Sitting of 25 July 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Customs (New South Wales); Clerks to Attornies; Consolidated Fund (6,969,856 l. 10 s. 3d.).
2o. Marriages (Ireland); Books and Engravings.
Reported.—Turnpike Trusts (South Wales); Transfer of Licenses (Post Horses, Ireland); Grand Jury Presentments (Dublin).
3o. and passed:—Joint Stock Companies Registration and Regulation; Railways; Duchy of Cornwall Assessionable Manors; Duchy of Cornwall Lands; Lecturers and Parish Clerks; Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions; Three-and-a-Half per Cents. Dissentients.
Private.—2o. Werrington, etc. Curacies; Bowyer's Estate.
Reported. — Willenhall Chapel Estate; Hitchins' (or Peach's) Estate; Cheape's Divorce.
3o. and passed:—Archbutt's Divorce.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Darby, from Uckfield, against Repeal of Corn Laws.—By Sir J. R. Reid, from Trelawney, Jamaica, against Reduction in the Differential Duties.—By Sir Thomas Esmonde, from Wexford County (2), against Charitable Bequests Bill.—By Visct. Sandon, from Liverpool, for Alteration of County Courts Bill.

POOR LAW.
The House resumed the further consideration of the Report on the Poor Law Amendment Bill.
Sir C. Napierproposed the following Clauses:—
"And be it enacted that it shall be lawful for the Guardians of the Poor to give a higher rate of out-door relief than that now given, at their discretion, to aged people above sixty years of age, who have paid their poor-rates."
"And be it enacted that in the event of a married couple or a single man or woman possessing a cottage under the value of 5l. annual value, and having paid their poor-rates, and being no longer able to work, they be eligible for out-door relief at the discretion of the Guardians."
The hon. and Gallant Officer said, that in submitting these Clauses he was anxious to encourage industry and thrifty habits amongst the poor, for the consciousness that they would hereafter be paid an increased amount of an allowance for having paid their poor-rates for a certain time would stimulate them to those exertions
1412
which, if they did not keep them from the necessity of seeking parochial relief, would, at least, better their condition when they became chargeable to the parish. Surely, it would be worse than cruelty to turn away the destitute owners of a cottage and say to them, "You must first go and sell your cottage, and when you have parted with it we will relieve you." To prevent any such power being vested in the Board of Guardians was the object of the second Clause, but he had no objection to its being modelled in any manner which the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary might think proper. All he cared for was the admission of its principle. He should like to see the very name of "workhouse" abolished, and this, he thought, would greatly tend to that result.
First of the two Clauses brought up and read a first time.
On the question that it be read a second time,
Sir J. Grahamwas disposed to pay the greatest attention to every suggestion of the hon. and gallant Officer, to whom it was in the highest degree creditable to be thus engaged in endeavouring to promote the welfare of his country in time of peace when the exercise of the bravery and skill which had so distinguished him in time of war was no longer required. The hon. and gallant Officer must excuse him for expressing his belief that the object he had in view would not be gained by the adoption of the Clauses which he proposed. With respect to the first Clause, he must say that it would be superfluous legislation, as the Guardians already possessed the discretionary power referred to in the first part of it. They were already empowered to relieve such parties as the Clause referred to to the extent which the peculiar circumstances might call for; and that power being already the law of the land, it was not necessary to enact it. With regard to that portion of the first Clause which empowered Guardians to give a somewhat higher allowance to those paupers who had at one time regularly paid the poor-rate, he must say that the recognition of such a principle would lead to results which he was sure the hon. and gallant Officer did not intend, for a sort of premium of this kind for the payment of the poor-rates would involve a penalty on those who had not paid them. The recognition of the principle would of course lead to inquiries as to the regularity of payment of rates, and that would tend to a career of injustice, the consequence of

1413
which would fall on those whom it was the object of the Bill to relieve. In framing the second part of the first Clause, the hon. and gallant Officer seemed to forget that many parties who paid their poor-rates were almost as closely on the verge of poverty as they who received parochial relief, and the distinction between the amount of relief to be given to each would be unfair, as being founded on a very erroneous test in very many cases. On these grounds he must oppose the first Clause. With respect to the second Clause (continued the right hon. Baronet), I have on more than one occasion in this Session adverted to the principle on which it is founded. That principle is, that the Guardians have power to say to destitute applicants for parochial relief, "You have a small cottage and a few chairs and a table, and a few other articles of furniture,—go and dispose of them in the first instance before we can assist you" — that is not the law. [Sir C. Napier: I am glad to hear it.] The law is—that the destitution of the applicant for relief is the test to be applied in each case, and where that is proved the Guardians are bound to give relief without reference to the fact that the applicant is possessed of a small cottage or not. Even this test of destitution may be applied to able-bodied paupers, and relief be given to them, each case being decided with reference to its own peculiar circumstances. But I repeat it, that relief cannot be refused by the Guardians on the ground that the party seeking it is the owner of a small cottage if in any other respect he be destitute.
Mr. Spoonerexpressed his readiness to divide in favour of the hon. and gallant Officer's second Clause. He had himself been an eye-witness to cases in which the test of the possession of a cottage had been made a ground for refusing relief. This was not done in any underhand or evasive manner. It was the bold assertion of a principle, believed to be recognized by the Legislature, and carried out by the Board of Guardians. The applicants were plainly and simply informed, "We have no power to relieve you—you are the owner of a cottage and some furniture; first sell your cottage and spend the money in your support, and then, if you should continue in want, we will relieve you, but the law will not allow us to relieve you while you possess this properly;" and there was no doubt that the construction thus put upon the Act was an honest one, though now, after
1414
the statement of the right hon. Baronet should have gone forth to the country, the Act would be differently interpreted, Pains ought to be taken by the Government to inform the Boards of Guardians, and other parties having to do with the relief of the poor, what was the real state of the law on the subject of relief, for most assuredly vast numbers had put on that part of the law, the construction now for the first time repudiated by the right hon. Baronet.
Lord Ashleysaid, that the Poor Law never had been, and probably never would be administered in the humane spirit with which the right hon. Baronet had referred to it. He (Lord Ashley) had come down to the House that morning to vote for the Clauses of his hon. and gallant Friend, but, after the statement of the right hon. Baronet, from which it appeared that what his hon. and gallant Friend proposed was already the law of the land, he would recommend him not to press his Resolutions to a division.
Sir C. Napiersaid, that if the interpretation put upon the law by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary was correct—and there could, he presumed, be no doubt on the subject—the whole principle on which the law had hitherto been administered was changed. So that, in effect, it would be equivalent to a change in the law itself. Under these circumstances he would withdraw his first Clause, but would divide on the second.
Mr. B. Denisonhoped that the hon. and gallant Officer would not press his second Clause, which, if inserted in the Bill would lead to bad consequences. A man might claim relief, and say he had a cottage for which he paid less than 5l. a-year, and yet that cottage might perhaps be worth 150 l.
Mr. Newdegatebegged to tender his thanks to the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary for his explanation as to the interpretation of the Clause authorizing immediate relief to the destitute. The misinformation which existed as to the correct state of the law pressed very heavily in its consequences on large classes of the poor, and on none of them with greater severity than on the handloom weavers; for such was the general impression as to the conditions on which alone parochial relief could be obtained, that many of them parted with their little stock of furniture, their beds, and finally their

1415
looms, in order to qualify themselves for obtaining that relief. That misconstruction of the Act was now, he was glad to find, at an end, by the explanation of the right hon. Baronet, and he hoped that statement would go forth to the country. It could not obtain too great a publicity.
Sir J. Grahamhoped he might not be misunderstood as to the point of relief in cases of destitution. When he said that the Boards of Guardians would not be justified in withholding relief from the destitute applicants on the ground that they were in possession of a cottage, he was not of course to be understood to mean that if a party came permanently on the parish for relief, and remained in possession of a cottage from which he derived 5l. ayear, the Guardians would not have a right to inquire under what circumstances he held it, and whether its produce might not be made available for his relief. But that was a totally different case from that of an applicant for relief in sudden destitution. In such case, whether the destitution was brought on by illness, or inability to work, or by having to attend and support a family in illness, the Guardians were bound to administer immediate relief, according to the exigency of the case. It would not be in that case any fair answer on the part of the Guardians to say, that the applicant was the owner of a cottage, with some furniture, and must first dispose of those. In cases of sudden destitution the law said, that relief must be given, and if death should ensue from the want of such relief after it was demanded, there was no doubt whatever that the relieving officer, or other party whose duty it was to have given relief, would be rendered criminally responsible.
Mr. Wodehousesaid, that if his hon. and gallant Friend divided on his second Clause, he would most certainly vote with him, if it were only to put an end to all doubt on the subject; but of this he thought there could be no fear after the explanation of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He could state many instances of the general misapprehension of the law on the point. He had been applying to the Poor Law Commissioners at Somerset-house for three years on the part of the handloom weavers, but without effect. He begged to thank the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary for the explanation he had given, and for the spirit
1416
in which he was disposed to have the Poor Law administered. He would recommend the right hon. Baronet to ride the Poor Law Commissioners with a curb, and not with a snaffle.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The House divided on the question that the other Clause be read a second time:—Ayes 28; Noes 42: Majority 14.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Hinde, J. H.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Kemble, H.

McGeachy, F. A.

Ashley, Lord

Masterman, J.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Newdegate, C. N.

Borthwick, P.

O'Brien, A. S.

Brotherton, J.

Pechell, Capt.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Pollington, Visct.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Round, J.

Collett, J.

Sibthorp, Col.

Dodd, G.

Spooner, R.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Williams, W.

Duncombe, T.

Wodehouse, E.

Entwisle, W.

Gore, M.

TELLERS.

Hall, Sir B.

Napier, Sir C.

Hervey, Lord A.

Yorke, H. R.

List of the NOES.

Allix, J. P.

Jermyn, Earl

Boldero, H. G.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Bruce, Lord E.

Lennox, Lord A.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Childers, J. W.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Marsham, Visct.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Meynell, Capt.

Cripps, W.

Mundy, E. M.

Damer, hon. Col.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Darby, G.

Norreys, Lord

Denison, E. B.

Peel, J.

Dickinson, F. H.

Pringle, A.

Escott, B.

Somerset, Lord G.

Flower, Sir J.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Thornhill, G.

Fuller, A. E.

Trotter, J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Goulburn, rt. hon H.

Wawn, J. T.

Greene, T.

Wortley, H. J. S.

Hawes, B.

Henley, J. W.

TELLERS.

Hodgson, R.

Young, J.

Howard, P. H.

Baring, H.

Colonel Sibthorpaddresed the House in support of a Clause which went to abolish the Poor Law Commission, giving to the several Boards of Guardians constituted and appointed for the management of each separate union or union workhouse the full power, management, and control, without any inter-

1417
ference, power, or control of the aforesaid Board of Commissioners. At first there were three Commissioners. These were afterwards raised to four. At first there were nine Assistant Poor Law Commissioners, and the Act said there should be "nine and no more." But by some hocus pocus trick they were raised to twenty-one, and now they were to be reduced back again to their former number. If nine were found sufficient, why raise it to twenty-one? It was, he supposed, to let the law be administered by the Assistant Commissioners rather than the local Magistrates. The whole system was based on the principle of centralization, which had the effect of setting man against man, and of making it necessary to protect the poor man in some instances against his natural protector. A very considerable expense, amounting to about half a million, had been incurred by Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners; and he contended that the people were not at all improved in their condition by the working of the whole plan. In his opinion, the best thing that could be done would be to put an end to the whole system. Dismiss the Commissioners, and Assistant Commissioners, and go back to the ancient jurisdiction of the Magistrates.
The first Resolution brought up and read a first time.
On the question that it be read a second time.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that the principle of the hon. and gallant Member's Clauses had been already under discussion in that House, which had declined to adopt it. The hon. and gallant Member had complained of the increase of expense attendant on the appointment of Commissioners and Assistant-Commissioners. He (Sir J. Graham) was not disposed to try the efficiency of any plan by its cost; but if he were to try the New Poor Law system by that test, it would be found that by an expense of about 50,000 l. a saving had been made of about 2,000,000 l. annually. His hon. and gallant Friend had complained of the great power of the Commissioners, but it was on that power that the whole system was based. If that were taken away the whole superstructure would be destroyed. Great as the power was at first, it had since been considerably enlarged in the control which they now, by recent enactments exercised over the appointment and removal of paid officers, and in other respects. One thing he would admit. It was
1418
this, — that the Commissioners had written too much, and in a harshness of spirit which was to be regretted. He had said this when out of office, and he now repeated it in office. He had used his influence to correct that harshness, and not without success; and now he was engaged in carrying out the system cordially and with a disposition to soften down any little asperities which might have arisen in its early working. He would not deny that some of the first acts of the Commissioners were arbitrary, but they perhaps arose much more from the nature of the duties imposed by law on the Commissioners than from the feelings of those engaged in carrying it out. The very novelty of the system was calculated to lead to errors which experience had since tended to correct, better than any individual influence could have done. In the discharge of their important functions, it would of course be necessary that those whose duty it was to carry out the New Poor Law should have the confidence of that House; but even that, important as it was, would not avail if the proceedings of the Commissioners were not brought, under the inspection of the public. That desirable aid to the system was now fully complete, and it was seen that the Commissioners and all parties connected with them in office were constantly and unremittingly engaged in attention to the wants of the destitute poor. The duties were discharged not only with alacrity but with an honest zeal in their performance which merited praise. Under such circumstances he must say nothing could be more injurious to that department of the public service than suddenly and at such a period of the Session to strike a blow at the root of the system, which was what the hon. and gallant Member called on the House to do, and what he felt called upon to resist.
Mr. Bernalhoped that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lincoln would not press his Clauses. He fully agreed with him that in the commencement of the New Poor Law there had been many errors, and blame was to be attributed somewhere. One cause of some of the errors was, perhaps, the very didactic manner in which some of the Commissioners laid down the law on some points. Owing to this, some of their decisions as to the law were not, well understood, and she consequence was, that up to this time there were strange discrepancies as to the meaning of some clauses and sections of the Law. However, many of them would be removed by the effect of this

1419
Bill. He had heard with satisfaction the explanation of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on one important point, the administering of out-door relief to the destitute poor. The explanation of his right hon. Friend would set all doubt on that point at rest for the future. He admitted, that great ignorance prevailed on many other parts of the law, and what he would venture to suggest to his right hon. Friend opposite, would be, that with the aid of the law officers of the Crown there should be prepared a plain and clear statement as to the meaning of the most important clauses of the Bill. When the law became thus better understood, it would be much more easily administered.
Mr. Spoonerwould support the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Lincoln. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that the Poor Law Commissioners had the confidence of Parliament. He (Mr. Spooner) asked if they had the confidence of the people, undoubtedly not; and never would have while the law remained as it was, and while the administration of that law was left so completely to their discretion. The fact was, that too much power was given to the Commissioners; they had the power of making, altering, or repealing Acts of Parliament at their pleasure. Such power vested in three or four individuals was unconstitutional, and became more objectionable from the manner in which it was administered. He had the authority of the greatest statesman whom this country had produced—he meant that of William Pitt—for saying, that all the difficulties we experienced in administering relief to the poor arose from our departure from the pure spirit of the Act of Elizabeth. He would not stand there to palliate the many deviations which we had made from that Act, but he would, in the name of the poor of the country, conjure the House to come back again to the spirit of that law, by which every man who could work had work provided for him; but who, if unable to work, had his wants immediately attended to. How great was the contrast with our present system! Admission to our detested workhouses was the only way in which the honest pauper, willing and able to work—could obtain relief. His only crime being that he could find no one willing and able to employ him; he, to obtain relief, was obliged to sacrifice the company of his wife and children—must resign his cottage and leave his family to the care of strangers.
1420
What was it which could induce any man to make this sacrifice—what but the alternative of that, starvation, the latter of which many unhappy men had preferred? Allusion had been made to the ignorance of those who administered relief to the poor, of the law which they administered; but that was to be attributed to the fact that the instruction which they received ran before the law. It was Commissioners law, not the law of the land. He hoped that the hint which had been dropped by an hon. Member, as to drawing up a statement of what really was the state of the law, would be taken up by the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, as nothing was more really wanted than a clear statement of what the law really was upon some of its most important points. If the ignorance which existed upon the subject was ignorance of statutory enactments it would be inexcusable; but when it was found to exist only upon resolutions and orders issued by the Poor Law Commissioners, the matter was very different. If the feeling which he entertained as to that Board was a strong one hitherto, it had become much more so since he had heard the declaration of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), who had stated that the Poor Law Commissioners had the power of interfering with Local Acts. Such a circumstance made him still more strenuous in his desire to see the Commission abolished. The local administration of the Poor Law in Birmingham had now subsisted for a long time, carried on by a large body of Guardians elected under a local Act, who had always evinced an earnest desire to admiminister effective relief to the poor with an anxious attention to the interest of the smallest ratepayer. To do this in the midst of a dense population, liable to be suddenly thrown out of work by unavoidable fluctuations in trade, with a very narrow line of separation between the last payer, and the first receivers, requires sound discretion, grounded upon local knowledge; a knowledge none but local Guardians can possess, a discretion which none but they who possess that knowledge are competent to exercise. If the Commissioners interfered, upon that now declared power, with the Local Acts, he felt bound to warn them of the consequences, as they would inevitably paralyse the zeal of the Guardians, and destroy the confidence of the poor. Having stated his opinion upon the general principle of the law, he begged to announce his inten-

1421
tion of supporting the Motion of the gallant Member for Lincoln.
Mr. Haweshad expected the very best results from the operation of the New Poor Law Act, but those expectations had not been altogether realised. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J, Graham) had stated, that great mitigations had taken place, but it appeared that the real mitigations were not those which had taken place in the enactments of the law, but in the temper with which it was administered. The Poor Law Commissioners in interpreting the law in 1839 did so just in the same way as did the Secretary of State for the Home Department in 1844. The real question was, whether or not the care of the poor was an object of national concernment, and if so, whether or not it were to be intrusted to irresponsible bodies scattered over the country, or to one Board subjected to the control of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and responsible for the proper discharge of its duties. The law could not be unconstitutional, as it was the law of Parliament. The rules which had been framed under it were all published, and were therefore open to inspection and scrutiny if such be sought. The administration of the law was most popular, if even it was granted that the law itself was harsh and unconstitutional. There might have been a little less writing, a little less attention to details; but the law itself and its administration were, he thought, very well adapted to their purpose. He would oppose the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln.
Mr. S. Wortleysaw very clearly indeed the difficulties which must result from acceding to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln. He saw many functions which the Poor Law Commissioners might be beneficially called upon to discharge, and among them that of controlling the Boards of Guardians. He objected to the notion which had for some time past prevailed, that this Commission was to be permanent, and had he held a seat in Parliament when the New Poor Law Bill was passed he would not have given his vote for the formation of a body of that kind. The proposition, however, for abolishing this Commission, was, as matters stood, almost impracticable; and, therefore, though he felt very strongly the objections to the constitution of the Commission, he felt it his duty to
1422
oppose the Motion of the hon: and gallant Member for Lincoln.
Mr. W. Williamsthought, that as the Poor Law Act was now in complete operation, the functions of the Poor Law Commissioners had been discharged and ought to cease. One Commissioner was sufficient for transacting all the business now before that board, and a reduction of that kind ought at least to be effected.
Mr. M. Milneswould ask whether there was not in the working of the Poor Law a tendency to discourage rather then encoursge voluntary charity, and to raise an opinion that it was on the whole more injurious than the principle of out-door relief? He felt very strongly that if it was contemplated that the wants of the poor were to be altogether left to the Poor Law, that law was totally unfit for supplying them. He was of opinion, and more so from the increase of population and its tendency to centralize itself, that a Poor Law could never be successful unless assisted by a large amount of private charily. So far as he had seen the operation of local acts in the borough which he represented, he approved of them; yet he could not shut his eyes to the enormous inconvenience that would arise from the abolition of the Poor Law Commission; and upon the whole, he thought that the Motion of the hon. Member for Lincoln ought not to be acceded to.
Captain Pechellwas surprised to hear from a Liberal Member on that side of the House that irresponsible Boards of Guardians were not to be trusted with the administration of the Poor Law. If abuses arose would not the rate-payers have power to remove them? The Poor Law Act never would have passed the House if it had been contemplated that the Board of Commissioners was to be perpetual; yet they were now from year to year allowing statutes to be passed for the purpose of giving a pretext to effect that perpetuity. Sir J. Scarlett had said, that the Parliament were delegating to a separate body an absolute power over the greater portion of their domestic economy. Sanctioned by that authority, and by that of Lord Lyndhurst, he was justified in supporting the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln.
Mr. Borthwickwould take leave to state, very briefly to the House the grounds upon which he had decided to support this Motion. Its effect would be

1423
to abolish the entire system of the law of 1834. He wished to see that consummation; and not blind to the hazards attending its achievement by this particular means, he still saw greater, much greater evils, connected with the continuance of the present system. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Graham) had, in his praise and defence of the Commission, admitted, that when called into existence by the Act of 1834 it had at first advanced with the feeble and uncertain step of infancy. It had staggered, stumbled—he did not say it had fallen—but it had babbled with a sad loquacity, and its babblings had not been understood by the public, if indeed they were comprehended by itself. But the hon. Member for Lambeth was not discreet in his praises. He laid at the feet of of this Commission the very devotion of a lover's homage. The hon, Gentleman in his Commission could see no faults—nay, like Waller and his mistresses what in any other man would be a blemish and defect, the hon. Gentleman found in a Poor Law Commission to be the most exquisite beauty, but the very beauties for which the Commission had thus been praised were, to his mind, grounds of his distaste and disapprobation. The hon. Gentleman had brought to his mind a smart epigram, written by a gentleman of the time of Louis Quatorze, upon some praises bestowed by a rival upon one of the court beanties. It was something as follows;—
"Quelle flatterie importune
Comparer Iris au Soleil!
Il est commun, elle est commune;
C'est tout ce qu'ils ont de pareil."
Really the very qualities for which the hon. Gentleman admired the Commission were those which recommended it the most strongly to his dislike. It was the creature at once, and the exponent of a piinciple—a philosophy—which could not be engrafted upon the British Constitution without the most fatal consequencs. The hon. and Gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Pechell) had quoted high authorities; he would, without disrespect to those authorities, quote a yet higher, he would quote a name which must ever live amongst the brightest and most enduring glories of this country. The name of one who had reached the highest honours through a life every step in which was marked by honour to himself and by benefit to his country—he meant the late Lord Eldon. That
1424
illustrious man, as they were informed by an able and valuable record of his life, just published, expressed himself on the night on which the Bill of 1834 was to be discussed in the House of Lords to this effect—he quoted from memory—"That the evils which I foresee in this new treatment of the poor and helpless may never fall upon the country I fervently pray. It is to be discussed to-night; but to their assembly mine honour be not thou united." That the evils which Lord Eldon had foreseen had fallen upon the country he thought had been proved by the unhappy experience of years; but whatever might be their opinion of that, the evils, if they existed at all, were from their nature permanent, enduring, and ever crescent; and to prevent their continuance and growth he would vote, notwithstanding its hazards and difficulties, for the motion of his hon. and gallant Friend.
Mr. Newdegategave full weight to the objections that had been taken to the specific Motion of the gallant Member for Lincoln. No hon. Member felt more grateful to the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) than he did for the alterations which had been effected in the Poor Law; but he felt that these alterations were worthy of a better enactment than that to which they belonged, and which was a mere dedication of powers to this Commission. In announcing his intention to vote with the gallant Member for Lincoln, he felt himself bound to state his objection that the period within which the Poor Law Commission should be abolished, ought not to be so short as was proposed in his Motion.
The House divided on the question that the Clause be read a second time:—Ayes 8; Noes 81: Majority 73.

List of the AYES.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Newdegate, C. N.

Borthwick, P.

Pechell, Capt.

Collett, J.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

TELLERS

Hall, Sir B.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hornby, J.

Spooner, R.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Capt.

Broadley, H.

Alford, Visct.

Brotherton, J.

Allix, J. P.

Bruce, Lord E.

Aruudel and Surrey Earl of

Bruges, W. H. L.

Clerk, Sir G.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Clive, Visct.

Boldero, H. G.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Bowes, J.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

1425

Courtenay, Lord

Lincoln, Earl of

Cripps, W.

McGeachy, F. A.

Damer, hon. Col.

Marsham, Visct.

Darby, G.

Meynell, Capt.

Denison, E. B.

Milnes, R. M.

Dickinson, F. H.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Duncan, G.

Norreys, Lord

Egerton, W. T.

O'Brien, A. S.

Eliot, Lord

Packe, C. W.

Emlyn, Visct.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Entwistle, W.

Peel, J.

Fellowes, E.

Plumridge, Capt.

Forster, M.

Pringle, A.

Fuller, A. E.

Rawdon, Col.

Gardner, J. D.

Round, J.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Rushbrooke, Col.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Shepgard, T.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Goulburn, rt hn. H.

Smythe, hon. G.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Greene, T.

Stanley, Lord

Harcourt, G. G.

Stewart, P. M.

Hawes, B.

Strutt, E.

Henley, J. W.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Herbert, hon. S.

Thornhill, G.

Hervey, Lord A.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Hodgson, R.

Trotter, J.

Hope, hon. C.

Vernon, G. H.

Howard, P. H.

Wawn, J. T.

Jermyn, Earl

Wodehouse, E.

Kemble, H.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

TELLERS.

Lemon, Sir C.

Young, J.

Lennox, Lord A.

Baring, H.

A Clause proposed by Mr. Vernon Smith respecting the appointment of collectors of the Poor Rate was added.
The Earl of Arundelmoved the insertion of the following Clause:—
"And be it enacted, that the Commissioners do and shall order Boards of Guardians to take measures for allowing all paupers, not being members of the Church of England, to attend their respective places of worship, when within reasonable distance, at all reasonable times."
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that he was willing to give every attention to the subject. He thought that all facilities ought to be given to the inmates of workhouses not members of the Church of England, for attending their respective places of worship. Every instruction would be given to the Poor Law Commissioners for effecting that purpose, and he hoped that as such was the case the noble Lord would not insist upon pressing his Motion.
Mr. Escottsaid, that the present Clause was free from the objections which subsisted to a similar Clause moved on the preceding evening, and he hoped that the noble Lord would press it.
Mr. Darbybore testimony to the efficacy of the principle, which he had seen carried into practice with the greatest advantage though not without difficulties in doing so.
Mr. T. Howardcontended, that without the most strenuous efforts on the part of the Poor Law Commissioners to restrain Board of Guardians, the existing evil would not be removed. He hoped that his noble Friend would press his Motion.
Mr. V. Smithhoped that the noble Lord would not press his Motion after the explanation of the right hon. Baronet.
The Earl of Arundelconsented to withdraw his Motion.
Mr. S. O'Brienmoved the following Clause:—
"Provided always, and be it further enacted, that whenever it shall appear to the Board of any district school that the space within such school is more than sufficient for the accommodation of poor children within the district for which such school shall have been built, it shall and may be lawful for such board, subject to the approval of the Poor Law Commissioners, to make order for the admission of so many other children residing in the same district as shall seem expedient to such Board; and the weekly provision for the maintenance and education of such children shall be fixed by the Board at such rate as shall in their judgment be amply sufficient to cover every expense on account of such children."
Sir R. Peelin 1831, strongly recommended such an arrangement. The right hon. Member for Perth (Mr. F. Maule), and others, had concurred in the sentiments of the right hon. Baronet upon that occasion. He was prepared to defend his Motion upon two grounds first, because there was danger if it was not adopted that a premium would be given to poverty; and, secondly, because he believed that such an arrangement as was thereby proposed, would tend to prevent pauper children from feeling the stigma attached to their situation, by being educated as a separate class. The Bishop of London had in 1831 stated, that it was not desirable to make the education of the poor more different from that of the rich than their situation demanded. He (Mr. S. O'Brien) had no authority for saying so, but after what he had just quoted, he had no doubt that the Clause which he now proposed would meet with the approbation of that right rev. Prelate. The House would observe that the consent of the Poor Law Commissioners and of the

1427
Board of Guardians was requisite before the Clause could be made operative. With these two provisions, with the restriction to a radius of seven and a-half miles, and considering that the means of education were so notoriously disproportioned to the wants of the people, he could not conceive that any danger could accrue from admitting this Clause into the Act. The effect of his Motion would be, to add to the amount of education and to approximate so much the nearer to a general system thereof.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that nothing beyond the proceedings of that debate were necessary to convince him, had he no other proof of it, how intimately the question of the Poor Law was interwoven with the greatest subjects of national policy. To the number of leading topics which had already been touched upon, the hon. Member for Northampton had now added that of education. That hon. Member had, however, omitted to consider that the district schools provided for in the Bill were pauper boarding-schools, inasmuch as they were the collection in these district schools of pauper children drawn from the surrounding workhouses. It would, therefore, not be right on the part of the Commissioners, or of the district Board of Guardians, to consent to any expense for the building of larger schools than were necessary for the ordinary number of children contained in the surrounding workhouses. It would not be just to the ratepayers to expose them to greater expense than was requisite for the pauper population of their unions. He (Sir J. Graham) objected to the Clause, not only on these grounds, but because it held out expectations which it could not fulfil. It was an attempt to introduce a general scheme under cover of a local and particular enactmeni; for, as the plan of district schools was, by the Bill, confined to the metropolis and four or five other places, and affected only one class of the poor, such a Clause as that proposed would create the greatest disappointment, by creating hopes for the education of the poor generally throughout the kingdom. He did not attach so much authority to the opinion of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of London as the hon. Member for Northampton, for he was not prepared absolutely to be bound by it; but he had no hesitation in saying, that that right rev. Prelate was opposed to the proposition of the hon. Member. It was admitted, that as far as was possible, the Bill sought to increase the
1428
means of education among the poor, especially where the largest numbers were congregated; but was this proposition adapted for such a purpose? He had a decided opinion that it was not. It would place an unjust assessment upon the rate-payers, and be most injurious to the existing schools of all kinds, supported by voluntary subscriptions, if it succeeded. Such a supposition, however, he regarded as delusive. The hon. Member had referred to what took place upon this subject in 1841; but the schools then under discussion were day schools and not boarding-schools. The whole scheme of the district schools was founded upon the understanding that provisions as well as education should be found for the children. On these grounds, he felt it to be his duty to oppose the Motion.
Mr. Haweswas astonished at hearing now the decided opinions of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) compared with what he had previously said upon the subject. The objection taken by the right hon. Baronet that the schools were to be boarding-schools, was not valid, as the Poor Law Commissioners had, by the Clause, the power of saying when day borders should be received, and when they should not. There was no compulsion under the Clause to receive children as boarders; though he was the last person who would say anything disrespectful of the Bishop of London, he felt bound to state it as his opinion that that right rev. Prelate saw in the Clause a more liberal system of education than he approved of. He (Mr. Hawes) would support the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that he intended to support the views of his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham). On a previous occasion he had declared that he had a strong prepossession in favour of the Motion now before the House, as he thought it would give to parents generally the advantages of such an education, as they could not otherwise possess. If the question was one between ignorance and knowledge, between Christianity and infidelity, the Church could not he conceived, be much injured thereby. He found not only on the part of the Bishop of London, but of others also, an opinion that such an arrangement as that now proposed would rather check and impede voluntary efforts for the education of the people than encourage them, and that in-

1429
stead of increasing the sum of education it would very likely check it. The district schools ought to be constructed only of the size requisite for the accommodation of the pauper children, and it would not be right to charge the rate-payers for room beyond that which was required. He yielded his former opinions to the authority of those who were conversant with the subject, and would therefore oppose the Motion.
Mr. V. Smithwould not tax the right hon. Baronet with inconsistency, but thought that hon. Members had a right to be convinced by his previous arguments; for at present he had adduced none. He thought the principle of the Clause was excellent, as it went to convince the pauper children that they were not outcasts from society, and to encourage a general and high spirit of concession towards them among the children of the lower classes generally.
Mr. O'Brienwas of opinion that, under the circumstances, it was not of any use to divide the House upon this Clause.
Clause withdrawn.
Further consideration of Report adjourned.

CONSULS IN JAVA AND MANILLA.
Mr. Laboucherebegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade a question. It had been stated that difficulties had been created by the Dutch Government in the way of appointing Consuls in the ports of Java, to furnish certificates of origin to sugar-growers who shipped their produce to this country. He asked whether the fact were so, and whether any means had been devised for obviating the difficulty.
Mr. W. Gladstonesaid, that persons resident in Java, not bearing the title of Consuls, had been authorized by Her Majesty to grant certificates of origin of sugars shipped from the ports of that island for England, and the persons thus selected were such as the Government could fully depend upon. He would take that opportunity of stating that a gentleman had been appointed to fill the situation of Consul at Manilla, who had formerly been Consul at Damascus, and who would receive a salary of 1,000 l. a year, with an allowance for a clerk. The foreign commerce with Java was principally carried on at the ports of Batavia, Samarang, and Sourabaya. The name of
1430
the gentleman who would act at Batavia was Bonhose; Mr. M'Neil was to act at Samarang; and a gentleman named Fraser was to officiate in the capacity of certificate granter at Sourabaya. The amount of remuneration which these gentlemen would receive for performing their duties was not yet fixed; but he understood from the Foreign Office that 300 l. a year would be the maximum allowance in each case.
Mr. Laboucherebegged to know whether the gentlemen in question were merely private merchants resident at the different ports, or whether they would be invested with any civil functions?
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that the persons appointed to grant certificates of origin would not hold any consular appointment. Their duty would be confined to the mere inspection of sugar shipped for British ports. As to the question which related to their being engaged in mercantile affairs, his impression was, that Mr. Fraser was not in business, though he had been engaged in commerce, and that Mr. Bonhose and Mr. M'Neil were both merchants.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
House in Committee on the Controverted Elections Bill.
On Clause 55,
Sir R. Peelrose to propose the Amendment of which he had given notice. Before he submitted his Amendment, he wished to congratulate the House upon the great improvement which had taken place in the practice of Election Committees. He thought that if the proceedings of Election Committees constituted according to the present law were contrasted with those of former Committees, a very great improvement would be seen, and he believed that greater confidence was now felt in the decisions of such Committees. The four eminent Counsel who had been examined befor the Committee which had investigated this subject, had borne very satisfactory testimony to the improvement in the proceedings of these Committees. Those learned gentlemen had stated their belief that the imputations which had been thrown out against the Members of Election Committees were unfounded. He believed that the great security for the due administration of justice was the conviction, which existed on both sides of the House, that judicial functions were com-

1431
mitted to Members of these Committees, and that a most solemn obligation was violated if their decisions were not in accordance with the evidence adduced before them. He believed that nothing could more tend to raise that House in the estimation of the public than the evidence that this was the feeling which guided the decisions of Election Committees. The question he had now to bring under the consideration of the House was, whether there should be a reduction in the number of Members constituting Election Committees, and if so, what that reduction should be. The decision of the Committee which had investigated this subject, and which consisted of some of the most eminent Members of that House, had decided in favour of the reduction. The question then came before the Committee to what extent the reduction should be carried. On that point—as to whether future Committees should consist of five or three Members—the Committee were equally divided in opinion. Certainly, a majority of that Committee, five to four, were in favour of constituting Election Committees of three Members; but the noble Chairman of that Committee did not conceal his opinion that he wished the Committee to consist of five Members. He confessed that though he willingly bowed to the decision of the Committee in favour of a reduction, he would prefer that the number of Members on such Committees should be reduced to five rather than to three. He admitted there was great force in the argument as to the concentration of responsibility; and he would greatly prefer a Committee consisting of five Members to one of thirteen, on account of the additional responsibility which, in his opinion, was imposed by such a limitation of numbers. But, on the other hand, he thought it would be advisable that such Committees should consist of more than three Gentlemen; for Gentlemen might view the same facts in a very different point of view, and he thought it better to have the collective judgment of five Gentlemen brought to bear upon such a subject, than the judgment of three Members of that House. If the Committee consisted of three Members, and by any circumstance, one Member was prevented from attending, the other two Members might be divided in opinion; and unless provision were made to meet such a case, no decision could be
1432
come to. He was disposed to regard the opinions of the Committee which had investigated this subject with great deference, five Members of that Committee having voted against four in favour of Election Committees being composed of three Members, and he hoped it would not be supposed, that he was evincing any intentional disrespect towards that Committee, which had suggested some most important and valuable alterations in the law, in proposing that Election Committees should in future be composed of five Members. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving that in page 16, line 1, the blank be filled up with the word "four," in order that the Election Committee may be composed of five Members, including the Chairman.
Mr. C. Bullerthought that House would desire, as far as they could, to amend a law which had done so much to redeem their character, and which had given substantial justice to them all. His opinion was, that the reduction in the number of Members of Election Committees to three would be most advisable, because in that case the general Committee of selection would be more deeply impressed with the importance of placing the most competent Members of that House upon such Committees. His own conviction was, that the best plan would be to follow the exact analogy of our Courts of Justice, and to constitute these tribunals of an equal number of Judges; at the same time, as he saw there was a strong feeling in favour of the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, he would not offer any objection to that proposal.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that some years ago he had considerable experience in proceedings before Election Committees, and he must say that there had undoubtedly been a great improvement in the constitution of such tribunals, which had now to a very great extent secured the confidence of the public. He was decidedly in favour of a reduction in the number of Members placed on these Committees, because he believed that such a course would entail increased responsibility on each individual Member. He thought, however, that it would be advisable first to try the experiment of a reduction from seven to five, instead of jumping at once from seven to three.
Mr. B. Escottsaid, he thought the experiment of proposing that Election Com-

1433
mittees should consist of five Members was somewhat dangerous. The hon. Member for Liskeard had suggested that such Committees should be constituted of four Members; and he certainly thought that the decision of the majority of such a tribunal would be more satisfactory, than the decision of those Committees as at present constituted.
Sir R. Peelsaid, it was most inconvenient that tribunals of this nature should be broken up without arriving at a decision, especially as the proceedings involved great expense; and he would, therefore, propose at a future stage of this measure, that even if Election Committees should be reduced to one or two Members, they should still proceed with their investigation. He would propose that even if a Committee was by any circumstances reduced to one Member, he should still be enabled to prosecute the inquiry, with the consent of the parties interested.
Clause agreed to.
The other Clauses of the Bill were agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported.

POOR LAW.
The further consideration of the Report on the Poor Law Amendment Bill was again resumed.
Captain Pechellmoved the omission of the 12th Clause, relating to the placing out of parish apprentices. He objected to the controlling power which the Clause gave to the Poor Law Commissioners in selecting the trade and term of service of those apprentices. He also considered that the Clause was inapplicable to the merchant sea service, which in fact was properly regulated by the Merchant Seamen's Act. It could not be maintained that it would be proper to give to the Commissioners control over the merchant shipping; as to their power of visitation to see how the apprentices were treated, it would not be very easy to carry that into effect.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, this subject had already been amply discussed. He certainly should think the Clause a very impolitic one, if it imposed any serious interference as regards binding apprentices to the merchant service, and he agreed with the hon. and gallant Officer that any visitorial power on the part of the Commissioners over the merchant service as to apprentices, would practically not be found a very easy duty to perform; but he could
1434
assure the hon. and gallant Officer, that however ambitious of power the Commissioners might be, this was not a power which they sought to exercise. But this Clause was not intended to interfere with merchant service apprentices; nor did he think it did so interfere. With reference, however, to the Merchant Seamen's Act, he might say, that it had been of great national advantage; for now some 25,000 boys were bound to the merchant service, whereas before the passing of that Act, there had not been more than from 3,000 to 4,000. He might state that his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Admiralty had a Bill now in progress in that House to amend and alter that Act: and, appended to it in the schedule, would be found a new form of indenture and the terms of service, regulating the duties of merchant seamen's apprentices. In point of fact, that Bill would supersede this Clause in the Poor Law Bill, so far as the merchant service was concerned; and therefore the hon. and gallant Officer might discharge from his mind all his objections to the Clause on that point. The only other objection of the hon. and gallant Officer was the control of the Commissioners over the discretion of the Local Boards as regarded parish apprentices in binding them to particular trades, and the term of their apprenticeship. In the main, the provisions of this Bill were regulations in favour of the young and unprotected, in those respects in which they were now unguarded; and he could not put his finger on any Clause in the Bill which more partook of that character than this; for, according to the law of Settlement, as it now stood, local Boards had a pecuniary interest on the part of those whom they represented, in transferring the burthen of the maintenance of destitute orphans, by binding them out to various trades, perhaps disagreeable and ill-suited to their strength and health; not only that, but they might pay a premium out of the parish purse, and by that premium many are induced to take these apprentices, without any regard to the interest of the children. If any transactions required supervision to control them, it was such as those he referred to; and he hoped, therefore, that the House would adhere to the decision of the Committee, and not allow the Clause to be expunged.
Mr. Wakleyadhered to every declaration he had made in that House when this subject was before under discussion. In his opinion the Clause was dictated by a feeling of humanity, and was, he believed,

1435
one of the most valuable in the Bill. The children to whom it referred were the most unprotected part of the community. They had no parents, no guardians, no persons but the parish officers to look after them, and on a former occasion he had stated the manner in which the latter discharged their duty. He had stated, that in many parishes they were in the habit of seeing their children only once a-year, and, as the law now stood, the latter were furnished with no protection whatever. Did the hon. and gallant Officer consider that they ought to have no protection? But as the law now stood, if this Clause were omitted they would have none. His complaint was, that the Clause did not go far enough, because it grants the unhappy children already bound no protection. He hoped that the House and the Government would adhere to the Clause as it stood in the Bill. He regretted that the opposition to such a Clause should proceed from that (the Opposition) side of the House. Such opposition offered but poor encouragement from that (the Opposition) side, to a Minister to moderate the asperities of the Poor Law Bill. He trusted that the hon. and gallant Member would withdraw his opposition to the Clause. He (Mr. Wakley) trusted that something more would be done on the subject. He would take the point into consideration during the recess; and it was his hope that he should be successful in inducing Her Majesty's Government to adopt other measures with reference to this class of persons. He repealed what he had previously stated to that House, that there did not exist a more ill-used body of individuals than those to which the Clause especially referred.
Motion withdrawn.
Captain Pechellproposed a Clause empowering Gilbert Unions and Parishes having Local Acts to elect their own Auditors. He would endeavour to put what observations he had to make in support of the Clause which he had prepared in as small a compass as possible. He thought it would only be consistent with what the right hon. Baronet had allowed the metropolitan parishes, who had adopted Hob-house's Act, to do, that he should accede to this Clause. They were allowed to appoint their own auditor. Why should not parishes under Gilbert's Act elect their auditors as they had done hitherto. No abuses nor mal-practices had been proved against the parish of Brighton, and he
1436
trusted that the right hon. Baronet would accede to his proposition; because, to vest the power of appointing auditors in the Commissioners was, in fact, to do away with their out-door relief, and to destroy the independence of that and other Gilbert Unions.
Lord Alfred Hervey: I rise to second the Motion of my hon. and gallant Colleague; and I can assure the House that it is with great reluctance that I venture to trespass upon their attention even for a few minutes when I recollect the immense length to which our sitting has been extended, and bow dry and uninteresting the subject upon which I am about to address them must be to most hon. Members. Sir, I give my cordial support to the proviso which my gallant Friend has proposed, not because I entirely concur in every part of it, but because its general effect will be to prevent the provisions of the auditing Clause of this Bill from applying to large towns under Local Acts. I object to all interference on the part of the Poor Law Commissioners with large and populous parishes well governed under the provisions of Local Acts. I am aware that they possess this power to a certain extent by the existing law; and I do not now propose to deprive them of the power which they already have, partly because I am most unwilling to throw any useless or unnecessary impediment in the progress of a Measure which I consider to be of so important and beneficial a nature, and for which I think the country is deeply indebted to Her Majesty's Government, and partly because I hope that the Poor Law Commissioners will exercise that power with great discretion, as I feel bound to say I think they have hitherto done, and that they will recollect the purpose for which that power was given to them. That the authors of the New Poor Law Bill never intended that power to be applied for the purpose of interfering with the mode of administering relief to the poor in large parishes under the provisions of Local Acts where no ground of complaint existed, I have the authority of Lord Althorp himself and of Sir Frederic Pollock for saying. Lord Althorp, in introducing the Bill in 1834, said, "he hoped the Commissioners would not interfere with the parishes that were well regulated. The only mode in which he trusted they would deal with such parishes would be to follow their example." Sir Frederic Pollock some years later said, "when the

1437
Poor Law Bill was passed, it was the general understanding that all Local Acts should not be interfered with, but should remain in due force." But, Sir, although for these reasons I do not seek now to deprive the Commissioners of their existing powers, I trust I shall not be considered as pursuing a course in the least unfair, or of a factious nature, when I express my intention to oppose any further extension of those powers. Sir, I know that in expressing my opinion as to the inexpediency of interfering with Local Acts, am liable to the imputation of being influenced by the local prejudices of my constituents; out this Bill itself admits the principle for which I contend by enacting that parishes under Local Acts containing a population of more than 20,000, shall not be included in a Poor Law Union or a school district. I am moreover supported in my opinion by persons whose judgment ought to have the greatest weight with the House and Her Majesty's Government, and whose opinion is not open to the same ground of suspicion; I refer particularly to Sir F. Pollock and the right hon. Baronet at the Head of Her Majesty's Government. There are also two very important judgments of the Court of Queen's Bench, which, as I am extremely anxious not unnecessarily to trespass upon the time of the House, I will not go into at length; but I will merely state the effect of those judgments. In the case of St. Pancras, the Court decided that the Poor Law Commissioners had not the power to alter the constitution of Boards of Guardians under Local Acts; but the practical effect of the decision of the Queen's Bench in the case of the Whitechapel Union was to deprive those Boards of the advantage which they had gained in the case of St. Pancras, by declaring that the Commissioners had the power of placing any parish under a Local Act in a Union. When the Poor Law Bill of the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, was under the consideration of the House in 1841, Sir F. Pollock alluded to these decisions of the Queen's Bench; but before I direct the attention of the House to the observations which he then made, I wish to anticipate an objection which may be taken with respect to them. The right hon. Baronet may say that they were made under totally different circumstances from the present, and in reference to a different subject, and that they are inapplicable to the audit districts. Sir, my answer to this object-
1438
tion is, that the only reason why they do not appear to have immediate reference to the Clause at present under discussion is, that the particular mode of interference then proposed is different from that which is now proposed. The proposal to include towns under Local Acts in audit districts was not then contemplated; and therefore of course the arguments then made use of could not have immediate reference to such a plan. But I contend that they were directed quite as much against the principle of interference as against the particular mode by which it was then sought to effect such interference. Now, Sir F. Pollock said, (speaking, let me remind the House, not as the representative of a town under a Local Act, but simply as a parishioner and a rate-payer). "After the decision in the case of St. Pancras, he left the court followed by a gentleman who said, 'as you don't like the Board of Guardians, we will put you into a Union.' Upon which he said, 'Sir, if you have any intention of doing that, I beg to tell you that your present remark will for ever prevent that, for in the Court of Queen's Bench, or in my place in Parliament, I will always be ready to state what I have said, and prevent you from doing indirectly what you cannot do directly.' He was a parishioner, and considered that if they were large enough to conduct their own affairs under a Board of Guardians, they did not want to be put into a union. He dared the party to do so." Now, Sir, I put it to the House whether these remarks do not apply with as much force to audit districts as to Poor Law Unions? I can only regret that Sir F. Pollock is not here; for I am sure he would have joined in the endeavour to prevent the Commissioners from obtaining a power by this Clause to do indirectly that which they cannot do directly, and that he would have expressed his opinion that if towns are large enough to conduct their own affairs under a Board of Guardians, they ought not to be placed in an audit district. In the same debate the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government, alluding to the decision of the Queen's Bench in the case of the Whitechapel Union, observed "In that way all the parishes now governed by Local Acts were placed under the arbitrary control of the New Poor Law Commissioners." After suggesting that the Clause under discussion should be delayed in order to ascertain the number and

1439
population of parishes under Local Acts, he proceeded to say "he thought it would be a fair question for the Committee to consider whether there ought or ought not to be any limitation as to the population of parishes; as, for example, where there were at present parishes containing a population of 20,000 or 30,000, governed by a Local Act, whether it would be wise for them to exempt such parishes? He had always thought that where there were immense masses of population well governed under Local Acts, it would not be found expedient to place them under the control of the Commissioners." I beg the House to observe, that the right hon. Gentleman did not confine his objection to placing these large parishes in Poor Law Unions, but generally under the control of the Commissioners. Sir, I adopt the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman; and because I think that where large masses of population are well governed under Local Acts, it is inexpedient to place them under the control of the Commissioners, I object to placing such large towns as that which I have the honor of representing in the audit districts. Sir, if the House is prepared to adopt the opinion of the authorities to which I have referred, the only questions for them to consider are first, whether the particular mode of importanee which were condemned in 1841; and secondly, whether the parishes under Local Acts are well governed. With respect to the first point, what is the effect of this Clause? Why, it entirely deprives the ratepayers and guardians of all control over the expenditure of their rates, and thus violates a most important principle,—a principle which should never be violated except under circumstances of urgent necessity. The Commissioners by this Bill are to have the same powers over the auditor as under the New Poor Law Bill, that is, they are to determine his qualification, specify his duties, decide upon his continuance in, or dismissal from office, and fix his salary. If the Poor Law Commissioners issue any order to the Board of Guardians with respect to the administration of relief to the poor, and a charge is inserted in the accounts of the Guardians, inconsistent with such order, the auditor will be compelled to strike out such a charge as an illegal one; and notwithstanding the immense powers which this auditor will have, I find by this Bill that if the town of Brighton, for instance, with a population of 50,000,
1440
should be hereafter joined to a Union where an auditor has already been appointed, as far perhaps as the present generation is concerned, neither the Guardians nor ratepayers will have any voice in his appointment. I think, then, that I am justified in saying that this Clause in conjunction with the powers which the Commissioners already possess will entirely destroy the independence of Local Boards. The only other question to be considered is, whether these parishes have been well governed? I cannot of course prove negatively that no corrupt application of parochial rates has ever been made in any parish. The onus probandi lies upon the right hon. Baronet; but I can say with respect to the town of Brighton, that no dissatisfaction exists on account of the manner in which the parish funds have been administered. The provisions of the Local Act are well adapted to secure the proper application of the parish funds; for by them all ratepayers may at any time have access to the accounts of the Directors and Guardians, those accounts must be brought before the vestry to be audited four times in the year, and at these quarterly meetings, any ratepayer has the right to object to any item before the accounts are audited: and even after they have been allowed and audited, he can appeal to Quarter Sessions. I believe that these provisions of the Local Act have answered the purpose for which they were enacted; for all parties in the town are perfectly satisfied. There is no complaint on the part of the pauper, as in the Poor Law Unions; and that the ratepayer is satisfied, I think, is sufficiently proved by the fact that there has not been a single appeal during a long series of years. In addition to what I have said, I have the statement of an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner himself. I will with the permission of the House read one short extract from the address of Mr. Hawley to the Brighton Board of Guardians a few years ago. After speaking in terms of high commendation of some of the rules of the Board, he concludes his address in these words;—
"And in other respects the existing amount of pauperism, as compared with the population, is highly satisfactory, and the progressive and striking diminution of the parochial expenditure observable in the accounts of the last three years speaks most favourably for the system of management that has been pursued. Finally, Gentlemen, your systematic mode of conducting parochial affairs, approaches in

1441
many respects so nearly to the system laid down by the Poor Law Commissioners, that the change proposed to be made in your present establishment can scarcely be considered as an innovation; in fact, with the exception of altering the number and constitution of your board, the same machinery under new appellations will continue to work as heretofore, in order, under the authority of a central controlling power, to complete the uniformity of system throughout the country, and secure its future duration."
Sir, having, I trust, said enough to show that this Clause without the proviso of my hon. Colleague will interfere most seriously with the continuance of Local Acts; and that no ground has been made out to justify such interference, I will not any longer occupy the time of the House; but I will conclude by appealing to the right hon. Baronet to concede this point. I am convinced that this point may be conceded without abandoning any part of the principle of the Poor Law Act. I can assure the right hon. Baronet, that if I thought the concession which I ask for, would involve the abandonment of the general principle of the Bill, I would not ask him to make it: but believing as I do, that it will involve no such consequences, I trust that I shall not appeal to him in vain when I ask him to grant a boon which will be so gratefully accepted.
Sir J. Grahamcould hardly regret the renewal of this discussion, since it had afforded him the pleasure of hearing the speech of his noble Friend; and there was no appeal to which, if it were consistent with his duty, he would yield with move pleasure than one which had been made so ably, and in a manner so persuasive, as the appeal of the noble Lord. He could not, however, yield the point. The House had, by a great majority, decided on the Commissioners having the power of interference generally with these unions, and, if that interference was justifiable in any case, it was so as it appeared to him, in the appointment of auditors. It was true that parishes which had adopted Hobhouse's Act, had been exempted from the power of the Commissioners to appoint auditors, but Hobhouse's Act was not a local but a general Act; and if Brighton and other parishes under Gilbert's Act had liked to adopt that Act, they might have been exempted too. There were only four parishes in the metropolis which had adopted Hobhouse's Act; and he must say, they
1442
managed their accounts in a way more nearly perfect than any parish under a local Act with which he was acquainted. With respect to the case of Brighton—he held in his hand a report of a public meeting specially called in that town, to consider the propriety of petitioning the House of Commons against the audit Clauses, and in this he found recorded the speech of a Mr. Holford, who declared that he was an auditor of the accounts of the town. Mr. Holford said he should be sorry to see any auditor appointed under the Poor Law Commissioners do any injury to the poor; but he could not think for a moment that any injury would arise from the appointment of an auditor of that kind. He went on to say, it was obvious that they wanted an auditor; for he had seen the accounts for several years, and many items had been allowed for which there was no law. Expences of town meetings, clearly of a political character—expences of petitions, and addresses were among them. The high constable he had known (he said) charge more than 50 l. "for clothing, and everything that was right to go to court with." There had been some hundreds of pounds (he said) paid out of the poor-rates, which he knew were illegal charges. Indeed, he could say, there were hundreds and thousands of pounds which went through their accounts which were illegal. This was the statement of an auditor of experience, respecting the mode in which the accounts of the parish of Brighton were administered; and he was of opinion that an auditor ought to be appointed. As he had said, he (Sir J. Graham) was confident that if any interference with these unions was expedient, that interference was the appointment of an independent auditor. The result would most certainly be to the advantage of the local rate payers. The question was not so much who should appoint, as who should dismiss. If the guardians had the power of dismissal, the auditors could not be independent of them. He hoped, therefore, the House would adhere to their former decision. Judging from the case of Brighton, they would evidently do right to extend the power of appointing auditors to places under local Acts.
Mr. Williamswas ready to admit that the right hon. Baronet had gone a good way in concession to places under Local Acts, and that he had conducted the discussions on this measure with great propriety, and given what he no doubt considered

1443
most sufficient reasons for all he wished to be done, but in the two instances of the appointment of auditors under Local Acts and in places under Hobhouse's Act, there had been a total failure of reasons for the conduct the right hon. Baronet had pursued. He felt very great regret that the right hon. Baronet had not consented to admit the Clause.
Mr. Muntzsaid, the proper mode, if the people of Brighton allowed their accounts to go wrong, was to let them be punished for it, but not to let the Government interfere. He feared a great deal from this interference, and he thought it would be far better that the Government should leave the appointment to the rate payers, who, as a natural principle, must take care of themselves.
The House divided on the question that the Clause be inserted: — Ayes 10; Noes 52: Majority 42.

List of the AYES.

Borthwick, P.

O'Brien, A. S.

Darby, G.

Spooner, R.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Williams, W.

Fuller, A. E.

Henley, J. W.

TELLERS.

Masterman, J.

Pechell, Capt.

Muntz, G. F.

Hervey, Lord A.

List of the NOES.

Ainsworth, P.

Lincoln, Earl of

Allix, J. P.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Bagot, hon. W.

Martin, C. W.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Meynell, Capt.

Barnard, E. G.

Morris, D.

Beckett, W.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Boldero, H. G.

Packe, C. W.

Botfield, B.

Patten, J. W.

Brotherton, J.

Peel, J.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Plumridge, Capt.

Clerk, Sir G.

Pringle, A.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Rice, E. R.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

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

Corry, rt. hn. H.

Somerset, Lord G.

Cripps, W.

Stanley, Lord

Dick, Q.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Dickinson, F. H.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Flower, Sir J.

Thornely, T.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Trotter, J.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Vivian, H. J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Wakley, T.

Greene, T.

Wawn, J. T.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Hawes, B.

TELLERS.

Hodgson, R.

Young, J.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Lennox, Lord A.

Captain Pechellfelt indebted to the right hon. Baronet for the courtesy which
1444
he had shown in the course of the discussions on this Bill. As a Minister of the Crown he was bound to perform a certain duty; and it was not to be expected of him that he should go much beyond the line of his duty; it was satisfactory, however, to feel after all their labours that many concessions had been made by the Government. In the course of the discussions he had done all that depended on him to explain and enforce the views of his constituents, and he trusted that he had fairly represented them. He would now take leave of the right hon. Baronet and of his Bill; for, after what had occurred, it was desirable that the House should go through the Bill as speedily as possible.
Report received. Bill be read a third time.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MIDDLESEX.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair, for the House to go into a Committee on the Criminal Justice (Middlesex) Bill,
Mr. Mackinnonsaid, that as a magistrate of Middlesex, he wished to say a few words on the Bill before the Speaker left the Chair. The principle of the Bill was not known in the administration of justice among the magistrates of England. It was to establish a court in which there was to be a chairman with a salary appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It was on account of the countenance which it gave to the principle of centralization that he felt an objection to the Bill. It enabled, he repeated, the Secretary of State for the Home Department not only to appoint a chairman, who had hitherto been appointed by the magistrates of Middlesex at large, but to award to that chairman a large pecuniary salary. The magistrates of Middlesex were about 200 in number. At a meeting of those magistrates the subject of this measure had been discussed; thirty-two had voted for it, and thirteen against it; but, how came those thirty-two magistrates to vote in favour of this measure? Because they were friends — boon companions of the chairman of the Middlesex Sessions It was not very likely that Gentlemen who were in constant communication with an individual, who sat with him at dinner every day, and had frequent intercourse with him, would oppose a measure which would give to that individual

1445
1,000 l. or 1,200 l. a year. The right hon. Gentleman opposite wished to introduce a new system of prison discipline; and a sort of contract had been proposed, that if the Middlesex magistrates would devote so many thousand pounds to the purchase of a building to carry out that system, the Government would pay the Chairman of the Sesions from 800 l. to 1,200 l. a-year. A letter had been shown to him, from which it appeared that there was an understanding of this nature between the Government and the magistrates. He objected to the appointment of the Chairman being vested in the Crown; for the principle, if once adopted, might be carried out most extensively. Why, he would ask, did not the right hon. Baronet propose the appointment of another Judge in the Central Criminal Court? What would be the effect of this Bill? It would transfer the jurisdiction from the Westminster magistrates to the Justices at the Clerkenwell Sessions. He asked the House to consider what inconvenience would be occasioned by requiring prosecutors and witnesses to go from Westminster to Clerkenwell. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman propose the appointment of an additional judge at the Central Criminal Court, to whom this salary should be given. If the right hon. Baronet wished to oblige the Chairman of the Middlesex Sessions, he might give the appointment to that Gentleman, who was a barrister of long standing. Another objection he entertained to this Bill was, that it would exonerate the City of London from an enormous expense, which would be thrown upon the county of Middlesex. But he wished to point out another evil which would result from this Bill. If a Chairman was appointed by the Government he would be totally independent of the magistrates. Six or eight magistrates might sit with him, but the Chairman possessed only one vote. In consequence of his not being nominated by his brother magistrates they possessed no influence over him; he was as careless of their opinions as they were of his. The Chairman might, on a case before the Court, turn round and say to the magistrates near him, "I think the prisoner ought to have seven years' transportation." On the other hand, they might say, "No; we think six months' imprisonment would be a very adequate punishment." Let the House reflect upon the position in which the chairman—the
1446
judge—would, under such circumstances, be placed. If the Chairman was to be the judge, he ought to possess the power of passing sentence; but did he possess it? No; this power fisted with the magistrates sitting with him—a fluctuating body—six or eight of whom might come into court, while the same number might go out during the day, and the Chairman might find himself under the necessity of passing a sentence totally repugnant to his own feelings. On these grounds he thought it right to state his objections to the Bill.
Mr. W. Williamssaid, this Bill, which was one of great importance, had been introduced at a late period of the Session, without a single word of explanation. It appeared to him that Bill was not required by any parties connected either with the county of Middlesex or the City of London. He objected to the measure, in the first place, because it entailed a serious charge upon the public. He wished to know why the Chairman of the Middlesex Quarter Sessions should have a salary paid out of the public taxes any more than the Chairman of any other Sessions. If it was necessary that functionary should have a salary at all, why not pay him out of the county rates, rather than out of taxes levied from the people generally? It was proposed by this Bill, without the least necessity for such a measure being shown, to abolish the Quarter Sessions for the City of Westminster. Those Sessions had hitherto been held in the centre of the City of Westminster, but it was now proposed to transfer the business to Clerkenwell, and that change would entail the utmost inconvenience upon the people of Westminster. But one great objection to this measure arose from the peculiar relations subsisting between the county of Middlesex and the City of London. By an ancient arrangement, the City of London, for certain considerations, had undertaken to pay the cost of all prisoners committed to the prison of Newgate before trial. Why, then, should the county of Middlesex have entailed upon it the additional expense of keeping such prisoners? Had there ever been any difficulty in conducting the proceedings at the Central Criminal Court? By the 4th and 5th William IV., that court might hold its Sessions at least twelve times a-year. Those Sessions might be held every fortnight, if it was so ordered by the Queen in Council, or they might be made perpetual;

1447
and the authorities of the City of London had always shown a willingness that a gaol delivery should take place whenever circumstances rendered such a measure necessary. But would the judge to be appointed under this Bill possess an additional power of trying prisoners? No: he would have no power which he did not already possess as Chairman of the Court of Quarter Sessions. As he understood the Bill, the paid judge to be appointed under it would have to perform precisely the same duties which were now performed by the Chairman of the Court of Quarter Sessions. But he believed that this measure was proposed in connexion with a costly experiment, now in course of trial by the right hon. Home Secretary; and he held in his hand a correspondence that had taken place between the corporation of London, the magistrates of Middlesex, and the department of the right hon. Baronet, by which it was distinctly made a condition that the magistrates, in order to procure for a gentleman the appointment of judge with a salary, should consent to the entire alteration of the present system. When this proposal was made, the authorities of London made an offer to Sir J. Graham to enlarge their prisons. They asked, indeed, for permission to purchase the site of the old Fleet Prison, in order to carry out this object. The corporation were referred by Sir J. Graham to Major Jebb; and they were informed, that unless they were prepared to purchase ground to the extent of five acres they could not carry out the new system. He could not comprehend how such an extent of ground could be required for this purpose. The right hon. Home Secretary said, that this was necessary in order to carry out the separate system; but it appeared from the correspondence between the right hon. Gentleman and the Middlesex magistrates, that the object was to carry out the solitary system as applicable to prisoners before trial. He hoped, however, that the magistrates would never sanction such a course. He was quite aware that the opposition offered to this Bill by the hon. Member for Lymington (Mr. Mackinnon) and himself would be fruitless, unless it could be shown that the City of London had refused to grant greater facilities for the trial of criminals than were now afforded, this Bill was not justifiable.
Mr. Wakleysaid, no hon. Member of
1448
that House had more seriously castigated the Corporation of the City of London than the hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. W. Williams), and that hon. Member was well aware that the Grand Jury had made representations to the Corporation, complaining of the manner in which business was transacted in the Central Criminal Court, and of the accommodation afforded to prisoners in Newgate. His hon. Friend must know, that in the prison of Newgate, there was no classification; that the prisoners were huddled together in the most shameful manner; that they were crowded to such an extent that there were not beds for them to lie upon. Then what was the case with respect to the Westminster Bridewell? That immense gaol was nearly empty, and why? Because the magistrates for the City of Westminster were the only magistrates who had the power of committing to that gaol. But in the House of Correction there were sometimes 1,200 prisoners; and here there were no chance of classification. It appeared that in one year twelve warders were dismissed, ninety-three warders were punished, and 1,660 prisoners were punished for breaches of discipline resulting from the necessarily defective arrangements of the gaol, and the enormous number of prisoners confined there. He would put it to the House whether such a state of things ought to exist? Then, as to the New Prison—it scarcely afforded accommodation for one-half of the persons committed for trial. In that gaol, also, there was no classification; there was no arrangement of prisoners that could be at all satisfactory. He had no doubt it was well known to many hon. Members of that House that one of the modes of seporation practised in some prisons was to draw chalk lines upon the floors, and to forbid the prisoners to overstep them. Ought this state of things, he would ask, to continue? It appears, that at the Central Criminal Court, the cost of each trial was 2l. 10 s., while at the Quarter Sessions the cost was only 20 s.; so that by trials at the Quarter Sessions three-fifths of the expenses were saved. During the last year there were upwards of 1,000 committals to Newgate for thefts varying in amount from 2s. to 20 s.; and in each of those cases the cost of prosecution was 2l. 10 s. Some objection had been made to the payment of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions; but was it right, he would ask, that they should

1449
have an incompetent officer presiding in such a Court, and could they expect the services of a competent officer without payment? At the Easter Sessions, he believed the number of appeals at the Middlesex Sessions was ninety-three; and the last Sessions the number was eighty-seven, and many of them involved nice points of law. On one occasion it happened the Chairman could not attend, and he (Mr. Wakley) only wondered that the Chairman had attended half so often as he had, considering he was not paid. Well, what was to be done? The magistrates were obliged to go on, and they attempted to do so, but they got into a a horrid mess. They found it was impossible to proceed, and they postponed all the other appeals. He was informed also that there were about thirty traverse cases every Sessions. It was to be borne in mind that many of the appeals were from the decisions of police magistrates who were barristers; and were their decisions to be reviewed by persons who were almost wholly unacquainted with the law? The hon. and learned Member for Rochester (Mr. Bodkin) had authorised him to state that he would have given this Bill his most cordial and hearty support if he had been able to remain in town until the present time. He must add, that he had heard what were called the "evening sittings" of the Central Criminal Court spoken of as the greatest abomination in the neighbourhood in which it was held; and it was stated that the most abominable practices took place in the immediate vicinity of the Court during its sitting. He thanked the Government for introducing this Bill, and would give it his cordial support.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, he considered this subject as so important that he should be very sorry if this Bill did not become law during the present Session. He thought he could show a good reason why the Chairman should be paid a salary out of the public purse, but that was matter of detail to be considered in Committee. The hon. Member for Lymington had alluded to something like a contract between the Government and the Middlesex Magistrates as to this Bill, and said that if the Bill passed, a particular individual would be appointed Chairman. He could only say that he had entirely kept aloof from any such contract. The necessity for this Bill had been long admitted, and the dispute for
1450
many years had been who should have the right of appointment. The Middlesex Magistrates contended that the Crown should pay this officer, but that the right of nomination should be with them. The late Government, did not object to pay the salary out of the public purse, but contended that the Government being responsible to the public should have the appointment. He did not wish to enter into topics that had been already discussed; but he might say that he had the highest possible respect for the unpaid magistracy of this country, and thought they had rendered most valuable services to the public; but he thought the hon. Member for Lymington—he must excuse him for saying so—had not served their cause or raised them in public estimation either by his statements or by his example. The hon. Gentleman said he had a strong opinion against the measure; but on account of his regard for a certain individual, he would vote for it. The hon. Member for Finsbury has referred to the crowded state of Newgate gaol, and said it was not creditable to the City of London. This measure would afford an easy and cheap remedy for the evil, by the more speedy administration of justice. At present the Magistrates had power to commit to the Central Criminal Court or the Middlesex Quartet Sessions, but sent the prisoners generally—not, he thought, improperly—to the Central Criminal Court, on account of the state of the Middlesex gaol, and hence the crowded state of Newgate. That was a large gaol, but was greatly crowded. The Westminster gaol was a larger one, and had but few prisoners in it, whilst, the Middlesex gaol was very small. But this measure remedied these evils; it opened the Westminster gaol to the relief of Newgate. It gave the Middlesex Magistrates no new power, but enabled them to exercise their discretion in a new mode, so that in cases not of a heinous character they could commit, to the Quarter Sessions, to be presided over by a barrister of no less than fifteen years standing, and as there was to be a gaol delivery every fortnight, there would be a saving to the county-rates. In every respect it was an improved arrangement, to which no objection could be taken but the bugbear of that word "centralization." He had heard no other argument against it. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury that the time had arrived when the evening sittings of the Central Criminal Court should be at an end. Whether

1451
they considered the position of the judge, jury, counsel, witnesses, those sittings were anything but conducive to the proper administration of justice. By lessening the amount of business at that Court the necessity for those evening sittings would be obviated. The hon. Member for Lymington had said that he (Sir J. Graham) had entered into a contract with the Magistrates on the subject of this Bill. Now, he must read to the House a letter which was sent by Mr. Phillips to Mr. Pownall on the 29th of June last, which would show that there was nothing of the kind. The letter was dated—
"Whitehall, 29 th June.
"Sir—I am directed by Secretary Sir James Graham to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 22nd inst., and agreeably to your request, to transmit to you the enclosed draught of a Bill for the better Administration of Criminal Justice in Middlesex.
"In reply to your question, whether the Home Office will consider the alterations of the County Prisons on the principle of the plans of the Prison Inspectors, as indispensable to the introduction to Parliament of the proposed Bill, I am to inform you, Sir James Graham is of opinion that the partial alterations which might be made in the existing prisons would not effect the object, and that it can be obtained by no means short of the erection of a prison on the principles of construction recommended by the Inspectors.
"The building of such a prison would, however, by no means bind the Magistrates to any particular plan of separation, nor compel them to give their sanction to any arrangements incompatible with the rights, and unsuited to the circumstances, of the unconvicted. Should this desirable measure be carried into effect, it would be open to the Magistrates to define the nature of the discipline which they may consider most appropriate, in order that the prisoner before trial may be subjected to no privation or restraint not indispensable to his safe custody, the maintenance of order and his protection from vicious association. And having done so, they will submit, in the ordinary course of law, the approval of the Secretary of State, the rules which they may deem best adapted to the government of the gaol.
"Sir James Graham is also of opinion that there should be a definite understanding between the Secretary of State and the Magistrates, that effective arrangements should be made for the proper separation of prisoners before trial, previous to the introduction of the proposed Bill.
"I have the honour to be, Sir,
"Your Obedient Servant,
"S. M. PHILLIPPS."
That letter being laid before the Magistrates, two of them only voted against giving
1452
their sanction to the arrangements contained in this Bill. He would not detain the House any longer, but really hoped they might be permitted to go into Committee and then discuss the details of the Bill.
House in Committee.
On Clause 7 being proposed, which provided for the payment of the salary of the Chairman.
Mr. Brothertonmoved to leave out the words "out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland," for the purpose of introducing the words "the county rate."
Sir James Grahamsaid, if the Motion of the hon. Gentleman were agreed to it would defeat the whole Bill.
Mr. Brothertonsaid he should be sorry to defeat the Bill, but he must persit in his Motion.
The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—Ayes 43; Noes 8: Majority 35.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Ainsworth, P.

Lincoln, Earl of

Archdall, Capt. M.

Martin, C. W.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Masterman, J.

Blackburne, J. I.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Bouverie, hn. E. P.

Packe, C. W.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Palmer, G.

Clerk, Sir G.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Pringle, A.

Cripps, W.

Rendlesham, Lord

Darby, G.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Denison, E. B.

Sibthorp, Col.

Escott, B.

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

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Fuller, A. E.

Spooner, R.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Goulburne, rt. hn. H.

Trench, Sir W. F.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Wakley, T.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Yorke, H. R.

Hawes, B.

TELLERS.

Herbert, hon. S.

Young, J.

Jermyn, Earl

Lennox, Lord A.

List of the NOES.

Aldam, W.

Morris, D.

Collett, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Duncan, G.

Greenaway, C.

TELLERS

Henley, J. W.

Brotherton, T.

Mitcalfe, H.

Williams, W.

Clause agreed to.
House resumed. The Report to be received.
House adjourned at a quarter past twelve.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public. — 1a. Church Endowment; Duchy of Cornwall Lands; Three-and-a-Half per Cents. Dissentients; Duchy of Cornwall Assessionable Manors.
Reported.—Transfer of Property.
3a. and passed:—County Coroners; Actions for Gaming Discontinuance; Sudbury Disfranchisement; Parish Constables; Soap Allowances; Western Australia; Loan Societies.
Private.—2a. Ayr Bridge; Hough's Divorce (India).
Reported.—Bishop of Down, Connor, and Dromore's Estate; Lord Lovat's Estate; Rochdale Improvement; Gaspé Fishery and Coal Mining Company; Ventnor Improvement; Sir George Gervis's (or Pemberton's) Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Robert Henry Aberdein, of Honiton, Coroner, for more adequately remunerating Coroners.—From Robert Paten, of Bushey, Engineer, for Inquiry into certain Experiments made by him for Supplying London with Water.—By Lord Brougham, from Island of Jamaica, respecting the proposed Reduction of Duty upon Foreign Sugar and Coffee.—From Lewes, and several other places, for Protection to Agriculture.—From Redmire, against a Free Trade in Corn.

SELECT COMMITTEES ON OPPOSED BILLS.
Lord Redesdalemoved, according to Notice, that
"The Standing Order requiring that every Private Bill which shall be opposed be referred to a Select Committee of Five Lords, who shall choose their own Chairman, be suspended during the remainder of the present Session and that the Lords who are appointed a Committee to select and propose to the House the Names of the Lords, may, if they find it in any case necessary, select and propose Three Lords, to form such Committee, instead of Five."
Consideration of the Motion adjourned to Monday.

ACTIONS FOR GAMING DISCONTINUANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
The Marquess of Normanby, in the absence of the Duke of Richmond, moved the third reading of this Bill.
The Earl of Radnoropposed the Bill. The previous Bill, which this proposed to continue, was passed on the ground that the defendants in these qui tam actions were ignorant of the penalties to which they were liable for betting. It appeared to him, however, from a careful perusal of the evidence before the Committee which had lately sat on this subject, that they were not unaware of the illegality of their proceedings; for they recommended to
1372
the Committee, as the only means of remedying the evil practices in "the ring," that betting should be legalised. But however plausibly they might have pleaded ignorance on the former occasion, they could not do so now, after having had their attention so long directed to the subject.
The Marquess of Normanbysupported the Bill. He was, indeed, rather surprised to hear the noble Earl oppose it at its present stage, because, as he recollected on a former occasion, when it was before their Lordships, the noble Earl seemed to think that it would be better to make the Bill more effective than it was, namely, to go to the entire discontinuance of these actions, instead of merely suspending them. He hoped their Lordships would not hesitate to pass this Bill, the object of which had met with the general concurrence of both Houses of Parliament.
After a few words from the Earl of Stradbroke and Lord Foley, in support of the Bill, it was read a third time and passed.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that he had the honour to lay upon the Table Copies of Instructions which had recently been prepared for the guidance of naval officers in Her Majesty's service engaged in the suppression of the Slave Trade. Early last Session he had stated to the House that Her Majesty's Government had thought it expedient to submit to revision the Instructions under which these officers had hitherto been acting in the discharge of their duty, and that revision being now completed, he thought it proper that the result should be laid before their Lordships, in order that all the world might become aware not only of their general principles and motives, but also of every thing by which the conduct of their cruisers was regulated in the execution of the objects they had in view. Her Majesty's Government felt that as they had nothing to conceal upon this subject, the greatest possible publicity would be desirable—they felt that this course would afford the best refutation to the calumnies and false accusations which had been made against this country for her conduct in the suppression of the Slave Trade, imputing that under the pretext of humanity she only sought

1373
to extend her own commerce, and to cripple and discourage that of other countries. The revision of these Instructions was in truth not only expedient, but necessary and indispensable. On coming into office he found the Instructions on this subject in existence very inadequate and imperfect; in some respects, indeed, contradictory and inconsistent, and not always conformable to public law and justice. Under these circumstances, some inquiry seemed to be indispensable as to the nature of these Instructions, and the mode in which they had been hitherto framed and communicated to the parties for whose guidance they were intended. It was then found that the custom had been that, as from time to time treaties were entered into with Foreign Powers for the suppression of the Slave Trade, copies of them were sent to the naval officers engaged in this department of public service, without being accompanied with any instructions or explanation, those parties being left to execute them according to the best of their judgment. When he reflected upon the number of these treaties (and there were not less than thirty) and the nice distinctions which there were in some, while the distinctions in others were great and striking, and the amount of judgment and discretion which was required justly to carry out all their intentions, it appeared to him that their officers had a right to expect that Government should give them every possible assistance in the execution of their very important, but difficult and delicate duties. For this purpose, therefore, he had proposed that such Gentlemen should undertake the revision of the whole of these Instructions as appeared to him likely to carry with them the confidence of the public in any matter which they might undertake; and he felt bound to state the names of the Gentlemen who had undertaken this important inquiry, because, beyond the approval of their own consciences, they would receive no reward, except the thanks of the Government, and the grateful feelings of the country to whom they had rendered this service. The first Gentleman appointed was Dr. Lushington, of whom he should certainly say nothing on the present occasion, but of whose great learning and long and active exertions in regard to this question their Lordships were already aware. The second Gentleman was Mr. Bandinel, of the Foreign
1374
Office, who had been for some time charged with the official superintendence of a department relating to this matter, and whose services had been of the greatest possible utility. The next name was that of Captain Denman, whose experience on the coast of Africa, and whose general activity and intelligence had been eminently distinguished in this service. The fourth Gentleman appointed was Mr. Rothery of Doctors' Commons, whose attention had been long directed to this subject. These four Gentlemen undertook the task during the whole of the last year, and had bestowed unremitting and most laborious attention upon the subject of inquiry submitted to them; and as the result of their labours, had recently submitted to him (the Earl of Aberdeen) a Report containing a complete body of Instructions, which after having been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, and received such modifications as appeared to be necessary and desirable, were now in the state in which he had the honour to lay them on their Lordships' Table. He wished to take this opportunity of stating, however, that necessary as these Instructions were, he had been much astonished at the general sound judgment and discretion displayed by the officers engaged upon this service. It was perfectly true that with that intrepidity which was displayed by our Navy on all occasions, and particularly when engaged in suppressing practices which they in common with all men held in great detestation,—it was perfectly true, and it was not surprising, that occasional error may have been committed, arising out of an excess of zeal on the part of the officers in the discharge of their duty; but he must say that, upon the whole, it was wonderful to observe how much discretion, forbearance, and caution, had been shown by them in the discharge of this duty, and when errors had been committed, his (the Earl of Aberdeen's) endeavour had been promptly to make redress where injury had been inflicted:—and this was a matter of very great importance, for it was the first great point to attain towards the redress of one class of injuries, that wrong be not done to other parties; and he had always felt that the cause they were engaged in would suffer more from acts of injustice, violence, and oppression, than even the escape of guilty parties—for their Lordships must be perfectly aware that this country could never alone accomplish the

1375
suppression of the Slave Trade—it was obvious that they must depend for the success of that undertaking upon the goodwill and co-operation of other countries, and, to attain these, they must prove that they were animated by disinterested and pure motives, and show a due regard for their rights and privileges. He did not propose to enter, at that moment, into any justification on the part of Her Majesty's Government for anything they had done with respect to the suppression of the Slave Trade. He did not see any disposition to cast any censure there, or anywhere, upon them. He did not propose either to enter into any lengthened view of the progress that had been made by this country in the suppression of the Slave Trade. He might, however, just mention, that notwithstanding the unceasing exertions and the great sacrifices made by this country, their work was still very imperfect; and although much had been done, still they were far from arriving at a completely successful result. It appeared that for many years, from the first tolerably accurate account on the subject, down to a recent period, about the same number of slaves continued to be imported into the American Colonies and Continent. The number of 100,000 slaves annually appeared to have been exported from Africa down to a recent period—even the abolition of the Slave Trade by this country did not appear materially, or in any degree, to affect the amount of slaves that were torn from their country. The only period in which there appeared to be any considerable diminution was from the year 1830, to 1835, for during these years the average amount of slaves exported from Africa appeared to have been 58,000. Down to that period, from 1768, when they had the first notice of the numbers, the number varied from 90,000 to 100,000, but from 1830 to 1835 the number had fallen to 58,000; but then, he regretted to say, in the five succeeding years, that was from 1835 to 1840, the number had again risen to 99,300 and odd. From 1840 to 1844, three years during which Her Majesty's Government, as he understood, had been said to be more remiss or lukewarm than their predecessors in their seeking the attainment of that great object—the suppression of the Slave Trade. It would be a sufficient answer to observe that the numbers exported averaged only 28,000,
1376
being the lowest average by far that had ever been assigned. The lowest exportation of slaves from Africa was in the year 1842, when it appeared, that including Brazil and Cuba, there were only 17,000 slaves exported. He was sorry to say that in the last year, 1843, the number had risen to 38,000, making an average for the three years of 28,000. This fact was to be attributed to two causes. First, the necessity that was imposed upon this country of removing a considerable number of their squadron which was on the coast of Brazil, watching for slavers, in order to attend to the British interests, which were very materially affected and endangered by the senseless war carried on between Buenos Ayres and Monte Video. The lives and properties of British subjects were so much compromised by that war, that it was impossible to allow the same number of cruisers to remain on the coast of Brazil. The second reason was the change in the Captain-Generalship of Cuba. During the last year of the Administration of General Valdez, there were only 3,000 slaves imported into Cuba. He had said in that House, and he had no doubt that he was within the fact in making the assertion, that had General Valdez remained as Captain General of Cuba, and had he continued to possess the confidence of the Government at home, the Slave Trade would have been completely annihilated in that country. The Spanish Government of the Regent, though well disposed to the abolition of the Slave Trade did not, however, support General Valdez in his humane intentions, in particular towards the close of his administration, when he received positive orders from the government of the Regent to relax in his endeavours to suppress the traffic. Whether, then, that honourable person would have obeyed these instructions, or have resigned his office he did not know; but he was recalled shortly after these instructions had been sent to him. The Slave Trade interest in Spain must have been very strong, when it was able to force the Regent to give orders which certainly were against his own inclination. Their Lordships would now see what amount of misery still remained, and what measures they were prepared to take to put an end to it if possible, or at least greatly to counteract it. They had reduced the exportation to the settlement of the west, for the slaves that were now

1377
carried from Africa were confined to Cuba Brazil, and Porto Rico. At present no other countries but Spain and the Brazils profited by the trade, for he was happy to say that the Portuguese government, since the treaty concluded with this country for the abolition of the Slave Trade in the year 1842 had acted with good faith on this question; and their superior officers on the coast of Africa showed every desire to co-operate with England in putting down the traffic. He had, therefore, reason to hope, that Portugal had entered upon a new course of conduct with respect to the Slave Trade. The change that had taken place in Cuba, and the conduct of the local authorities of Brazil, were certainly topics which he was unwilling to dilate in the manner in which he felt they deserved, but these states should recollect that England had treaties with them upon this subject—that they had entered into engagements with England, and that they had thereby placed themselves under obligations as binding and as strong as if they had ceded towns or provinces to us, that we had achieved the conquest of humanity and were as much entitled to enjoy the fruits of that conquest as of any other; and that these treaties they must be prepared to fulfil, and that England must propose the means by which these treaties should be executed honestly and faithfully. He had no hesitation in saying this, that if the Governments of Brazil and Spain had but for two or three years executed faithfully, honestly and zealously those treaties with this country, the Slave Trade would be now absolutely at an end. He had no doubt that such would be the case, and he, therefore, need not say, that no efforts would be spared to accomplish the object (seeing how the field had been contracted and narrowed) to secure the fulfilment of those treaties. The noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Clarendon), who formerly filled the station of Minister of this country at the court of Madrid, and by whom a treaty was concluded in 1835 with Spain, was aware that by the second Article of that treaty the Spanish Government engaged that a law would be enacted in a few months after the treaty had been signed, by which there should be affixed a very severe punishment upon persons engaged in the Slave Trade. Now, from that time to this, the noble Lord knew that all the expectations of this country on the subject had been vain; no such law had been enacted
1378
until very recently; but within a very few weeks, he was happy to say, the very honourable and estimable person who had been for a very short time only, at the head of the Spanish Ministry, and had now resigned (the Marquess of Villuma) had signalized his brief tenure of office by proposing a law perfectly satisfactory upon the subject. M. Villuma had sent instructions out to Cuba, which would have the force of law there, until they received the sanction of the Cortes and was made law in Spain. This was the first indication of a desire to fulfil that pledge which had been given in 1835. He also wished to mention another circumstance which led him to entertain the hope of success: that hope was afforded to him by the very active co-operation and perfect understanding which existed between the commanders of Her Majesty's cruisers on the coast of Africa, and those of the squadron of the United States. The officers employed by the United States had co-operated cordially with Her Majesty's officers and there could be no doubt but that the greatest possible advantage was derived from that good understanding. This was of the more importance, because it showed that the slight differences existing between us in connection with certain claims made respectively by the two Governments required nothing but a conciliatory spirit and a friendly disposition on the part of the persons engaged to render that difference of no importance, although had a different spirit prevailed, difficulties might have arisen from a difference of view. Such in the present case, could end in no disagreeable result. He had also reason to know that the French Government had recently shown a disposition to take a more active part than they had hitherto done in the suppression of the Slave Trade by means of their cruisers on the coast of Africa. With the co-operation, then, of the squadrons of the United States and the French cruisers, they had a better prospect than before of a successful termination to their exertions. It might be proper for him, in speaking of these prospects, and as to what was to be done on the const of Africa, to advert to a plan of Her Majesty's Government—a plan which they had decided to adopt as part of the course of their operations, though it was not yet complete, but from which he sanguinely believed the greatest advantages might be derived, and which would ulti-

1379
mately be attended with the greatest success. It had always appeared to him that our efforts for the suppression of the Slave Trade were open to a considerable objection; for he always thought that an imperfect watch on the coasts of Africa and America—unless they could suppose that slaves were to arise from the depths of the sea—would prove an injudicious mode of employing our force. Every place was known from which slaves could come, and the most natural thing he thought for them to do was to watch the places where the slaves must come from. Having always entertained these views, he was much struck with the evidence of Captain Denman before the Committee of the House of Commons in the year 1842, in relation to this subject. Having since then had frequent communication with that gallant officer, and other officers of great experience on the coast of Africa, he had determined to have the greatest possible increase of force on that coast, with a view of preventing any export whatever of negroes. This plan had been spoken of as a blockade. Nothing could be more incorrect—a blockade was a belligerent right, and this could only be exercised by those who engaged in acts approaching to hostility. In this case, there was to be no blockade; so far from that, there was the greatest desire, by every possible means, to extend the commerce and trade with the African coast. It was to be no blockade—it was to be only a strict watching of these vessels, belonging to countries which had bound themselves to England by treaties, and which vessels they, by the Law of Nations, as well as by the municipal law of this country had a right to visit and detain. Difficult as this undertaking might appear, yet they had the opinion of those best acquainted with the service on the coast, and all agreed as to the practical effect certain to follow from the means they proposed. He might mention the names of Captain Matson and other officers who had been most successfully engaged in this service. He was, therefore, very sanguine indeed that the measure they were adopting would be attended with success. It was not to be imagined that they intended to abandon altogether the cruising on the coast of Brazil. The force there was diminished, because Her Majesty's Government had not sufficient ships at their disposal to perform that, with other services required.
1380
A force, however, would be kept up there to intercept those slavers who might possibly escape from the cruisers on the coast of Africa; but from the plan they adopted, and from the proper disposition of their Forces, they did believe that it would be impossible for a single ship to escape from the coast of Africa. They did not, he begged to observe, mean to confine themselves to the western coast of Africa alone. By no means; for there would be a sufficient number of cruisers allotted to the eastern coast also. That was a coast more easily watched, and where ships were required of so much larger size, so that their cruisers, he was sure, would be able to act with the greatest possible success. Without a careful watch upon both coasts he thought that nothing effectual could be done. He trusted then to have a sufficient force allotted to the eastern coast of Africa as well as on the western coast. Moreover it was to be observed, that there was this advantage, that here there was no political interest to interfere with the strict discharge of this duty. On the coast of Brazil, they were liable to interruption, for it was impossible to neglect the rights and interests of British subjects, even for so great an object as the abolition of this trade: whereas, on the coast of Africa there was nothing of the kind to be apprehended; and there these ships could, without the slightest interruption persevere in the object they had in view. It was very possible that improvements might hereafter take place, as compared with the first distribution of their naval force. He must say, that from the conjoint opinions he had received on the subject, he thought that they might anticipate the most favourable results. It was, then, with these views that the present Instructions had been framed for the guidance of the officers entrusted with this service; and in adverting to these general Instructions, he did not now mean to detain their Lordships by describing these Instructions more particularly. In these Instructions the endeavour was made to embrace every possible object, and to provide against every difficulty—from the persons that had been employed, and the time and labour that had been given to this subject, he hoped that all that could be expected would be found to be provided for. They were composed of different parts, and applied to different objects; and in addition to the Instructions, every treaty on the Slave

1381
Trade was given, with a digest of those treaties, the peculiarities of which were pointed out, with specific directions applicable to each: and as he hoped and believed that those Instructions would be useful to the officers employed, so he also was confident that they would be found of great advantage to them in the service on which they were engaged, and in the attainment of the great object for which they were engaged.
The Earl of Mintosaid, he had heard with great satisfaction the speech of his noble Friend, and believed the regulations were very satisfactory, and would afford useful instruction to officers as to the mode of carrying into effect the measures for the Suppression of the Slave Trade. His noble Friend had made one or two observations upon the want of such instructions under the preceding Government: but he was not aware of any instance in which the slightest difficulty had occurred on the part of any officer employed in executing the treaties, which were extremely intelligible. Approving as he did of the system which his noble Friend could not call a blockade, but a watchful attention to the coast of Africa, he still thought that there must be a vigilant attention paid to the importation of slaves into Cuba and elsewhere: He thought the reduction of our naval force had had some unfavourable influence upon the trade, and that, by employing a considerable force on the coast of Africa, the trade, if not entirely put an end to, might be very materially reduced.
Lord Colchestersaid, that having been in command of one of Her Majesty's ships on the coast of Africa, he could not help thanking the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) for issuing those precise and full Instructions for the guidance of officers on that coast. He knew, from his own experience, the difficult situation in which officers were placed when nothing was put into their hands but the treaties themselves, of which they had to make the best use they could, without any precise instructions. Those Instructions would, therefore, be most useful to officers so employed. With respect to the number of slaves exported from Africa between 1830 and 1835, it was to be recollected that, in 1830, slavery was abolished in the Brazils, or rather a treaty was concluded with the Brazils for that object, and the Brazilians had previously increased their stock
1382
of slaves, so that in subsequent years they had imported but few. As to the system of a stricter watch on the mouths of the African rivers, he believed that this would prove very efficient. It was pretty well known on the coast of Africa what vessels were. He was glad also to know that a distinction was made between a blockade and watching the coast. The word "blockade" led to great misconceptions abroad.
The Earl of Clarendonexpressed his satisfaction at the speech of his noble Friend opposite, and his fervent wish that the measures which had been taken would be successful in abating the Slave Trade, and procuring for us what we had never yet obtained, however justly we were entitled to it, namely, the hearty co-operation of other countries in our humans endeavours. From what had fallen from his noble Friend, he was glad to find that we had a right now to expect such co-operation from France and from the United States, and he thought his noble Friend had done extremely well in procuring from the Spanish Government the order which it appeared had been sent to Cuba. It was true that the Treaty to which he (Lord Clarendon) had been instrumental in 1835 did contain an article of a similar purport, but although he had certainly pressed to have that article carried into effect, he was constantly told that it was impossible in the state of feeling then existing in Spain, and that the proposal of such a measure to the Cortes would create a still greater feeling of dissatisfaction. There was one point upon which he thought it desirable that his noble Friend should give an explanation, and that was the mode in which he proposed to deal with the barracoons on the African coast. That point had been adverted to in the other House, and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had said that it was not the intention of the Government to permit the naval officers to destroy the barracoons, unless the previous consent of the African chiefs was obtained. He thought such a regulation would be satisfactory. It was consistent with the law of nations; and he did not believe there would be any difficulty in obtaining such consent. The new regulations in train with respect to the barracoons had no reference to the Spaniards who were called the proprietors of them; for by the Treaty of 1817, all

1383
Spaniards were expressly prohibited from dealing in any way with slaves on that coast; and he believed there was an action now pending against Captain Denman for the destruction of a barracoon which a Spaniard claimed as his property; but he believed that his holding such property on the coast of Africa was in direct contravention of the laws of his own country. He wished he (Lord Clarendon) could share in the sanguine expectations of his noble Friend, as to the success of the proposed regulations; but he feared they would be no more successful than any other steps that had been taken, for the more he considered all that had been done for the abolition of the Slave Trade, and the prospect which was now before us, notwithstanding what had fallen from his noble Friend, the greater and the more discouraging did the difficulties appear, for the enormous expense we had incurred and must still incur, and the danger of embroiling ourselves in war with other countries, were not more manifest to his mind, than the failure of all that had been done hitherto. And indeed so far as success had crowned our efforts, it had only been the means of extending the Slave Trade, and adding incalculably to the sufferings of the unhappy creatures who were sacrificed to it, because those unhappy creatures of rapacity were now battened down in vessels constructed exclusively with reference to speed, and the mortality was far greater than before; and in order to fill up the deficiencies thus occasioned by death or by capture—his noble Friend did not believe this—but he (Lord Clarendon) believed he was rather understating than overstating the case, when he said that double the number of persons were torn from their families and friends and sold into bondage, than when the Slave Trade was free, and the dealer was able to treat his living cargo as he pleased. These were melancholy reflections, but it would be trifling with the great interests of humanity to shut our eyes to the fact, and to continue relying exclusively for success upon arrangements which had hitherto not been successful. He thought too much credit could not be given to the predecessor of his noble Friend; he felt that the gratitude, not only of this country, but of the whole civilized world was due to him for the persevering and successful efforts he had made to engage other countries to join with us
1384
in a crusade against this unholy traffic. That was certainly the right course to pursue after our own act of emancipation but experience had shown what it was worth, and what had been its effect, and he thought we had no right to expect better results from treaties than they had produced hitherto. His noble Friend might not agree with him, but let him recollect that of the countries which had concluded those treaties, some had been bribed, others had been influenced by political considerations, but not one had entered into them with the same spirit of philanthropy that had actuated our conduct. There was not one of those States that had signed a Treaty without an intention of violating its stipulations. He thought all must concur in the praise bestowed by his noble Friend upon General Valdez. He was sure that a more honourable or upright man could not be sent with authority to a distant country, and he believed he would have resigned rather than comply with the instructions of Espartero, to be no longer active in the Suppression of the Slave Trade; but the circumstance of Espartero being obliged to send out such instruction, showed how strong the feeling must be in Spain, and in Cuba also, for it was in consequence of communications from Cuba that they were sent. We have seen how faithfully the Treaty had been observed by Valdez, and how shamefully it was violated under O'Donnell. We knew that the Slave Trade was at this moment as much carried on under the flags of Spain and of Brazil as ever, and that notwithstanding our laws and public opinion in this country, British merchants and British capital were involved in it—we knew how narrowly we were exposed to the danger of war with France and the United States, but he rejoiced to hear of the satisfactory state of the vexed question of the Right of Search. Far be it from him to say that we ought to abandon our system to release other countries from the engagements by which they were bound, or to cease to place our cruisers where the Government of the country thought they would be most useful; but he said that we ought to prove to other countries that the labour of freemen was more productive than that of slaves; and, therefore, that it was the interest of other countries to put an end to slavery. It was because we had not given that proof to other

1385
countries that they looked upon our experiment as a failure, and viewed our disinterested philanthropy as a trick only intended to delude. And the reason why we had not given that proof was, that in our Colonies free labour had not had a fair trial. In the larger Colonies the agricultural population formerly employed in the cultivation of sugar was now otherwise engaged, and the production of sugar had fallen off; but in the smaller Colonies, where the population was dense, and where the land was appropriated, the production of sugar was increased, and the cost diminished, so that it might now be considered as proved that where the population was in proportion to the soil, and to the value of the capital invested, the labour of the negro was more productive as a freeman than it had been when he was a slave, and that the wages which he received in producing cheaper sugar were sufficient to keep him not only in comfort, but in luxury. If our larger colonies, which were superior to Antigua and Barbadoes in fertility and natural advantages, were placed in the same position, their production would be increased twelve or thirteen per cent., like that of Antigua, instead of having fallen off one half. The long and severe struggle which had preceded emancipation gave rise to angry and suspicious feelings, which unfortunately survived that great act of humanity, and the conduct of the Government since had been a continued pandering to the suspicion and jealousy which existed. If the affairs of our Colonies were administered with a regard for the best interests of all parties, they would not now be in that state of depression which was appealed to in all parts of the world as the strongest proof of the necessity of slavery. If the Government, and not Exeter Hall, would legislate—if they would assist labour for the Colonies in a less jealous, and suspicious, and niggardly spirit than hitherto—if they would secure to the labourers the same civil rights as their employers enjoyed—if they would remove the restrictions which still weighed upon our colonial trade—he believed in his conscience that the time was not far distant when differential duties would become unnecessary, the West Indies would be a source of prosperity instead of being a cause of irritation and discontent, and the success of free labour would become the most formidable weapon for the abolition of slavery in all parts of
1386
the world. These were his opinions, and having had the opportunity of many years examination of the subject, and communication with countries where the Slave Trade was encouraged; and as he yielded to no man in an earnest desire for the extinction of the whole system, he had not hesitated to express his opinion that no sacrifice of life or capital on our part, no treaties however binding, no regulations however stringent, would be effectual in putting an end to the Slave Trade, until we had given undeniable proof to slaveholding countries that free labour would be more beneficial to them than slavery.
Lord Broughamagreed in all that had been said in approval of the wise, judicious and humane proceedings of the Government, and thanked them for having adopted them. He thought also that the thanks of the Parliament and of the Government were due to those who had long laboured for the suppression of the Slave Trade, and to whom such an acknowledgment would be the only remuneration they could receive. There was one point which seemed to require a little explanation. It would be unfair to conclude that because the number of slaves exported after the Abolition Act of 1805, and the Acts of 1806–7, was as great as before that, therefore those Acts had had no effect, because if those Acts had not been passed, there was every reason to believe the number would have been greater than before, and that while foreign countries increased their Slave Trade, we in Guiana, in Trinidad, and even in our own Colonies, would have been carrying on the Slave Trade with the effect certainly of having cheaper sugar, but at the expense of unfortunate Africa. He heartily hoped that much good would result from the new course suggested by his gallant Friend Captain Denman, and, he was sure, from what had been said by his noble Friend, that we had a just prospect of seeing an end put to the Slave Trade. He agreed with his noble Friend near him (Lord Clarendon) that any thing which tended to promote the supply of free labour to the Colonies would go to the root of the evil—the abolition of slavery, and that would put an end to the Slave-Trade. At the same time neither he nor his noble Friend was for waiting till all slavery should cease before they put a stop to the Slave Trade.
Subject dropped.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Lord Broughammoved that the Report on this Bill be received. It had been agreed on a former occasion that the Debate should be taken on the next stage, but he was absent, and instead of the Report being taken on that night, it was put off till this night, when they ought to have had the third reading. He hoped their Lordships would allow the Bill to pass through both stages that night, as it was important that a measure which went to release so many unhappy persons from prison should pass that Session.
Lord Cottenhamsaid, it was immaterial to him which course was taken; but, at the same time, as this was only Thursday, and there was another day this week, he saw no necessity for deviating from the Orders of the House. It would be necessary for him to occupy a little of their Lordships' time, and it should be as little as would enable him to perform a duty which he felt incumbent upon him before this measure passed another stage. On the 30th of April, in this year, he had laid on their Lordships' Table, a Bill, having for its object the abolition of imprisonment for debt, and containing other provisions necessary to that object. That Bill met with the unanimous approbation of that House, and the warm approval of his noble and learned Friend upon the Woolsack; but notwithstanding that approbation, a Select Committee had since reported that that Bill ought not to be proceeded with. It was natural that the House and the public should expect that some explanation should be given of the present extraordinary state of the subject, and he wished now to put their Lordships in possession of the history of those transactions, and to direct their attention to the state in which the Bill now before them, as amended by the Committee, would leave the law. In 1838, he introduced a Bill, which afterwards became a law, for abolishing Imprisonment for Debt in all cases. Their Lordships adopted that Bill so far as it related to imprisonment on mesne process, but rejected that part which related to final process. That law having taken away the power of arrest, and compensated the creditor for the loss of that power by making various descriptions of property liable to the payment of debt which had not been so before, and improved generally the remedy of the creditor against the property
1388
of the debtor. Much had been said against that proposition; many evils were anticipated from it as destructive to credit; but the result occasioned no complaints. Credit, he believed, went on as freely as before or, if checked, it was only in instances in which it ought never to have existed. The Bill which was now stopped in its progress by the Report of the Committee had for its object to carry into effect the recommendations of a Commission appointed in 1839, and which reported in 1840. He had no claim to any of the merits which that Bill might possess beyond his being the organ of bringing the recommendations of the Commissioners before the House, and endeavouring to prevail upon Parliament to pass them into a law. He laid the Bill on the Table in 1841. Nothing was done upon it then. He laid on the Table in 1842, a Report which recommended an alteration of the Bankrupt Law, the abolition of Imprisonment for Debt, and the substitution of various provisions by which a creditor would obtain a better remedy against the property of the debtor: it also recommended the consolidation of the systems of Insolvency and Bankruptcy, and the uniting the Courts, so that one judicial establishment should carry the whole law into effect. A Bill was introduced in 1842 which provided for the adoption of the alterations in the Bankrupt Law itself, and then contained arrangements by which a debtor could be compelled to yield up his property on the application of a creditor or it might be surrendered by the voluntary act of the debtor himself. It also provided that, in certain cases of fraud, the debtor could be punished for it as any other offender; and having thus provided means for the punishment of fraudulent debtors, it proposed altogether to abolish Imprisonment for Debt. It also contained, in addition to that, a provision for uniting the jurisdiction of bankruptcy and insolvency; and provided that bankrupts and insolvents should not, after obtaining the benefit of the law, be liable at a future period for the debts with respect to which they were to receive that protection. A Bill was also brought in by his noble and learned Friend upon the Woolsack, in which he adopted one half of those recommendations, viz., that part which proposed the alterations of the Bankrupt Law which he brought in but he left the rest untouched. It so happened that his Bill, contained those provisions which he had described, and the Bill of the noble and learned Lord on the

1389
Woolsack, containing half of those provisions, were appointed for a second reading on the same day. It is true they were not antagonist Bills; but it so happened that the Bill of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was agreed to, and his was rejected. [The Lord Chancellor: It was not your Bill.] He said it was true that it was not his Bill, but it was a matter in which the public had an equal interest; but at all events the Bill of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was adopted, and the other rejected. He (Lord Cottenham) complained that the whole measure had not been adopted and as he looked upon the subject as one of great importance, he was desirous that it should not be left in that state; and he therefore renewed, in the Session of 1843, his previous Bill, leaving out that portion of the former Bill which was adapted by his noble and learned Friend; but when he brought it forward he was told by his noble Friend that it would be inexpedient to press the Bill at that time, because something of the same kind was in the contemplation of the Government. He thought from that intimation that the other portion of the Bill was likely to receive the same support as the former part had received from the Government, and of course he was gratified at the expectation that it would become the law of the land. But the Session passed through its infancy, its manhood, and, in fact, its old age, without anything being done by the Government with respect to the introduction of such a Bill, and it became too late for him to introduce his Bill at the time when it had become apparent that no Bill would be introduced by the Government during the Session. Thus the Session of 1843 passed away; but the Session of 1844 was more eventful, and during that Session he introduced it again, and he laid it upon the Table at an early period of the Session, in order that he might fairly test whether the House was or was not disposed to adopt the recommendation of the Commissioners embodied in that Bill. The subject of the Bill had been a long time before the public; it was the subject of two detailed Reports, and had been inquired into before Committees of this and the other House of Parliament. He laid the Bill on the Table of the House at an early period, and he stated that he would move the second reading on the first opportunity which presented itself after the Easter recess. The first day on which he could
1390
have an opportunity of moving the second reading of the Bill was the 16th of April—and now he came to the history of the proceedings relating to the Bill, and he hoped that their Lordships would favour him by attending to the statement which he was about to make.—Before the 16th of April his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack applied to him to postpone the second reading of the Bill in consequence of the absence of another noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), who was not then in this country, and who had taken a lively interest in the question. To that request he readily agreed, and he was extremely gratified by the prospect which he then thought was held out of having the noble and learned Lord's support. His noble and learned Friend returned to this country, but there was another application made to him to postpone the Bill, and to that he also agreed. He acquiesced at first in the request to postpone it from the 16th to the 22nd, and afterwards from the 22nd to the 30th of April. He should now, before proceeding further with the history of these proceedings, draw the attention of their Lordships to a speech made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—a speech of very great importance, and which was, in his opinion, one of the best speeches he ever heard the noble and learned Lord deliver. He should read to their Lordships a few passages from that speech; he hoped they would be remembered in all time to come, and that when at some future period a collection of the noble and learned Lord's speeches should be published, he was confident that it would be read with the greatest attention. The extract to which he wished to direct their Lordships' attention he should now read:
"He (the Lord Chancellor) did not rise to oppose the Bill of his noble and learned Friend; on the contrary, he begged to say that he fully approved of its object and provisions. His noble and learned Friend was perfectly correct in saying that the subject had been fully approved of by the learned Commissioners to whom he had referred, and that they had reported distinctly in favour of such a measure; and his noble and learned Friend, when he introduced the law for amending the bankrupt law, had provided for such an alteration in the law as this Bill proposed as part of his general measure. Unfortunately, however, his noble and learned Friend had not the opportunity of carrying his intentions in this respect into effect, for while the Bill was on their Lordships' Table his noble and

1391
learned Friend ceased to hold the Great Seal. Nothing could be more inconsistent than that there should be two separate and distinct laws in the country with respect to the two different descriptions of insolvency—the bankrupt law and the insolvent law—which were as directly opposed to each other as the principles on which they were respectively administered, especially in that one particular to which his noble and learned Friend had last alluded—the important particular which left an insolvent debtor, after all his property had been taken from him, when he had to commence the world again, liable to the payment of those debts from which he was supposed to be discharged by the insolvent law. It was surely sufficiently hard for a man to have to commence business, and, as it were, life again, without capital or property of any kind after his discharge by the Insolvent Debtors' Court; but if, in addition to this, they imposed upon him the liability to pay all the debts he had previously incurred, it would require more energy than most men were possessed of to bear up against it, and to endeavour, under such circumstances, by industry, to acquire property. He (the Lord Chancellor) had always looked upon this as a most unwise provision in the Insolvent Debtors' Law, and one that ought to be repealed. Another great absurdity was, that the two laws should be administered by two different descriptions of judges—the Bankrupt Commissioners in one case, and the Commissioners for the relief of Insolvent Debtors in the other. It was for these reasons—it being represented that the Bill of his noble and learned Friend was to assimilate those two branches of the law, and that it had also for its object, that the law so assimilated should be administered by one set of judges—that he supported it, and he begged leave to say further that he had himself maturely considered the subject when he brought forward the Bankrupt Law Amendment Bill, which was now the law of the land, and the only reason why he had not imitated the example of his noble and learned Friend by including such a measure as a part of that Bill was, that feeling most anxious for the success of that Bill, he had avoided encumbering it with the provisions necessary for carrying out his noble Friend's object, knowing, too, that the object might be effected by a separate Bill, which might afterwards be introduced."
After he had heard the speech of the noble and learned Lord he felt exceedingly gratified, believing that a measure so strongly recommended by those most competent to form an opinion on the subject, would speedily become the law of the land. He had, however, since learned that the expectations which that speech had raised in his mind were of little value, and that the expectations of another description of
1392
persons who were very much interested in the subject, were of equally little value. A great number of unfortunate persons who were in prison at the time, and who had the means of applying to the Insolvent Debtors' Court for relief, on seeing that the organ of the Government in matters of law had expresssed his approbation of the provisions of the Bill, one of those provisions being, that all persons imprisoned for debt should be discharged without those burthens which in many cases prevented persons from taking the benefit of the Insolvent Act—these persons abstained from incurring expense, thinking it better to wait until the passing of the Bill. They had been kept in a state of suspense from the 16th of April to the present time, and now they could not take the benefit of the Insolvent Act until Michaelmas next. There was a degree of hardship, if not of cruelty, in this; and it showed what difficulties arose from the Government announcing their intention in so unqualified a manner, and afterwards, from some reason, entirely altering their course, and depriving these persons of the benefit to which they were looking forward. Circumstances occurred soon after the delivery of that speech which induced him to doubt whether the promise it held forth would be fulfilled. The noble and learned Lord who sat alongside the Woolsack (Lord Brougham) took a part in the debate, but he did not express the unqualified approbation of the Bill, which he had expected to receive from him—perhaps because he intended to propose one of his own. His noble and learned Friend alluded to what might be an extremely important matter, and stated, that under the authority of the Government, or under the sanction of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and, with the aid of the Foreign Office, which had facilitated the inquiries into what had taken place in foreign countries, there had been collected by a very learned individual a variety of facts and a system of law which deserved the greatest consideration; and for that reason his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack suggested that as it was not then forthcoming, some time should elapse between the second reading and the Committee, in order that that information should become accessible to their Lordships. The Committee was postponed until the 14th of May, and again to the 23rd, when some Amendments were made, and the Report was directed to be bronght up on the 3rd of June. It

1393
was then postponed until the 6th, and again until the 13th, on the application of either one or the other of his noble and learned Friends, and on one occasion on the application of the noble Lord the President of the Council. These were ominous postponements of a measure which had been so loudly applauded by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. On the 13th June a transaction took place which relieved his mind from the doubts which he had felt. On the Report, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack introduced several Clauses upon the Bill, which he should not call his (Lord Cotttham's) Bill again. [Lord Campbell: The applauded Bill.] After all these postponements he made up his mind, and introduced his own Amendments on the applauded Bill. On the 18th of June, for the first time, a suggestion was made to him that it was possible the applauded Bill might not pass. That was on the Monday, and on the Thursday the death-blow was given to the applauded Bill. When the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, without retracting one single word of the approbation he had before expressed, proposed to refer this Bill, and another Bill which was before their Lordships, to a Committee composed of twenty-one Members, named by himself, seventeen of whom uniformly took their legal opinions from his noble and learned Friend, and only four of whom had not acquired that habit of forming their opinion upon legal matters; but of those four there were three whose other duties were sufficient to prevent them from attending, so that his noble Friend near him (Lord Campbell) and himself, with seventeen who relied altogether on the opinion of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, were to sit in judgment on the applauded Bill and the other Bill. The other Bill was brought in by a noble and learned Friend of his, and of course he had a perfect right to do so. On the 6th of May the Bill was introduced. It was entitled, "A Bill for facilitating Arrangements between Debtors and Creditors." It was read a second time on the 7th of May, and the Committee upon it was appointed for the 14th of May, the same day which had been appointed for the Committee on the applauded Bill. If that Bill were intended as an antagonist to, or a rival of, his Bill, it had been unsuccessful, for it was soon after abandoned. On the 13th of May, however, another Bill was brought in, it was a Bill relating to Bankruptcy and
1394
Insolvency, and certain matters of Accounts. That Bill was founded on the Report of Mr. Serjeant Manning, and if sanctioned, would not only supersede his (Lord Cottenham's) Bill, but would do away with all the measures that had passed on the subject since the days of Elizabeth. He thought it would require a good deal of persuasion to induce Parliament to think it advisable to repeal all our laws as useless, and to establish a new Code, but as it might yet be brought under their Lordships' consideration at a future period, he should not go into it on that occasion. That Bill was also abandoned; so that there were two Bills fired off against his Bill, but neither came in contact with it, and they were both abandoned. On the 21st of May, however, being two days before the day appointed for the Committee on his Bill, another Bill was introduced—namely, "An Act for Amending the Act 5th and 6th Victoria, entitled 'An Act for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors," and was laid on the Table by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham.) He (Lord Cottenham) saw that this latter measure could not be a rival of his however. He should here mention that on the 16th of August, 1842, when the Royal Assent was given to the Bill which embraced half of his original measure, the Royal Assent was also given to a Bill of his noble and learned Friend for doing away with an objection to the Insolvent Debtors Law, namely, that imprisonment was a necessary preliminary condition to obtain the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act. His noble and learned Friend was satisfied that this was a hardship which ought to be remedied, and in 1842 he brought in a Bill, which rendered imprisonment an unnecessary condition to obtain the benefit of that Act, and by which a person, without going to prison, might obtain a protecting order; but that Bill had an imperfection — its object was to divide property amongst the creditors, but it effect was, to take the property out of the hands of the debtor and place it in the Insolvent Court, where it remained without any power on the part of the creditor to take it out—and so the law stood down to the present time—he believed that in practice the defect was of very little consequence, because, although thousands had taken advantage of its provisions, very little, if any, property had come under the cognizance of the Court; because when a man found himsfelf inolvent and unable to pay his debts, he would naturally go on as long as he could, spending whatever

1395
money he had at his command, knowing, if he put himself before the Court, it would be all lost. He must have something to enable him to live; the creditors might suspect he was swindling, and threaten proceedings, and then, and not until then, he applied for protection: the moment he obtained which, the creditors were defeated, being unable to pursue either his person or property. But even supposing they had the power of compelling a division of his property, it was not likely, exhausted as such a debtor would be, and after paying the expences of the Court, that it would be worth dividing. Many thousand persons had taken the benefit of that Act whose creditors were consequently baffled. Now, to return to the history of those Bills which had been introduced during this Session. The introduction of so many measures from time to time, and the requests for the postponement of his own measure, might have, perhaps, alarmed him for its success, if he had not had entire confidence in the approbation of the Bill which had been expressed by his noble and learned Friend, not a word had yet been said to him about it being opposed. Could he possibly have thought that his noble and learned Friend would have altered his view after allowing two months to pass without any such intimation? Could he, under such circumstances, entertain any doubt whatever that it would pass without any expression of disapprobation? He had been told on some occasions that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had threatened that the whole weight of the Government should be brought to bear against parts of the Bill; but there must be some misapprehension on the part of those who told him so, for it was impossible that his noble and learned Friend who had, at an earlier period of the Session, applauded it so highly, could so soon resolve on defeating it, and therefore he treated that as an idle report.
The Lord Chancellorsaid his noble and learned Friend had read only a portion of his speech.
Lord Cottenhamhad no objection to read it all, if his noble and learned Friend wished.
Lord Brougham: No, it is not necessary.
Lord Cottenhamthought it would not be deemed necessary by the noble Lord. The fact was, that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had been running
1396
counter to his other noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham). That was a serious difficulty, and must be provided against. There was also another difficulty, in the fact that his noble and learned Friend was running counter to one of his own Colleagues, who, previously to the speech alluded to, had brought into the House of Commons a Bill directly at variance with his (Lord Cottenham's) Bill, which his noble and learned Friend had so applauded, namely, the County Courts Bill. That Bill contained a Clause empowering the imprisonment of persons owing small debts, at the rate of one day for every shilling. The jurisdiction extended to 15 l., so that an unfortunate man was liable to be imprisoned for 300 days if he owed that amount! By his noble Friend's Bill the protecting order could be had, but by this other Bill a man might be imprisoned one day for every shilling he owed. It was awkward, undoubtedly; but how much that circumstance had to do with the throwing out of his (Lord Cottenham's) Bill he did not know. He felt anxious to go into all that statement, in order that hereafter it might be seen that his Bill had not been thrown out upon its merits. Well, his own Bill, and that of his noble and learned Friend, were referred to a Select Committee; but that of his noble and learned Friend related to traders whose property or debts was under 300 l.—all who owed above that sum were still left liable to arrest. Both were referred to the Committee, and some important alterations were made. All the Clauses giving compulsory cession of property to the creditor were struck out, so that a man might still live in luxury in prison and set his creditors at defiance, at least so far as that Bill was concerned. No imprisonment for debt was to be allowed on debts under 20 l., and persons in execution for debts would be entitled to their discharge if the Bill became law. He entirely approved of that Clause, because nothing could be more cruel than locking a man up under such circumstances, and leaving his family to starve outside. The third alteration was not of much importance, but it was amusing—it was the transfer of all the Clauses proposed by and introduced into his Bill by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack from his Bill into that of his noble and learned Friend near him. His noble and learned Friend's Bill, so far from abolishing imprisonment for debt, provided for the indefinite confinement of

1397
debtors. [Lord Brougham: In cases of fraud.] No; the case was left to the opinion of a Judge. A man contracting debts without the means of paying them, even though it should amount to the crime of raising money under false pretences, was liable to be imprisoned for life. That, surely, was too severe a punishment, particularly as it was inflicted, not after a trial or conviction, but upon the impression of the individual Judge before whom the case of the insolvent was brought. His noble and learned Friend's Bill contained a Clause giving to Members of Parliament an immunity from arrest; but he hoped that Parliament would never approve of preserving imprisonment for debt simply for the purpose of covering that privilege. If such privileges were to exist, let them be provided for in a distinct and separate Act. But, in fact, if they passed this Bill, they would be adding to the existing incongruity and confusion, and to the oilier evils which already subsisted, for if it passed into law, there would be three systems of insolvency in operation instead of two. He trusted, however, that his plan would still be adopted by Parliament, and he hoped this, not because the plan was his own, but because he conscientiously regarded it as the most calculated to effect the great object, the principle of which had been sanctioned over and over again by every noble and learned Member of that House, and by no one more warmly than by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham). Provided that principle were adopted by Parliament, he cared very little whose name was at the back of the Bill embodying it; but by whomsoever introduced, such a Bill should have his cordial support; but whether introduced by himself or by another, he should do his best to induce their Lordships to carry out to the full extent the principle which he advocated.
Lord Broughamdid not at all complain of the length of his noble and learned Friend's speech, though he must confess that the far larger portion of it, both speech and extracts, were so familiarly known to him, from having heard it over and over again, that had his noble and learned Friend's physical powers failed him at any part of it, he thought he could have carried it on for him. The case lay in an extremely narrow compass. He had, indeed, himself often stated the case enlarged upon by his noble and learned Friend. Both the measures advocated
1398
the abolition of Imprisonment for Debt; the main difference between them was, that they begau at different ends. He wished to throw the onus upon the debtor of showing that he was an innocent debtor, while his noble and learned Friend desired to throw all the onus of the matter upon the unfortunate creditor. There was this difference between his Bill and that of his noble and learned Friend. His (Lord Brougham's) Bill was in conformity with the law as it now existed, while his noble and learned Friend's Bill proposed the introduction of an entirely new principle. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Cottenham) had dwelt on the applause with which his Bill had been received by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack; but his noble and learned Friend explained at the time that his adoption of the measure was so far as it assimilated the systems of insolvency and bankruptcy. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Cottenham) said that his Bill abolished Imprisonment for Debt, but that his (Lord Brougham's) did not, except in certain cases and under certain conditions, and that the principle of his Bill was to continue Imprisonment for Debt, while the principle of his (Lord Cottenham's) was to abolish it. Now, how his noble and learned Friend could assert that his Bill abolished Imprisonment for Debt altogether, was to him most unintelligible. Did not his noble and learned Friend's Bill allow persons to be arrested and imprisoned—aye, indefinitely imprisoned—if they refuse to answer all questions put to them, if they do not give up the whole of their property, and explain satisfactorily the circumstances of their insolvency? Oh, but said his noble and learned Friend, that is not Imprisonment for Debt, but imprisonment for contumacy! Contumacy for debt! Was that a crime known to the law? No; the contumacy was because the man was a debtor; it was the contumacy of a debtor to his creditor; and he was to be imprisoned because he did not pay his debts. That was what he (Lord Brougham) called Imprisonment for Debt. If then, a debtor refused to surrender his property, or give a true account of his affairs, they found he would be imprisoned by the Bill of his noble and learned Friend as well as by his, and for the same reason, because he was a fraudulent debtor. He did not complain of his noble and learned Friend's Bill on that ground; for that was

1399
the principle for which he himself contended. He said, do not confine people in prison because they are in debt merely; but if they, being in debt, refused to give up their property to their creditors; if they refused to give any explanation of their affairs, and of the disposal of their property; if they had committed fraud, or, last of all, if they had been grossly extravagant, and having, perhaps, an income of not more than 100 l. a-year, had incurred debts amounting to 10,000 l. or 20,000 l.; or, being entirely without property, or any means of paying, had gone into the shop of some poor tradesman, and bought goods or borrowed money of him (which they might as well rob him of at once, and be sent to Botany Bay—for in the moral guilt there was no difference)—then, and in such cases, his (Lord Brougham's) Bill would keep them in prison, not because they were debtors, but because they were fraudulent or quasi- fraudulent debtors. His noble and learned Friend had talked of the harshness of creditors, but he should remember that there were cruel debtors as well as harsh creditors, and that the creditor required protection as well as the debtor. But his noble and learned Friend would abolish Imprisonment for Debt in such cases, and leave the creditor to prosecute the debtor if fraud had been committed, leaving him subject to all the chances of flaws in indictments, bills of exception, and writs of error, by which justice might be evaded, and expenses increased, and the poor creditor, who had lost 19 s. 6d. or perhaps 20 s. in the pound, was to be saddled with this expense in addition, for the purpose of furthering the ends of public justice, and to afford an example to the community. [Lord Cottenham: At the expense of the estate.] Suppose the estate did not amount to 1s. in the pound? Why, in one of the very few cases of prosecution for fraud, under the Act of 1842, the cost to the creditor had been no less than 250 l. But this was not the usual class of insolvent cases. The common cases were not those which were characterised by indubitable fraud; but cases in which there was gross and culpable extravagance, and in those cases his noble and learned Friend's Bill gave no remedy as against the debtor, while his (Lord Brougham's) Bill did. His Bill, unlike his noble and learned Friend's, in this respect also, vested in the Commissioners
1400
who examined the debtor—who heard his statement and the creditors also, and who investigated the whole case—the discretionary power of imprisoning the debtor, but not in the creditor, as did the Bill of his noble and learned Friend. They objected to Imprisonment for Debt for two reasons—first, because it enabled the grasping and harsh creditor to imprison the innocent debtor, and because it made the creditor the sole judge, without appeal, of the length of the imprisonment. That was Imprisonment for Debt, and that his (Lord Brougham's) Bill abolished altogether; while, on the other hand, it provided for the protection of the creditor, by causing a distribution of the property of the debtor fairly amongst those to whom he was indebted. These were the two principles of the two measures, and he would leave their Lordships to judge whether his (Lord Brougham's) did not abolish Imprisonment for Debt to the full extent it ought to be abolished—leaving it, for the future, as the punishment for crime, and not for misfortune. Then his noble and learned Friend extended the Bankrupt Laws to all and every class of persons—not to traders merely, but to lords, to princes, to private persons, to women and persons under age. Such were the principles of the Bill, the loss of which his noble and learned Friend had so plaintively lamented that night. Then it was retrospective in its operation, not prospective merely. Suppose the case of a Prince of Wales being told, that instead of going to a review in Hyde Park, he must go before Mr. Commissioner Fane at the Bankruptcy Court. They had heard of noblemen owing 200,000 l., and a prince of the blood 800,000 l., and if the Bill of his noble and learned Friend had been the law at that time, and that 800,000 l. were not paid within fifteen days, that prince might have been advertised in the Gazette as an adjudicated debtor, which was the same as being a bankrupt. This was the nature of the Bill to which his noble and learned Friend asked their Lordships' assent. Surely his noble and learned Friend never could have expected to find ten men in their Lordships' House to agree to such a measure. Well, suppose this Prince of the Blood so advertised; the creditor proceeds to take possession of Carlton House. He clears away all the pictures; and when the Prince asks for some explanation, tells him that he is an adjudicated debtor.

1401
"What is that?" asks the Prince, "I am not much of a lawyer, and don't know what you mean." "Oh," would be the reply, "an adjudicated debtor means a bankrupt." "But I am no trader. I was never within the bankrupt laws," rejoins the Prince. "That signifies nothing," the man would reply, "to Lord Cottenham, who has passed the law which makes you a bankrupt, for he extends that law to all persons, princes as well as traders, and Lord Cottenham was Lord Chancellor for four years." "But I did not incur these debts under that law," would be the suggestion. "Oh, no matter; Lord Cottenham has thought it right to make the law retrospective." "That cannot be," the Prince would say, "for I know the Legislature does not pass retrospective laws." "I beg your Royal Highness's pardon," would be the answer; "but though unusual, it is nevertheless true." "Surely I ought to have had notice of this law, for had I known I should be brought within the operation of the Bankrupt Laws, I should not have incurred a debt of 20,000 l. for Maréchal hair powder, and other still larger for jewellery, plate, and other things. Why did you not give me notice of this before?" "I cannot answer that question, your Royal Highness—perhaps my Lord Cottenham may. This was the gross and grievous injustice, the scandalous and intolerable injustice, that his noble and learned Friend's Bill would inflict; it would, by its ex post facto operation, make people liable for their past debts to the Bankrupt Laws, though when they have incurred them there was no such liability. When be brought in the retrospective Clause he (Lord Brougham) saw the objection, and proposed that the law should affect only those debts incurred after January, 1845, for he found that the feelings of society were opposed to such a sweeping change. With regard to the Clause affecting the privilege of Members of Parliament, that stray Clause, upon which his noble and learned Friend had said so much, ad invidiam. Would their Lordships believe from whence that Clause had been obtained? If his memory failed him not, the Clause which had been brought forward that night—he would not say to create a clamour, but having a tendency to do so, for there was nothing of which the people were so jealous as the privileges of Parliament—if he was not in error, the Clause
1402
was copied from a Bill which his noble and learned Friend had brought in while he was Lord Chancellor, but which Bill passed ultimately without that Clause. By the Bill he (Lord Brougham) proposed, all persons might petition without the expense of advertising (which had been found to be a great evil), and the moment the petition was lodged, that instant a stop was put to all transactions in respect to the property. The debtor could not then part with his property, nor make any conveyance of it, but it was vested in the hands of the court for the benefit of the creditors. Further, it provided that any person, whether in custody or not, might take the benefit of the Act. The creditor would no longer be in a condition to eke out the imprisonment of the debtor, but the whole matter would be left with the Judge, who would inquire into the whole facts of the case, and deal with it accordingly. Last of all came that which was the great mercy and improvement in the law, that brought in by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack—viz., the abolition altogether of Imprisonment for Debt in all cases where the debt did not exceed 20 l. If their Lordships knew, as he did, the dreadful state of the small debt prisons—and there were no less than 280 Small Debt Courts in this country, most of which posssesed the power of imprisonment, some for longer and others for shorter terms—if they had seen the truly horrible accounts which he had seen of cases in which eighteen or twenty unhappy persons were confined in a dismal apartment ten feet square, compelled to lie on filthy straw, without any change of clothes, living upon bread and water, the food for felons—and all this for no crime, but simply because they were unfortunate—if their Lordships had seen these things—if they had heard of them, they would know the great benefit they would confer upon the poorer classes, who were the sufferers under this system, and to the law, by at once abolishing it. That would be done by this Bill. The Bill, he contended, remedied the plain and obvious defects of the present law, and would effect a most righteous and merciful change in that law; and he trusted when the Bill should go down to another place, that no haste, no plea of the advanced period of the Session, and the want of time to consider its details, or any such argument as measures were often met

1403
with, that there were parts of it which some Members approved of, and parts which were disapproved of, some saying it did not go far enough, and others that it went too far—he trusted that no argument of this kind would prevent the completion of that great and righteous act of justice which this Bill proposed to effect in this respect. What he maintained was, that this Bill, together with the law of 1842, would in substance abolish Imprisonment for Debt; for it would now lie with the debtor himself whether he should be kept in prison or not. He had heard much of the great expense which debtors were subjected to by those attorneys who practised in the Insolvent Courts. He had been informed that the cost to the poor debtor of getting out of prison under the Act was frequently 20 l.; but now the expense of the advertisements, which amounted to 5l., was taken off; he would say that any man who should demand 15 l. for getting an insolvent debtor out of prison, would deserve to take his place in the gaol, for it was quite impossible that he could be entitled to any such sum. He would take that opportunity of warning these persons that they would have a steady and watchful eye kept on them for the next six months; and if any debtor who should be charged any such sum would write to him (Lord Brougham), informing him of the particulars of the charge and the name of the attorney, that attorney might depend upon it that he would hear further from some Committee of their Lordships' House in the course of the next Session of Parliament. It was not the first time the benevolent intentions of the Legislature had been thwarted by the malpractices in the law, but he could assure them that he would do his best to prevent it in that instance.
Lord Cottenhamexplained: With regard to the Clause to which his noble and learned Friend had referred, he (Lord Cottenham) remembered introducing such a Clause into the Bill he had brought in, but as he afterwards considered that it would facilitate the passing of the Bill if it did not remain in it, he was glad when his noble and learned Friend objected to the Clause, and proposed that it should be withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellorthen put the question that the Report be received.
Lord Campbellwas much surprised that his noble and learned Friend on the Wool-
1404
sack, as Speaker of that House, had put the question to their Lordships, whether the Report should be received; without as Lord Chancellor and the representative of the Government in that House in respect to its legal department, and as an individual charged in very courteous but at the same time in very emphatic terms, with gross inconsistency as to the manner in which he had conducted himself in respect to this Bill, having taken some notice of the charge. Two speeches had been addressed to their Lordships, both by noble and learned Lords on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and his noble and learned Friend was content to rest his case on the speech of the other noble and learned Lord who had last addressed their Lordships; and though he was himself the organ of the Government, and the Counsel, as it were, of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, yet his noble and learned Friend still remained as a Member of the Liberal party, and continued to sit on that side of the House, amongst those who were opposed to the Government. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) seemed indignant at being supposed to be one of those seventeen Members of the Committee who his other noble and learned Friend (Lord Cottenham) had supposed to be too much disposed to side with the Government. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack was entirely silent—although his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had not said one single word in support of his noble and learned Friend's (the Lord Chancellor's) consistency. The cause he thought must be looked upon as desperate; his noble and learned Friend felt that the topic was one he could not adorn, and therefore he had perhaps wisely passed it over. Now what was the charge which had been brought against his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack—a charge which had as yet received no answer or explanation whatever? Certain Commissioners had been appointed to examine the subject of Bankruptcy and Insolvency—Commissioners, amongst whom were members of the legal profession, and members of the mercantile profession—men of the highest eminence in both. That Commission made a Report, in which they recommended that the distinction between Bankruptcy and Insolvency should be done away with—and they stated further, that Imprisonment

1405
for Debt on execution should be abolished, just as much as it was abolished on mesne process, and that unless fraud could be proved, there should be no power to deprive the debtor of his liberty. That Report having been made, a Bill was brought in to carry the recommendations of the Committee into effect. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack stated on that occasion that he fully approved of the Report, and also of the Bill which had been founded upon it: but he thought at the same time that it would be more discreet to proceed gradually, and to confine the measure in the first instance to the subject of Bankruptcy. His (Lord Campbell's) noble and learned Friend who sat near him, being last Session more zealous and indefatigable, brought in a Bill to carry into complete effect the recommendations of the Commissioners, and that Bill was the one which had been complimented and applauded by the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor). The noble Lord had had the whole of last Session to consider the Bill, and was no doubt master of all its details. He made no objection, but the Session went over and the Bill could not be passed. That same Bill had been laid on the Table during the first week of the present Session. On the second reading of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack expressed his entire approval of the Report, and admitted that the Bill was founded on that Report. The Bills were referred to a Select Committee, chosen by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and he looked upon the Report of that Committee as the Report of his noble and learned Friend. All the good enactments of the Bill which his noble and learned Friend now recommended to the House were taken from the Bill brought in by his noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Cottenham) in 1842. He was convinced that Imprisonment for Debt, except in cases of fraud, was as prejudicial on execution as in mesne process. With reference to the Bill now before the House, however, he (Lord Campbell) should, as its effect was to abolish Imprisonment for Debt, give it his support (as we understood), and he trusted that his noble and learned Friend who it was well known had made some of his best speeches upon both sides of a question would repeat, if it were necessary, the admirable speech in 1845 which he made in
1406
1844, and that he would not be induced, for the sake of pleasing any person or of conciliating any party, to swerve from those principles in which he had just expressed his concurrence.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he would not occupy many minutes of their Lordships' time on the present occasion. The noble and learned Lord who spoke last had reproached him for rising to put the question without addressing their Lordships in answer to what fell from his hon. and learned Friend. He had done so because he was desirous of hearing what the noble and learned Lord had to say in support of his noble and learned Friend; but he might have saved himself the trouble, for the noble and learned Lord had done little else than repeat longo intervallo the arguments of his noble and learned Friend. The noble and learned Lord seemed to feel sore because they had not adopted the whole of his measure. They had, however, adopted the principle of his measure, and had engrafted it upon the other measure now before them. The two Bills were submitted to the consideration of the Committee in order that they might determine what course it was best to pursue. And he had never departed from the principle which he adopted on the second reading of the Bill of the noble and learned Lord. The principle of that Bill was to introduce into the law of England from the law of Scotland the principle of cessio bonorum. To that principle he still adhered. The principle of that Bill was also to abolish imprisonment for debt. He had never departed from that principle, and he still adhered to it, so far as it was wise and prudent to act upon it. Another principle of that Bill was, that they should adopt the administration of the bankrupt law as applicable to the law of cessio bonorum. He agreed in that principle also, and therefore he adhered to the principles which he laid down on the second reading. But was it to be understood, that if he consented to the principle of a Bill on the second reading, that he was to be precluded in Committee, and on inquiry, from making alterations in the character and nature of its provisions? If so, it was the first time he had ever heard such a doctrine laid down, either in this or in the other House of Parliament. There was, however, a principle connected with that Bill which he was determined to oppose, as he considered it a novelty in this country. On the Motion for going into Committee, he

1407
stated that they were introducing a novelty into the law of this country, in subjecting every Member of the Royal Family, however high their rank, and every Peer of the realm, to the law of bankruptcy. Every Member of the Committee must be aware that he had stated that he would oppose the Bill on that ground, and on that ground alone, and that he would never consent to its being proceeded with unless an alteration was made to obviate the objection to which he had alluded. He could not consent to subject the members of the Royal Family to the law of bankruptcy, and nothing would ever induce him to make that concession. His noble and learned Friend took no steps to obviate that objection, and had, therefore, no right to complain of the course which had been pursued. He still, therefore, adhered to the principles which he had stated on the second reading of the Bill of the noble Lord (Lord Cottenham), and he would oppose it on the grounds stated. With respect to the selection of the Committee, he begged to observe that he had nothing to do with it; nor, indeed, until he saw them in the room, did he know who the noble Lords who were to be on that Committee, were, except that he knew that, according to usage, all the law Lords would be of the number. With regard to the other Bill, he thought that the state of the law on the passing of that Bill would be that which every prudent man would applaud and support. Every relief would be given to the honest debtor, and they would not be called upon to extend that relief to those who did not come under that character. The man who was willing to surrender his property would not be put in prison, and any one who might be in prison would, if he surrendered his property, be immediately released from confinement. These were prudent and satisfactory provisions, and he thought nobody desired more. The hon. and learned Lord asked why they had not abolished arrest altogether? For this reason, that the party, knowing he might be arrested and thrown into prison, might be more expeditious and active in doing that which justice demanded than if he knew he was not liable to be imprisoned. For that reason the power of imprisonment had been retained; and that effect it would, no doubt, inevitably have. The party apprehensive of being imprisoned, as well as the party imprisoned, had only to file a petition in order to be released. True, the imprisoning creditor could not take the pro-
1408
perty of the debtor, for that would be divided among the creditors at large, according to the principle of the Bill. With regard to the details of the Bill, he would not follow his noble and learned Friend through all the observations which he had made; but he would merely observe that he thought the provisions of the Bill were well adapted to carry out the object which it had in view. His noble and learned Friend objected to the two jurisdictions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Courts remaining, and asked why he did not propose to abolish the former altogether. To this he answered, that a great deal of the business of the Insolvency Court had gone before the Commissioners of Bankruptcy, and that he thought it would be better to let the change work gradually, and see how it operated, before the Court was totally done away with. His noble and learned Friend in his Bill proposed to abolish imprisonment for debt altogether, without any power of remanding in vexatious cases, and cases where persons had contracted debts without any probability of being able to pay them. The Insolvent Debtors Court at present had this power of demand within a limited period, and he (the Lord Chancellor) thought that it would be very dangerous and unwise to abolish such a power altogether. As to the indictment for fraud, which his noble and learned Friend proposed as the only remedy against the dishonest debtor, he must say that he thought it a most inadequate one. His noble and learned Friend had alluded to some supposed disagreement which had existed between him (the Lord Chancellor) and the Secretary of State, in respect to the power of imprisonment vested in the Small Debt Courts. He certainly was not aware of the provisions in the Bill referred to at the time his noble and learned Friend directed his attention to the subject, but upon inquiry he found that there was such a Clause, which allowed imprisonment of not more than one day for a shilling. But he recollected that his noble and learned Friend himself introduced a Bill some years ago, which gave the power of imprisonment without any limit whatever. [Lord Cottenham: What Bill was that?] The County Courts Bill. For his own part, he had always objected to the practice of imprisoning persons for small debts, and for this reason, that they were generally labouring men; and that to deprive them of their liberty and time, was to deprive them of the means of paying their

1409
debts and supporting their families. To imprison a poor man for a debt he owed, was to deprive him of the means of paying what he owed. It was as unwise as it was unjust. It also appeared to him extraordinary in this respect, that it was not a means for compelling payment, for after a certain term of imprisonment the debt was discharged, and the prisoner was set free—the imprisonment paid the debt. The practice was almost as barbarous, and it was more unreasonable, as that which prevailed in the old times, when the creditor sold the body of his debtor as a slave—there the cruel creditor at least got value; but here there was the cruelty inflicted, and without any advantageous results. In the County Courts there was not the power of imprisonment. There was one argument dwelt upon, with respect to this subject. It was, if they took away the power of imprisonment they would take away the means for a poor man obtaining credit, if he chanced to be turned out of his employment, or any accident deprived him of the means for the time of earning money. The question now to be asked was this—was there any foundation for such an assertion. Witnesses had been examined before the Committee, which brought this to a close test. In the Tower Hamlets the power of imprisonment for debt was put an end to since 1832, by mere accident. The prisoners for debt from that district used to be sent to the Middlesex prison. The magistrates, however, determined not to allow that any longer, and in consequence imprisonment for debt had practically ceased in that district. How then did that operate? It reduced the number of summonses by one half—they had been reduced from 25,000 to 13,000. But what was the effect on credit? Mr. Otter, who had been a Commissioner for many years, had told them that it did not diminish credit in any material degree. That there was still more credit given than was good for the poor—that there was no industrious poor man thrown out of employment, who could not obtain as much credit as he pleased. There was another case; and if possible it was still more striking. Mr. Dampier, a son of the late Judge, was Judge of a small debt court in Cornwall, for which he drew up a Bill for the regulation of that court; and, in doing so, he never thought of introducing his power to issue a capias, and yet he said that no man was prevented by it from obtaining credit—he declared that
1410
he considered that the abolition of imprisonment for debt would be a wise, salutary, and expedient measure. He (the Lord Chancellor) had himself, therefore, come to the conclusion, that the only objection that could have been urged had been removed, and that this power ought to be taken from all Small Debt Courts. He did, then, sincerely hope that their Lordships would approve of this part of the Bill. He could assure their Lordships that no words could convey the horrors of those prisons in which persons were confined for small debts. Mr. Perry gave a description of the prison of Kidderminster, and it would show that some means must be devised for removing those horrid and atrocious abuses. The prison at Kidderminster was a room on the ground-floor, measuring 12 feet by 12, entirely destitute of bed, bedding, or seat, or any description of furniture; without a stove, or the means of having a fire in cold weather. There was a large heap of straw, on which the prisoners slept in their clothes. The yard attached to the prison measured 13 feet by 12, and the water lay on it to such a degree as often to confine the prisoners to their solitary room. The walls of the yard, too, were very high. The prisoners were very dirty. They did not take off their clothes, and only two small jugs of water, for drinking and washing, were brought for the day. There was no gaoler. The prisoners were only visited by the deputy-gaoler, who brought them bread and water each day. In case of sudden illness, there was no means of procuring assistance, unless the neighbours summoned the deputy-beadle, who lived in a distant part of the town. Then, as to the room for the female debtors, there were no means for their taking exercise. These, then, were the additional reasons afforded to him for making the proposed alterations in the law, and of supporting the Bill introduced by his noble and learned Friend. He had now stated as shortly as he could his reasons for supporting this measure, and he was particularly induced to do so from the observations made by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Cottenhamobserved, that an objection was made to his Bill upon the question of privilege. He put to the test the accuracy of his noble Friend, for a Clause such as was objected to in his Bill was also to be found in the present.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it was most true that by some accident such had happened.

1411
He had stated in precise terms to his noble and learned Friend his objection. His noble and learned Friend said that his course was right, and insisted on it. His noble and learned Friend did not like the means of obviating the objection.
Lord Cottenhamsaid, that he knew that his course was right, but he did not insist upon it.
After a few words from Lord Brougham the Report was received.
House adjourned.