Sitting of 1 March 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Metropolitan Buildings. Private.—1o. Newbury, Basingstoke, London and Southampton Railway; Guildford Junction Railway; Yarmouth and Norwich Railway.
2o. Salisbury Branch Railway; York and Scarborough Railway; Severn Navigation; Edinburgh Cattle Market.
3o. and passed:—Sang's Naturalization.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Huddersfield, against the Duty on Tobacco.—By Mr. W. Patten, from Chorley, against the Poor Laws.— From Wigan, complaining of Exclusion of Catholics from the Jury at the late State Trials.—By Lord Ossulston, from Alnwick, and other places, against any Alteration in the present Corn Laws.—From St. Asaph, against the Uuion of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.

STATE TRIALS (IRELAND)—THE WITNESSES.
Mr. Sidney Herbert having moved the Order of the Day for a Committee of Supply,
Mr. T. Duncomberose to call the attention of the House to the subject of which he had given notice on a previous evening. He was about to move for
"A return of all moneys paid to Richard Bond Hughes, Charles Ross, and John Jackson, on account of any communications made by them to Government relative to the Repeal agitation in Ireland, distinguishing the amounts paid to each; also, the dates of the several payments, specifying the respective periods at which they commenced; together with copies of any instructions given to the above-named Richard Bond Hughes, Charles Ross, and John Jackson, with respect to the duties to be performed by them in Ireland. Also, a return of the amount paid to the above-named for expenses during their attendance at the trial of the Queen against O'Connell and others. Also a return of all the moneys paid to the late or present proprietor or proprietors, managers, conductors, or persons in the employ of the Morning Herald and Standard newspapers, or any of them, on account of communications or information made or given by the said parties, or any of them, to the Government, in reference to the Repeal agitation in Ireland; distinguishing the times at which the said communications or informations were furnished, and the period at which the several sums of money were paid."
In opposing, for a short time, the Motion that the House go into Committee of Supply, he was desirous to state that he did not do so in furtherance of the Mo-

437
tion of the hon. Member for Rochdale, but in the exercise of his undoubted right, as a Member of that House, to call on the Government to explain, before they went into the Committee of Supply, the manner in which they had expended certain sums of money which had been already placed at their disposal for the public service. It was more especially the duty of the House to make that inquiry when they had good reason to believe that a portion of that money had been expended in a manner neither creditable or honourable to those who so expended it. They were told that the object of the State prosecutions in Ireland was to vindicate what had been called the majesty of the law—to create increased respect for the institutions of the country, and to inspire the people with confidence in the wisdom and justice of those in authority. He listened with much attention to the late Debate on the subject of Ireland during the fortnight which it lasted. He had looked carefully through the whole evidence that had been given on the State Trials, and he felt justified in saying that it was impossible to find any portion of those transactions creditable to the Government which instituted the prosecutions—to the Judge before whom the traversers were tried—to the Jury who tried them—to the Officers of the Crown who were engaged, in fact to any of the parties concerned, or especially to some of the witnesses produced on the part of the Crown. The branch of the subject to which he should direct the attention of the House on that occasion was that which more immediately affected the conduct of the Government towards the press and those employed upon it. A perverse Government had two ways by which it could proceed for the purpose of destroying the freedom and public utility of the press; namely, persecution and corruption. He could either strain the law to prosecute the press, or could attempt to corrupt those who were connected with it. Now, the present Government seemed to have employed both these means. They had not rested satisfied with corrupting members of the press, but they also strained the law to persecute and prosecute the press. He would not go at length into that question on the present occasion, but wait another opportunity to bring it before the House, and he should not, therefore, trouble them with more than one observation on the subject.
438
He could not avoid remarking, that the law of conspiracy affecting the press, as it had been laid down in Ireland, was not the law that was laid down by the Attorney General for England and Baron Rolfe in 1842, when trials took place at which the question was brought forward. They had seen on the late trials Mr. O'Connell made responsible for articles which appeared in Dublin newspapers that he had not read, and they had seen the proprietors of those newspapers made responsible for speeches delivered by Mr. O'Connell which they had not heard. Now it had been laid down by the Attorney General for England and Baron Rolfe, at the trials at Lancaster in 1842, that the only person who was responsible for articles in a newspaper, was the proprietor, and that even the editor was not to be held responsible for those articles, though he might be one of the parties charged with conspiracy. That was not, however, the branch of the subject to which he wished more immediately to direct the attention of the House. He wished to apply himself particularly to the employment of Reporters by the Government—to the employment on the part of the Government of hired spies—to the employment for that purpose of persons connected with the press; for if the object of these prosecutions had been to create a great moral effect, all the proceedings connected with them, should have been of such a character as to bear the light of day. There should not be in such transactions the slightest appearance of treachery, or the slightest appearance of meanness. The conduct of the Attorney General for Ireland and the Government towards Mr. Bond Hughes, had been most extraordinary, and in moving for a return of the money paid to that gentleman for his services, he did not mean to cast the slightest imputation on his character. It was quite clear from the speeches of the several Counsel for the traversers at the late trials in Ireland, that they acquitted him of any improper proceeding, and the party that Mr. Bond Hughes had the greatest cause to complain of, was the Government. The Attorney General assigned as a reason for not furnishing certain names, the feeling that had been excited amongst the traversers and the public generally, in consequence of the mistake which Mr. Bond Hughes had made with respect to Mr. Barrett, one of the traversers, and yet,

439
the Attorney General and the Crown Solicitor, and his Clerks allowed Mr. Hughes to suffer all the consequences of that mistake long after Mr. Hughes had explained it, and had shown that it had not been a wilful mistake. A few days after the occurrence of the mistake, Mr. Barrett attended at the Police-office to swear informations against Mr. Hughes for perjury, on which occasion Mr. Kemmis attended on the part of Mr. Hughes; and although Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor, knew that Mr. Hughes had acknowledged his mistake, he persisted before the Magistrates, in maintaining the truth of Mr. Hughes's first statement with respect to Mr. Barrett. Now, that was, in his opinion, most discreditable to Mr. Kemmis, and to the Crown that employed a Solicitor who acted in that way. How was Mr. Barrett to know that Mr. Hughes had not wilfully made a statement that was not true?—that he had not been wilfully swearing falsely? When Mr. Barrett, in the month of October attended before the Magistrates for the purpose of swearing informations against Mr. Hughes, Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor, attended on the part of Mr. Hughes, and gave no indication that Mr. Hughes had admitted his error. He would read to the House from the Pilot newspaper, what took place on that occasion.
"When Mr. Barrett came to read the informations, he found the false statements that had been made against him. No doubt, it turns out they were not wilfully false; but how was Mr. Barrett to know, that, all explanation on the point had been most studiously, ay, and most improperly, withheld? Immediately on making this discovery, Mr. Barrett put the matter in a train of legal investigation. A summons to answer a charge of perjury, was issued against Mr. Hughes, and copies of it are served at the residence of Mr. Hughes and the Crown Solicitor. That summons is discussed before the Magistrates of College-street Police-office, on Saturday, the 21st day of October, and one of the persons in attendance is the Crown Solicitor. Nay, what is more, on the same occasion that Gentleman made a speech to the Bench, in which he not only withheld all explanation on the subject of the mistake which he then knew had been made by Mr. Hughes, but he had the indelicacy and the indiscretion to indirectly maintain the truth of the then impugned, and the now admittedly false portions of the informations. Readers, mark what Mr. Kemmis said on that occasion, Yes! we say, mark it, and remember, that when making the observations we now give, Mr. Kemmis had five days pre-
440
viously heard from Mr, Hughes's own lips, that he had sworn in mistake, We quote from the Freeman's Journal of the 23d October, 1843:—'Mr, Kemmis, (Crown Solicitor) stepped forward, and said, that Mr, Hughes was not at present in the Kingdom, and he (Mr. Kemmis) could pledge himself to the truth of this statement. He considered the present proceeding as a most extraordinary one, for Mr, Hughes had remained several days in Dublin after he had sworn his informations, and yet the prosecutor, during that time, never thought proper to take any exception to his depositions; but now that the gentleman had left the country, certain parties came forward to make allegations against his veracity, when the accused, not being present, could not possibly rebut the accusations made against him.' "
The application to receive the informations was refused by the Magistrates, on the ground that the reserving the informations against Mr. Hughes would prejudice the State Prosecutions. Would the House believe it—would the country believe it, that Mr. B. Hughes left Ireland at the desire of Mr. Kemmis, he was told to leave it, or that his life would not be safe. Why should his life not have been safe? Could they not have made it so by stating to the public the way in which the fact stood? Could they not have put an end to the denunciations against Mr. Hughes by saying that he had made a mistake in his information? He understood from the friends of Mr. Hughes that he was not at all aware that he was to be a party to informations, and that he would rather have cut off his right hand than consented to such. Mr. Hughes was not a person who would descend to be a common informer. The fact was that he was deceived in that matter, having been told by the Solicitor for the Crown that he was only swearing an affidavit verifying his notes, instead of which he was swearing to an information upon which a number of parties were to be arrested. When Mr. Hughes went over to Ireland he had instructions to wait on the Attorney General; but the Attorney General was not at home, and then he went to Mr. Brewster to receive instructions; and he now asked for a copy of those instructions, and a return of the sums of money paid to Mr. Hughes, not that he believed any sum of money could repay Mr. Hughes for the anxiety of mind which he must have suffered and the injury that had been inflicted on him during the period whilst he was allowed to remain

441
under a cloud. From October until January he was allowed to remain under a cloud, although the Attorney General and the Crown Solicitor were aware that he had corrected the error into which he had fallen. He had been brought before the Grand Jury, and he then stated his error; yet until January it was not made public. Mr. Hughes had a right to complain, and by the returns for which he (Mr. Duncombe) moved, the House would be able to see whether Mr. Hughes had received the same compensation which had been given to another—to a favoured individual, Mr. C. Ross. He had now done with Mr. Hughes, and he hoped that in the observations which he made he said nothing derogatory to that Gentleman's character. He now came to the Carlisle Patriot, or rather to the case of the late Editor of that Journal; Mr. Charles Ross it appeared had lately been employed as a Reporter for the Morning Chronicle, and in his evidence, at the trials in Dublin, being examined by Sergeant Warren, he stated that he arrived in Dublin on the 3rd of July. He was asked,
"Did you come to this country (Ireland) for any particular purpose?"—Answer: Yes, I came to take notes of Mr. O'Connell's speech at the meeting at Donnybrook.
"Did you come of your own accord, or who suggested it to you—I do not ask you who suggested it?—It was suggested to me.
"Did you attend that meeting?—I did.
"For whom did you attend that meeting?—On the part of the Government."
The House would perceive that the Government suggested to Mr. Ross to go over, the Government at that time knowing that he was employed as a Reporter for the Morning Chronicle, a Paper opposed to the views and Politics of the Government. He was asked by Sergeant Warren,
"Had you any other object in coming over but to Report on the part of the Government?—I had not; but I was engaged on a London Paper at the time I was sent over by the Government."
The House would recollect that the witness was in the pay of the Morning Chronicle at the time he went over to Ireland. He was cross-examined by Mr. Henn, who asked him the following questions:—
"I believe you have stated to my learned
442
Friend, that your mission to Ireland was suggested on the part of Government?—Yes.
"Now Government you know is a very comprehensive word. Have you any objection to tell us who it was, on the part of the Government, suggested this to you?"
When this question was asked, up jumped Counsel for the Crown, Mr. Sergeant Warren, and directed him not to answer, that he was not allowed to tell the Court or the Irish people, or the English people, who sent him over to those trials. He stated that a high person—a person high in office, sent him over. Now he wanted to know, and he thought he had a right to ask who that high personage was that sent him over? He had a right to know, what Member of the Government condescended to employ Mr. Charles Ross, who was a Reporter for, and the servant of, a Newspaper opposed to the Government. Could the Government find no other persons but persons connected with Newspapers (and those Newspapers not in the interest of the Government) for this base purpose?—could they not find other persons, instead of employing this individual? Of course the Government knew perfectly well that this man going over under false colours—going as the representative of the Morning Chronicle—would hear secrets, if there were any to be told, which an avowed Reporter of the Government could not obtain. That was an advantage they were desirous of securing, and to show that it was so, he could state that, after the meeting at Mullaghmast, Mr. Ross, who was known to be connected with the Liberal Press at this side of the water, was treated with every sort of courtesy by the traversers. After the Mullaghmast meeting, so little idea was there that Mr. Ross was a Government spy, that one of the traversers, Mr. Steele, as he had secured no means of getting home, took him back in his own carriage, forty-two miles, to Dublin, Mr. Ross had by these means the opportunity of hearing secrets disclosed, and of possessing himself of private information to be used in aid of the proceedings adopted against the Repeal Association. He wanted to know whether this sort of proceeding was fair, upright, or honourable to the Government which had employed this man? Mr. Ross admitted that he had received 350 l. for his services; 50 l. for the Donnybrook meeting, and 300 l. for the rest. He came back to England. He believed

443
Mr, Ross's connection with the Morning Chronicle ceased at the close of the last Session of Parliament, but he returned to Ireland as a reporter for the Standard, being at the same time employed to do the dirty work of the Government; and he again asked who was the high personage that had employed this man to do this dirty work? He said it was necessary that the country should know this; and, more than that, it was necessary that the people should know who had appropriated 400 l. of their money in payment of such services. He could not believe that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had any hand in such transactions, nor could he think the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had any hand in it; because, on a former occasion, the right hon. Gentleman had said that the Government had never employed spies in the outbreaks in Lancashire, and that if any had been employed in such a character, it must have been under the countenance of some local magistrate; and he said that the Government never sanctioned the employment of spies, and that every thing done by him should be plain and above board. Well, he could not believe that the right hon. Gentleman was the "high personage," and he wanted to know whether it was a Member of the other House of Parliament, Was it any individual who was a Member of the Cabinet? This he would say, that, let it be whom it might, they had inflicted eternal disgrace upon themselves. So much for the Carlisle Patriot, otherwise Mr. Ross. He was now an ornament to the Standard newspaper. He was now, he (Mr. Duncombe) believed, a reporter on that paper; and as an agent of the Government, he should like to know what be had received as a remuneration for the services he had rendered. Before he went to the case of Mr. Jackson, he would read to the House what was the opinion of the Irish press upon these transactions. There was an account of Mr. Charles Ross in the Dublin newspapers which he would read to the House:—
"Mr. Ross (said the Dublin Monitor) came to this country, and sought and obtained access to public meetings avowedly as a reporter, first for the Morning Chronicle, and secondly for the London Standard. In his character as a newspaper reporter he was associated with by Gentlemen connected in that
444
capacity with the Dublin press, yet all the while he concealed the real purpose that brought him to Ireland—he concealed the fact that he was a paid agent of the Government, to spy and ferret out information that might afterwards be rendered available in procuring the conviction of individuals. The plain truth is, Mr. C. Ross acted a treacherous, and therefore an ungentlemanly, part—a part that no person actuated by feelings which are characteristic of a gentleman would consent to act. He deceived those with whom his professional duty brought him in contact—he represented himself to those with whom he associated in this country to be here in the honourable capacity of a newspaper reporter, whereas he was secretly working in the capacity of a hired informer for the Government. No sophistry can palliate, let alone justify, such duplicity."
He concurred in every syllable of those observations. There was also a letter from the correspondent of the Morning Chronicle itself, which stated that former Governments had called upon newspaper reporters as witnesses for the Crown, but that those gentlemen had refused to attend. The letter said—
"Frequently before now have those in office attempted to compel reporters to become witnesses for the Crown; but in no one case have they ever succeeded. In 1824, when Mr. O'Connell was prosecuted for sedition by Lord Plunket, then Attorney General, amongst the witnesses summoned to support the indictment before the Grand Jury were two of the reporters—Mr. Leech and Mr. Kelly. Both refused to appear, and were called upon fines of 100 l. each. They left Dublin. The bill was thrown out; but it is to be mentioned, to the credit of Lord Plunket, that he did not afterwards attempt to enforce the penalties incurred by them. Several other reporters were summoned on the occasion, before the magistrates; but they all declined giving the slightest information; and the principle on which they acted was this—that newspaper reporters are the representatives of the absent public—that their duty is a simple one, to give information of all that is said or done that it may be interesting to the public to know—that to perform that duty facilities are afforded to them which would be refused, and properly refused, if persons were led to suppose that they were dealing with witnesses for the Crown. It went on to say, 'Change newspaper reporters into Crown witnesses, and freedom of discussion is at an end. Men will fly from public meetings into secret conspiracies; and the first intimation which a government will receive of its danger, will be like to that which was given to Otho of Greece, when his palace was invested with an armed population, and he was 'requested' to give to his subjects a new form of government.'"

445
There had also been a meeting of newspaper reporters, at which very strong resolutions were adopted, condemnatory of reporters becoming witnesses for the Crown. He came next to Mr. Jackson, of the Morning Herald, who, it appeared, was not a regular reporter, but a correspondent of the Morning Herald, and who used to write some very interesting and entertaining reports for that paper, or to use his own terms, "rather spicy reports" for those readers who indulged in the Morning Herald. At the close of that person's examination he stated that the Morning Herald had then lately changed hands, and that it was a short time previous to the change of proprietors he had been directed to put himself in communication with Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor. The witness then said that he wished to say something, as comments might he made on his conduct. The Lord Chief Justice then asked him what he wished to say?
"Mr. Jackson; Those manuscript documents, (Mr. Jackson's reports), my Lords, were given by the proprietors of the Morning Herald to Mr. Kemmis, the Crown Solicitor, and, so help me God, I never saw them, or knew he had them, until he produced me the letter of those gentlemen, stating that they had furnished him with them, and requiring me to initial them. I considered it was due to my character before the world to make this plain explanation of the truth."
No person could cast the least blame upon Mr. Jackson after this statement. It was evident that Mr. Jackson was ashamed of the conduct of the Crown, and that he was very anxious to cast the odium of the transaction from himself. Those documents were handed over by the proprietors for reasons best known to themselves. He knew it might be said that this took place before the transfer of the Morning Herald, which happened on the 1st of January. But there were reasons for handing over these documents before the money was paid, and before the Government assisted in advancing the money. The Government no doubt had very equitable claims to the documents which they found in the Morning Herald office before that establishment was transferred, and before it was incorporated with The Standard. But it was clear Mr. Jackson was ashamed of the transaction, though it appeared the Morning Herald was not ashamed of handing over the documents. He said
446
that the Government ought to be ashamed of their conduct in availing themselves of those documents. He would read some of the opinions of the press on this subject. The opinions were strong, but not stronger than the conduct of the parties would justify. The Dublin Monitor of the 22nd January, says—
"It may be right to inform our readers that the Morning Herald was purchased about a mouth ago; and we presume, therefore, that the present proprietors and editors are not responsible for the perfidious conduct we are now deprecating. Be this as it may, the Morning Herald stands charged with an offence which we believe is wholly unparalleled in the history of the public press. The charge is clear and unmistakable. The Herald received communications under the seal of confidence, and then traded on those communications with Government in a prosecution against its subjects. This strikes at once at the root of all confidence in public journalists. Instead of maintaining a character for principle and honour, they become spies and informers—for to this it comes. The words are harsh, but they faintly express the perfidious conduct to which we allude. In fact, it is a 'toss up' in turpitude between the Herald and the Crown; for the Crown is as inexcusable in availing itself of such sources of information as the Herald is in their betrayal."
He (Mr. Duncombe) concurred in that opinion, and he thought that even if The Herald was base enough to hand over the documents to the Crown, the Crown ought not to avail themselves of them in a trial of such importance. The trial became tainted by such conduct; and they had better have left the prosecution alone than conduct it by such means, which reflected so little credit on the Government. The noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies informed the House the other night, with more candour than discretion, that the right hon. Gentleman wrote a letter to the Attorney General for Ireland, commending him for the judgment, the firmness and the good temper with which he conducted the prosecution. As Ministers had thus passed a vote of thanks to the Attorney General for Ireland, he hoped that others connected with the trials would not be excluded. He hoped the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench would receive a vote of thanks for the charge he bad delivered. He hoped that Mr. Kemmis, too, the Crown Solicitor, would be thanked for his services in procuring the jury. No doubt the proprietors of the Morning Herald and Standard found a sufficient recom-

447
pence in their own consciences, and were above any idea of remuneration; but he must say they would not do justice to the Chief Justice and Mr. Kemmis if they only thanked the Attorney General for the judgment and temper with which he had conducted the prosecution. Now, he wanted to know if a verdict so obtained would gain any moral influence whatever? He doubted it very much; it certainly had not produced that effect in England. The impression, from one end of England, to the other was, that Mr. O'Connell had not had a fair trial. At the close of last Session, the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Home Department told the House that, if it did not strengthen the hands of the Government, and assist them in putting down what he called the "rebellious spirit in Ireland," England—all glorious England—would exhibit a melancholy spectacle in the eyes of surrounding nations, if there was the slightest shadow of a shade of foundation for that opinion. The Government must now be in a sad state of alarm, because looking at what had occurred during these Debates, and to the general opinion of the conduct of the Government, he must say he had never known a Debate so damaging to a Government. They must be on the eve of the fulfilment of the prediction of the right hon. Baronet, if there was the slightest foundation for his assertion of last Session. He had no apprehension of that prediction being fulfilled. The only apprehension he had of their becoming a melancholy spectacle in the eyes of other nations was a fear that Members of Parliament would not speak out on this question, and would not do their duty; but if hon. Members on both sides of the House would do their duty in this matter, there need be no alarm. He knew it was perfectly competent to Her Majesty's Ministers to refuse the returns he moved for, and that without adducing one single argument in support of their conduct, just as they had the other night the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend near him, for a copy of a memorial to the Lord Lieutenant. On that occasion they relied not on argument, but on their numerical majority. They might do so on that occasion, they might refuse the information he sought for, and which Ireland had a right to have, but if they did so, the country would not be satisfied, but every impartial man would come to the conclusion that these pro-
448
ceedings had been conducted, from first to last, in a way which reflected no honour on them, either as men or as Ministers of the Crown. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the returns.
Sir J. Graham: Sir, I should indeed entertain a melancholy opinion of the future prospects, not only of Ireland, but of the whole United Kingdom, if I could believe that the majority of this House sympathized with the opinions of the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion; and, let me add, that under ordinary circumstances, after the speech which the hon. Member has delivered, and more especially after the invectives and accusations in which he has indulged when speaking of the Government, I should consider it my duty, as a Member of that Government, to oppose altogether the Returns for which be has moved. But, considering the whole circumstances of the case, the particular time at which the Motion is made, and the necessity of a Vote of Money during the present Session connected with the late trials, I could not bring myself to give to the whole of the Motion a direct negative; I am willing to assent to a certain portion of it. I would beg of the House to consider in what light the hon. Member presents himself with this Motion this evening. If I mistake not, the hon. Member was last night attending a meeting of his constituents in Finsbury, where, after a warm discussion, a motion was carried instructing him to obstruct the progress of the Supplies in this House. [Mr. T. Duncombe: No such motion was made.] The debate I understood was a stormy one, and after the great variety of topics introduced and the various opinions expressed with respect to them, it was somewhat difficult to say what did or what did not pass. [Mr. T. Duncombe: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman.—Cries of "No, no."] The hon. Member will have ample opportunity of explanation, if he will allow me to proceed. I wish also to remind the House that the hon. Gentleman has been advertised as the chairman of a dinner about to be given to Mr. O'Connell. The hon. Gentleman has informed the Government that they were very much damaged in the late debate—that we are not so strong as we think ourselves to be—and that a change has taken place on his own side of the House. I wish him joy of that change and of the new compact alliance which he and his friends have entered into. Sir, I will now

449
proceed to touch upon some of the topics to which the hon. Member has adverted, but it is not my intention to reopen those questions which for nine nights have occupied the attention of this House. Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridport is about to ask me this evening when it is the intention of Government to proceed with measures of great importance, and respecting which much anxiety prevails in the public mind. I allude to the Factory Bill and the Poor Law Bill. Now, I beg to remind the House that since the protracted debate on Irish affairs we have had two Supply Days, and on each of those days the hon. Member for Rochdale has made a Motion on the question of going into Committee of Supply for the avowed purpose of obstructing the Supplies. The hon. Member who has moved the Motion now before the House, adopting the same line and pursuing the same course, has on this one Motion reopened all the questions referring to the conduct of the late trials, which have already undergone a protracted discussion. Under these circumstances I feel it my duty to anticipate the question of the hon. Member for Bridport by stating, that it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government thus designedly obstructed to fix any precise time for going on with the Measures to which his question refers. Now, Sir, with reference to the hon. Member's Motion, I at once avow that Her Majesty's Government, observing in the course of the last summer the language that was used at large meetings in Ireland, which were assembled in rapid succession, did think it their imperative duty to obtain clear, full, authentic, and satisfactory evidence as to the speeches, which were addressed to those vast assemblies. I contend that I should have been wanting in my duty to the public if I had omitted every fair opportunity of obtaining such information. Sir, I see hon. Members on the Benches opposite who are opposed—bitterly opposed, I am afraid—to me in politics; but I would ask them if, at all times, it has not been the practice of the Executive Government, when popular excitement has run high, and immense public meetings have been assembled, to obtain authentic information, by means of shorthand-writers, as to the language addressed to such meetings? The simple question, therefore, is, whether the means used by Her Majesty's Government were fair and legitimate? The hon. Member has thought fit to use, I will not say offensive, but cer-
450
tainly very strong language, with respect to the course which has been pursued in the case which the hon. Member has brought under our consideration. Sir, I do not hesitate to avow that all the means which have been adopted to obtain information in the case have been adopted by me, and on my own individual responsibility. I do not wish to throw any portion of my responsibility on my Colleagues. I am the person who is responsible, and from that responsibility I will not shrink. Now, I will state the course which I pursued, and I will do so in the first place with respect to Mr. Bond Hughes. I applied to the person at the head of the Stenograph Reporting Department for the Government and both Houses of Parliament (Mr. Gurney), and requested him to select an intelligent person, versed in shorthand-writing and competent to verify his shorthand notes and to give evidence in a Court of Justice specifying the words spoken in his presence; and I directed Mr. Gurney to send, on the usual terms of remuneration, some such person to Ireland, in whom he could place confidence, and which he safely could recommend. Mr. Gurney, in accordance with those directions, selected Mr. Bond Hughes, and that gentleman was accordingly sent over to Ireland for the purpose of attending the meetings there, and taking a shorthand note of the whole of the proceedings. I am perfectly willing to produce a return of all the monies paid to Mr. Bond Hughes, and also the instructions given to him. In a short time there will be laid before the House a return of all the sums paid to Mr. Gurney on account of the persons now employed in taking notes of the proceedings of the Landlord and Tenant Commission in Ireland, and on account of the shorthand writers who attended the Special Commissions in South Wales, and it will appear from that return that Mr. Bond Hughes did not receive for his services in Ireland a greater remuneration than that which is usually paid to shorthand writers employed by the Government on similar service. I feel quite satisfied that even the hon. Member for Finsbury will say, that the remuneration is not extravagant, and that the instructions are unexceptionable. The hon. Gentleman has referred to what has occurred in Dublin, with respect to the information sworn by Mr. B. Hughes; but with the single exception of a mistake about the presence of Mr. Barrett at a par-

451
titular meeting, not one point of his evidence was shaken in the slightest degree. Excepting the mistake with reference to the presence of Mr. Barrett at one of two meetings which were held, I think, at a particular place on the same day, though Mr. Hughes was subjected to the closest cross-examination, no portion of his testimony was shaken; nothing was wrong in his statement except that one particular in which he fell into an error. But the fact of the presence of Mr. Barrett at those meetings—and my hon. Friend the Attorney General will correct me if I am wrong—did not rest singly on the evidence of Mr. B. Hughes; there was the evidence of other witnesses, who clearly proved that on one occasion at least Mr. Barrett was present at a meeting specified in the indictment. Now, with respect to Mr. Ross, I will tell the House exactly what occurred. The first occasion on which the Government thought fit to send a shorthand-writer to Ireland was in the month of June, I think. I avow at once that I have known Mr. Ross for many years. I know him to be a most accurate reporter. I believe him to be a trustworthy and honourable man; and, knowing him to be such, I, on my own responsibility, sent for Mr. Ross and told him that it was desirable that a shorthand-writer should proceed to Ireland for the purpose of attending at a particular meeting to be held at Donnybrook. My directions to him were—"You will proceed thither; you will take accurate notes of what is said, and be prepared to verify upon oath your report of the speeches you hear." I think the pecuniary arrangement was made that he should receive 50 l. and the payment of his expenses. Mr. Ross did proceed to Ireland, he attended that meeting, and he furnished a verbatim report of the proceedings. Subsequently, towards the end of the Session of Parliament, before Mr. Hughes was sent, a further arrangement was made with Mr. Ross, that he should proceed to Ireland and remain there during the whole of the recess, from the first or second week in August, I think, until the first week in February, and for his services during that period he was to receive the sum of 350 l. Now, it will appear, when the return of the payments made to Mr. Gurney is presented, that the rate of payment to Mr. Ross was considerably less than that made to Mr. Bond Hughes and others employed in Mr. Gurney's establishment. But the accusation made by the hon. Member for
452
Finsbury is, that Mr. Ross was sent by me to Ireland as a spy. I, in the most solemn and positive manner, deny that accusation. My instructions to Mr. Ross were to go to Ireland and avow himself to be a reporter for the Government. I knew that at that time he was connected as a reporter with one of the morning papers, the Morning Chronicle, I believe; and subsequently I was aware that at the end of the Session he was connected with the Standard; but my instructions were, "You will proceed to Ireland as the reporter for the Government." I did not sanction any concealment whatever of his avowed mission for that purpose; and I believe I may say, even after all the hon. Gentleman has stated, that it was well and perfectly known in Ireland that Mr. Ross was employed as a Government reporter. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say, that Mr. Ross concealed the fact, that he was a Government reporter, that he travelled with Mr. Steele and other parties forty-two miles, they not being aware that he was a Government reporter—that, in point of fact, he was employed as a spy for the Government. Now, that I absolutely and positively deny. [Mr. T. Duncombe: It is his own evidence.] Any concealment used by Mr. Ross was not in obedience to my instructions. I am ready to produce an account of all monies paid to Mr. Charles Ross and Mr. Bond Hughes, and the instructions given to them, which I have already said were verbal. But I, on my own responsibility, for the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman, will state the terms of the instructions. I will put them in an authentic form and lay them on the Table. With regard to the case of Mr. Jackson, with him neither directly nor indirectly have I had any communication. It appears that he was a reporter employed by the Morning Herald, and resident in Dublin, and the Crown Solicitor in Dublin, as was his bounden duty, in seeking evidence to corroborate the testimony of Mr. Hughes and Mr. Ross, ascertained that Mr. Jackson had taken notes at some of these meetings at which language had been used which was about to be questioned in a Court of Justice, and be communicated with Mr. Jackson, and with the editor or conductor of the Morning Herald, in whose service Mr. Jackson was. A return shall be made of all the law expenses incurred in this prosecution on the part of the Crown Solicitor, and by that return it will appear what money was paid to Mr. Jackson. I must again declare, that excepting by the

453
Crown Solicitor, on the part of the Government, there has been no communication directly or indirectly with Mr. Jackson. [Mr. T. Duncombe: Nor with the Morning Herald.] I will state what communication was made to that Journal. I do not disavow this. The House must determine whether, in a case of this description, when everything turned upon the strict proof of the language which had been used, it was not the duty of Her Majesty's Government to have clear and irrefragable evidence, and to put the words used beyond all question by obtaining corroborative testimony, provided always that it was obtained openly and honestly. I frankly avow then, that a communication was made to the proprietors of the Morning Herald and Standard to allow the corroboration to be obtained by means of the reports made to them, of the speeches delivered at the meeting and about to be brought into question. It was necessary that corroborative testimony should be obtained of the short-hand notes of the reporters employed by Government; and I say it was the duty of the Government to obtain that evidence. I have told the House, on the part of the Government, that I am prepared to assent to a portion of this Motion. I am prepared to make a return of all monies paid, of all instructions given; and shall add, either now or on some future occasion, a return of the rate of payment to the reporters employed in Mr. Gurney's establishment, both in Ireland and in Wales, on similar occasions. But I now come to a portion of the Motion which I feel it to be my duty most decidedly to resist. I must oppose the last two returns. The right hon. Gentleman made an insinuation not to be misunderstood, that either the Morning Herald or the Standard, or even both of them, had received a sum of money from Her Majesty's Government,—that some corrupt practices had taken place between them and Her Majesty's Government. Now, in the most solemn manner, as a gentleman, I deny the truth of that statement; and I do maintain, that the hon. Gentleman has no right, in the shape of a Motion fur a return, to make so base an insinuation. I might as well make a Motion for an account of the money obtained by any Member of this House for a vote which he has given. This species of insinuation is calculated to convey an indelible stain. I say the gentlemen connected with the public papers are gentlemen of high and
454
honourable feeling. I will not use the same expressions as the hon. Gentleman—though I might—and say that it is dirty and dishonourable to convey a contrary insinuation; but I do say it is unworthy of any Member of this House to do so. I am quite resolved, therefore, to take the opinion of the House against that part of the resolution. I am aware I give the hon. Gentleman an advantage, of which, perhaps, he will not be slow to avail himself, and because I refuse the return he will repeat the insinuation with double effect; but, I again assert, in the most solemn manner I can use in this House, that there is not the slightest foundation for the aspersion of the hon. Gentleman. So, with regard to the last return, the names of the persons now employed by Mr. Gurney for the purpose of taking notes of the present proceedings at the Corn Exchange in Dublin—after the experience we have had of the posting of Mr. Bond Hughes as a spy, I am not prepared to hold up those persons to public execration, and, possibly, to place them in danger of sustaining personal injury. [Mr. T. Duncombe: Not the names of those employed at the Trial.] The words of this part of the hon. Gentleman's Motion are,
"Also the name or names of the short-hand writers appointed to furnish the Government report of the proceedings at the Trial of 'The Queen against O'Connell and others.'"
Well, but I say those persons are still employed by Mr. Gurney; they are still attending meetings at the Corn Exchange, and I am not prepared to hold them up to public resentment, and probably to popular fury—I shall oppose therefore this part of the hon. Gentleman's Motion. But before I sit down I will just observe, that it is, in these times, no easy task to insure public justice against great offenders without incurring some public obloquy. I have thought it my painful duty to risk the incurring of such obloquy; but it is my pride and satisfaction to know that, upon the whole, I have succeeded in administering the law without asking for any extraordinary powers; putting down dangerous turbulence in England, and bringing to condign punishment great public offenders in Ireland. I have faithfully and honourably, I trust, pursued the path of duty, and I am not to be deterred by any taunts or attacks of the hon. Member. I will remind the House, that the hon. Gentleman has, in his accustomed manner, given his own account of the proceedings. At one

455
time he attacks the Judges, at another the humblest officer of the law—the parish constable; sometimes he appears as the advocate of his friend, the doctor, who is now an outlaw and who spouted sedition from the pump at Deptford; sometimes he attacks the public prosecutor, at others the jury; nay even the witnesses, are the objects of his attacks. Upon the whole, the hon. Gentleman has a most morbid sensibility, which is excited on behalf of political offenders; he has, as it were, an instinctive dread of political trials, and he wishes to bespatter everybody who—as it would seem, to his great terror—has been instrumental in causing justice at last to overtake those who violate the law. I wish him joy if that line of conduct recommends him to any portion of the community out of this House; but my appeal is to the majority in this House. [Cheers from the Opposition.] To this majority, I say, on both sides of this House. Yes, I see ranged opposite to me, not without some preparation, a strong muster of the party opposed to the Government. We have made no such preparation. But still I am very confident, of the success of an appeal to the sense, the good feeling, and the judgment of this House. I am convinced that the hon. Gentleman will not succeed in his Motion.
Lord J. Russell: Sir, I certainly have made no preparation for taking part either in this debate or in the division upon the Motion; nor is it my intention to address the House otherwise than I think myself called upon in consequence of one part of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. He says he believes it to have been the practice of those concerned in the Executive department of this country, so far as the Home Department is concerned, to send persons in an excited state of the country to obtain correct reports of what passes at public meetings. I must say at once, and I should be wrong if I were to declare what I should consider to be my duty, if there were an excited state of the public mind either in England or Ireland, if large meetings were held, and if it appeared, by reading the reports in the newspapers, that what passed at those meetings had anything of a seditious or dangerous tendency, I should consider it my duty if I were in office to send persons to obtain correct reports of the proceedings. I do not know that I should do it in any other way than the right hon. Gentleman says he took, namely, by ap-
456
plying to Mr. Gurney, the short-hand writer, to ask him to name some person in whom confidence could be placed, and sending that person to the meetings, in order that he might take accurate notes of the proceedings. I should then be enabled to judge—consulting others, of course, and more especially the Law Officers of the Crown,—as to whether the language used, and the tendency of it, were such as to make it necessary to institute proceedings; and allow me to say, that I do not think there would be any security for the country if the Executive Government did not act so. Is it possible to allow that there shall be in all the newspapers of the country reports of meetings, at which language—I am supposing a case, I am not taking any particular case,—language of the most seditious, of the most disloyal, of the most revolutionary kind shall be used, and that be known, not only to the meeting to which it was addressed, but to the whole country—is it possible, I say, to allow all this, and that the Government alone should have no means of ascertaining and verifying the fact of such language being used? I should think the country would be placed in great danger if the Minister neglected his duty so much. I say, therefore, at once, it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to take the course he took; and I maintain, leaving it to his responsibility with respect to the meetings in Ireland, that it was his duty to ascertain correctly what language was used at those meetings. I know, that on a former occasion, persons have been employed in that avocation; when it has been the case, as it appears at present, that short-hand writers have been so employed and regularly paid a salary for their services, I know that a person so engaged has been termed a spy. But nothing can be more different. I understand a spy to be a person employed to act in secret, a person who goes, not to public meetings, but to the secret councils of discontented or disaffected persons,—a person who watches the language used at those secret meetings. The obvious danger of employing such persons is, that they not only may report beyond the truth, but they may excite that very disaffection, and sedition, and treason, they were employed to counteract. But a person who goes, executing fairly and faithfully the commands he has received, to take down a report of what

457
passes at a public meeting, excites no one, he instigates no one to the commission of any crime. He merely observes what he sees, and takes down accurately the words he hears. How can people complain that a public meeting, held professedly to consider their grievances, should be attended by reporters for such a purpose? What right have they to complain of persons taking down their words and observing their conduct? But the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to the other part of his conduct, upon which I certainly should not be so willing, because I am not able, to give an opinion. He referred to the corroboration which he had required from the reporters and writers of certain newspapers. If that was merely asking that they who had taken down reports of these proceedings should appear at the trial and should give their evidence of what they had taken down, in order to verify what had been taken down by the Government reporters, I own I cannot see that there is matter for blame in that case. Whether or not the credit of a newspaper may be injured from its being known that their reporters are in the habit of assisting Government in State prosecutions—that is a matter for the consideration of the proprietors of such newspapers—that is a question of newspaper policy—a matter of newspaper morality. It is a question with which, I think, the Government has no concern. The right hon. Gentleman was not to consider the interests of the newspaper proprietors in the matter; but merely to ask whether or not they were prepared to corroborate the testimony of other witnesses. I must say, however, that the validity of his defence upon this point, with regard to Mr. C. Ross, depends upon the correctness with which Mr. C. Ross observed his instructions. If Mr. Ross said openly he was to make his report to the Government department, either in Ireland or in England, and if he did not conceal his character of Government reporter, why, then, the instructions given him were proper instructions, and properly carried into effect; but if, on the contrary, Mr. Charles Ross had concealed his character as a Government reporter, and if he had thus wormed himself into the councils and the projects of those engaged in the repeal agitation, then there can not be a doubt but the right hon. Gentleman himself must see that some injury has been done, and that his in-
458
structions have not been properly carried out. I rose for the purpose, and no other, of stating what I should consider it to be my duty, had I been employed in the service of the Crown, and having dine that I should now sit down; but the right hon. Gentleman indulged in a taunt, which had been addressed to him, in that House, and he could not forbear from alluding to it. It was, when the right hon. Gentleman spoke of a "compact alliance," which, he says, has been made with Mr. O'Connell, and wishes me joy of it. Sir, I am perfectly aware of the effect that was produced during the existence of the late Government, by the constant reiteration of Mr. O'Connell being the director of the proceedings, and the disposer of the patronage of that Government, and how much injury was produced by that entirely unfounded slander. Although I may suffer—although the statement of the right hon. Gentleman of a "compact alliance" between Mr. O'Connell and myself has no foundation—yet, Sir, I will never shrink, if I see Mr. O'Connell or any one else—if I see Mr. O'Connell, or some one who has done less for the country to which he belongs—some one who has less talent than Mr. O'Connell—some one who is in a more humble situation in life than Mr. O'Connell—yet, whatever obloquy it may expose me to, I will never shrink from declaring that which I think, when it is my opinion that that person has not had a fair trial. No obloquy which the right hon. Gentleman may cast upon me—no obloquy which the right hon. Gentleman's party can cast upon me, shall deter me from doing my duty—nor from stating that which is my belief—nor what is my sense of the right hon. Gentleman's proceedings with respect to that trial. My belief is, that if the same offence had been committed in this country—supposing the Attorney General here had pursued a somewhat similar course to that adopted in Ireland—my opinion, I say, is, that there would have been a different charge from the judge, and a different verdict from the jury. That, Sir, is lay opinion, and I say that be the persons brought to trial who they may, never will I cease to endeavour to obtain for the people of Ireland the full enjoyment of all those rights and all those privileges of which the people of England are so justly proud.
Mr. T. Dancombewished to be permitted

459
to say a few words, though he was not strictly entitled to reply. He wished to set the right hon. Gentleman right on one or two points. He had never accused the Government of employing spies, when a reporter attended on their behalf, and avowed what was his object at a public meeting. He had never connected the name of Mr. Bond Hughes with that of a spy. Mr. Hughes had attended public meetings, he acknowledged himself as a Government reporter, and at those meetings Mr. Bond Hughes declared that he was received there with every courtesy, and that every facility was given to him to report the proceedings of the meetings. He believed that such would be the case at any public meeting to which the Government might send a reporter, if the reporter only said that he came from the Government, and avowed the character in which he appeared. He believed that no objection would be felt against such a reporter attending—he considered that no objection ought to be felt against his attending; but, on the contrary, that every encouragement should be given to such persons, as it was sure means of making the grievances of the country known to the Government. To come, however, to Mr. Charles Ross, he was not in the same position with Mr. Bond Hughes; and when the right hon. Gentleman thought of employing Mr. Ross, it must have been perfectly well known to him that Mr. Ross was the servant of the Morning Chronicle—that he was in the pay of the Morning Chronicle. He must have known that Mr. Ross was employed in the opposite interest, and then to take such a person—to send him on a secret mission of this sort, it was for the right hon. Gentleman, if he could, to reconcile that to himself. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, before he did this, wrote to the proprietors of the Morning Chronicle to say, "I am about to employ one of your servants on a mission of the Government." Then, the right hon. Gentleman says he gave Mr. Charles Ross certain instructions. Did Mr. Ross obey those instructions? Mr. Ross was examined on the trial, and he was asked if, when he went to the meetings, he had given any notice of his being an agent or reporter of the Government? How was that question answered? With the words "Certainly not." Well, then, he said this was acting as a spy. He really thought that the right
460
hon. Gentleman ought to attend to what had been said by his protegé. Mr. Ross was asked if he had communicated to the agent of the Morning Chronicle, that he was deputed by the Government to attend? To this his answer was, "Certainly not." Here, then, was another part of his examination. He said that he found no difficulty in getting a place on the platform—that he got in through the means of a Gentleman connected with the Dublin Evening Post, who thought that Mr. Ross was in the same interest with himself. He afterwards stated he was in the service of the Standard. He was then asked the question—"Did you apprise the Standard that you were employed by the Government?" Answer—"Certainly not." This, then, was the person that the Government had employed as their agent. He was the agent of the right hon. the Attorney General for Ireland and the right hon. Baronet. This man, he said, so acting, came under the description of a spy. The right hon. Gentleman might say that such a person was trustworthy; but he left it to the country whether such conduct was honourable—whether it was becoming, that he should have undertaken a duty and not avow it. He affirmed that it never was known in the country that Ross was a Government reporter until he was called to be examined as a witness. And now with respect to the Morning Herald and the Standard he wished to observe that he had never said one word against Mr. Jackson. On the contrary, he thought that the conduct of Mr. Jackson reflected great credit upon him; for he felt ashamed of the duty that had been imposed upon him. At the close of the examination, Mr. Jackson said, "So help me God, I was not aware of my notes having been given up." Mr. Jackson was compromised by no act of his own. It appeared from the statements of the right hon. Baronet, that he had applied to the Morning Herald and Standard for assistance to carry on his prosecution, and the right hon. Baronet now told him he should not have the Return he had moved for as to what money had been paid. When the right hon. Baronet gave it in the case of Mr. Ross, who was in the employment of the Standard, why refuse it with respect to others? Mr. Ross, in his evidence, says, "I would not have taken 50,000 l. to come over, unless I had come in the

461
capacity of a newspaper reporter." He afterwards said he might run the risk of being a Government agent for 100,000 l., and then lowered it to 75,000 l.; but by Ross's own confession, they had the fact acknowledged that he was not known to the Irish people but as the reporter of a newspaper, when he was, in truth, the agent of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet had alluded to a meeting, at which he was present, and that had reference to the proposition of the hon. Member for Rochdale for stopping the Supplies. That meeting had come to the resolution that they had perfect confidence in him either in stopping or granting the Supplies. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed delighted with the idea, for the right hon. Gentleman knew that he was one who had no objection to granting the Supplies. His Motion that day had no reference to the Supplies, and it was uncandid of the right hon. Gentleman to make the assertion, because he knew that it had nothing to do with that subject. Notwithstanding the taunts of the right hon. Baronet—and he must say it was a bad vindication of the Government when the right hon. Gentleman had recourse to old stories—still he was determined to proceed, and whether it were a Judge, a Jury, a Public Prosecutor, or the right hon. Baronet who were mixed up with acts of oppression, he was resolved to submit such acts to the consideration of that House, as long as he had the honour of a seat in it.
Mr. R. M. Bellewremarked, that on this occasion the right hon. Baronet had repeated a statement which had been made before, and to which a full answer had been given, namely, that placards had been circulated, describing Mr. Bond Hughes as a spy and informer. When did that proceeding take place? When Mr. Bond Hughes appeared to have been really guilty of perjury, swearing that to be a fact which was known not to be true. But what was Mr. Bond Hughes's own statement? That he went to Mr. Kemmis's, and to Mr. Kemmis's clerk to explain the mistake—that he did explain that mistake in vain to them—that what he had done was for the purpose of casing his own conscience which they had never disclosed. And now the right hon. Gentleman repeated his statement, whilst he lost sight of this fact with respect to Mr.
462
Bond Hughes. And now, with reference to the conduct of the Crown Solicitor, it was one to which no explanation up to that moment had been given. He now called upon the Irish Attorney General to give an explanation of that transaction. It was certainly a very gross transaction. A witness deposed to a circumstance which he afterwards ascertained to be false. He told the Crown Solicitor of that fact, and yet, not only had the Crown Solicitor a warrant issued upon the false allegation, but he never allowed the matter to be corrected, and permitted a gentleman for a considerable time to remain under the imputation of having committed perjury. This was the Crown Solicitor's conduct, and up to that time there had been no explanation given of it. It was one of the many proceedings which had produced the impression that from the beginning to the end of those proceedings, there had not been fair play; and however large might be the majority for Ministers in that House, he said that this impression must remain in the minds of the people of Ireland.
The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 144; Noes 73: Majority 71.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Copeland, Ald.

A'Court, Capt.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Antrobus, E.

Cripps, W.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Damer, hon. Col.

Arkwright, G.

Denison, E. B.

Astell, W.

Dick, Q.

Baillie, Col.

Dickinson, F. H.

Baillie, H. J.

Douglas, Sir H.

Bankes, G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Barrington, Visct.

Eaton, R. J.

Beckett, W.

Egerton, W. T.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Eliot, Lord

Boldero, H. G.

Emlyn, Visct.

Borthwick, P.

Escott, B.

Botfield, B.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Bradshaw, J.

Farnham, E. B.

Bramston, T. W.

Fitzmaurice, hn. W.

Bruce, Lord E.

Flower, Sir J.

Buck, L. W.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Bunbury, T.

Fox, S. L.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Fuller, A. E.

Cardwell, E.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Chapman, A.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Charteris, hon. F.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Clerk, Sir G.

Goring, C.

Cochrane, A.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Collett, W. R.

Greenall, P.

463

Greene, T.

Mundy, E. M.

Gregory, W. H.

Neville, R.

Grog0an, E.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Hamilton, G. A.

O'Brien, A. S.

Hamilton, W. J.

Oswald, A.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Packe, C.

Harcourt, G. G.

Patten, J. W.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Hardy, J,

Peel, J.

Hayes, Sir E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Henley, J. W.

Pollock, Sir F.

Herbert, hon. S.

Praed, W. T.

Hinde, J. H.

Pringle, A.

Hodgson, R.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Hope, hon. C.

Rendlesham, Lord

Hope, G. W.

Repton, G. W. J.

Hornby, J.

Richards, R.

Houldsworth, T.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Hughes, W. B.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Hussey, T.

Sanderson, R.

Irton, S.

Sandon, Visct.

Irving, J.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.

Jermyn, Earl

Scott, hon. F.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Seymour, Sir H.

Johnstone, H.

Shirley, E. P.

Kemble, H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

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

Knight, H. G.

Smollett, A.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Somerset, Lord G.

Law, hon. C. E.

Stanley, Lord

Lincoln, Earl of

Stewart, J.

Lockhart, W.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Lowther, J. H.

Tennent, J. E.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Tomline, G.

McGeachy, F. A.

Trotter, J.

Mackenzie, T.

Wall, C. B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Maclean, D.

Wyndham, Col. C.

McNeill, D.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Mahon, Visct.

Mainwaring, T.

TELLERS.

Masterman, J.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Milnes, R. M.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Cave, hon. R. O.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Cobden, R.

Barnard, E. G.

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Collett, J.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Crawford, W. S.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Bernal, R.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Bernal, Capt.

Dennistoun, J.

Blake, M. J.

Duff, J.

Blewitt, R. J.

Duncan, G.

Bodkin, J. J.

Duncannon, Visct.

Bowes, J.

Dundas, Adm.

Bowring, Dr.

Ellice, E.

Bright, J.

Elphinstone, H.

Brotherton, J.

Fielden, J.

Browne, hon. W.

Gore, hon. R.

Buller, C.

Hastie, A.

Busfeild, W.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Butler, hon. Col.

Hill, Lord M.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Horsman, E.

Carew, hon. R. S.

Layard, Capt,

464

Marjoribanks, S.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Martin, J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Mitchell, T. A.

Strutt, E.

Morris, D.

Tancred, H. W.

Murphy, F. S.

Thornely, T.

O'Connell, M.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Villiers, hon. C.

Pattison, J.

Wakley, T.

Pechell, Capt.

Wallace, R.

Plumridge, Capt.

Ward, H. G.

Pulsford, R.

Wawn, J. T.

Ramsbottom, J.

Williams, W.

Rawdon, Col.

Wyse, T.

Ricardo, J. L.

Yorke, H. R.

Roche, E. B.

TELLERS.

Scholefield, J.

Duncombe, T.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Bellew. J.

Order of the Day read.
On the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair—

REFORM OF THE REPRESENTATION—STOPPING THE SUPPLIES.
Mr. S. Crawfordrose to move the amendment of which he had given notice:—
"That the several Petitions which had been received and laid on the Table of this House since the commencement of the Session, complaining that this House is not a true representation of the people, be referred to a Select Committee to inquire into the said allegation; and that the further consideration of the Estimates be postponed till such Committee shall report thereon."
The House was aware, the hon. Member said, that many such petitions had been presented, and that up to that moment no notice had been taken of the allegations which they contained. He would beg particularly to draw the attention of hon. Gentlemen to one petition which had been presented from Birmingham, agreed to at a public meeting, and signed by the Mayor, the allegations of which were most remarkable and striking, and yet the Committee on public petitions had not thought proper to print it. The petition to which he referred alleged, in the first place, that the House of Commons as at present constituted, did not represent the people: secondly, that it did not possess the confidence of the country; thirdly, that a large number of the Members of which it was composed had obtained their seats by the most disgraceful bribery and corruption; fourthly, that its proceedings were for the most part influenced by selfish and party motives, rather than by considerations of justice and a due regard to the wants and interests of the people; and further, that the House systematically

465
disregarded the wishes of the people, and legislated in utter recklessness of their welfare. Now, his proposition was, that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the allegations contained in this and the other petitions of the same nature, before they proceeded further in voting the Estimates. He thought, under the circumstances, the House could not claim to represent the feelings and opinions of the country, or if they thought they did, why did they not at once declare that the allegations contained in the petitions were unfounded? He was not now contending for the extension of the Franchise, which he thought ought to be conceded, but he would put it to the House whether some improvement in the representation of the people ought not to take place? If the people had no respect for the Legislature by whom the laws were made, how could they be expected to respect the laws? Thus it was that the country could only be kept under by the maintenance of a large military force. They must maintain the Government either by the respect of the people for the laws, or by a large military force. When he brought forward his proposition on a former evening for postponing the Supplies until the grievances of the people should be considered, it was objected by his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Gisborne), that his Motion was not sufficiently specific. He hoped the Motion he was now submitting would be considered sufficiently distinct in its object to satisfy his hon. Friend, and that it would have the advantage of his support. He had, however, some ground, he thought, for being surprised at the objection which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) to the course he had taken, because that hon. Member had himself proposed that the grievances of the people should be considered before voting the Supplies. That was the constitutional principle for which he was now contending. He was not seeking to delay the business of the House by adjournments, and it was far from his intention vexatiously to persevere in a course which had not some reasonable ground of success. There was no man from whom he had expected more cordial support than the hon. Member for Finsbury, and yet in the very outset the hon. Member for Finsbury had disclaimed all sympathy with the Motion. It was his
466
intention to take the sense of the House upon his Amendment, which the hon. Member concluded by moving.
Mr. Blewittseconded the Amendment, feeling convinced that it was fully justified under the present circumstances of the country. He had himself presented petitions to this House, denying that the people had any confidence in their present Representatives, and every day's experience tended to confirm him in the opinion that they legislated in that House for themselves. It was but the other day that they had passed a law to exempt certain hon. Members and noble Lords from penalties which they had incurred, and this was done upon the ground of ignorance of the law. He should like to know how far the plea of ignorance of the law would avail any wretched individual who might be charged with—he would not say a crime—but with an infringement of the law? Would his ignorance of the law diminish his punishment one atom? The people saw that the legislation of that House was carried on for the purpose of depriving the people of their bread, and putting money into the pockets of the landlords. He would ask the House to permit him to refer to the opinion of an American writer, which was extremely apposite to the occasion.
"To a man (the hon. Member read) who looks with sympathy and brotherly regard on the mass of the people—who is deeply interested in the 'lower classes,' England presents much which is repulsive. Though a Monarchy in name, she is an aristocracy in fact; and an aristocratical caste, however adorned by private virtue, can hardly help sinking an infinite chasm between itself and the multitude of men. A privileged order possessing the chief power of the State, cannot but rule in the spirit of an order, cannot respect the mass of the people; cannot but feel that for them government chiefly exists and ought to be administered; and that for them the nobleman holds is rank as a trust. The condition of the lower orders at the present moment is a mournful commentary on English institutions and civilization. The multitude are depressed in that country to a degree of ignorance, want, and misery, which must touch every heart not made of stone. In the civilized world there are few sadder spectacles than the contrast now presented in Great Britain, of unbounded wealth and luxury with the starvation of thousands and tens of thousands, crowded into cellars and dens without ventilation or light, compared with which the wigwam of the Indian is a palace. Misery, famine, brutal degradation, in the neighbourhood and presence of

467
stately mansions which ring with gaiety and dazzle with pomp and unbounded profusion, shock us as no other wretchedness does. It is a striking fact, that the private charity of England, though almost incredible, makes little impression on this mass of misery—thus teaching the rich and titled to be just before being generous, and not to look to private munificence as a remedy for the evils of selfish institutions."
The hon. Member concluded by saying that he was much obliged to the House for its attention.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 91; Noes 15: Majority 76.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Hope hon. C.

A'Court, Capt.

Hornby, J.

Arkwright, G.

Hussey, T.

Baillie, Col.

Irton, S.

Baillie, H. J.

Kemble, H.

Barnard, E. G.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Barrington, Visct.

Lincoln, Earl of

Beckett, W.

Lockhart, W.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Lowther, J. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Borthwick, P.

Mc Geachy, F. A.

Botfield, B.

Maclean, D.

Brotherton, J.

Mc Neill, D.

Browne, hon. W.

Mitchell, T. A.

Bruce, Lord E.

Morris, D.

Cave hon. R. O.

Mundy, E. M.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Clerk, Sir G.

O'Brien, A. S.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Packe, C. W.

Collett, W. R.

Patten, J. W.

Corry, right hon. H.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Cripps, W.

Peel, J.

Damer, hon. Col.

Plumptre, J. P.

Denison, E. B.

Polhill, F.

Dickinson, F.

Pollock, Sir F.

Douglas, Sir H.

Pringle, A.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Richards, R.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Sanderson, R.

Egerton, W. T.

Sandon, Visct.

Eliot, Lord

Sibthorp, Col.

Escott, B.

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

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Smollett, A.

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Flower, Sir J.

Stanley, Lord

Fuller, A. E.

Stewart, J.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Tennent, J. E.

Goring, C.

Trelawny, J. S.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Trotter, J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Greenall, P.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Greene, T.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Hamilton, G. A.

Yorke, H. R.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Young, J.

Herbert, hon. S.

TELLERS.

Hinde, J. H.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Hodgson, R.

Baring, H.

468

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Plumridge, Capt.

Blewitt, R. J.

Scholefield, J.

Bodkin, J. J.

Villiers, hon. C.

Bowring, Dr.

Wakley, T.

Bright, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Cobden, R.

Williams, W.

Duncan, G.

TELLERS.

Duncombe, T.

Crawford, S.

O'Connell, M.

Fielden, J.

House in Committee of

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
On the Question that a sum not exceeding 544,960 l. be granted to Her Majesty to defray the Expense of victualling Her Majesty's Navy and Marines,
Dr. Bowringsaid, he thought when the House was called upon to vote more than half a million of money in one sum, they had a right to expect more detailed information of the manner in which it was to be expended than was furnished in their estimates. The different articles required and their cost should be stated.
Captain Pechellsaid, that before he should agree to this grant he was desirous of having some explanation from the gallant Admiral opposite on the part of the Board of Admiralty, with reference to a few points connected with the Naval service. First, he wished to know if, in the local newspapers it was true, that Naval officers and the ships of Her Majesty's Navy were employed on the West coast of Ireland, in the enforcement of the Poor-rates, and in compelling Boards of Guardians to make a second rate before the first was collected. This was said to have taken place at Westport; and it was also stated, that the Earl of Lucan, chairman of the Board of Guardians at Castlebar said, that he would encourage every resistance to a second rate. The hon. and gallant Member read extracts from Castlebar and Galway newspapers, to the effect, that Poor-rate collectors had been regularly embarked, with policemen, as protectors, on board Her Majesty's war-steamers; and only a storm had, by the sea-sickness it occasioned among the land-lubbers, prevented the disagreeable consequences that might have ensued from such unseemly attempts to coerce the collection of rates by the means of thirty-six pounders. Brat for the "flag of truce," which had been hung out between himself and the right hon. Gentleman at the Home Office, he should cer-

469
tainly dwell upon this discreditable appropriation of our gallant Naval forces to so distasteful a service; as it was, he would only observe, that when the right hon. Gentleman contemplated the extension of his system into districts at present free from Somerset House despotism, he should consider the inconveniences which might result from having to enforce his scheme by the employment of war-steamers on the English coast. He would now come to another subject, the equipment of our war-steamers; and he must say he thought there had been great neglect in applying the principle of the Archimedean screw, which had not had a fair trial; because if it had, he was satisfied it could have been adopted with the greatest safety and success. The Rattler steamer had been set apart for trying experiments with that screw, but he believed she was employed in trying the experiments of Mr. Brunel and other parties, to the detriment of Mr. Smith. They had ample proof of the superiority of the Archimedean screw, because the French steamer Archimede, commanded by the Prince de Joinville, which accompanied Her Majesty from Treport, had beaten all the other vessels of the squadron, except the Royal yacht. Then, again, he wished to know what was to be done with respect to the Great Britain, that had been built in dock, at Bristol, and when she was finished it was discovered that the dock entrance was so small she could not be got out. There she was caught in a mouse-trap. He believed the present was the most convenient time to call the attention of the Committee to the grievances of naval officers, and he would refer, in the first place, to the Masters. The rank of lieutenant was nominally open to them, but they seldom had it conferred upon them; and felt serious dissatisfaction when they found young gentlemen put over the heads of men who had, perhaps, commanded vessels when the youngsters were unborn. He must mention, however, with great approbation, the promotion of one, the master of the Nemesis, Mr. Hall, who had been engaged in our Chinese operations. That promotion certainly did high honour to the Admiralty and great credit to the service. The clerks, he considered, had not justice done to their merits, for they were doomed to all the hardest work, and had not the honours of the commission opened to them, having nothing to look
470
to but a pursership. When a gallant officer was acting Lord of the Admiralty, matters in these respects should be improved. He could not help alluding to the case of one who had served with hint on board a brig under the gallant Officer during the last American war, and who was now no higher than a secretary at Woolwich, where he got hard work on only 150 l. a year. He condemned the plan of discharging the boys from the Navy, after the term of their apprenticeship had expired, and he thought some regulations ought to be adopted for their re-entry. When there was some difficulty in getting good seamen, they ought to keep in the service those boys who had already acquired some knowledge of gunnery. The rule was to take no boys for the service under 98lb. weight, and he believed that the boys coming from the Gilbert Unions and unions under local acts were generally full weight; while those coming from other unions were short weight. The gallant Officer also condemned the use of the ten-gun brigs.
Sir G. Cockburnwould endeavour to answer upon every point that had been submitted to the House. The hon. and gallant Member began his speech by finding fault with the Board, for, as it was alleged, permitting their steam-vessels to be employed in the collection of the Poor-rates. He (Sir George Cockburn) told the hon. and gallant Captain, that if he knew of his own knowledge that such was the fact, he would not contradict him. But he could assure him, that he had not heard anything on the subject, and he did not believe it. There was, no doubt, a considerable force on the western coast of Ireland, which had orders to assist and support the magistrates and civil authorities and, their presence might, therefore, have had a moral effect in enabling the civil authorities to collect the Poor rates or other dues, but he had not heard and did not believe, that any naval officer had been employed collecting Poor rates as stated by the hon. and gallant Officer [Captain Pechell: "No."] he (Sir G. Cockburn) appealed to the House whether the gallant Officer had not so stated. In all places on the coast of Ireland, where their ships were moored, the officers were all very well treated, and the people, who came in great numbers on board, appeared much pleased with the sight, and showed no symptoms of ill-feeling, and our officers when a-shore received every mark of respect from all classes: but inquiry should be

471
made as to whether any officer of the Navy had so employed himself as the hon. and gallant Member had insinuated. The next point that was dwelt upon was, that in reference to the Masters. Neither the hon. and gallant Commodore (Sir C. Napier), nor the hon. and gallant Captain, could have a greater respect for this class of men than he had. He did not agree, however, in opinion with them, that the masters ought to be placed exactly in the same rank as lieutenants. The Admiralty had placed the master of a line-of-battle ship upon a higher amount of pay than the first lieutenant of the ship. The other masters were placed on exactly the same amount of pay as the other lieutenants. If they put the masters in the same situations as lieutenants, they would be doing away with that principle upon which the service had hitherto been conducted. That principle was, that these officers should pass through a certain time of servitude before they were made lieutenants, but the masters might have been in the merchant service, and from thence go into a man-of-war at once with the rank of master. He thought that this was a different line altogether to that marked out for lieutenants, and he considered that, for the good of the service, it was fitting that it should be so. The masters in the merchant service were brought up in all the hard work of seamen; most of them had served their apprenticeship. They were excellent men, and no doubt very valuable, but still, as he before said, their line was somewhat different from the other classes of the profession. They were sometimes made lieutenants and captains when they signalised themselves by some particularly gallant action, or performed some good service to the country, but these cases were the exceptions, and not the general rule. He did not, however, wish it to be supposed, that he said anything disparagingly of that class of men. He had no such intention, but, on the contrary, wished to give them every satisfaction that was in his power to obtain for them. It was at present under the consideration of the Board as to how their situation could be possibly improved. The next subject of observation from the hon. and gallant Member was the Archimedean screw. With respect to that, the Board were only anxious, before they laid out much money in its general adoption, to ascertain the fullest advantages that were to be gained from it, and the greatest improvements that could be made in it. Mr.
472
Smith and Mr. Brunel had agreed to act together in their exertions to discover what was the best description of screw, and he hoped that some material improvements would yet be made, and it was the intention of the Admiralty on the termination of the present experiments, to test the merits of Mr. Steinman Steinman's propeller. Whichever proved to be the best, the Admiralty would adopt. The screw, as hitherto tried, was, after all, a very awkward arrangement, it occupied a large space of the body of the vessel, leaving it only connected by the keel, and consequently rendering the vessel proportionately weak. His impression, however, was, that they would arrive at the knowledge of a screw which would be better than the paddle-wheels. It was only about two or three days ago, that an officer of the Navy had called upon him and said, that he had just come from Edinburgh, where he saw a vessel of seven or eight horse power with a horizontal wheel in her bottom, which enabled her to go at the rate of about eight knots an hour. This vessel was described as a very great improvement, and he had sent down one of the chief engineers to look at it. As to the steam boats, various improvements were daily suggested, Government were trying every thing they possibly could to improve them. They saw of what great importance they must very soon become, and they were endeavouring to find out the best description for sea service, and he had no doubt, that in the event of war, we could turn out a better and a stronger fleet of steam-boats than they could on the other side of the water. With respect to the secretaries to Commodores, the gallant Officer was mistaken. In 1838, an order was made, that the clerk to the Senior Officer at Woolwich, and on the coast of Africa, should receive a salary of 150 l. a-year each, but they were not entitled to be considered as Secretaries of Flag Officers. With respect to the particular case which the gallant Officer had mentioned, the individual in question, who, he understood, was a good officer, had written to him (Sir G. Cockburn), describing the hardship of his situation, and he (Sir G. Cockburn) proposed to appoint him as a purser, but he stated that he was so circumstanced that he could not serve again afloat, and, therefore sought only for an appointment upon the establishment of the Dockyards. He had accordingly given in his name to the First Lord of the Admiralty, with whom that patronage lay, and

473
he hoped that he would be placed in a situation on that establishment. The next point of the gallant Officer's speech was with respect to the boys. Now these boys were allowed to enter for five years if they wished, and they were kept for that time. As to allowing them to continue permanently in the Navy, it should be recollected, that the Admiralty were tied down to a particular number of men and boys, and they could not keep the boys to the exclusion of men, particularly when they wanted men to man their ships. It was impossible for the gallant Officer to know the claims which were made upon the Admiralty from all parts of the world for ships; and, tied down as he was to a certain number of men, it was impossible to keep more boys in the service. Besides, even if he were able to do so, he was not sure that it would be the wisest course. He was one of those who, after great experience, thought that it was valuable in this country that seamen should run the tour from the Navy to merchant ships, and back again from merchant ships to men-of-war. On board men-of-war they took great pains to instruct the men in gunnery, and when men were paid off they took their turn in the merchant service, having some knowledge of gunnery. Others came into the Navy in their places, and also obtained a knowledge of gunnery, so that if a war should come they would find a large number of seamen in the merchant service possessing a competent knowledge of gunnery. There was another thing—when men went from the Navy into the merchant service, they got some hard rough work, and not so well fed and taken care of, this made them anxious to get back to the Navy; besides which this circulation of men kept up a good feeling between the Navy and the merchant service, and was rather, therefore, a benefit than otherwise. The next point was relative to captain's clerks. The case of the clerks was considered by the Naval and Military Commission of which Lord Minto and others of the then Board of Admiralty were members. But there was this difference between clerks and others—that the clerk was chosen by the captains. If a captain wanted to benefit a man, he took him on board and made him his clerk, and he was responsible to the captain, and to nobody else, and when the captain moved about, he took his clerk with him wherever he went, without asking leave of any one. Therefore, though
474
a clerk might be a long time in the service, yet it should be recollected, that he was not brought into it originally through the Admiralty, they therefore had not quite the same claims on the public as others, but by continuing in the Service, they rose to be Pursers, Secretaries, &c. He did not recollect what was the pay of a clerk, but he knew there were no class of persons from whom he received so many applications for employment, from which it might be inferred, that their situation was not a bad one. The next point was with respect to the ten-gun brigs: he thought that those vessels had been very much maligned in that House. He had had a great number of those vessels under his orders, and had found them to be good little vessels. Those vessels were only dangerous from the inattention of those commanding them, by carrying too much sail, and when there was not a good crew of active seamen on board to take in sail quickly. He had often seen them in company with him make better weather in gales than the eighteen-gun brigs, and he knew of a ten-gun brig which sailed from Plymouth on a surveying expedition round Cape Horn, and a snore violent or desperate sea could not be met anywhere. That vessel remained out for four years, and brought home the identical topmasts and top gallant-masts which she had taken out. Now, he did not think that the same could be said of any eighteen-gun brig. There had also been an instance in the China seas where a ten-gun brig withstood a typhoon, whilst an eighteen-gun brig was laid on her broadside, and nearly lost. However, although he had seen ten-gun brigs make very good weather, and had known them to be most useful, still he admitted that they were vessels he did not entirely admire, for in very few instances were they to be relied on as good sailers. They were now getting rid of them as fast as they could, and substituting vessels of a better construction, and which would sail better. He had now, he believed, answered the different points to which the gallant Officer had referred and he trusted he had shown there was no ground for the complaints that he had advanced.
Captain Pechellwished to explain. He had not said that the Officers of the men-of-war on the coast of Ireland actually went themselves to assist in the collection of Poor-rate, but he had stated that the

475
ships themselves had been made offices for the collection of the rate.
Sir C. Napiersaid, that it was greatly to be regretted, that when the House was in Committee, about to vote away millions of money, there should be so thin an attendance of Members, for frequently since the House had gone into Committee, there were scarcely more than forty Members in the House. He also noticed, that whenever the House went into Committee upon the Navy Estimates, the reporters shut up their books immediately, and the country was left totally ignorant of the grounds on which millions of the public money were voted away. He denied that it was the wish of himself or his gallant Friend to throw obstacles in the way of the gallant Admiral opposite. His only motive was to benefit the Navy. There were a few points connected with the present Vote to which he wished to call attention. He thought it would be a great improvement, if, instead of paying seamen thirteen months' wages in the year, that they should be paid for twelve months, and that their wages should be raised to 2l. per month. This would be a small additional expense and a great benefit to the seamen. He would then go to work with the petty officers, than whom no class of men were more necessary to keep up the discipline of the Navy. He believed that the mutiny of 1797 would never have occurred, or would have been easily put down, had the petty officers at that time been better paid and better treated. He would propose that the first class of petty officers should receive double the pay of the common seamen, and that the second class should receive one-and-a-half the pay of a common seaman. He also wished that there should be an improvement in the mode of paying seaman. The sailor was allowed to draw his wages in slops and necessaries. He was generally careless, and, after returning from long service, be found often that he had drawn the greater part of his wages, and had often only a few pounds coming to him, which were not sufficient to support him until he got another ship. He thought that some change of the present system was worthy of the consideration of the gallant Admiral. He now came to the boys. It appeared that no boy would be allowed to enter who did not weigh ninety-eight pounds, and if those boys got into good ships with good officers, they were treated with the greatest kind-
476
ness; their education was looked after, their moral conduct was watched over, and they were taught seamanship; but after a certain age they were dismissed. They came home at seventeen—to use a vulgar expression—"Hobble-de-hoys, neither men nor boys." These boys very often could not get ships. They came up to London, and crowded the lodging-houses frequented by their class, where they were taught every description of vice. They were taught to drink and chew tobacco—they had a fiddler to play for them and women to dance with them, and they were made adepts in every kind of vice. He thought, that whatever money it might cost, the Government was bound to take these boys on board the flag ships, and provide for them in preference to introducing new hands into the service. With respect to pensioned seamen, he thought the present Government went too far in allowing them their pension and their pay together—it would be a better arrangement to allow them increased wages, say 25 l. a year. In his opinion, twenty-one years was too long a period for a sailor to look forward to for a pension, and it would be much better if he got a pension at the end of fourteen years' service. Relative to Masters, he thought that Lieutenants, who had not interest to get on, ought to be allowed to enter the Merchant service, in order to qualify themselves to become Masters, and he was sure that that arrangement would secure them good officers to fill the situation of Master. With respect to ten-gun brigs, nothing would convince him that they were good vessels, and he was glad they were getting rid of them. He (Commodore Napier) was glad to find that it was intended in future not to keep officers and vessels idle in port, but to send them to sea for exercise. The gallant Admiral said, they were to be sent on summer cruises, but he (Commodore Napier) hoped they would be sent on winter cruises. Summer cruises were not what made good sailors, but let them be sent in winter to cruise off the Hebrides, and there they would see what a gale of wind was.
Mr. W. Williamscomplained of the want of information regarding the details of this Vote. He thought it very hard that the rate of promotion in the Royal Marines should be so slow. He knew Officers who had been in that corps for forty years, and had attained no higher rank than that of Captain.
Mr. Tufnellcalled the attention of the Board of Admiralty to the claims of a most meritorious class of Officers in Her Majesty's dockyards, the inspectors of shipwrights. These Officers performed duties of a more responsible nature than the quarterman, having to superintend two gangs twenty men and boys each, instead of one gang of twenty-five men, who used to be under the quarterman's superintendence. The quarterman's pay was from 160 l. to 180 l. a year, whilst the inspector of shipwrights had only 100 l. Their duty was to appoint the men to their work, to see that it was properly executed, and to keep the men to their tasks. When the salary was first fixed only five days' work in the week was required of them. They have now to work eight days, whilst their salary remains the same, besides which they had no allowance for working extra hours, when extraordinary exertions might be required as for docking and grounding ships. But besides the lowness of their salary, their superannuation was calculated on too reduced a scale for forty years' service—twenty as workman, ten as leading man, and ten as inspector, they were only entitled to 13–14ths of their pay as superannuation, or 32 l. 10 s. a year; whereas, by working for the same time in an inferior situation, they would be entitled to nearly the same amount of retirement. In some cases, he understood, they would even have less superannuation than if they had continued as working men. A shipwright who had served twenty years received a retiring allowance of 20 l. per annum, whilst if, in addition to these twenty years, he had served anything less than fifteen years as inspector, he would only be entitled to 25 l. per annum, or 5l. in addition for fourteen years' service. He brought the case of this deserving class of officers before the House in no party spirit, but solely from a sincere desire to do justice to men who discharged responsible duties for which they were ill-remunerated, and should leave the matter in the hands of his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty and the First Naval Lord in full confidence, that if, in considering the case, they agreed with him in thinking the remuneration of the inspectors inadequate, they would (notwithstanding the suggestion might come from his side of the House), rise the salary of this class of officers in proportion to the work and responsibility which were imposed upon them.
Mr. Sidney Herbertwas not prepared to say that he agreed in the inadequacy of the salary enjoyed by the inspectors, but thought that their scale of superannuation was calculated, perhaps, on too low a basis, and would consider their case.
Vote agreed to.
On the question that a sum of 126,826 l. to defray the Salaries of Officers and contingent Expenses in the Admiralty Offices, be granted to Her Majesty,
Captain Rouswished to make a few observations on the state of the Navy gene rally. It was part of the calculations of the Admiralty, he believed, that in case of war they could command the services of about 800 steamers in the Navy or Merchant-service, who would be able to sweep the narrow seas. Now, he should like much to know whether there were 200 officers in the Navy who had been brought up to know anything of steam-engines or machinery, or about the management of a steam-ship. At least, one-half of Her Majesty's steamers were commanded by officers who could know nothing whatever of steam machinery, and, who, consequently, instead of commanding their own ships, were the mere servants of their own engineers, and utterly incapable of seeing that any necessary evolution was properly performed. As to the complements of the sailing-vessels and their officers in manœuvring, he recollected the anecdote which had been told by the hon. and gallant Commander opposite, who said that when on the coast of Syria an evolution had been performed by the French squadron in a style so admirable that the British ships could not match it. He regretted, as a man who had been at sea for thirty years, that we should have any cause to shrink from competition with the French, a people who had been inferior to us for 500 years. Nothing could be more absurd than to employ officers to command ships who had been twenty years on shore, while young and active officers were laid on the shelf. He had said this himself to Lord Haddington, and told him that while this system was acted upon, it was impossible they could have one man fit to command a ship. He had often seen line-of-battle ships get under weigh with 500 or 600 men, in a manner so shameful and disgraceful, that it was enough to make the tears stand in a seaman's eyes. The French, owing to the great care and pains which their Govern-

479
ment had bestowed of late years on the education and practice of the Officers, and the manning of the ships, could now get under weigh in a manner to extort the admiration of their rivals. Officers of twenty-five years standing were considered too young for employment in the British service; he remembered that, some two or three years ago, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had told himself and the gallant Commodore opposite, that they were too young to have an opinion on a naval question. Yet the right hon. and gallant Officer had commanded a fleet before he was of his (Captain Rous's) age, and he was now fifty years old. In the navy no man was allowed to have arrived at the years of discretion until he could no longer see with his own eyes, hear with his own ears, or chew with his own teeth. He wished to say a word as to the ships which were now in process of construction, chiefly on Sir W. Symonds' principle. He would venture to prophesy that this system would share the fate of many former systems, and that the surveyor's ships, on which so many millions had been expended, would one day only be fit for firewood. In 1808, when he entered the service, the 74-gun ships of the same class as the Forty Thieves, were the best ships in the service, except the captured French 80's, of the class of the Malta, Canopus, &c. In course of time they were condemned, and became a bye-word. The 10-gun brigs were at one time considered the best and swiftest ever built, and had superseded the old 14-gun brigs. In the American war we built corvettes so narrow, that they could not stand up under canvass. The first that went to sea very nearly foundered in a gale of wind, and when the captain reported this, and added, that it was one of the severest gales of wind he had ever witnessed, the Admiralty turned round upon him, and said, "No wonder then if it was the case, for any vessel would be nearly lost in such a gale." All the Captains after this reported favourably, for it was well known that the Admiralty did not relish cold water being thrown on any of their projects. The 28-gun frigates, of 500 tons, since known as the donkey-frigates, were at one time considered as desirable ships, he had himself commanded one for four years, in which he had sailed 81,000 miles. He reported to the Admiralty that it would make a fine merchantman,
480
but, that as a man-of-war, it was a disgrace to the country, and he found to his astonishment, that there were only two others who had reported unfavourably, because they knew that they would ruin their prospects if they did. The 18-gun brigs were famous in the service for their excellent qualities, and were converted into ships; this was known to be an Admiralty whim, and every man reported favourably of them, except Captain Dundas, son to the First Lord of the Admiralty, who wrote word back, that they had spoiled a very fine brig, and turned her into a very bad ship. This Officer was written to, both privately and publicly, by Mr. Croker, to withdraw his letter, but he insisted that he was right, and right he certainly was, for there was not a single dissentient voice in the service two years afterwards, when it was known that the Admiralty of the day no longer took any interest in them. He mentioned this in order that when they heard such flourishing accounts of Sir William Symonds' ships, and the Penelopes, they might believe as little of it as possible, unless they heard the contrary side. The fastest and finest vessel he had ever seen, was the Water-Witch, built by Mr. White, which was purchased into the service eight or nine years ago. It remained five years on the coast of Africa, and last year the Admiralty sent down to Portsmouth Dockyard, to obtain an estimate of the expense that would be necessary to put her into a complete state of service. The surveyors surveyed her, and reported that it would cost about 6,400 l., he believed that was the sum, but the right hon. Gentleman would correct him if he misstated it—and that she was not a good sailer. It was supposed the Admiralty would order her to be broken up, but Mr. White, of Cowes, when he heard of the affair, sent up word to say, that he would take the contract into his hands, and complete her for exactly one-half of the estimate of the dockyard. Why did he mention this, except in order to prove that every report from the dock-yard of ships not built by themselves, or built in a merchant's yard, was to be received with extreme suspicion, if it was not utterly worthless? There they were all combined, and many of them hated one another like poison. Many of these builders in the dock-yards to his knowledge, did so, and all joined to prevent any other person building ships for

481
Her Majesty's service. Every man who commanded a yacht knew that there were men in London, Liverpool, Bristol, or the Isle of Wight, who were as much superior to Sir W. Symonds, as that naval architect was to a common shipwright. He had heard every Admiralty in turn attempt to humbug the House, because there used to be nobody to find them out, but, thank God, since the peace it was not so easy to do that, on account of so many Gentlemen having yachts of their own, who had made themselves masters of the subject; so that the House could no longer be bamboozled year after year as they had been formerly. If, then, those sneaking fellows were not misleading them, the good sense of the House would rise up in judgment against the Admiralty Board. The question was, whether it was best to employ active men, who had been always at sea, and never had been laid on the shelf, or some valuable old Officers, who had been from a quarter to half a century on shore, who knew nothing about a ship, and of whom the only good that could be hoped, was, that they might have a good right-hand-man as a Lieutenant or Master, that they would invariably hold their tongues on all occasions, and that they would give very good dinners to the Lieutenants and Midshipmen, when they entertained them.
Sir G. Cockburnhoped, when the hon. and gallant Officer did him the honour to quote him, he might be at least quoted fairly and truly, for he would venture to say, that he never had used such an expression to the hon. and gallant Officer, or to any one else, that he was too young to give an opinion. What he did say was, that the gallant Officer had made use of an expression regarding an old and gallant Officer which he thought not very becoming. He apologised for his own age, and said that he hoped, after what had passed, the House would not refuse to hear an old Officer. With respect to the charge which the gallant Officer had thought proper to bring against the Admiralty, he could only say, that what he had stated against them generally was not more true than what he stated against him individually. He defied any Board to take more pains than they had done since they came to the Admiralty in endeavouring to improve the building of the Navy. He considered Sir W. Symonds to be a man to whom the service was very much indebted, and who had made great improve-
482
ments in the build of ships, but at the same time he was free to say that he did not think his ships were perfect, and he knew that when persons took up a system, they sometimes became too exclusively attached to it; so it was felt right that some check should be kept on that valuable Officer. They had directed all the master-shipwrights to be called together at Woolwich, to endeavour to find out the best mode of building ships for strength and efficiency. He believed they had, between them, got at what appeared to him to be perfection, with regard to the principle of the construction of sterns. Three of the most talented native artists, who had gained the highest prizes in mathematics, and written the best essays, were sent back to Chatham to meet and examine the building of the ships, and they had given in a very elaborate statement, giving reasons why every ship had faults, and why perfection had not been yet obtained. They were now employing those persons to build a ship themselves, in order to show whether they could not produce the best ship in the world. The Admiralty, therefore, were not to be told that they were taking no pains to improve the Naval Architecture of the country. Great advances had been already made. The Vernon frigate, it should be remembered, was nearly of the same tonnage as the Victory, which had been the flag ship in some of our largest naval battles. All classes had advanced; he remembered that even the twenty-eight gun frigates were thought most desirable ships; when he went to sea first, they were looked upon to be almost perfection. There was the little frigate Dido, with twenty-six nine-pounders, which went alongside of one of the largest French frigates and captured her, under the command of Sir H. Blackwood. The gallant commodore had said that the French fleet on the Syrian coast got under weigh in a manner so brilliant, that the British could not imitate them. But, per contra, he (Sir G. Cockburn) had been told by the captain of the Asia, that being under the lee of the land with three or four French ships in a heavy gale of wind, the British ship was the only one which stood it out. He believed that if we had a French squadron off Brest in a gale of wind, and an English squadron after it, the gallant Captain would soon find there were some officers in the Navy who knew their busi-

483
ness. It was very easy to get up in the House and say that our officers were unskilled or unpractised, but he would undertake to say, that when occasion arose it would be found that there was as much zeal and ardency as during the war, though there could not well be the same extent of practice, when three-fourths of the officers were on half-pay. He entertained not the smallest doubt that they would manifest as great superiority over other nations as they had ever done.
Rear-Admiral Dundassaid, it ought not to go abroad that there was anything like failing in our officers or our men. On the contrary he would say, that having known the Navy forty-years, he had never known it in a better condition. The men were better educated, better fed, with much less punishment than formerly, and better exercised at the guns. He said, therefore, there were just as good fish in the sea as ever came out of it.
Captain Pechell,after expressing his regret that the French fleet should have been praised at the expense of the English Navy, said he was glad to hear the hon. and gallant Officer opposite, Captain Rous, state his opinions in the independent manner he had. It was a good example to naval Officers on the other side of the House. The hon. and gallant Member then proceeded to praise the qualities of the Waterwitch, and to express his approval of the vessels now building. He had not understood the hon. and gallant Officer opposite to impugn those, but to allude to a previous date, when vessels were built which could neither be put alongside an enemy, nor were able to run away from one. The hon. and gallant Admiral appeared offended at the report of the Shipwreck Committee, but he assured him that it was of no use for any individual Lord of the Admiralty to stand up in defence of such ships as were there alluded to, for the country at large disapproved of them. There was a disgraceful instance of a ship of war being in such a condition that she was actually taken by a pirate, and the crew murdered. With respect to the experiments now making with the Archimedean screw in the Rattler, he felt it his duty to say that the experiments were now making by Mr. Brunel over Mr. Smith, who was the inventor of the screw, and the consequence was, that the vessel sailed nearly a knot less every time she was tried. While the vessel made
484
ten knots under Mr. Smith, she now only made eight. This was not fair, and was calculated to be highly injurious to Mr. Smith, who would have the discredit of the failure, and he thought that this explanation was due to that Gentleman. The Members of the Board of Admiralty received their half-pay, while the other officers holding offices of emolument under the Crown, or on foreign service, or in holy orders, had not the like privilege. He had no objection to the hon. and gallant Admiral receiving his half-pay, but let the principle be fairly carried out, There was the Lieutenant Governor of Greenwich Hospital, Sir James Gordon, a gallant Officer who had served his country, and was now going about with a wooden leg; he could not receive his half-pay, and why should he not be put on the same footing in that respect as the Governor of Chelsea Hospital? Why did not the Government apply to the Attorney and Solicitor General for their opinion, whether Sir J. Gordon could or could not legally receive his half-pay and if there was a doubt, let the gallant officer have the benefit of it. He must complain too of the manner in which the Income Tax pressed upon officers and their families. These were points which he trusted the hon. and gallant Admiral would give his attention to: they were subjects which lay Lords might not understand, but officers expected relief from those who had lived with them and sailed with them; and now there was a strong Government he hoped the hon. and gallant Admiral would attend to the suggestions he had thrown out.
Captain Rousexplained that he had never entertained the idea that the French navy was superior to ours in anything. He had quoted a speech formerly made by the hon. and gallant Commodore. He (Captain Rous) had the most perfect confidence in the seamen and marines of the country; and if war were unfortunately to arise, he would stake his existence upon them.
Sir C. Napiercongratulated the House and the country that naval Officers on both sides of the House, laying aside party considerations, had boldly spoken out as the hon. and gallant Officer opposite had done upon matters connected with the welfare of the navy. When he (Sir C. Napier) had brought the state of the Navy under the consideration of the

485
House, and was supported by the noble Lord, the Member for Staffordshire, the right hon. Baronet opposite said it was a bad thing when naval Officers combined together against the Government on naval matters; but he thought there was nothing more advantageous to the country than for naval Officers to combine together to reform and correct the deeds of every Admiralty, whether Whig or Tory. The Penelope had been represented as a splendid vessel, perfectly dry, and never shipping a drop of water, while it was notorious to all but the captain of that vessel, that so far from being dry, she was almost always under water, and, like a large porpoise, only came up once an hour to breathe. She was only fit to drown the men. The hon. and gallant Officer entered into a technical comparison of the qualities of the Penelope, the Albion, the Rodney, the Powerful, and the cost of the build of each; contending that it was useless to build ships at a vast expellee carrying only six guns more than those built at a far less expense. He recommended that vessels of that class now on the stocks should be taken to pieces and begun afresh. In respect to what he had formerly said as to the evolutions of the French fleet, he repeated that their evolutions were performed in a masterly manner in fine weather. But the French ships were manned by young men. As men grew older, they grew more idle, more disposed to rest quietly at anchorage, than to exercise their ships; but if we pursued the same system as the French, and got young officers to command the ships, and young Admirals to command the fleets, we should exhibit the same activity, and there was not the least doubt we should beat them out and out. But that was not our system. At Malta, for example, there was a ship bearing an Admiral's flag who was seventy-five years of age. When it was considered that half of our young officers were brought up in the large ships lying at Portsmouth and Plymouth, could the House be surprised that the French, or the Americans or any other nations beat us? He did not blame the officers, but he blamed the Admiralty, and the constitution of the Admiralty, and he blamed the right hon. Baronet for not assenting to the very moderate proposition he (Sir Charles Napier) had made, of appropriating 15,000 l. to enable old officers to retire. If they desired to compete with their rivals, they
486
must do as the French did, and have young men of forty to command their fleets. Before he consented to the vote, he wished to know if the hon. and gallant Admiral had changed the opinions he had formerly expressed on the constitution of the Board of Admiralty?
Sir George Cockburnwould not say anything about the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, which was not of his creation. While he was at the Board he would do his duty to the best of his ability, and when he was no longer of any use, he would retire. When, however, the gallant Officer said that no one, except the Captain of the Penelope, would say that she was a dry vessel, and when she was called a mere porpoise, he must refer to a letter from Sir Charles Rowley, who was at sea with her, having her under his command; and he declared that during the time she was with the squadron, there were generally heavy seas, and when she was to leeward of him he had ordered her to steam to windward against a heavy sea, and that she appeared to do so without straining, and was perfectly dry.
Admiral Dundashad received a private letter from Captain Jones, saying that she had completely succeeded, and was the best sea boat he ever knew.
Vote agreed to.
On the Vote of 495,656 l. to defray the charge for Military Pensions and Allowances connected with the Navy,
Mr. W. Williamsurged that this Vote should be postponed until further explanation were given in the printed Estimates respecting it. All that he required was, that a similar statement to that affixed to the Army Estimates should be printed with the Navy Estimates.
Mr. S. Herbertexplained that formerly the Vote included items which were not now contained in it; if they had been, there would have been a considerable reduction this year, instead of an increase.
Sir C. Napierwished to draw the attention of the Admiralty to a subject he had alluded to before, namely, that if an officer lost a limb, or received a wound nearly equal to the loss of a limb, he did not get anything. He (Sir C. Napier) had had a shot wound himself in one of his legs. If he were to receive a wound in the same leg again, two inches deeper, he would be entitled to a pension; but if it were to be in the other leg, and not so

487
deep as to make a wound equal to the loss of a limb, he should get no pension at all. He thought in future it would be fair and just, where an officer received a wound, that he should be examined by a medical man, who should report to the Admiralty what pension he ought to have.
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, that if the wound were not equal to the loss of a limb, the officer received a gratuity; but if it was equal to the loss of a limb, he got a pension.
Vote agreed to.
Several other Votes were agreed to. The House resumed. Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at one o'clock.

MINUTES.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Somersby, and 6 other places, and by the Earl of Yarborough, from Market Stainton, for Agricultural Protection.— From Dyserth, and St. Asaph, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.

TENURE OF LAND (IRELAND) COMMISSION.
Lord Monteaglewished to put a question to his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Devon) on a subject which deeply interested the public generally, but which more especially interested the public in Ireland. He alluded to the proceedings of the Commission appointed to inquire into the Occupation and Tenure of Land in Ireland. He entertained no distrust of his noble Friend; he believed that the greatest credit was due to him for the energy and diligence with which he had prosecuted the objects of the inquiry, and he should be very glad to hear from him, if he were at liberty to make any communication on the subject, what progress had now been made in the inquiry, and when it was likely the result of the labours of the Commissioners would be made public?
The Earl of Devonhad no difficulty in answering the question, nor was he sorry that such an opportunity was afforded him of explaining why he was then present in Parliament, instead of proceeding with the investigation in Ireland. He had made arrangements to go to Dublin for the pur-
434
pose of collecting further evidence, and had intended being in Dublin at the present time; but a few days since he had received a subpœna from the Court of Queen's Bench commanding him to attend as a witness in a criminal case at the next Devonshire Assizes. He had endeavoured to get the evidence which he should have to give made matter of admission; but the defendant considered it essential to the case that he should be examined personally; and he was afraid that he should be detained in England till the trial was over. His colleagues were, however, empowered to proceed with the inquiry during his absence, and they had consented to do so; no delay, therefore, would take place in consequence of his detention in this country. He was not sorry that he had the opportunity of stating that he was not idly or unnecessarily neglecting his public duty. It was generally supposed, although the supposition was incorrect, that the only business of the Commission was to collect evidence. That was, indeed, a most important part of their duty; but, any persons who took upon themselves the responsibility of offering suggestions as to any proposed change in the existing law should make themselves acquainted with that law; and, therefore, a not unimportant part of the duties of the Commissioners was to digest the information on the subject of the relations between Landlord and Tenant which was already accessible to the public. The labours of the Commission would be prosecuted with as little delay as possible.

TAHITI.
Lord Broughammoved for a copy of the correspondence which had taken place between the Missionaries in the South Sea Islands and the Government.
The Earl of Aberdeen—My Lords, there is no objection whatever on the part of the Government to lay such information before the House as can conveniently be produced. In the course of last year a noble Marquess (Lansdowne), not now in his place, asked me a question as to the effect likely to be produced with respect to the British Missionaries in the South Sea Islands by the recent protectorship of Tahiti by France. I then stated that the French Government had assured me that every security would be afforded them in the free exercise of their functions, and such appeared to be the fact when some papers which were laid before the other

435
House of Parliament were read; but no complaint whatever was made on the part of the Missionaries. I may mention that only two days ago I received a Deputation of the London Missionaries, and I am glad to inform your Lordships that they had no complaints whatever to prefer. My Lords, I will take this opportunity of saying a few words on another subject. Your Lordships are aware of what has taken place on the part of a French Admiral in the South Seas at the island of Tahiti, and that that act has been disavowed by the French Government. My Lords, I think it right to state that this has been done by the French Government as an entirely spontaneous and voluntary act on their part. I have not written a single line on the subject to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, nor has any remonstrance or representation been made by Her Majesty's Government to the French Government. I felt that when once the subject was known and understood by the French Government, a sense of their own dignity and honour, as well as a sense of justice, would lead to such a result. My Lords, although the statement that I have just made is most explicit, nevertheless I am prepared to see it said that the French Minister has yielded to the British Government, and I take it for granted that the war party in that country will not lose the opportunity of taking advantage of accusations so absurd. In like manner, whether from what I have done or not done, I shall be set down by the friends of that party in this country, though rather absurdly, as having been guilty on my part of a base and truckling policy. This I expect also. I only wish that the war party in France was as little regarded in that country as it is in this.
Lord Broughamsaid, that nothing could be more satisfactory than the statement just made by his noble Friend, and so it would be universally felt to be the case. It would be a complete answer to the war party on the other side of the Channel. He would not say more on this subject, because he was astonished as well as pleased to find that the existence of that party was altogether disavowed; and his noble Friend and himself were accused of creating that party out of their own imaginations; and when the subject was recently named in the Chamber of Deputies, as to whom the party consisted of, there was a cry of "Name, name," and they
436
were challenged to name any person of that party. For his own part, however, he should be but too much rejoiced to find that there really was no war party in that country.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned.