Lord Howe, and coming down to Sir Thomas Hardy, who investigated this subject, and gave it as his opinion, that the complement of men maintained in 1836 was amply sufficient for ships in time of peace. The present Government thought, however, that the complement should be larger; but is that a reason why they should have so greatly reduced the number of ships. If it is necessary the ships you maintain should have their present complement of men, is it not also necessary that you should have a sufficient number of ships; In September, 1838, we had seven line-of-battle ships in the Mediterranean; in 1841, 17; and in the beginning of 1844, one. In September, 1838, we had six line-of-battle ships at home, and two at Lisbon—a total of eight, ready for service at any moment. Now, however, there are only two line-of-battle ships in the Mediterranean, and you have only nine altogether, of which two are in the East Indies, and one is about to proceed to the Pacific. There will, therefore, be only two or three line-of-battle ships left at disposal for the defence of the coast. My right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. C. Wood), in proposing the Navy Estimates in 1839, went into detail on this subject; and showed that instead of a diminution there had been a great increase of the Navy Estimates since 1835. One of the right hon. Secretaries for the Treasury also made a very elaborate speech on that question, and he quoted the opinions of the hon. and gallant Officer opposite, a Member of the Board of Admiralty (Sir G. Cockburn) who stated that when he was asked by Mr. Canning, in 1826, what Naval Force could be got ready immediately, he replied that he had no Force ready at the moment, but that in three days he would have 12 sail of the line in readiness. Mr. Canning made

1219
the statement in the House of Commons; the order was given, and the 12 sail were in readiness in three days. That circumstance is, I conceive, most creditable to the skill and energy of the hon. and gallant Officer. But I ask him what is the case now? He believes now that larger complements of men are necessary. But I cannot see how the hon. and gallant Officer could at this moment get 12 sail of the line off to the Mediterranean, or anywhere else, should it be necessary to send them in that quarter. It certainly is competent, having voted a large sum of money for the support of the Navy—it is quite competent, I repeat, for any hon. Member of this House, having been asked to sanction that vote, to inquire whether this country have a sufficient Naval Force in the case of any sudden and unforseen emergency. There is another question connected with this subject which I might ask the right hon. Baronet; but I shall defer doing so until the remainder of the Navy Estimates come on in Committee of Supply, when it is my intention to ask the right hon. Baronet some questions with respect to the building of ships. I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite what large ships are ready to be launched, and I shall be glad if the answer which is given shall be perfectly satisfactory. This I am aware, is a totally distinct question from that embraced in the Motion of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Sheil), which, although well founded, there may be some objections to it; although I believe that no inconvenience would result from granting the Papers which my right hon. Friend has asked for, still as his Motion might be drawn into a precedent on a future time for the inquiry of the destination of ships when it possibly would be inconvenient, I trust that my right hon. Friend will not press for the Papers which he has asked for. With regard to the negotiations not being carried on with a due regard to the honour and interests of England, I confess that I am no more influenced by the clamours raised here than I am by those raised in France with respect to their Government being alike neglectful of the honour and interest of France; not, then, being disposed to pay any attention to those clamours, I have seen nothing to induce me to urge the extreme step contemplated by the Motion of my right hon. Friend. With respect to the position of
1220
this country generally, I trust that a sufficient Navy will be always maintained, so that the name and dignity of the country may be properly sustained.
Mr. M. Milnessaid, that there was one admission in the able speech of the noble Lord who had just sat down, which he regarded with particular satisfaction, that he could not regard the relation of France and Morocco with any apprehension whatever. The noble Lord said that with respect to the state of affairs between France and Morocco, he had no anxiety, having full trust, which all the country had, in the Government and humanity of France; he did understand from those views that the noble Lord did not regard with apprehension the relations of France and Morocco. As regarded the strength and state of the Navy, it appeared to him that there was no culpability attached to Government in not having any additional force in the Mediterranean, for he had no apprehension of any hostility at present, and if such were to take place he had no doubt that there would be sufficient time to collect a sufficient force to meet any that might be brought against us. He did not suppose either that the noble Lord at the Head of Foreign Affairs was so far behind his noble predecessor in the act of protocolising as not to be able to delay such an event a sufficient time to enable us in some measure to prepare one. He could not suppose, from the known good feeling of the right hon. Gentleman who had brought forward that Motion, that it had been done with any hostile feeling, or that the words of the Motion had been framed with any such intention. Nevertheless, he saw with great pain that notice of Motion, from the confident belief that it would be misinterpreted and misunderstood. Knowing the existence of a war party in France, he thought that it behoved them to do all in their power not to increase those difficulties with which the Government of France had to contend. There was no practical good to be obtained if Government came forward and would not recognize the right of France to Algeria. For his own part he was not in a position to understand why the right of France to Algeria had not heretofore been recognised. At all events, as long as that recognition was withheld, we had no right to expect the concession of any particular favour to our commerce from France. In respect to Algeria, then, he could not see that any circumstances to

1221
which their attention had been called were calculated to cause a suspicion that the French designed further conquests. He could not suppose that the French were anxious for any extension of territory. It was impossible to talk with Frenchmen without hearing regrets of the blood which had been sunk in the sands, and the gold which had been wasted in that fruitless contest. With France there could not be any other intention in their contest with Morocco than the prevention of a hostile force coming to the assistance of the Abd-el-Kader and his followers, and making the empire of Morocco the basis for wrenching the territory from the French. He did feel that the time must come when Christian civilization ought to be carried to that country, but of that he feared there would be but slender hopes, if it were always to remain abandoned to a horde of barbarians These matters, however, might be deemed too speculative for them as politicians; he did trust, however, that taking into consideration the difficulties which the English Government had to arrange, that the right hon. Gentleman would be induced to withdraw his Motion. At the same time, he thought that it would be grateful, both to the House and the country, if the right hon. Gentleman would reiterate his assertion, that he had brought forward that Motion with no hostile feeling to France, and with none other than kindly feelings towards the French nation generally.
Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. Baronet had taken up two questions in his speech; the first of which was, as to how far the House had a right to look to the disposal of the moneys voted by them; and, secondly, as to how far they might interfere with the negotiations carried on between two countries. With respect to the first question, he thought it nothing but right that the House should have full cognizance of the disposal of the Supplies voted; the better the application of the money was known, the better, he thought, it would be for the interests of the country. With regard to Motions of that kind, he must express his disapproval of them. When those who sat on his side of the House held the reins of Government they were constantly being told of the inefficient state of the Navy; those who now sat on the opposite side of the House were constantly attacking the Government by a depreciation of the fleet; he could not but regret that the late Ministry had yielded
1222
to those attacks. He thought that if there was any sincerity in the anxiety expressed by some to see peace maintained, that they should not be so anxious to increase the Navy. The right hon. Baronet, in his opinion, was deserving of thanks for having reduced the Navy. There was a party in France who were continually exciting the minds of the French people, and continually hoping for war. What, be asked, was more likely to remove that jealous feeling than by showing our confidence in them by reducing the Navy? He would never desire the Navy to be reduced very low, for he deemed that we ought always to maintain a sufficient force for the protection of our commerce. But there was an all powerful consideration against increasing the number of our ships, for when England armed, the world armed; when England increased her fleet, the French did the same, the United States the same. For those reasons the Navy ought to be reduced as low as possible, so as not to give the war party in France any cause for jealousy, or any excuse for urging an increase of the French navy. With respect to the second question treated of in the right hon. Baronet's speech, as far as his experience went, it was an evil to interfere in the affairs of other countries. It was true, as had been instanced by the right hon. Baronet, what should we have said supposing that the French had appointed a committee to inquire respecting our conquest of Scinde, or occupation of Hong Kong? He believed that it was to the interest of the French Government to maintain peace, and that they might rest secure with the declaration of the French Government that they had no design of further conquests; at all events let them do nothing which might be misunderstood. He was glad to hear, from the Government, the declaration of its maintaining peace, and reducing the Navy, as far as was consistent with the honour and dignity of the country. He thought the Navy larger than it ought to be—larger than the wants our commerce required. He recollected the time, however, when the hon. and gallant Admiral did not see any reason why a single line of battle ship should be in the Mediterranean. But it was their object to put down the jealousy which had produced the late formidable armament; he believed that the measure of the right hon. Baronet tended to that object. He deprecated very strongly any idea getting abroad

1223
that England would interfere in Algeria. The true policy of England was peace, and they ought to maintain it by interfering as little as possible. On all occasions, however, when Government by interfering had a chance of preventing war, he should say that they were only doing their duty by such interference; he thought at the same time that to lower the Naval Force of England would be the best means of maintaining peace, which he believed that they were all anxious to do.
Mr. Mackinnonsaid, it cannot but be matter of surprize that the right. hon. Gentleman bringing forward this Motion, has stated that in his opinion the results of the present state of affairs in the Mediterranean may prove injurious to the commerce of this country. Sir, the right hon Gentleman has in his speech been so ably refuted by the First Lord of the Treasury, that there is no necessity for me to say one word in addition to what has fallen from my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel). With regard to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for London, there was no substance in it, no argument, nothing to answer, it was in fact only a pillow for the Motion of his right hon. Friend to fall gently to the ground, which it is evident it will do, even without a division. As I take great interest on the subject of Algiers and the French occupation of that portion of Africa called Algeria, I will now say a few words, and a few words only on the subject. Now, as the right hon. Gentleman is a lawyer he cannot be unacquainted with either Vattell, or the other writers who have given us their sentiments, and laid down rules with regard to the Laws of Nations, and I believe he will find that every independant state has a right to make war or peace, or to defend itself when attacked without the intervention of any other State. I am not aware that in our late war with China, or when the immense territory of Scinde was added to our Eastern possessions that any motion was made in the French Chambers for a Committee to inquire into the subject. If any member of the French Chambers had done so, he would, I think, have been ridiculed in this country for his pains, and probably not much supported in the French Chambers in his motion. It does not appear to me that we have any right whatever to interfere in the war between France and Morocco. Now let us look at the position in which England
1224
and France are placed in reference to each other, and with the rest of Europe, and let us ascertain whether it would either be prudent, or for the interest of Great Britain, to interfere in any manner with the business now going on in Africa. England is now increasing every hour in individual wealth and national prosperity; her finances are now placed on a sound and stable footing by the present Government, particularly by the late Bank Charter Bill; her policy is to reduce her taxation by degrees, and to avoid all unnecessary expenditure. France is increasing much in the same manner, and it is equally her interest, as well as the desire of her government, and that of England, to keep on good terms with her neighbours and to avoid an European war, but the laws are not so well obeyed in France, nor is the Government so strong as in England. The French are a warlike, active, and enterprising people, and their occupation of Algiers is perhaps the best security we have for the continuance of peace. A civilized community must be occupied, and have either trade, commerce and manufactures, or wage an external war, or be annoyed by internal dissentions. The French have not got sufficient manufactures, commerce or colonies to occupy the redundant population, and Algeria becomes a sort of safety valve where the turbulent spirit of the people may find occupation, and where they are likely to find it for some time to come. If the Emperor of Morocco, or the people of that country attack the French in Algeria, have the latter not a right to defend themselves? ought they to stand tamely by and allow themselves to be massacred? In every point of view I think it desirable that the French should settle in Algeria. The right hon. Gentleman favours the Catholic cause, would he not be gratified in seeing the Catholic faith spread itself over that part of Africa? What is to be apprehended to the interests of Great Britain from the colonization of that part of Africa styled Algeria by France? They the French are not likely to extend themselves either to Egypt or the east, or to interfere with our gum trade in the west of that continent, and I trust that the settlement of the colony of Algeria may occupy the attention of the French people so much as to deter them from any thoughts of war with their European neighbours, and enable them and

1225
the States adjoining them on the European continent to become by railway and steam communication so dovetailed in interests, and so improved in facility of communication as to render that system of warfare, that has with little intermission been the scourge of Europe and the disgrace of the Christian religion and of civilization, to be much less frequent than it was in former times. It appears, therefore, to me, that both for the interests and peace of England, of France, and of the civilized world, it is desirable for the French to colonize that part of Africa styled Algeria.
Sir C. Napiercould not concur in the opinion expressed by the hon. Member who had last addressed the House, that any benefit was likely to arise from the French occupation of Algiers. Did the hon. Member believe that such an occupation would have the effect of allaying the French spirit of enterprise? He did not wish to say anything which might be considered as disparaging to the people of France. When this business first commenced, the Government of France said, that they had no wish to occupy Algiers, but that their only object was to punish the people of that country for certain acts of which they had been guilty. The Government of this country would have acted wisely if they had obtained from France a written declaration to that effect. They ought not to permit France to take possession of Morocco. Why, at that moment Prince de Joinville might be bombarding Tangier. It was their duty to protect British interests. The right hon. Baronet appeared very sensitive when the state of the Navy was brought under the consideration of the House. The Navy was in a worse state than it had been in for tea or fifteen years previously. In 1839 they had twenty-one sail of the line, and 34,165 seamen and marines. The French Government had eight sail of the line at the period when this subject was brought before the House of Lords. The Duke of Wellington said they were engaged in a war in Asia and in other parts of the world, and yet had a Naval force sufficient only for a time of peace. He did not blame the first naval Lord of the Admiralty; he was certain that he had not pointed out to the right hon. Baronet the necessity of reducing the naval strength of this country. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) in the debate on the Navy Estimates, said,
1226
when alluding to the state of the British Navy,
"It was impossible not to see that the exertions made by other Powers—it might be without any hostile design—by the United States—France and Russia were becoming great naval Powers, and were preparing to cope with Great Britain in the superiority which it had hitherto maintained over the seas; and it was impossible, therefore, to exclude the importance of those maritime Powers from the consideration of the House. There was one material point also—that the House must not only take the actual strength with which it was possible to appear, when it might be called upon to come in collision with other nations, into consideration, but also the degree of assistance which we might expect from our allies. Let the House look at the strength of the Russian fleet in the Baltic at this time. They must not, however, determine the amount of possible danger by its mere extent, but they must look at the other fleets there, and if they found that Russia had a complete preponderating power there, it was most material to consider, whether this arose as well from its own strength, as from the assistance which it might gain."
Again, Sir R. Peel said,
"That he could not refrain from expressing a hope, that they would not, merely for the sake of economy, rashly diminish the strength of the Navy."
In another part of the speech the right hon. Baronet said,
"If it were necessary to have eleven sail of the line in the Mediterranean, and two at Lisbon, then all he could say was, that the remaining seven sail of the line in commission were very inadequate to the duty of protecting the coasts of this country, and meeting unforeseen dangers that might assail us without warning. If, on the other hand, so many ships were not wanted in the Mediterranean, why were not five or six sail recalled to the home station, to be kept as a reserve, ready to be called into action on unlooked-for contingencies?"
When the right hon. Baronet came into office in 1841, they had in commission twenty-six sail of the line, and 43,000 seamen and marines; in 1842 that was reduced to twelve sail of the line, fully manned. The French had, at this period, sixteen sail of the line; in 1843, they had six or seven sail of the line, and 36,000 men; and in 1844, the Naval Force was reduced by the right hon. Baronet to seven sail of the line. The right hon. Baronet then had not so many men. He might as well say, that they had fortified the country, not having a sufficient num-

1227
ber of men to man these fortifications. Of what use, he asked, were ships, unless they had seamen to man them? The right hon. Baronet said, ships could be got ready quickly: but, when his hon. Friend found it necessary to send a three-decker to the Mediterranean, he was obliged to man her with old pensioners, not having a sufficient number of able seamen at command. But that was not enough, and they were obliged to take 150 marines to fill up with. They were put on board the Caledonia, one of the few ships in our ports; and it was said that they had got a ship manned precisely equal to a man-of-war, because the marines were as good as sailors. This being the mode of manning, there was no very great merit in having her manned on signal by the telegraph by four in the afternoon, after a month's notice had been given. For his part, he would not like to have a ship manned in this way by marines; the only excuse for it was, that the manning in this way could be managed rapidly, because in three or four hours he could have as many marines as seamen. He trusted there would be no more reduction of complements of ships' crews, but he believed the right hon. Baronet was about to reduce them to that amount, which was so much complained of under the late Government. Besides sending out the Caledonia, they had sent one ship of the line also to Gibraltar, to make an appearance. Where, then, were the seven sail of the line that the right hon. Baronet had spoken of, as being necessary for the defence of the coasts of this country? There was only one ship of the line at Plymouth, and that was manned with marines; and another that had been lying for three months to get men to go to South America. All that he wished was to get up the Navy to a proper state of efficiency. It now took two or three months to send a ship to sea, and the gallant Admiral opposite (Sir G. Cockburn) knew that he could not get a ship manned under that time. The flag ship for South America had been three months fitting out. How then could a fleet be fitted out under five or six months? He knew that the stores were all ready, and that the ships were all in as complete order as they could be. He might be told a fleet might be fitted out in six months; but what had been the case in 1840? The Vanguard and the Rodney were sent home from the Medi-
1228
terranean in January or February. They were re-commissioned in March or April, and of course they needed considerable repairs after having been at sea for three or four years; but they were chosen as being the ships that could be got ready the quickest. Well, these ships did not arrive in the Mediterranean again until November, though the French had all along twenty sail of the line in Toulon Harbour. We were obliged to get ships for the Mediterranean from the distant stations. Those did not arrive in the Mediterranean till January. The Calcutta did not arrive till February, and several other ships remained in our ports here, and never arrived in the Mediterranean at all. He would ask, therefore, whether he could confide in the right hon. Baronet when he said that he could do what no other Government ever did—that was to say, fit out twenty sail of the line in six months. The French Government, it appeared, had now in commission in the Mediterranean eight sail of the line; they had also in what they called commission de rade five sail of the line; that is, ships outside in the roads officered and manned with half crews. They also had three more ships of the line repairing, besides twenty-three sail of the line on the stocks. It was the French custom to keep many ships on the stocks and only launch them as they were wanted. They had as many ships in their dockyards as we had in all our arsenals put together. He had always held that our method of commissioning ships only when they were immediately wanted was not politic, wise, or economical. What had it led to, but when occasion demanded getting ready a fleet of perhaps twenty sail of the line, and then paying them off as soon as they were not wanted, to be again got ready when another occasion called for them? The system was peculiarly unjust to the seamen. We got them to leave the merchant service in order to man our ships of war, where they were kept for a short time, and were then turned adrift without any means of support, until they got into the merchant service again. Then how could the officers improve? One ship had been kept for three years in the Mediterranean full of young gentlemen, officers and lieutenants. They had been three years in Malta Harbour, and had not had the slightest chance of becoming sailors. He could say, that in the Mediterranean, when he and his

1229
gallant comrades were there, they had seventeen or eighteen sail of the line; and it was a very difficult thing to see among them all what is called a good lieutenant. Generally, it was understood there, that out of six or seven lieutenants if one good officer could be found, they ought to think themselves perfectly well off. With respect to this question of officers learning their duty, he must say he believed that for a month the Admiralty had had six experimental brigs afloat; he had hoped these would have been sent to sea, that the officers might have learned something of their duties; but the fact was, that we had not men to send them to sea with, although our establishment was increased by 3,000 men. It was true that number was stated before the Queen was paid off; but the number in excess above the estimate was still considerable. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet, who, he was afraid, allowed obstinacy to prevail over reason, would alter his determination and come down to Parliament and ask for more men, and he thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) would be one of the first to vote with the right hon. Baronet for the increase when he saw that this country would be placed in an improper position without it.
Viscount Ingestreobserved, that the hon. Member for Montrose advocated placing the Navy on the lowest footing, forgetting altogether the experience which was necessary for the officers and men. Allusion had been made to the allegations of Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House against the state of the Navy some years ago, but there could be no comparison between that time and the present, owing to the different circumstances of Europe. At that time there was a very great apprehension of a war with France, on account of the Turkish business, which gave a very different complexion to the matter. He quite subscribed to the sentiments of the hon. Member for Montrose, that they ought now to allay the apprehensions of the war party in France, by reducing our establishment to a certain point. The only difference between them was where that point was to be. He said, that it was their business to keep a certain amount of men and officers, if it were only for the purpose of exercise. There was also altogether a difference between the state of
1230
the Navy in 1838, and what it was at the present moment. He did not say that he did not approve of having more ships, but the ships were now efficiently manned, and they now carried their lower deck guns. It was most unwise to send ships to sea, at stations so far from home, without lower-deck guns and a full complement, because they would be estimated as line of battle ships, and they would sully the honour of England if such a ship should be encountered by a frigate of smaller dimensions. Another point on which the former opposition had complained, was the absence of a naval force from the shores of this country, and he said now, that, except where ships were called away on a sudden exigency, they ought to have a certain number of ships at home, so that they might exercise the men in the Channel, in preference to foreign parts; for it would greatly improve the discipline by exercising the crews and the officers. He approved of the system which had been adopted by the present Admiralty of keeping ships in an advanced state. He could not, however, agree with the gallant Commodore in complaining that the complement which had been sent to the Caledonia had been made up of marines. They were sent for on a sudden notice, and if seamen could not be procured, he had no objection to them, for they could work the guns and haul the ropes. But another reason why he maintained that the ships should be perfectly manned was, that if it were necessary to have more ships they could take one half out of the old ships, and fill up with new men. The general policy of the Government had been sufficiently handled by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, but he had thought it necessary to make these few observations on the naval part of the question.
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, that he would begin by noticing a remark which had been made by the noble Lord the Member for London; and he quite agreed with that noble Lord, that they ought to keep up a respectable force of seamen, for this reason, that they could not make seamen in a day. So he was sorry when they were compelled to diminish the number; but no doubt it had been the practice, in time of peace, to lower the amount of the naval armaments. Then it came to a question of degree, and it certainly was for the

1231
Cabinet to decide the question according to the position of foreign States—according to the reliance which the Cabinet could place on foreign nations. The Executive Board of the Admiralty, did the best they could with the funds allowed them, in order to carry out the views of the Cabinet. He would next allude to the remark which had been made to the hon. Member for Montrose with regard to the answers given by him before the Finance Committee. The question which had been put to him was, there being no prospect of war, and no pirates on the sea—what would be a sufficient number of ships in the different stations? He had at first answered that, under these circumstances, no ships would be necessary, but he had afterwards said, that one ship in each station would be sufficient under that state of things. It was quite impossible to say what constituted a sufficient force: that question entirely depended upon the politics of each particular period, but he was prepared to say, that it was at all times advisable to maintain a very considerable naval establishment of efficient ships fully manned. He could not, however, agree with what had been said, that this country ought to regulate her force strictly in obedience to the course pursued by France or any rival power. That doctrine might be carried to an absurd extent if it were said, that whenever France sent seven or eight ships of the line for practice into the Mediterranean, that England should immediately send the same number. With respect to the more perfect manning of the ships of war, after what had been stated by the gallant Commodore, that the English frigates would in 1838 have been thrashed if they had happened to meet with French frigates—though perhaps, he did not exactly think that this would have been the case—yet no one would deny that ships ought not to be sent to sea imperfectly manned. He thought that ships ought to be rendered effective in every respect. One ship that could take its own part and support the dignity of the country, was worth two inferior vessels. He had given that advice when he had first gone to the Admiralty, and he believed that the adoption of it had given general satisfaction. The noble Lord, the Member for London, had talked about sending out only six ships of the line. They were twelve not six; but he would explain to the House that the Government had not as large a force at their disposal as they appeared to have from the vote. It was true
1232
that at that time they had had the coast blockade, and that had placed two or three thousand more men at his disposal, and accordingly, when it had been required, he had been enabled to send ships off in three days, but he had not these powers any longer. But he had not as large a force as the vote would lead the House to suppose, for there was a large war fleet in China, and as the vote had passed in April, the number of men in China were reckoned as part of the force at their disposal. This, in reality, was not the case, for the men only came home by degrees, and they were not yet at the service of the Government. At the present moment, however, despite of all that had been said, they had a very respectable force—certainly not so many as he would have liked, but still a very respectable force. He would repeat, however, that it was for the Cabinet to decide what was the exigency of the country with regard to the probabilities of war, and he doubted not that the amount of the force had been properly and wisely regulated upon this consideration. It had been stated by the gallant Commodore opposite, that the Caledonia had been sent out, manned by marines; and the gallant Commodore had very strongly objected to this. Now it had been a case of very great emergency, and under these circumstances he considered it perfectly justifiable. Besides he could not regard the marines in the same light as the gallant Commodore. The marines had been trained to the use of great guns, and for that work they were quite as fit as seamen, but, as he had before said, he had sent out a hundred and fifty marines in the Caledonia only in a case of pressing emergency. The fact was, that their ships now carried heavier guns, and it was important that they should have men to work them effectively. The Report to the Admiralty had for some time constantly been, that the ships of war were in as satisfactory a state as was required in time of war. Reference also had been made to the number of ships in building, and on this point he could assure the House they had a larger number of effective ships than they ever had—and one very important point was, that they had turned their particular attention to the employment of steamers. Larger engines had been made, and the engines which had been in the largest vessels had been placed in smaller ships, and fresh engines to refit the largest. England had, at the present moment, a larger squadron of steamers than any country in the world, and the

1233
Government intended to take care that, at any rate, in this most important point, she should preserve her superiority. The gallant Commodore opposite, in urging the necessity of a larger force, had insisted upon practice for the officers, and had stated that they were almost all bad lieutenants who came from the Mediterranean. But really the exact opposite of this was the fact, for almost every captain who came home from that sea, pressed upon the Admiralty the claim of his lieutenants for promotion. They were excellent officers, and he believed that the ships were as well sailed as ever they had been. As he had before stated, the ships were in good order, and the force at every station was considerable and respectable. Our force was necessarily more divided than that of any other country. The French might have fifteen sail of the line in the Mediterranean, eight sail of the line at sea, five en rade, and three in ordinary, together with a certain number on the stocks: but we had more ready to go to sea, which only wanted men, than they had altogether. Our ships could go to sea as soon as they were manned. He was free to admit, that there was a difficulty in manning them without impressment, but it must also be recollected that officers were now much more particular than they used to be in the selection of the seamen they would receive. He did not fear, however, that in a short time men could be obtained; and he was satisfied that so long as the Cabinet saw that no war was pending with France or any other power, we had ships and men sufficient for any emergency.
Mr. More O'Ferralldid not think it surprising, that a right hon. Gentleman, who had been connected with the Board of Trade, should ask such a question as had been now put, or that he should make an inquiry, when 15 or 20 per cent. duties were placed on our manufactures. As to the question of Algiers, he thought that by the manner in which his right hon. Friend had treated this subject, the French people would be satisfied that we could discuss our own affairs without acrimony or irritation. So far as that debate went, it would be extraordinary if they should be told that they could not discuss a question of foreign trade without giving offence to any Foreign Power. There was one point in the Motion of his right hon. Friend, asking for a Return of the present Destination of the Ships, to which objection might be made. That informa-
1234
tion was not usually given up to the time at which the Motion was made, but there could be no objection to giving the Return of their stations six months ago. Much had been said of the comparison between the present Naval Force and that of 1838. The right hon. Baronet would forgive a reference to his speech on a former occasion, because he adopted the complaints, although the Force then was double what it was now. The right hon. Baronet had particularly observed upon the absence of our Force, when the French fleet was in the Mexican waters, and had declared that there was only one gun brig and an express packet, though others had been despatched and had not arrived. It was for him a sufficient excuse if the ships were not in those waters, provided they had been detained by adverse winds, and by circumstances over which the Admiralty had no control. Now, however, when they wanted to send out ships to the Mediterranean they could only send two, while the St. Vincent was at Plymouth, waiting for orders. He was curious to hear the speech of the hon. Baronet, the Chief Naval Lord of the Admiralty, because he believed that he might be said to be at the head of the Admiralty; and he had now sitting at the same Board two Gentlemen who had made grave accusations against the Naval management of their predecessors. There were three main points of objection which suggested themselves to his attention. The first had been alluded to by the gallant Officer, although not in so satisfactory a manner as he thought desirable. That point was the complements of the ships, and it was said that there was a great difference in that respect between the present period and that of the late Board. Now, he admitted, that there had been a change, but there was, he maintained, no real difference, and, if anything, the change was the reverse of beneficial. The gallant Officer would admit that the large ships were those in which principally the fuller complements were most desirable. With respect to the small ships, they were now stowed so full that illness was common among the men; but with respect to the large ships the war complement fixed by the present Board was not so large as that fixed by the late Board. The fairest way to bring this matter to the test was to name some of the ships, the number of guns, and the

1235
complements fixed by the present Board and by the last. He would take only two ships as an example: the Collingwood, of 80 guns, and the Rodney, of 92 guns. It was generally admitted that the number of guns was the rule as to the complement, and yet there were precisely the same number of men in the 92 gun ship as in that of 80 guns. There were 750 men in each; and although there was a difference of twelve guns, there was no difference in the number of men. According to the ordinary computation, the Rodney ought to have 91 men more than the Collingwood, and, by the regulation of the last Board, her full complement would have been 829 men instead of 750. Her peace establishment would have been 695, whereas she now had 750, and yet she was now said to be fully manned. He stated this fact, because statements had been made with respect to the late Board which were believed by the House and the country, but which were wholly calumnious. There was no better test of the manning of ships than the result; and he would just see what the complement of men was in three great naval actions of the country—St. Vincent, Camperdown, and Trafalgar—he found the average of men in the line-of-battle ships, on those occasions, to be only 563. A great deal had been said by the gallant Commodore of the wretched state of our fleet in the Mediterranean. He would take the third rates in the Mediterranean, and the third rates in the action of Trafalgar, and compare the difference in the average of men—there were 628 in 1840: the average of Lord Nelson's ships of the same class being 598. He did not want to dress up any facts, but merely stated the plain truth. A charge against the late Board of Admiralty was the inefficient state of their Force at home. The right hon. Gentleman, in 1839, said that seven sail-of-the-line was too small a Force. Why, at this moment, there was no flag ship at Sheerness: and in 1838 and 1839, if hon. Members would turn back to the speeches made in that House, they would find it had been openly stated that Sheerness might be burned—that the Admiralty might be awoke from their slumbers by finding a hostile Force on our shores, and every Other absurdity that it was possible for a party to give utterance to. He trusted they (the Opposition) would never be guilty of any such exaggeration, and he trusted that no Opposition
1236
hereafter would be guilty of such conduct. Not imitating such conduct, he would state now his own conviction, and the conviction he believed of every rational man, that there was no more danger in not having a flag ship there, than there would be for the old Palace of St. James's if the captain's guard were withdrawn. It was pretty nearly the same case. If the Opposition at the time he alluded to found the Navy so reduced, why did they not on their accession to office take immediate measures to restore it? Instead of doing which, upon the first Estimates which they took after they came into office, they reduced the votes of their predecessors in almost every instance. The late Ministry left twenty-six sail-of-the-line at sea, and all the yards in full work. The work in each of the yards was reduced to a system by which the number of shipwrights was regulated according to their work, and they were required to produce work corresponding to their numbers. It had been stated that the present Board of Admiralty had done a great deal for steam. During the three years they had been in office, they could produce fifteen steamers, taking into account what were left by the late Board, and including a frigate which had been converted into a steamer, an experiment which his hon. and gallant Friend condemned. As he had already said, the late Board of Admiralty had been much condemned, but the system was not altered when the present Board came into office; they made alterations only in minor matters, but not in the great leading features of stores, and the number of ships and men. All the great essentials they left unchanged, and merely made alterations in trifling matters which were of no moment, and, if anything, they had done more harm to the Service than good. One thing struck him with but little surprise. It was a rule laid down that inefficient men should not be employed in the Service; but one of the great complaints against the late Government was, that they did not employ their old pensioners, and when the present Government came into office they were consistent enough to employ some of these men—but what was the consequence? There were twenty or thirty men on board the St. Vincent, who were receiving compensation and who were also being paid as able men. He owned he was exceedingly anxious that some subject should be introduced which would

1237
afford him an opportunity of making these observations. He had not made them in any spirit which might cause unnecessary offence to any Foreign Power—nothing he should so much regret; but, in point of fact, it was not necessary that we should make any boast of our Force, which was well known to every country in Europe. There was no boast which we could make so great and powerful as the plain honest truth; and it was, therefore, with great regret, that he noticed in a Government newspaper a few days ago, an absurd article on the subject, not written, he trusted, by an editor of the public press, and he hoped not by any one connected with the public Service, for anything so absurd he had never read, as if it were necessary to display the Force of the country, by giving a list of vessels which included even hospital ships. The real effective Force of this country was about fifty sail-of-the-line, and he conceived with a force like that, perfectly efficient and ready for service in a short time—that being double the force which any other two countries could produce—that truth was quite sufficient, and it was unnecessary to publish in a newspaper that which every Foreign Power knew to be an idle boast. But his hon. and gallant Friend said, what was the use of ships if we had not men? It was well known to every Board of Admiralty, that the great difficulty was to get men; and yet the Perseus, which was moored off the Tower, for raising men, when the late Government were in office, had been got rid of by the present Board of Admiralty. [Sir E. Cockburn said, the old vessel was still in the same place.] Then he had been misinformed, and he was glad to find from the statement of the gallant Admiral that it was so. There had been establishments in the port of London called Sailors' Homes, the objects of which were to provide an asylum for unemployed seamen. Such institutions would be very desirable in all our great ports and if not supported by the Government, encouragement should be given to such institutions by the Government, in order that there might be some such establishments in all our ports. It must be borne in mind that every sailor was, by Act of Parliament, liable to impressment; and under such circumstances he had a claim upon the public beyond every other man. A very small expense would afford to British sailors a home when
1238
they were on shore; and such institutions as he had referred to, would confer a great benefit on the country itself, by providing the most efficient men for the Naval Service of the country.
Mr. Sidney Herbertsaid, that as an accusation had been made by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, that the interests of the Navy had been much neglected by the present Administration, he thought he might be excused if he troubled the House with a few words in defence of the Department with which he was connected. As far as regarded the question brought forward practically by the gallant Officer, the Member for Marylebone, as to the inefficient state of our Navy afloat at present, as compared with what it was in 1839, and as the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last had referred to the speech made by his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury on that occasion, he thought the House would recollect the circumstances to which he was about to advert. The argument urged by the right hon. Baronet was, that if there was a state of anticipated hostility which justified the then Government in having so large a fleet in the Mediterranean, they ought also to have a strong force at home. Such an argument, however, would not apply now. In 1839 there was a movement on the part of the naval force of a foreign power. Immediately after that there was the commencement of those difficulties which produced ultimately the Syrian war, and soon after that, there were the hostilities with China; there was also a difficult question pending between our Government and that of the United States. At that time our ships were deplorably under manned, they had not even their peace complement and the seamen having one-third more labour to perform than they ought to have had, were discontented and unwilling to enter. It was said that the same state of discontent which the circumstance he had alluded to caused at that time, existed now, and that in consequence of it they had not been able to man the Collingwood. So far from that being true, Captain Eden of the Collingwood, had selected his men, and had got so excellent a crew, that he did not know that he could reject any man to take a better, and it was positively a favour to get nominated to his ship. The gallant Commodore asked what they had been doing in the way of building for the last three years? Why, after they came into office it took two years to render efficient thirty sail of the line, yet the

1239
building new ships had not been neglected and a great addition to our steam navy has been made. The gallant Commodore had also referred to ships being manned by marines and disabled men from the Ordinary. The employment of marines had already been defended under urgent circumstances. He would only add that the men taken from the Ordinary were not disabled men. There were in Ordinary effective and vigorous crews of men, about 150 of whom had been taken, leaving still an effective force. The flag ships had under the late Government, 200 men, but they were now manned as third rates, and could go out to sea for exercise. They found the Navy in an inefficient state—the ships were under-manned, since then the complements throughout the service had been generally increased, which had given perfect satisfaction in the Navy. The steam power had been doubled—they had taken every year larger sums for this purpose; the vote of 120,000 l. in 1839 had been now increased to nearly 200,000 l. and they were, in fact, adding between 5,000 and 6,000 horse power annually to the steam force of the Navy. As to the reference which had been made to their having 10,000 l. over, it was true that at the end of the year, when all the machinery had been paid for, they had that sum over, and having found the dockyards unprovided with protection against fire, they had spent that sum in laying down water pipes, and making other necessary provisions. An observation had been made on the employment of pensioners by the hon. Gentleman, but no pensioner was taken who was unfit for service. The captain had the power of taking them, but not of taking any man unfit for service. Notwithstanding what had been said of the inefficient state of the Navy, it had been truly observed by the hon. Gentleman opposite that there were thirty ships of the line in an efficient state which could be got ready at a moment's notice and every day is adding to the efficiency both of ships and men.
Captain Pechellsaid, that he agreed with the hon. Member for Kildare, that the present Board of Admiralty did not act on any principle—they filled their vessels without reference to the guns, and in some ships had a parcel of men they could not find room for. And then they took credit for sending out the Caledonia to Tangiers. Would not the Prince de Joinville ask their marines when they arrived, if they were not sea sick? The marines were
1240
able and willing men when a ship contained a sufficient number of seamen, but the gallant Admiral knew that it was quite a different thing to have a ship filled with marines instead of having a proper complement of sailors. He thought the Admiralty had not sufficiently tested the merits of some of those vessels that had been built and altered on experimental principles. He was glad to hear the gallant Admiral state that there was no want of good Lieutenants, and that the Captains of ships who had returned from foreign stations, had recommended their officers for promotion. Would the gallant Admiral say whether he attended to these recommendations or not? He hoped he had.
Viscount Palmerston: Whatever opinions hon. Gentlemen may entertain, one way or other, on the state of our Naval Service, I think we are all indebted to my right hon. Friend for bringing this matter under discussion. My noble Friend the Member for London has said, that the right hon. Baronet was exceedingly dexterous in fighting with shadows, but in the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman to-night, he has proved his capability of grappling, not with a shadow, but a shadow of a shade. The right hon. Gentleman asks, are Motions to be made calling in question the right of France to the conquest of Algiers. There may as well be a motion in the French Chamber demanding our right to the conquest of Hong Kong. Now, as to the first case, the record of the negotiation has been laid before Parliament. And I hold it perfectly competent to any Member to inquire, not what the conduct of France but of England has been on the occasion which led to the conquest of Algiers. No such ground of inquiry exists as to Hong Kong. We went into war with China on grounds of our own, and with respect to which no negotiation took place with any other country. My right hon. Friend has been found fault with by some for starting some delicate questions in connection with this discussion; and it has been said, considering the state of things which exist in France, and that there is a party there, which as the hon. Member for Leamington has alleged, is anxious for war with England, and capable of overpowering the Government of France, it is very inexpedient to discuss our foreign interests in this House, or to inquire into the naval

1241
defence which may be sufficient on any possible emergency. Now, I beg leave to say, that I utterly deny the force of that argument; and if there be any foundation for the facts alleged, they should lead to an exactly opposite conclusion. If any think—which I doubt—that in France there is any party likely to overpower the Government, so far from that being a reason why we should be tongue-tied in this House on the subject of our naval defence, that is the very reason why we should look about us with additional vigilance, and be more than ever careful to meet an emergency which may arise in spite of the most friendly disposition on the part of the two Governments in their diplomatic discussions. But, I say, we should be guided in our deliberations by no such circumstances. I think this House should not be debarred from watching over the local interests of the empire, whether they turn on our commercial regulations, or on our naval and military defence, by any considerations arising from the position of persons or parties in foreign countries. I hope we shall always abstain from unnecessarily wounding the feelings of any country—from unnecessarily raising discussions that will produce irritation anywhere; but the consideration of our own interest must be paramount with an English House of Commons, and I hold we should not be precluded from canvassing the conduct of Government with reference to those interests, and the means of our defence, by considering how far such a course may tally with the views of this or that Government or party in another country. I think, therefore, my right hon. Friend's course was perfectly legitimate. The right hon. Baronet chose to assume that my right hon. Friend argued that the present or the preceding Government should have called on France to evacuate Algiers. He used no such argument. His course of argument was this—that looking ro the record of the negotiation in 1830, previous to the sailing of the expedition to Algiers, and the conquest of that country, it was plain the Government of that day had not properly performed their duty of getting the requisite security and engagements from the Government of France; and seeing that the same persons were in power, and that on their own admission, questions of great interest were pending between the two countries as to the affairs of Morocco, it was fair to
1242
infer, from what passed on a former occasion, that we could not place sufficient confidence in the energy and vigilance of those who were now conducting our negotiations. I think that argument perfectly fair, and if any body will take the trouble of reading those Papers which were laid before Parliament in 1839 as to the negotiations carried on respecting Algiers, it will be seen the British Government failed utterly in extracting from the Government of France these engagements which they thought it important to obtain, and which they endeavoured from first to last to obtain. Government began by stating that they thought they had a right to obtain a formal and official engagement from France, that in the event of the overthrow of the Regency, France should not make any further territorial acquisitions. The explanation and assurances to this effect were given verbally. The Government, well knowing that verbal assurances go for nothing, and that they are binding on no one, but the man who makes them, pressed the Government of France for some written declaration. The Government of France, in a despatch to the Duc de Laval, said, that in the event of success, their views were perfectly disinterested, and that they would concert with their Allies as to the arrangements to be made respecting the Regency. The British Government said that was insufficient, that they should neglect their duty if they accepted an explanation so vague and general; that they had a duty to perform from which they should not shrink, and which, if they failed in performing, the people of this country would express their decided condemnation of their conduct. In reply, the French Government talked of more positive assurances; said they were ready to enter upon a convention; and that they should not previously take possession of the town or Regency of Algiers. But when pressed to give assurances in writing they evaded and declined to do so; and the very last despatch of the French Ambassador at the moment the expedition was sailing was, exactly the same as that which the Government had previously declared, insufficient and vague, observing that in the event of success, their views were perfectly disinterested, and that they would concert with their Allies the final arrangement as to Algiers. But they soon placed the matter beyond the possibility of a doubt, for they announced that the French

1243
Government was unfettered by any engagement; that they were free to accept any advice they pleased with regard to any arrangements they might make as to the ulterior settlement of the country. And what did our Ambassador at Paris when the French obtained possession of Algiers? He congratulated Prince Polignac on the victory which had been obtained, and he expressed a hope that now that the French had succeeded they would not depart from the engagements they had entered into. Was that the language of an Ambassador representing a Government that had obtained distinct engagements from France? Would he not have said, if he had obtained such assurances: "You are bound by such and such engagements, and the interests of England will not allow of your departing from them?" And what was the answer of Prince Polignac? He assured our Ambassador that the Government of France had no inclination to depart from her promises! Such was, surely, not the way in which one party or the other would have talked of a settled engagement which had been entered into by both Governments. I say, then, that the Government of that day, actuated by a desire to keep in office the Ministry of Polignac, permitted an expedition to sail and succeed without obtaining those engagements which it is plain they considered it their duty to enforce. Well, my right hon. Friend says, "You might have seen from the state of things in France that it was such as to have rendered more than usual caution necessary on the part of your then Government." The Revolution in July was foreseen by everybody but those who were its victims. I know very well from my own experience, that not a man you met in the streets of Paris in July, but anticipated some stroke of despotic authority: that it would be resisted: that the Sovereign would have to quit the country, and that the Duke of Orleans would be selected as King. But neither then nor for the four months that followed the change, was any definite arrangement obtained from the French Government. Was it for us in November, 1830, to take up anew a question thus left us? Considering the immediate and practical interests then at stake in Europe, I do not think it would be wise or consistent with the welfare of this country if we required France to evacuate a country which she conquered. Every man must see what a difference there is between ex-
1244
acting conditions previous to the sending of an expedition, and requiring a great and vain people to abandon a conquest made at the expense of much money and blood, which the nation began to be proud of, and to fancy would be attended with great advantage to themselves. But the right hon. Baronet does not impute any blame to us for allowing that question to remain as it was, and it is therefore unnecessary for me to defend myself and Colleagues further on that point. As to Morocco, I quite understand the feeling of the right hon. Baronet, that in his position a casual expression may do some injury to the public interests; and I, therefore, abstain from entering in any way on that discussion. The question is, however, one of great importance; and when my right hon. Friend instanced the increase of Customs Duties that had taken place in Algiers, he did not mean to say it ought to have been prevented by the present Government any more than it was in our power to prevent the small increase that took place in our time; but his argument was, that in consequence of the occupation of the country by another power it was subjected to a different system of commercial regulation, from that which would have existed if an engagement such as we sought had been insisted on. Much has been said with respect to the Navy, which amounts to this, that whereas Gentlemen opposite used perpetually to taunt us with neglecting the public interest, while we had twenty-one sail of the line, and when no great question was pending (for that of Syria arose afterwards), and whereas questions are now pending, on their own showing, of a grave and serious nature, that might by possibility lead to the most unpleasant results, they have but nine sail of the line, of which three are in distant countries, leaving but six available for home service, having declared that there should be kept at least seven sail of the line as a squadron of reserve on the coast of England. I say, then, they have not carried out those principles of national protection so loudly and constantly urged by them in opposition. The senior Lord of the Admiralty has said, that a great part of our force is now in China, and that is a reason why our fleet is not so available as the number of men voted would lead us to anticipate. I admit the explanation of the fact, but I do not think the reason for its existence sufficient. If the Government knew

1245
that a large proportion of their naval force would be occupied in so remote a part of the globe, they ought for this year, or for a certain period, to have proposed an augmentation in proportion to the deficiency. "But," say the Government, "though we have not so many ships as our predecessors, those ships are more full of men." I have been told the ships are so full of men that they cannot find room to stow them. I will admit for the sake of argument, that the late Board of Admiralty had too few men; I do not admit it as an opinion, but I suppose it were so for the sake of argument—a certain number of ships were necessary—hon. Gentlemen opposite had urged over and over again, that we ought to have a permanent peace establishment, with a view to the protection of our own shores; that we ought to have a certain number of ships. Then it is no answer to tell me that "to be sure we have fewer ships, but each ship has a certain number of men." If hon. Gentlemen opposite thought our ships not too many, but too slightly manned, they ought to have voted more men to make up their complement. I therefore think that the Government has entirely failed in making any defence whatever for the low state of the naval force. If the late Government had left a deficient force the present Government might have said, "It is difficult to get up a force allowed to fall too low," and that "time is requisite, and difficulties are in the way." But the late Government left the present Government a force more than they wanted—a force larger than the late Government themselves would have proposed for a permanent peace establishment, because it was connected with the peculiar affairs then existing. The present Government can have no excuse in going below the amount of ships which they themselves maintained to be the proper naval establishment for this country. Whatever may be the feelings of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose on this subject, I feel myself entitled to say that an efficient naval force in this country is the best economy for England. Let them do as they will, and act as they please indifferent to things going on abroad—let them condemn as they would what they called a "meddling policy," and allow foreign nations to do what they pleased, still things will come upon us from time to time which will render it necessary for the interests of the country to be able to resist a sudden attack. I should like to know, if in any
1246
other country there is a party ready to make war with England, is that party more likely to make war when it finds us provided with the means of attack, or so weak as to invite insult? The true policy therefore, of the British Government ought always to be to maintain a respectable and efficient naval force, even when the Government did not perceive any event likely to happen calculated to bring that force into action. I trust that what has passed this evening, and the observations which has been made on former occasions, will lead the Government to take a somewhat different view of these matters, and that we shall in future have a naval force more consonant with what has been deemed by high authorities the proper peace establishment of the country, enabling the Government to hold that language and to maintain that position which becomes the Government of England. Such an establishment is no defiance to any country in the world; it can be looked on by no party in any country as any indication of any disposition to quarrel with any other country; it is simply a protective system of policy, and equally the duty of the Government to pursue it, and equally conducive of good relations and of peaceful understandings with other countries of Europe. Whether my right hon. Friend will press his Motion to a division or not, his object will be obtained by the discussion which has taken place; but I must protest against the least imputation being cast on my right hon. Friend, that he wishes to hazard the peace of this country with other nations, or interrupt the best understanding between this Government and France.
Original Motion agreed to. Order for Committee read.
On the question that the Speaker do now leave the Chair,

THE FINE ARTS.
Mr. Humesaid, he had been anxious to bring under the notice of the House the state of the Fine Arts in this country. In no country in the world had artists been treated as they had been in this country—in no country had rising genius received less protection than in England; and he attributed this entirely to the manner in which the Royal Academy had been pre-eminently favoured by Royal patronage. He wished to know what funds were at the disposal of this favoured society, as no other patronage

1247
was given to the other artists in the country. But the right hon. Baronet had refused that Return. He was anxious to see the artists have a building of their own, removed from the depository of the works of art, as the present building was not fire-proof. The patronage of the Crown had been so used as to be a damper on rising genius. The cartoon exhibitions had been of more avail in developing the talent of the country than all the proceedings of the Royal Academicians. He thought, too, that they acted most unjustifiably in excluding the public from free access to the exhibition, and he should be glad to learn what was the opinion of the House as to the propriety of enlarging the basis of the institution. He moved—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That, as Patroness and Comptroller of the Royal Academy of Arts, She will be graciously pleased to take into consideration the Laws and Regulations of that Institution, with a view of rendering it more conducive to the advancement of the Fine Arts, better suited to the spirit and circumstances of the present age, and more consonant with the original intention of its Royal Founder, George III."
Sir R. Peelexpressed his regret that the hon. Gentleman had not had an opportunity of pressing the question at an earlier period of the Session, in order that he (Sir R. Peel) might have seized the occasion of acknowledging the gratitude due to the Institution on account of the great benefit which it had conferred upon the arts. What was the presumed departure from the original intention of George III.? The exhibition was freely open to all artists—its funds were applied solely to the promotion and support of art; and he did say, that it was to the Royal Academy, and not to Parliament, that the merit was due of founding in this country a National School of Art. All that the Royal Academy received from the public favour was the use of the apartments in Trafalgar-square. The public gave nothing towards the payment of professors of painting, anatomy, and architecture. All this was provided for by the Royal Academicians. That body, too, supported, and liberally supported, from its funds, decayed members of the profession when in the decline of life, little or no public sympathy was shown, and in many cases it also made provision for their widows. When he considered the names which had adorned the Royal Academy,
1248
he could not hesitate to say, that he found in them the strongest proof of the success of the Institution. What great masters had it not numbered amongst its members? No doubt some had been disappointed of attaining its highest honours; no doubt many were unable to exhibit within its walls; but this arose rather from a limited space, than from any want of liberality amongst the Royal Academicians. Did they come down to that House to ask the public for large sums of money to defray their expenses? Why, even the solitary dinner which was given once a year to bring together in friendly communion the patrons and the professors of art—even the cost of the solitary dinner, to which no doubt the hon. Gentleman would object, was defrayed by the professors. As for artists themselves, speaking of them as a body, he was bound to say, that in the course of a life in which he had been brought into frequent communication with them, he had ever looked upon them as men of honour and as Gentlemen who shed a lustre upon the British character. He hoped the House would not concur in the assault thus made upon them by the hon. Gentleman. If there were any artists prompted by motives of disappointment to find fault with the management of the Royal Academy, why they could take their revenge by exhibiting elsewhere; but as far as Parliament was concerned, he trusted that by resisting this Motion they would show that they deprecated this annual interference, and that they were disposed to permit the Royal Academy to pursue the even and honourable tenor of its way.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that if a large sum was to be voted for the purposes of the Royal Academy he could have conceived that the hon. Member might fairly have made these remarks, and even then there could scarcely have been a better reply to them than that the management of the Royal Academy now afforded. As far as he could see, that Institution was conducted in no grudging or envious spirit towards artists; no talent was ever kept in the back ground, no proper advantage appeared to him to be in any way denied it. He thought there were no grounds for the Motion, and he strongly advised the hon. Member not to persist in it.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that as far as he could judge, there was no country in Europe in which was provided such a

1249
school for art at so small a cost to the Government, nor did he believe that there was any Government which contributed so little to the encouragement of art. There was only one point upon which he rose to offer a suggestion. Every one who had visited the exhibition now to be seen in Westminster-hall must have been struck with the superior character of the sculpture, and every one who visited the exhibition in Trafalgar-square must have been struck with the inadequacy of the space allotted to that display of works in that branch of the art, and with the utter impossibility of ever exhibiting in the little room allotted to sculpture, such works as were now to be seen in Westminster-hall. He hoped the inefficiency of this room for the purpose for which it was designed might receive consideration either from the Government or the Royal Academicians.
Mr. Humereplied: he said he might have adduced many other arguments had he pleased, and, he remarked, with regard to the free admission of the public to the Royal Academy, that up to the twelfth exhibition no money had been taken at the doors.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he could explain that circumstance. Up to the twelfth exhibition of the Royal Academy the Academicians received from King George III., the liberal annual grant of 5,000 l. a year out of his Majesty's private purse. The Royal Academy very properly declined, after the Academy was once established, to receive a continuance of this donation, and in order to enable them to carry out their design the very moderate charge which was now made was first imposed.
Amendment negatived.
House in Committee of Supply.
On the question that the sum of 8,000 l. be granted to defray the cost of completing the Nelson Monument, in Trafalgar square.
Mr. Wysebegged to know whether the Government had not received an offer from an artist of the name of Park, to complete the monument at his own expense, if he were suffered to undertake and finish it in conformity with his own taste and judgment.
Sir R. Peelsaid, it was true that the Government had received such an offer, but had not thought proper to accept it, as a monument like that erected to Nelson ought to be the subject of competition to
1250
artists, and it would be establishing a bad principle if such a proposition as that referred to by the hon. Member were to be accepted. The best way was for the Government to pay the expense attendant on completing the monument upon such a plan as might be deemed proper, and not to accept the money of private individuals in such a matter.
Mr. Wysedid not disapprove the conduct of the Government in this matter, but thought the present occasion was the fittest opportunity for bringing the offer that had been made to the notice of the House.
Mr. H. G. Knightsaid, that before this vote was granted he must inquire whether it was intended that the granite steps and lions, which were to serve as a base to the column in Trafalgar Square, should be executed on the same scale on which they were originally designed? Because it was very well known that the column (in his opinion most unfortunately) had been made twenty feet shorter than was intended by the architect, and, consequently, if the base were now to be made on the same scale on which it was originally designed, it must of necessity be disproportional to the column as it was, and give it even a less satisfactory appearance than it had at present. He could not be supposed to wish to stand in the way of any mark of respect to the immortal Nelson. It was because he wished to see Nelson honoured as he ought to be, that he regretted to behold such a testimonial as the one now erected in Trafalgar Square — a truncated column with a statue at the top of it, which, instead of resembling a hero, resembled nothing but a figure of fun. Before that testimonial was commenced, he had done his utmost to prevent such a column from being placed in such a situation; and now that the work was finished he had the melancholy satisfaction of finding himself justified by the opinions of all those whose opinions were worth having—the opinions of all men who had eyes to see. The Nelson Testimonial, as it had been executed, was another architectural disgrace to this metropolis—not only a disgrace in itself, but it was most injurious to every thing in its vicinity, and did as much harm as possible to the finest situation in the world; that magnificent square which had been obtained at so vast a public expence. He had hoped that that square would have been made a sort of British forum, decorated with statues in

1251
bronze of our great Naval and Military heroes—but that unsightly column would now reduce everything in its neighbourhood to insignificance. There appeared to be a curse on the architecture of London. Vast sums were expended, and nothing satisfactory was produced. What a congregation of bad taste did that one spot exhibit with the National Gallery behind, and the Nelson Testimonial infront—such a column capt with such a statue, in such a cocked hat! His only consolation was, that Frenchmen, as he had been told, when they came to London, mistook the statue for that of Napoleon, and he had been credibly informed that this imaginary generosity on the part of the British nation had considerably allayed the irritation against this country which had recently prevailed in France. He was aware that, as the testimonial was erected, such it must now remain. He only hoped that it would not be rendered more unsightly than it was by receiving the addition of a disproportionate base.
Sir R. Peelbegged to assure the hon. Member that the size of the lions should be an open question.
Mr. B. Cochraneobserved that he had seen it stated in one of the papers that the Emperor of Russia had bestowed 500 l. towards the completion of the Nelson Monument, and that this sum had been accepted. He considered that if this statement was true, the fact was extremely disgraceful to this country, for a national monument ought to be paid for by the people alone, and not to be the result of foreign assistance. As the Government had now taken charge of the structure he begged to express his entire satisfaction with this proceeding; but he thought that if this had been done before the length of the shaft had been reduced twenty feet in consequence of the falling-off of the funds, it would have been much better. Would it be disputed that the monument was twenty feet shorter than it was intended to be, and that this was occasioned by the inadequacy of the sum subscribed to erect it. Why, there was still a sum of 12,000 l. required to finish the pedestal, and how therefore would it be denied that the sum required for the shaft, as originally designed, had not been inadequate for that purpose? The whole progress of this and of many other public buildings proved to him the necessity that existed in this country for creating a Minister of Public Works, whose attention would be directed
1252
to objects of this nature, and which were of such vast importance.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the House should beat in mind that this design of a monument to Lord Nelson was originally a private affair. It was proposed to erect a monument to Lord Nelson exactly in the way in which two memorials of the Duke of Wellington were about to be erected, one in the east and the other in the west part of the town, not by Government, but by private subscription. He could not help thinking that memorials in honour of a great general must be more acceptable to his feelings when erected by the spontaneous offerings of his fellow subjects, than if erected by a vote of Parliament. In like manner it was determined to erect a monument to Lord Nelson, and the design of the monument originated entirely with individuals. A sum of 20,000 l. had been subscribed, but the Committee of Management had expected that a considerably larger sum would have been raised. In the progress of the proceedings connected with this monument the Committee thought it desirable to take the opinion of an architect and engineer as to its height, and the parties consulted, Sir R. Smirke and Mr. Walker, considering the height of the fluted Corinthian column, which was also to have a bronze capital and statue on the top, declined to answer for its safety, strongly advising that the shaft should be curtailed by twenty feet. The curtailment was injurious to the effect, but it arose entirely from considerations of public safety, as it was thought that it would be extremely inconvenient should the monument fall in that crowded part of the metropolis where it was now erected. This consideration alone, and not one of expense, led to the curtailment of the monument. When the Emperor of Russia gave 500 l. towards the completion of the monument, the Government had not the charge of the monument, and the Committee accepted the gift, which was not given towards the expense of a public monument erected by public money, but in aid of private subscriptions already collected, the Emperor of Russia being willing to mark his sense of Lord Nelson's merit, and show his gratitude for the courteous reception he had experienced in this country, by this subscription of 500 l. With the same feelings the Emperor subscribed towards the Wellington Monument. Though the Government had now the charge of the Nelson

1253
Monument, he hoped the hon. Member would not advise the Government to return the subscription of the Emperor of Russia, which was presented before the monument came under the charge of the public, and when it was to have been raised by private subscriptions.
Vote agreed to.
Several other Votes agreed to. The House resumed.

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS — THE CLERGY.
The Land Tax Commissioners' Names Bill having been read a third time,
Lord Worsleysaid, that out of the seventeen names put in as Commissioners for Lincolnshire division of Horncastle and Hill, there were twelve clergymen, of whom only four were connected with the district by property, and he had given notice of a Motion to expunge the eight who were not connected by property with the division. He was one of those who thought it was not advisable that these sort of duties should be performed at all by clergymen, and at any rate he was of opinion that persons should not be put on the list merely because they had a living or a curacy in the district. It might be asked what the duties of the appointment were? They were very analogous to those of Justices of the Peace, and the consequence was, that they would have to perform duties of an unpleasant nature with respect to those amongst whom they laboured. He found amongst their duties that they were to appoint assessors for the tax upon mines and lands, and where payment was not made to levy it by warrants of distress. He asked, then, whether it were proper that clergymen who had no property in the district, and only connected with it by their livings, should perform these duties? He had sent to the Clerk of the Commissioners eight other names of persons connected with the district by property, and duly qualified to act as Commissioners, and had asked whether there were any objection to them? To which the only answer he received was, that the Commissioners saw no reason why the names should not be retained. The names he had sent in had been inserted, but the other eight had been left in, and he now moved that they be expunged. If he were opposed he could only come to the conclusion that the Government believed that the clergy were proper persons to discharge these
1254
duties. The names were the Rev. George Thackeray Hemingly, the Rev. Edwards Walter, the Rev. Charles Terrott, the Rev. J. Fawssett, the Rev. J. Pickford, the Rev. G. Price, the Rev, J. T. Maine, and the Rev. H. Fielding.
Sir George Clerhsaid, that the course proposed by the noble Lord was very unusual. The noble Lord was required by the Order of the House to send in the names of persons duly qualified; objecting to the names of these clergymen he had omitted them; but the noble Lord's Colleague, who had an equal right to send in a list, had included them, and they ought to be returned. If not duly qualified they could not act. He saw no reason why the gentlemen nominated and the colleague of the noble Lord should not act as they were qualified to do, and he hoped that in the absence of that hon. Gentleman the House would not take so unusual a course as to exclude those names.
The House divided on the question that the name of the Rev. George Thackeray Hemingly stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 34; Noes 13; Majority 21.

List of the AYES.

Ackers, J.

Graham, rt. hn. J. Sir

Acland, Sir T. D.

Greene, T.

Barneby, J.

Herbert, hon. S.

Barrington, Visct.

Hussey, T.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Jermyn, Earl

Boldero, H. G.

Knight, H. G.

Borthwick, P.

Lincoln, Earl of

Buckley, E.

Masterman, J.

Clerk, Sir G.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Colvile, C. R.

Pringle, A.

Cripps, W.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Dickinson, F. H.

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

Eliot, Lord

Stanley, Lord

Entwistle, W.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Forbes, W.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Fuller, A. E.

TELLERS.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Young, J.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Lennox, Lord A.

List of the NOES.

Brotherton, J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Gibson, T. M.

Wakley, T.

Hawes, B.

Wawn, J. T.

Morris, D.

Williams, W.

O'Connell, M. J.

Wyse, T.

Pechell, Capt.

TELLERS.

Philips, M.

Worsley, Lord

Rawdon, Col.

Hume, J.

Bill passed.
Mr. Brothertonmoved the adjournment of the House.
Mr. Barnebyhoped that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion, but would allow him to make the Motion of which he had given notice.
Sir G. Clerkhoped the hon. Member would not persist, as the Motion of his hon. Friend was only a matter of form.
Mr. Brotherton: Oh yes, I know all about it. I shall persist.
The House divided: Ayes 6; Noes 33: Majority 27.

List of the AYES.

Colvile, C. R.

Wakley, T.

Gibson, T. M.

Morris, D.

TELLERS

O'Connell, M. J.

Brotherton, J.

Pechell, Capt.

Wawn, J. T.

List of the NOES.

Ackers, J.

Greene, T.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hawes, B.

Barneby, J.

Herbert, hon. S.

Barrington, Visct.

Hussey, T.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Jermyn, Earl

Boldero, H. G.

Knight, H. G.

Borth wick, P.

Lincoln, Earl of

Buckley, E.

Masterman, J.

Clerk, Sir G.

Pringle, A.

Cripps, W.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Dickinson, F. H.

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

Eliot, Lord

Stanley, Lord

Entwisle, W.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Forbes, W.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Worsley, Lord

Fuller, A. E.

TELLERS.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Young, J.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Lennox, Lord A.

GILBERT'S UNIONS' COMMITTEE.
Mr. Barnebymoved that three be the quorum of the Gilbert's Unions' Committee.
Captain Pechellconsidered the Motion wholly unprecedented. The hon. Mover, who was Chairman of the Gilberts' Incorporation Committee, had stated no ground whatever for the proposal he had made; and the very proposition itself showed that the inquiry ought to be given up for the present Session. He had been most regular in his attendance, and was most desirous to afford every information in his power; but very important interests were at stake; strong accusations were made against the Poor Law Commissioners; and the inquiry had only finished with reference to the southern districts. Yorkshire and the midland counties, the most important of all, had yet to be inquired into, and now the chairman came down to the House with a proposal to reduce the quorum to
1256
three. This amounted, first of all, to a reflection on the Members of the Committee; the proceeding itself was altogether irregular, especially unfair to the minority of the Committee, and must prove to the public that the result ought not to be considered satisfactory. He should resolutely oppose the Motion.
Mr. Wakleyhoped if there was other formal business to be gone through, the hon. Member would withdraw this Motion. If the Resolution was carried, no report whatever could be made this Session.
Sir J. Grahamhad no objection to the withdrawal of the Motion, provided the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton engaged not to withdraw from the Committee for the purpose of reducing the quorum of five. He understood there had been some threat of that sort held out for the purpose of impeding the progress of this Committee.
Mr. Wakleybegged to say, he had never withdrawn from the Committee for the purpose of reducing the numbers, nor had he ever heard of any Member having done so; that it was impossible Members of that Committee could do their duty and also attend the early sittings of that House when the Poor Law Amendment Bill was to be discussed. The proper way would be to abandon the inquiry for the present, and resume it next Session.
Sir J. Graham, at all events, hoped they would have the benefit of the evidence that had been taken.
Mr. Colvilefelt that insinuations had been thrown out that ought to be retracted. On more than one occasion he had been anxious to divide the Committee, but he had declined to do so because there was not a quorum. The whole conduct pursued in that Committee was so bad that he was compelled to complain of it. It was quite impossible that the result of the inquiry could be satisfactory to the public. However, on condition that this proposition was withdrawn, he should postpone his Motion till to-morrow, (this day.)
Motion withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter to two o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Joint Stock Companies Remedies at Law and in Equity; Metropolis Buildings.
2a. Sudbury Disfranchisement; Charitable Trusts; Parish Constables; Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Western Australia; Farm Buildings; Loan Societies; Party Processions (Ireland); Soap Allowances; Trafalgar Square.
Reported.—Actions for Gaming Discontinuance; Colonial Postage; Assessed Taxes Compositions, etc.; Detached Parts of Counties.
3a. and passed:—Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland); Art Unions; Butter and Cheese.
Private.—1a. Ayr Bridge.
2a. Gaspé Fishery and Coal Mining Company; Sir George Gervis's (or Pemberton's) Estate.
Reported.—Bowyer's Estate.
3a. and passed:—Gape's Divorce; W. H. B. Jordan Wilson's Estate; Lady Le Despencer's Estate; Mariners and General Life Assurance; London Gas Light Company; Croydon and Epsom Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Marquess of Normanby, from Medical Practitioners of East London, for the Adoption of Measures for the Improvement of the Sanatory Condition of the People.—By Lord Cottenham, from Debtor Prisoners of Qneen's Prison, and Whitecross-street, in favour of the Creditors and Debtors Bill; and from St. Helen's, Lancashire, against depriving Courts for the Recovery of Small Debts of their present powers.—By Duke of Richmond, from Steyning, for Protection to Agriculture.—From the Nobility, Gentry, and others of

1145
Portarlington, respecting the Waldenesian Protestants of Piedmont. — From Marylebone, for Inquiry into the operation of the Anatomy Act.

SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, and for Counsel to be heard, read. Mr. Sergeant Wrangham and Mr. Talbot appearing as Counsel in support of the Petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Sudbury against the said Bill, Mr. Sergeant Wrangham was heard on behalf of the said Petitioners. The Counsel were directed to withdraw.

ACTIONS FOR GAMING DISCONTINUANCE (No. 2).
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, and for James Thomas Russell to attend, read: Counsel, and the said James Thomas Russell, were called in: The evidence given by the said James Thomas Russell on Friday last, was read to him by the Clerk at the Table: Witness further examined—
The Earl of Radnor: I speak to order.
Counsel and Witness directed to withdraw.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that on Friday he refrained, with reluctance, from interrupting the examination of his noble and learned Friend. Knowing the great legal abilities of his noble and learned Friend, and hearing it stated that the Lord Chief Justice of England was of opinion that the witness was bound to answer the question, he (the Earl of Radnor) was unwilling to state any reasons why in his opinion the House should not require the witness to answer the question; but the more he considered the matter after he left the House, the stronger the reasons appeared to him why they ought not, in justice or in law, to call on the witness to answer the question, or to commit him if he refused to answer it. Their Lordships would be pleased to consider the situation in which this witness stood, and the circumstances under which he appeared at the Bar of the House. A Bill had been introduced, brought up from the other House, extending for twelve months a Bill brought in and passed early in the Session, for discontinuing certain qui tam actions, brought on account of horse-racing. That Bill discontinued these actions for twelve months, and the object of the present Bill was to further discontinue them until the end of the next Session of Parliament. On the second reading of that Bill his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) presented a petition from a person signing
1146
himself Charles Henry Russell, stating that he was interested in opposing the Bill, and praying that he might be heard by Counsel at the Bar against its passing. That petition was presented after the second reading, but previously to going into Committee, and the prayer of the petitioner to hear Counsel against the Bill was agreed to. After the Counsel had been heard, his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack stated that it ought to be shown that the petitioner was interested in the case, and the Counsel was desired, by producing the writs, to prove that the petitioner was interested in the case. This he (the Earl of Radnor) thought was a little late in the day, particularly after Counsel had been heard. However, the omission having been made in the first instance, it appeared to him only fair, that the matter should be set right. The Counsel said, that he was not aware that he should be called upon to prove that fact by evidence—the production of the writ he had apprehended would have been sufficient evidence—but he produced not the writ but the attorney, the person employed to bring these qui tam actions, to prove the fact required. The witness just now at the Bar was that attorney, and he told their Lordships that his brother was the plaintiff in these qui tam actions—that that brother of his, being his clerk, was aided in carrying on these actions by a person who wished to have his name concealed, and that was the name for refusing to divulge which the witness was threatened with commitment. An order was made on Friday, directing that the evidence should be printed, and likewise certain evidence which had been given before a Committee of that House, sitting on the subject of the Gaming Laws, and which had been circulated amongst their Lordships. He (the Earl of Radnor) understood at the time, that the reason for publishing that evidence was to prove that this witness had contradicted himself in the evidence which he had given before the Committee, and in the evidence which he had given before the House. He (the Earl of Radnor) had carefully gone through that evidence, and he did not believe that there was any such contradiction; but even if there were, he must submit that there was no cause for committing him. But in this evidence he found that this man gave a very fair account of the transaction. He did not mean to say that the character of the persons concerned was a fair character; but this man gave a very

1147
fair account of the transaction. He said that a person came to him whom he knew not, who wished to put an end to the practice of those great and ruinous bets upon the turf, which were so common, and he asked him whether he could not do so, by bringing qui tam actions? The witness said that at that time he did not know that person; but that, in consequence of the application thus made to him by this person, whether gentleman or non-gentleman he (the Earl of Radnor) did not know, he instructed him to take the opinion of Mr. Erle, and Mr. Erle's opinion was favourable to proceeding by qui tam actions. This he communicated to this person, who was still unknown to him, who said that he did not wish to appear in the transaction, and that he wished that the witness, the attorney, would point out a person who would act as plaintiff in the transaction. He (the Earl of Radnor) had never had anything to do with qui tam actions, and he must say that this appeared to him to be a fair and natural proceeding. Here was a person, gentleman or no gentleman, and he thought that it was quite consistent with the most respectable character that a man could have, that he should wish to put an end to these gaming transactions, which were notoriously taking place in consequence of horse-racing, and he could conceive that however respectable he might be, he might not like to be handed up and his name put forth as the promoter of these qui tam actions, especially as a very large portion of the penalties would go into his own pocket. He (the Earl of Radnor) could not help thinking that the transaction on the face of it was perfectly fair, and that the gentleman, whose name they had been endeavouring to get at, had acted justifiably in employing an attorney to put an end to such transactions, and in directing that attorney to employ a person to be the plaintiff in these actions. From the evidence given by this witness, his brother, Charles Henry Russell, the petitioner, was, to all intents, his client; and he told their Lordships in his petition, that he was aided in this business by money advanced to him by other parties. There appeared to be nothing improper as far as this went, and he (the Earl of Radnor) could not understand, for the life of him, what right the House had to call for this person's name. He likewise learnt, from the printed Report of the evidence taken before the Select Committee, that great anxiety had been shown there to fish out
1148
this person's name, and for this particular purpose (which was one to which he thought their Lordships would not lend themselves), that if the Earl of Eglintoun, a Member of their Lordships' House, against whom one of these actions was pending, should not be cast in the action, he might find out who were the parties against whom he might recover whatever he might by law have a right to recover, in consequence of the proceedings which had been taken against him. He thought that their Lordships would not lend themselves to aiding such an object, as they had this witness before them for a totally distinct object. This witness was threatened with being committed. He (the Earl of Radnor) knew that the House had power to commit him, and that if he were unjustly committed he would have no remedy. Every Court had an undoubted right to commit for contempt. But had this man been guilty of any contempt of this Court? He spoke under correction; but he believed that mere want of respect—or refusing to answer what was desired—did not amount to contempt; he believed that it must be something which impeded the proceedings of the Court. In the case of Mr. O'Driscoll, which was before the House a few nights ago, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack argued that Mr. O'Driscoll did perfectly right to commit the man Dineen, he being a witness before him (Mr. O'Driscoll), and being able to give evidence upon the subject of inquiry, but refusing to do so, and was, therefore, guilty of contempt. But this man's contempt was nothing of the sort. What did they want to know in the present instance? They wished to know, whether Charles Henry Russell was interested, and this witness came before them and said, Charles Henry Russell was his brother, that he was the plaintiff in these actions, but that he was aided by some one. It therefore appeared to him, that they had no right to fish out anything further from this man, or to cross-examine him any further as to this particular point, There seemed to be no use in doing it, as it would not facilitate any proceeding, and as it had no connexion with anything which they had to do. On these grounds he therefore objected to the question being put by his noble and learned Friend.
Lord Broughamsaid, he regretted that his noble Friend had given so little of his excellent understanding to the particular question which he had put to the witness.

1149
In the first place, the speech which his noble Friend had just delivered ought to have been reserved for a future stage of the proceedings, when he (Lord Brougham) or any other noble Lord was proceeding to compel the witness to answer the question by threatening him with imprisonment, or if he refused to answer, by moving that he be committed, Then the question would have arisen, whether his refusal to answer was a contempt; and then his noble Friend would have been right in urging, first, that the question was immaterial to the inquiry—for that would be an answer to the question of contempt; and second, that it was a question the witness was not bound to answer, whether it was material or not. But they had not yet come to that stage of the proceeding; for he was inquiring as to a fact of which evidence had been read, but not sufficiently expounded, and upon which they were not in a position to form a correct opinion as to whether the witness was compellable or not to answer the question. But if his noble Friend was wrong in that matter he would permit him to say that he was more marvellously in error as to the grounds which he laid down for protecting the witness from answering the question; for it was the first time in the course of his life that he had ever heard this proposition—that a witness could be protected from answering a question put to him by a Court. Why? because he had taken the opinion of counsel, and counsel learned in the law had told him that he was not bound to answer a question. He also begged his noble Friend to consider whether this was a tenable proposition—that they could not put this question because an unknown person came to the witness and told him to bring these qui tam actions. Why, was not that man his client? If he went to an attorney who did not know him and instructed him to bring some qui tam actions for a public spirited purpose as his noble Friend thought, but at the same time told the attorney not to make him the qui tam plaintiff, but some man of straw, and the attorney employed his clerk to act as plaintiff, was not that a juggle? Could any mortal being doubt, that the real employer in this case was the unknown person? Could any man say that the witness was not bound to disclose the name of his client? It was clear the witness could not protect himself against it. He might protect himself against answering what he had heard in the presence of his client and in consultation on that
1150
client's case; but that was not the ground of refusal which this witness took. He (Lord Brougham) admitted that this witness was not bound to answer the question he had put to him, unless he made it clearly appear that he had no knowledge of the name of that person; but it was quite the contrary. Then came the other question. His noble Friend said they had nothing to do with this inquiry, but he (Lord Brougham) said they had, and that this question was quite material. It was for the House to consider whether they had a right to have an answer to that question; and they should recollect that the Bill related to whether the petitioner had a right to have this Bill stopped, for if it turned out that this party had no interest in the Bill, but that another person was interested, it was quite clear they had a right to have that other person's name, and that it was most material to the inquiry. [A noble Lord: Why?] Because they could not get through the inquiry without it. [Lord Wharncliffe: The question is,—who is the party injured by the Bill?] That was the question; for when he was about to injure a party had he not a right to know against whom he was levelling this Act of Parliament? The law of the land was this,—if there were two parties before a court, one party had a right to ask his opponent in cross-examination any question he pleased for any purpose, and the court had a right to examine him on any one subject for any purpose which it thought would help the inquiry. Now, if his noble Friend had permitted him to put another question, he (Lord Brougham) and his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack anticipated that the answer to that second question would have put an end to the inquiry, and would have rendered the committal of the witness unnecessary.
The Duke of Richmondsaid that his noble Friend (the Earl of Radnor) had taken up this case with great warmth and but little consideration. The noble Earl had accused the Committee of striving to fish out the name of an individual to serve the purposes of Lord Eglintoun. If that had been said out of the House, he (the Duke of Richmond) would have given it a very short answer—he had had no commucation with Lord Eglintoun upon the subject. The facts of the case, however, were these. The Committee of the House of Commons having refused to examine this person, he complained that he was aggrieved and the Committee of their Lordships' House consented to call him in order that he might

1151
have an opportunity of clearing his character: and the only thanks they now got for so acting was, this charge of having put questions to him for the purpose of serving persons of their own party. The matter into which the Committee had to inquire was, the operation of the laws relating to gaming, and he thought it was quite consistent with this inquiry that they should ascertain who was the party who brought these qui tam actions. Why, it might happen that this very person who was afterwards to get half the proceeds of the penalties might be the foreman of the jury who was to try the case. This question, therefore, had been put by the Committee, but the witness having declined to answer it, they did not press it.
The Earl of Eglintounsaid, that he had an equal right with the noble Chairman of the Committee to feel aggrieved at the accusation made by the noble Earl (Radnor). He begged to say, in answer to the surmise thrown out by the noble Earl opposite, that until he had mentioned the circumstance he (the Earl of Eglintoun) was not aware that the Committee had asked the question to which the noble Earl objected. He (the Earl of Eglintoun) believed tkat many Members of the Committee were very good friends of his, but he did not think that any of them would ask any questions from such unworthy motives as the noble Earl had imputed to them.
The Earl of Radnorbegged to explain that he did not know until after he had got into the House that any action had been brought against the Earl of Eglintoun; and the impression which he had received from reading some of the questions put to the witness—he alluded more particularly to questions 229 and 238—was, that they were put with a view of ascertaining who was the real party who had brought these actions with a view of recovering the costs. He begged to add, that nothing which he had heard from the noble and learned Lord had removed his objection to this course of inquiry.
Counsel and witness again called in, and the witness further examined; and counsel and witness were again directed to withdraw.
The House was then put into Committee.
Bill reported without Amendment.

SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
On the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of this Bill,
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he wished
1152
to call the attention of the House to the second reading of this Bill. He did not know whether their Lordships had seen the evidence on which this Bill was founded, but he was sure if they had they would come to the conclusion that a more flagrant case of bribery and corruption had never before come under the notice of Parliament. This being the case, it became necessary, as an example to others, and as a punishment to the offenders, that this Bill should pass into a law. He would now shortly call the attention of their Lordships to these transactions as they appeared in the evidence before the House. It appeared that at the last election, in 1841, for the borough of Sudbury, Mr. Villiers and another Gentleman were candidates upon the Liberal side, and Mr. D. Jones and Mr. Taylor were candidates on the Conservative side. The two former Candidates were returned by a small majority, and two petitions were presented against this return; one of these two petitions prayed for a scrutiny, and the other prayed the House of Commons to declare the election void. It appeared that the petition for a scrutiny was unpopular, and none of the petitioners for the new election would join in that petition for a scrutiny, unless the petitioners for a scrutiny would join in a petition for a new election. The petition praying the House to declare the election void on the ground of bribery and corruption was presented and gone into. The House of Commons was satisfied that the case was made out, and declared the election void; and so satisfied were the Committee of the extent of bribery and corruption that had taken place in the borough, that they made a Special Report to that House, and in consequence a Bill was introduced in 1842 for the purpose of disfranchising the borough. That Bill passed through the House of Commons and came up to their Lordships' House late in the Session. The consequence of the Bill coming up at so late a period was, that a noble Marquess made that a ground of opposing the Bill—their Lordships concurred in opinion with him, and the Bill was consequently rejected. In the following Session, a Bill, directed to the same object, came up to their Lordships' House very early in the Session—he believed that it came up before Easter; counsel was heard at the Bar, and the Bill went through the usual course. In the interval, however, between the election, the declaration of the Committee of the House of Commons that the election was void, and since

1153
the appearance of that Bill in their Lordships' House, a great change had taken place in the borough of Sudbury. He had already stated, that one party had supported a petition for a scrutiny, and the other a petition for declaring the election void; but, when it came to be a question of the disfranchisement of the borough, both parties united and determined to support what they called their "rights;" namely, their right of receiving bribes. When the case came to be heard at their Lordships' Bar, scarcely a witness would give evidence with respect to the case so clearly made out before the Committee of the House of Commons. All acted on the principle which had been put forward, that they were not bound to criminate themselves. The consequence of this course of proceeding was, that no evidence could be obtained, and the Bill was withdrawn from a Second Reading. When, after some inquiry, both Houses of Parliament were satisfied of the grossness of the case that had been made out before the Election Committee, a Bill was introduced for the purpose of appointing a Commission to go to the spot and examine evidence as to the existence of bribery at the last election. That Bill having passed the House of Commons, was introduced to their Lordships' House, and passed without any objection, and became the law of the land. In consequence of that Bill having passed, Her Majesty appointed certain Commissioners, who went down to the borough to make inquiry as to the actual state of things. Those Commissioners made their Report, which contained a considerable body of evidence. He was sure that if their Lordships would look to that Report, and to the evidence, they would be satisfied that this was such a case as he had described. He was sure that their Lordships would be satisfied that it was a case of flagrant corruption, not merely of the freemen alone, but extending, as he (the Lord Chancellor) thought, to the great majority of the electors of the borough. When the Commissioners went down to the borough, they found great difficulty in accomplishing the objects for which they had been sent. They found every obstruction thrown in their way, and every possible difficulty opposed to their inquiry. They found on their arrival, that in one of the shop-windows of the borough the following placard was pasted; "Advice to Freemen;" and that advice was as follows:—"By a Clause in the Act of Parliament, no individual is bound to answer any question tending to
1154
criminate himself." In consequence of this knowledge of the immunity they possessed, when the Commissioners came down, the first gentleman they examined, an attorney by profession, refused to answer the questions put to him, on the ground that his answers would tend to criminate himself. He (the Lord Chancellor) was, however, bound to admit, that on a subsequent occasion, the gentleman gave very full and very clear evidence so for as it went; but unfortunately, the example he set on the first occasion in refusing to answer questions, was followed by the inhabitants of the borough, and the Commissioners found the greatest difficulty in obtaining evidence from them. It happened, however, that persons no longer resident in the borough, and no longer influenced by the feelings that prevailed there, were found to come forward to give evidence. The Commissioners stated with great truth and propriety, that many of the persons who had been brought forward for the purpose of contradicting the charge of bribery, in the course of their evidence contradicted themselves, and stated stories so improbable, as to render their evidence doubtful. It appeared that an old man of upwards of eighty years of age, who was listening to the evidence, was called forward to be examined. He asked, was it a solemn oath he was about to take? He was told that it was; and if the evidence which he gave was not true, he would be liable to a prosecution. In reply to a question, this old man stated that he had been listening to the account given by the witnesses of these transactions, and he must say that (such was the expression he used) "many of the witnesses had swallowed sweet morsels." This witness then went into a statement of his own experience of the bribery which had prevailed. The Bill under which the Commissioners were appointed to inquire, only related to the proceedings of the last election; as it was thought that it would lead to too much expense and delay to embrace the proceedings of former elections. However, the circumstances arising out of the inquiry with respect to the last election satisfied everybody that what had occurred then was only a repetition of what had occurred at every former election. The noble and learned Lord proceeded to detail circumstances of flagrant corruption and bribery which occurred in the borough of Sudbury at the last election, by which it appeared that the one side spent 1,600 l., and the other 3,000 l.; and that the party

1155
who spent the least lost. He now came to the evidence. The Commissioners stated that on the Liberal side 200 votes were purchased at an expense of 1,400 l.; and it appeared that the other side also expended a sum of 1,400 l., so that they must have obtained a similar number of votes. With respect to the balance of the 3,000 l., there could be no doubt that it was applied the same way; for it was clear that there had been immense treating. The instant Massey went down the public-houses were opened, and not only were no legal expences paid, but the public house expences remained unliquidated. There was no doubt, therefore, that the balance of the 3,000 l. was spent for improper and corrupt purposes. The proof of bribery did not extend beyond the 10 l. householders; and he neither said nor suggested that the respectable portion of the population of the borough received bribes. It was, however, a material fact, that the respectable portion of the constituency did know all that was going on, and even sanctioned it; and this was undeniable, as the lists were handed in to Mr. Francis Goodday: they were consequently, responsible for all that had occurred, and quite as much so as the parties who had actually received the bribes; and, having a guilty knowledge, they ought to be made responsible, and had no right whatever to complain, if they were made to bear the consequences of the corruption which they had sanctioned. As honourable and upright men they were bound, instead of countenancing corruption, to have prevented and exposed it; but this they did not do; and the extraordinary thing was, that when asked questions, they sheltered themselves under the Act of Parliament, and excused themselves from answering the questions put them, by saying that they were not bound to criminate themselves. He, therefore, asserted before their Lordships, that a case was made out against all parties; and that in the course of the inquiry circumstances crept out which went to show, that in this borough there was an Inveterate habit of bribery and corruption—the very fact that names were given to particular classes, proved that. Those who were designated "party men," had long been in the habit of going round among the constituency to procure votes, and the "rats," who belonged to the other side, did exactly the same for their party. There was another name known in the borough of Sudbury, viz. "fixtures;" and he would
1156
explain to their Lordships what this term meant. The instant a contest was expected, the public-houses were thrown open, and when the candidate got sick of the result, he went away, leaving the public-houses expences unpaid; and when a new candidate presented himself he was told, "we cannot support you unless you discharge the debts due to the fixtures." Now, this showed that in this borough there was an old and inveterate system of bribery and corruption. He thought he had stated enough to justify him in asking their Lordships to read this Bill a second time; and although he had only given an outline, he was satisfied that those of their Lordships who had read the evidence, and were acquainted with the details, would admit that he had not overstated the case. That this Bill was one of disfranchisement they were all agreed, but the difficulty was as to the two seats, and how they were to be disposed of. On this subject there were a variety of suggestions—some saying that they should enlarge the sphere by giving the borough to the county; while others thought that it should be joined with some other large and populous town. There were various objections to the Bill, on the ground of the seats; but he agreed with what Lord John Russell said in the East Retford case—and he regarded the noble Lord as an authority on that point—that their Lordships' best course was to disfranchise the borough now, and in the next Session consider how the seats should be disposed of. If their Lordships adopted that course, he thought the example would prevent the recurrence of such practices, and it was on this ground that he should now move that the Bill should be read a second time.
Lord Broughamsaid, no one could have heard the very luminous statement of his noble and learned Friend without quite going along with him; and often as he had had occasion to admire his noble and learned Friend, he had never admired him more than in the delivery of that perfect model of a clear and perspicuous, and, at the same time, convincing statement of facts. He entirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend in the conclusion at which he had arrived. He wished, however, merely to remark, by way of protest sgainst this being rashly and inconsiderately drawn into a precedent—that it was without example to legislate as the other House had done on a great constitutional question—the question of the disfranchisement of a

1157
borough — upon evidence taken, not by themselves, but by a Commission appointed for the purpose. He believed this was the first instance in which such a course had been taken. At the same time, as this was not a Commission appointed by the Crown, that made a material difference as to the constitutional view. He could never recommend their Lordships to legislate upon a Commission appointed by the Crown, but this was a Commission appointed by both Houses of Parliament, with the Royal Assent, and consequently these were Parliamentary Commissioners to whom were delegated, for convenience sake, the powers of Parliament. It was on that ground that he did not take a preliminary objection. On the evidence he should make no comment, but his noble and learned Friend was abundantly borne out in the statement he had made, but he wished only to state that this was a gross and lamentable case, mixed up, no doubt, with circumstances which it was impossible not to feel were of a ludicrous character; but the melancholy part of the case was as mournful to contemplate as if there were no tinge of ridicule cast over the surface, and blended with all the transactions. There were some scores, perhaps hundreds, of our fellow-subjects, who had all incurred the guilt of bribery, or by giving, or countenancing the gift of sums of money, to swerve for the lucre of gain, from sordid, base, and venal motives—to swerve from the discharge of a duty—to forfeit a trust—to violate a responsibility which the Constitution of their country—of their free country—invested in the hands of the voter—and to make a mere means of traffic that which ought to be an exercise of conscience—to sell that conscience, and to make it liable to the dictates of fear in some instances, and of corruption in others. But this was not all. The parties bribed, and the parties bribers, and those who were cognizant of and countenancing these acts of bribery, incurred the guilt of perjury as well as bribery. What though the bribery oath were not administered in each case to those venal wretches, they were ready to have taken it if it had been administered. He had frequently taken occasion to express his opinion on this important subject, because the course of public feeling was not in the right direction upon it—the matter was too lightly treated, and men did not reflect sufficiently upon the evil which they were causing and enticing and seducing others to commit. If these things were kept before the minds of men,
1158
candidates as well as electors, his belief was that we should gradually reclaim and improve the practice, and lay the foundation of wholesome practices at elections. He knew that Sudbury was far from being the only case of the kind, and he regretted that other cases had not been brought forward which had occurred in various other parts of the Kingdom, where equally corrupt proceedings had taken place. He agreed with his noble and learned Friend in thinking that they ought to proceed with the disfranchisement now, and they could hereafter consider any other measure it might be necessary to adopt.
Bill read a second time.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
The Lord Chancellorrose to move the second reading of the Bill, and said, that it appeared from the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into Charitable Bequests, that there were 13,000 Charitable Trusts, whose annual incomes did not severally exceed 5l. per annum; 17,000 or 18,000 under 10 l.; and nearly 20,000 under 20 l. The powers of the Court of Chancery could not be, in consequence of the great expense, rendered available for superintending those crusts, and the consequence was, they were left without any control. That a sum exceeding 30,000 l. a year should be left without any superintending control created surprise, and even astonishment; and the evil could only be provided against by giving to some tribunal a summary jurisdiction, to regulate those charities, consistently with the amount of their income as compared with the necessary expenses, The object of this Bill was to provide a proper tribunal and meet that evil. The Bill had a limited application, only applying to charities in which a certain amount of property was concerned, and thus applying merely to such cases as absolutely required this tribunal. The Bill proposed that Commissioners should be appointed by the Secretary of State with power to superintend these charities, and prevent abuses in their distribution; but he was ready, if any noble Lord proposed a better mode than that of meeting the evil, to adopt it and renounce his own. Their Lordships would admit that it was extremely desirable that some mode should be adopted of investigating the accounts of those charities, and obtaining returns, and he intended to propose a power to effect

1159
that. He proposed that an Inspector should be appointed to examine into the condition of the charities which would be affected by this Bill, and to make a report to the Commissioners, who would, whenever it was necessary, lay any particular case before the Attorney General. It was very desirable that the funds of such charities as those to which the Bill applied should be looked after, for in many cases the property had altogether been lost from want of such a controlling jurisdiction. It often happened that property vanished altogether, in consequence of the non-appointment of trustees after the death of the former trustees, and he proposed to give a power of appointing new trustees where it was necessary for the interests of a charity to do so. A power of that kind was now exercised by the Court of Chancery, but it was one of a very expensive nature, and, therefore could not be applied with advantage to charities in which only a small amount of property was involved. The appointment by the Court of Chancery was made by application to the Chancellor, who then referred it to the Master and the Master examined witnesses, and made his report to the Lord Chancellor, and the Chancellor finally gave his decision; but as all the parties concerned, or who thought they were concerned, had a right to be heard, it was an expensive proceeding, seldom costing less than 60 l. or 70 l. Now, he proposed a mode of obviating that by this Bill. It might, perhaps, not be the best mode which could be adopted, but when the Bill went into Committee he should be glad to adopt any suggestion with a view to obtaining a better mode. He wished to have it read a second time, in order that they might adopt any alterations which could have the effect of improving it.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, the country was indebted to the noble and learned Lord for taking up the subject, for there was no doubt that many of the smaller charities of the country had suffered greatly from the effect of the present mode in which they were regulated, and that much of the good which would otherwise arise from them was thus lost. He fully concurred in the principles laid down by the noble Lord; and, indeed, he concurred in the principles of the Bill, but he nevertheless would intreat the noble and learned Lord not to press it through Committee during the present Session. The object of the Bill was to prevent a continuance of evils which
1160
now exist, and it was therefore a good one, yet he feared that great evil would arise, and much injustice would be done, by an Act which was intended to prevent it, if they did not properly consider and deliberate upon its provisions before they agreed to it. The Bill, though limited to charities with particular incomes, yet included nearly all the educational charities of the country. The Bishops were visitors of those educational charities; fer where they were not officially or legally the visitors, Bishops or other ecclesiastics were bound by their duty to act as such, and he thought that no provision ought to be agreed to which would interfere with the influence which the Church had over charities which were established for educational or Church purposes. This was a period of the year at which many of the Bishops were called away from their Lordships' House to the country by their official duties, and he thought that no measure affecting the Church, or the interest of education as connected with the Church, ought to be passed at a period of the Session when they were unavoidably absent. He acknowledged the obligation of the country to the noble and learned Lord for his exertions to remove those evils which pressed like an incubus upon the charities of the country; yet he wished that the noble and learned Lord would not press the Bill through any further stage at this period of the Session. It ought, in his opinion, to be introduced at an early period next Session, when there would be sufficient time to consider its provisions, and when all those who were interested in the Bill could be present.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had considered the question to which the right rev. Prelate referred, and it was his intention to introduce a Clause for the purpose of preserving that control where there was a legal right to exercise it.
Lord Wrottesleywas anxious to see the Bill pass into a law, and he hoped that if it were not agreed to during this Session it would be introduced at an early period next Session. There were some important omissions in the Bill as it now stood. There was no power given, as he understood it, for the appointment of new trustees in cases of real estate, nor was there any authority given to the Commissioners to vary the directions of the founders of charities in cases where they were found impracticable, or unsuited to the present position and character of society. There

1161
was another point to which he would beg to call their Lordships' attention in connection with this subject. The distribution of certain trust funds at present was of such a nature, that although there might be no abuse in that distribution, yet it was calculated to be injurious to the interests of the poor for whose alleged benefit the trusts were intended, and to be destructive to their morals. Very large sums were given in small amounts, and without any due discrimination of the persons to whom they were distributed, or the selection of proper objects. Very important evidence was given on that subject before the Poor Law Commission, and in consequence of that the Poor Law Commissioners alluded to it in their Report; but nothing had been since done with reference to it. He thanked the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward the Bill.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the 26th Clause gave a power to appoint trustees as well with regard to real estate as personal estate. There was also a provision with respect to cases in which the intentions of the founder were not carried into effect under certain circumstances. In cases where the income of Charities was beyond the limit proposed by the Bill, the subject could be brought before the Court of Chancery.
Lord Campbellsaid, they were all indebted to his noble Friend near him for the information which he had given them upon this subject. He (Lord Campbell) felt strongly the importance of legislation on this subject, and he believed that the Bill of his noble and learned Friend, with alterations and amendments, would be a great improvement as regarded the branch of charities to which it was to be applied. He concurred with the right rev. Prelate in requesting the noble and learned Lord not to press the Bill this Session. It was of infinite importance that such a number of trusts, involving so large an amount of property, should be subjected to a proper regulation and supervision. He believed that there were some important omissions, but they might afterwards be supplied. He thought the matter ought to be referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House, and he (Lord Campbell) would willingly serve upon it, and afford all the information which he was capable of giving. He felt that, in the present Session, it was impossible that justice could be done to the subject, as it was so far advanced, and so many right rev. Prelates
1162
were necessarily absent. A similar Bill had been introduced last Session into the other House of Parliament by Sir George Grey, but withdrawn on the assurance that, early in the present Session, the Government would bring forward a Bill on their own responsibility. On the meeting of Parliament, Sir George Grey asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Bill would be brought forward, and he said it would be brought forward at an early period of the Session. The inquiry was several times renewed, and a similar answer given, and it was not until the 22nd of June last that a Bill of such vast importance was introduced — a Bill which proposed to deal with about 13,000 trusts, and property to a vast amount. The noble and learned Lord would consider next Session whether the power which he proposed to give to the Commissioners was not a formidable one. He (Lord Campbell) considered the principle of the Bill unobjectionable.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he wished the Bill to be read a second time, and allowed to go through Committee, in order to see what amendments might be suggested from any quarter; and if there was anything suggested which he thought would be an improvement, he would show the utmost readiness to adopt it. Some such measure had been recommended eight or ten years ago by the Commissioners of Inquiry into Charitable Bequests, but nothing successful had been done as yet with respect to it. He had framed the Bill at an early period of the Session, but their Lordships were of course aware, that when in order to make the Bill as good as possible he laid himself open to any suggestions to that effect, that weeks or months might elapse before he had an opportunity of carrying his object into execution. In consequence of what had fallen from the right rev. Prelate, he would propose to read the Bill a second time, and go into Committee, with a view to consider and improve the Bill, and when that was done, in all probability the suggestion of the right rev. Prelate would be adopted. It was desirable to make the Bill as perfect as possible during the present Session, in order that it might be proceeded with next Session without delay.
The Bishop of Londonthought, that the worst course they could adopt was to go into Committee, when those who would be the most likely to suggest advantageous alterations would be unavoidably absent.

1163
He should be sorry to see it pass through Committee, because he knew from experience that a Bill having once passed through Committee, would be looked upon as a deliberate act of their Lordships and would not be likely to receive much further attention.
Bill read a second time.
The Lord Chancellorthen stated that it was not his intention to take any further steps with respect to the Bill this Session.

CHARITABLE DONATIONS AND BEQUESTS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the Motion of Lord Wharncliffe, this Bill was read a third time according to Order. Several amendments having been inserted, on the Motion of Lord Wharncliffe,
Lord Monteagleexpressed his cordial thanks to the Government for this Bill, which, in its present form, would be in the highest degree satisfactory to the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. He would take this opportunity, also, of offering to the Government his earnest thanks for the declaration which, in another place, they had, with so much courage and honesty, made of their intentions with reference to the promotion of education in Ireland on liberal and comprehensive principles, embracing the academical education there of the middle and higher classes of the Roman Catholics, and, above all, the improved education of the Roman Catholic Clergy, the enabling the College of Maynooth to extend its sphere of usefulness. The declaration thus made by the Government entitled it to the gratitude, not only of the Roman Catholics, but also to that of the Protestants of Ireland.
The Bill then passed.

ROMAN CATHOLIC PENAL ACTS REPEAL BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
Lord Beaumontmoved that the House resolve itself into Committee.
The Bishop of Londonobjected to the Bill, which, he said, was a measure which would go to no less than the establishment of the supremacy of the Pope in this country, and the repeal of some thirty Acts of Parliament, affecting the most important interests of this country, as well as the prerogatives of the Crown, and the religion of the kingdom. Some of the provisions of this Bill would interfere with the Act of Uniformity, and others with more recent enactments, including the great settlement of the question between
1164
their Roman Catholic and Protestant fellow subjects. It would go to repeal those securities—though nominal, certainly, it might be said they were — which were taken on the concession that was recently made to the Roman Catholics; and to this he, for one, was not prepared to consent. What he had chiefly risen for, however, was to protest against their Lordships going into Committee, or, indeed, legislating at all with regard to this Bill, in the necessary absence, at the present moment, of those who were the natural and legally constituted guardians of the religion of the eountry. He well knew that the feeling of the country was in that unsettled state on this subject, that, if their Lordships took upon themselves to legislate upon it at this period of the Session, and in the absence of his right rev. Brethren, the Church of England would have great cause to complain. He understood that it was the intention of the noble Lord to strike out a considerable portion of the provisions of this Bill, and only to carry such parts of it as the Government and the noble Lord (the Chancellor) did not object to. But he thought that, under the circumstances he had stated, discussion upon it at the present moment would be objectionable and improper, and he was persuaded that the country, if they did, would hear it with surprise and astonishment. He did did not go so far as to say that all the enactments in this measure were dangerous to the Church, but at the same time, holding the opinions which he entertained upon other portions of it, he begged to move as an Amendment, that their Lordships resolve themselves into Committee upon it that day three months.
[Amendment moved to leave out "now" and insert "this day three months."]
Lord Beaumontsaid, he entirely acquitted the rev. Prelate of being influenced by personal feelings on the present occasion, but he (Lord Beaumont) must beg leave to state his astonishment at a rev. Prelate being found in this the nineteenth century, willing or ready to defend such enactments as the Bill was intended to repeal. Had the rev. Prelate looked into those Statutes, had he studied their character, was he aware of the penalties they inflicted, or the deeds both of commission and omission which they made capital crimes? If he had examined those Acts, if he spoke with any knowledge of the subject, he (Lord Beaumont) would not only express his surprise but his indigna-

1165
tion at hearing a Member of their Lordships' House declare in his place, that he thought it still necessary to keep these bitter enactments in force against so large a portion of his fellow subjects. What, was the rev. Prelate still anxious in these days of mutual toleration to keep the axe and the sword still suspended over the heads of his Roman Catholic countrymen? Did he still wish that the law of præmunire should be in force against them, and that for the most ordinary acts of their religion, they should be liable to the penalties of high treason. Was the rev. Prelate really aware of how these numerous Acts operated, or what inducement was held out to put them in execution? He (Lord Beaumont) would state to the House, albeit briefly, how the case stood. Under the combined operation of the Penal and Toleration Acts, the Roman Catholics of this realm were divided into two distinct classes—the one qualified, the other unqualified—the qualified class were such as had taken the oaths prescribed by the Toleration Acts or the oath substituted in place of such oaths by the Emancipation Act? The unqualified were those who had not taken the oaths, or not complied with each and every condition required by the 18th and 32nd of George III. The former were exempt from the direct operation of the Penal Statutes recited in the Bill, but suffered indirectly from them, as he (Lord Beaumont) would presently show. The latter, namely, the unqualified, stood in a very different position:—against them the whole of these Penal Acts were in force, and there was nothing to prevent any evil-minded person from proceeding under them against any unqualified Roman Catholic in the realm, however high his character or position might be. Their Lordships would be surprised when he stated the comparative numbers of the qualified and unqualified; but he (Lord Beaumont) felt that he was not exaggerating the case when he said that not more than one in a hundred had taker the oaths prescribed. Ninety-nine in even hundred Roman Catholics were liable to be dragged before the tribunals of this country, and there tried for offences, which the law punished with the utmost severity, but which were hourly committed in open day by every Roman Catholic; they were at the mercy of informers;—they had no legal status, but were in the eye of the law no more than aliens or public enemies. The daily acts of their religion came within the compass of a præmunire, and
1166
some of the highest members of the British aristocracy were subject under these Statutes to the most galling insults. Members of ancient families, who in loyalty and patriotism stood second to none in the kingdom, were designated by these Statutes as traitors to their Sovereign, and foes to the Constitution. Did the rev. Prelate deem it advisable that such a state of the law, should be continued, or that the heavy pains and penalties of former and more dangerous times should be still held in terrorem over the heads of loyal Catholics of the present day? Did he consider ii necessary either for the protection of the establishment or the interests of religion? Were these disgusting acts the bulwarks of the Church, and necessary supports of the Protestant Faith? Was the influence of Rome and the power of the Pope so great in Europe, that these fortifications were necessary to keep this Protestant country secure from a successful invasion? No, my Lords (the noble Lord continued) I will not accuse the rev. Prelate of entertaining such fond and ridiculous fears. The time has been, I confess, when similar alarms were neither ill-founded nor uncommon: there was a period in our history when the machinations of the Jesuits, the conspiracies of the nobles, and the general want of loyalty amongst the Catholics of England, made such laws as these not only excusable but advisable. The intrigues of Rome had then their ramifications in this country, and foreign plots found willing instruments even amongst the wealthy members of the Catholic body. But that state of things has gone by—those times are long past. The position of parties is changed not only in England but in the rest of Europe. Where are now the plots and counter-plots of Catholics to upset the constitution? Where are the deep-laid conspiracies of Jesuits and their pupils to establish a foreign supremacy? Will the rev. Prelate point out one single dark and treasonable design which could justify such enactments in the present day? My Lords, he cannot. Not one of your Lordships would venture to propose such enactments in these times: how can you then justify their continuance on the Statute Book? They are either good or bad: if they are good, they ought to be enforced; if they are bad, they ought to be repealed. Justify them by acting up to them, or disown them by repealing them. Do not imagine that they are dead letters; they may not directly,

1167
but they do indirectly work to the injury of Roman Catholics. If, for instance in a charitable donation or bequest for religious purposes, any of the parties concerned therein, testator, donor, trustee, or legatee, chance to be an unqualified person, the whole is vitiated and void. Recent judgments in the courts below, might be quoted as illustrations of the confused state of the law in respect to charitable donations, where the parties are still exposed to the Penal Acts, or the object of the charity is implied by them to be a superstitions use. But it is not so much the indirect injury they do, that I complain of, as the direct annoyance they may possibly give. Let it not be said that these Statutes are for ever laid upon the shelf, and not liable to be again taken down. The experience of the present Session should convince us that there are in the world a sufficient number of ill-conditioned people, who would for trifling rewards, commence proceedings under obsolete Acts, and render it necessary for the Legislature to adopt the inconvenient course of passing Indemnity Bills. This has been the case in respect to the now well-known Gaming Laws; this has also occurred in the forestalling and similar Acts which have recently been repealed by a Bill of my noble Friends; not two days since, you were told of proceedings under an obsolete Act which rendered the Butter and Cheese Bill necessary. Why then, my Lords should you fancy that these old Statutes will be allowed to slumber on their shelves, and that no Angelo will he found to awake the enrolled penalties, and put the drowsy and neglected Acts freshly on us? But whether they are put in force or not, there they are, a disgrace to the Statute Book, a blot on the history of the Legislature and the grounds for imputations of intolerance against the Established Church. In this respect I beg of the right rev. Prelate to reconsider the subject, and weigh well the impression the world will receive of Protestant toleration, when they hear that he on behalf of the Church came down to the Parliament, and in his place implored the House of Lords, to retain on the Statute Book these cruel and revolting enactments. I would not remove one single proof which really supported the Church, for I believe that the Protestant Church has generally been friendly and of use to the liberties of the subject; but these stringent laws are in the present state of society rather detrimental than advantageous to the interests of the Estab-
1168
lishment. I believe that they furnish grounds for attack against it, and are often quoted to inspire horror of its temporal policy. But I will be fair in my dealings with the rev. Prelate's objections, and promise him, that if he can establish clearly the utility of one of these Acts in respect to the Church, I will strike it out of my Bill, and leave it on the Statute Book. I will go further; the Bill has been maturely considered by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and if he assures me that one of these laws is necessary to the defence of the religion of the State, I will bow my humble opinion to his superior judgment, and that law shall remain unrepealed. Can I act more candidly—can I act more justly? I cannot suppose that the rev. Prelate, or indeed any of your Lordships have been so indifferent to the social revolution which is always going on, as to have totally disregarded passing events in the north of Italy and the whole of Germany. I cannot imagine you to be insensible of the gradual decrease of the temporal power and political influence which the Papal See in its day of grandeur formerly exercised in those regions. The arm which once overawed Europe, is annually shrinking, and its temporal sway is now scarcely felt beyond the frontiers of the Pontiff's own dominions. Yet these countries neither employed weapons such as these Acts to repel the Roman Propaganda, nor fortify themselves with a line of Penal Statutes in the dread of an invasion. The result has been that in those parts of the Continent where the Governments have not insulted liberty of conscience by Penal Laws, persons of both creeds live together in peace, amity, and good-fellowship. There are fewer Sectarian animosities, and fewer polemical controversies. Let not this experience be thrown away nor this example set in vain; but by removing what is offensive to the feelings of a large portion of the community, deprive the discontented of their stock-in-hand of complaints. The rev. Prelate accuses me of taking the House by surprise, and not allowing sufficient time for the subject to be considered—but what is the true history of this Bill? I presented it early in May, I immediately on its being printed, called the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to it: my noble and learned Friend wished it to be referred to the Criminal Law Commissioners, who though they had already gone through the

1169
subject, again reconsidered it, and again reported on it to my noble and learned Friend. My noble and learned Friend then laid it before several of the rev. Bench, and I was informed that their attention was particularly called by the noble Lord on the Woolsack to the provisions of the Bill. I have never let the subject rest since I first introduced it, but have troubled my noble and learned Friend early and late, in order that he might not say he was taken by surprise, when I determined to proceed with the Bill. What becomes then of the complaint of the rev. Prelate? The matter is not new—the question of repealing these Statutes has long attracted attention—their continuance on our Statute Book, was considered a disgrace to society by Sir William Blackstone. His recommendation to revise them, was given more than a century ago, and has the violence of religious fanaticism, or the inclination to establish a foreign supremacy advanced or retrograded in the lapse of time which has intervened since Sir William Blackstone wrote his opinion of these severe laws, and the date when the Criminal Law Commissioners quoted that learned authority in support of their own convictions. So powerful an expression, and so conclusive in its argument this document appears to me to be, that I cannot refrain from imitating the example of the Commissioners, and quoting it at length to the House.
"This is a short summary of the laws against the Papists under their three several Clauses of persons professing the Popish religion, Popish recusant convicts, and Popish priests; of which the President Montesquieu observes, that they are so rigorous, though not professedly of the sanguinary kind, that they do all the hurt that can possibly be done in cold blood."
But in answer to this it may be observed (what foreigners who only judge from our Statute Book, are not fully apprised of) that these laws are seldom exerted to their utmost rigour, and indeed if they were, it would be very difficult to excuse them. For they are rather to be accounted for from their history and the urgency of the times which produced them than to be approved (upon a cool review) as a standing system of law. The restless machinations of the Jesuits during the reign of Elizabeth, the turbulence and uneasiness of the Papists under the new religious establishment, and the boldness of their hopes and wishes for the succession of the
1170
Queen of Scots, obliged the Parliament to counteract so dangerous a spirit by laws of a great and perhaps then necessary severity. The powder treason in the succeeding reign, struck a panic into James I., which operated in different ways. It occasioned the enacting of new laws against the Papists, but deterred him from putting them in execution. The intrigues of Queen Henrietta, in the reign of Charles I., the prospect of a Popish succession in that of Charles II., the assassination plot in the reign of King William, and the avowed claim of a Popish Pretender to the Crown in that and subsequent reigns will account for the extension of these penalties at those several periods of our history. But if a time should ever arrive, and perhaps it is not very distant when all fears of a Pretender shall have vanished, and the power and influence of the Pope shall become feeble, ridiculous, and despicable, not only in England but in every kingdom of Europe, it probably would not then be amiss to review and soften these rigorous edicts, at least till the evil principles of the Roman Catholics called again upon the Legislature to renew them, for it ought not to be left in the breast of every merciless bigot to draw down the vengeance of these occasional laws upon inoffensive, though mistaken subjects, in opposition to the lenient inclinations of the civil magistrate, and to the destruction of every principle of toleration and religious liberty. After such language as this, which I have read to your Lordships, it would be presumption to add any further remarks of my own.
The Bishop of Londonobserved, that the noble Lord had replied to a speech which he had probably supposed would have been made, rather than to one which had been made. He did not mean to say that it would not be desirable to repeal some of these laws, for he went so far as to say, that he was of opinion that some of them might be safely repealed; but at the same time he thought, that such a change in the law required great consideration, and ought to emanate from the Government and not from any private quarter. He also objected to the Bill on the ground of the time at which it had been brought forward. He objected to such a measure being brought forward at nearly the close of the Session, when it was impossible it could receive that attention in the other House which its importance required, and, above all, he objected to its being brought

1171
forward when so few of his right reverend brethren were present, to whom the guardianship of the Church was more particularly intrusted. He denied that any practical inconvenience could arise from letting the matter stand over until next year, and during the meantime the attention of the Government might be directed to the subject. It was notorious that these laws were, in point of fact, obsolete, and no attempt had been made for the last sixty years to put them in force, and there was not the slightest probability that any such attempt would be made.
The Lord Chancellorbelieved that the House would recollect, that he stated on a former occasion, that the Criminal Law would undergo the consideration and revision of the Government during the recess, with a view to make some proposition with respect to its consolidation next year. On this ground he had recommended his noble Friend not to proceed with this Bill; but as his noble Friend was unwilling to do so, he (the Lord Chancellor) requested to have an opportunity of considering the Bill, and then referred it to the Criminal Law Commissioners. Those gentlemen revised the Bill, and they struck out several clauses, and introduced certain alterations, but most of the Bill remained. He had afterwards referred the Bill to a gentleman in the confidence of himself and the Government, who, on consideration, did not think that it was desirable, or that it was expedient, to strike out so much as the Commissioners recommended. He had then asked the right rev. Prelate to name a person in the confidence of the Church to whom the Bill might be referred, but the right rev. Prelate replied, that it was too late to give an opinion on it during that Session. He then told the right rev. Prelate, that he would consent to strike out any Clause about which any doubt was entertained. Some of the old laws, which it was proposed in this Bill to repeal, were of the most severe character, and of which he was sure that the right rev. Prelate would not approve. For instance, by an Act of Elizabeth it was enacted, that any one who disputed the Queen's supremacy as head of the Church, for the first offence was liable to punishment for a misdemeanor, with fine and imprisonment; for the second offence was guilty of felony, and was liable to all the punishment of præmunire; and if guilty of a third offence, he was to be adjudged
1172
guilty of high treason. Now, in the alterations which he proposed in the Bill, he left in the misdemeanor for certain matters contained in the Act, and struck out felony and high treason. He was quite sure, when the alterations which he proposed to introduce were made in the Bill, that there was not a single Clause in it which could be objected to. With respect to the complaint as to the late period at which it had been brought forward, he must at once admit that it was ascribable to himself, for the matter in question was a complicated subject, and he had been obliged to consult several persons. He would suggest that the Amendments which he recommended should be introduced at once into the Bill, and that it should be reprinted, so that the provisions of the Bill might be made known both in and out of Parliament. If this course was adopted, he felt assured that all parties would regard this as a judicious and moderate measure.
Lord Campbellsuggested that the Bill should be committed pro formâ, so as to introduce the alterations, and to be reprinted without delay. The right hon. Prelate would then be able to consider and examine the subject, and he (Lord Campbell) felt assured that he would not entertain the slightest objection to the Bill. It was quite clear that many Acts, which it was the object of this Bill to repeal, were absolutely disgraceful to the Statute Book, and he was sure that the right rev. Prelate would not wish them to remain in that Book if he was aware of their nature. Many of these Acts had been lost sight of, and if any informer should happen to get hold of them, he might commence an enormous number of qui tam actions. He objected to the introduction of Bills to stop actions in Courts of Law already commenced, and to obviate this it was the duty of Parliament to repeal such laws, as they were disgraceful to the Statute Book.
The Earl of Wicklowthought that there had been a general understanding that the Bill, as amended by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, was to pass into a law. He therefore deeply regretted the opposition which had been manifested by the right rev. Prelate. He believed that the Bill, if it passed, would give great satisfaction to the Catholic body both in this country and Ireland; and he was sure that the measure would be attended with

1173
none of those evils which the right rev. Prelate anticipated. It appeared to him, that the reasons assigned by the right rev. Prelate for opposing this measure were most extraordinary. If a measure was to be opposed and rejected in that House because it was brought forward in July, it would have the effect of almost entirely putting a stop to public business. It should be remembered that Parliament sat in February, and until July hardly any Bills were sent up to that House. Every Bill might be opposed on this ground, and there would be an end of all legislation. The right rev. Prelate also objected to the Bill on the ground that his brethren were out of town. He was aware, that in the early part of the Session they were absent, necessarily attending their visitations, but there was nothing of the kind now, and it was their duty, as much as that of any other noble Lords, to attend in that House.
The Bishop of Londonobserved, that his right rev. brethren were absent attending to more important duties than being in that House. He should press his opposition to the Motion.
The Lord Chancellorthought that it was absolutely necessary for his own justification, that the Bill, as amended, should be committed, for the purpose of being reprinted. The right rev. Prelate would then, at a subsequent period, have every opportunity of moving that it be committed this day six months.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that after what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord, he would not then persist in his opposition.
On question, That "now" stand part of the Motion? resolved in the affirmative.
House in Committee.

CHAPELS AND MEETING HOUSES REGISTRATION, &c. BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read:
Lord Teynhamrose to move the Second Reading. The object of the measure was to carry out to a still greater extent a principle that had been already recognised by the Legislature. Their Lordships would be aware that as the law now stood, every House or building used for the purposes of public worship was required to be registered, and a certificate of such registration obtained, before any minister could preach, or any number of persons over twenty (exclusive
1174
of the proprietor of such house or building, and his servants) assemble therein for religious worship. This exception had been made, in order that family worship in private houses should not be interfered with. Now his object was in the first place to increase the number who might be allowed to join together in the worship of God, without registration, from twenty to forty, and also to allow the building to be used antecedent—for what period it would be for their Lordships to determine, but he should propose three months—to registration. The Legislature had already recognised the principle of extending the numbers who should be allowed to assemble for religious worship by the 52 George III., which had been brought into the other House by Lord Castlereagh, and supported by Mr. Vansittart, at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the object of which was to extend the number from five, the original limit, to twenty. The Bill also gave a power to the magistrates to reduce the minimum penalty to be imposed upon persons infringing the Act from 20 s. to 1s. It was surely a most absurd law which, by imposing a penalty in every case where more than twenty persons were assembled in an unregistered house, placed any visitor over the number of twenty in any private dwelling-house in the dilemma of either infringing the law or neglecting his duty to his Divine Master. If their Lordships should consent to give the Bill a second reading, he should then propose to go into Committee pro formâ, for the purpose of inserting certain Amendments.
The Lord Chancellorwished to direct their Lordships' attention to what was the existing law on the subject, and what were the reasons for that law. As the law now stood, no meeting for religious purposes was permitted, in any dwelling-house or other building, of more than twenty persons, in addition to the family and servants of the proprietor of such house or building, unless the same were duly registered as a place for religious worship. The noble Lord who had brought forward this Bill did not object to the certificate of registration, he allowed that to remain. Now, what was the reason for the law as it stood? The Members of the family and the servants in any dwelling-house might, under the former law, assemble for religious purposes, without any certificate; but then it was con-

1175
sidered that persons might be in a private house as visitors, or accidentally present, and that, therefore, a margin should be allowed, which margin in the first instance had been limited to five persons. A few years ago an alteration was made in this respect, and on this ground, that five was too small a number, for that in many instances more than five or six or eight visitors, or other persons accidentally present, might be in a dwelling-house and desirous of joining in religious worship, and therefore it was proposed that the limit should be extended to twenty. The Legislature consented to that alteration on the principle that a still greater margin must be allowed in order that visitors or persons accidentally present in any dwelling-house, and joining in religious worship, should not be considered as infringing the law. He (the Lord Chancellor) considered the margin then adopted, viz. twenty, was sufficient, and that there was no ground whatever for extending it. But, then, asked, the noble Lord, if one more than twenty persons should be present, was that one to withdraw, to avoid being subject to the penalry for infringing the law? No, for he would not be liable to any penalty. It was the party to whom the house belonged who was liable, and be could protect himself by preventing a greater number than the twenty allowed by the Act, in addition to his own family and servants, from being present. Then the noble Lord had said, why should not persons be allowed to assemble in any building for the purposes of religious worship, antecedent to the certificate, and he proposed that any building might be used as a place of worship three months before the certificate; but if the building was intended to be used as a place of worship, what hardship was there in requiring that it should be certified at once? He thought the noble Lord had shown no grounds for the alteration he proposed.
The Bishop of Gloucesterhad not expected, at that late period of the Session, that such a measure as the present would have been pressed on the attention of the House, and without consultation with those who were the guardians of the Church. The noble Lord had said that it was hard persons should be placed in the dilemma of being compelled to violate either the law or their consciences; but he (the Bishop of Gloucester) knew of no law that placed persons in this country in such
1176
a position. The principles of religious toleration existed in this country in a peculiar degree; and acting upon those principles, if any real case of hardship could be shown as pressing upon any class of Dissenters from the Established Church, he for one should be ready to assist in their removal; but the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had, he thought, satisfactorily proved that there was no such case of hardship in the present instance, and that the law as it stood was a most liberal extension of the principle of private worship. He should move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Lord Teynhamcontended that at present the law of the land and the law of God were at variance, and that in consequence the law of the land was often necessarily, and he would say rightly infringed.
After a few words from the Bishop of Gloucester.
[Amendment moved, to leave out "now" and insert "this Day three Months."]
On Question that the word "now" stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Negative and Bill to be read a second time this day three months.
Their Lordships adjourned at eleven o'clock.