Sitting of 31 July 1845

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT. For the Stewartry of Kircudbright, v. Alexander Murray. Esq., deceased.
BILLS. Public.—1°. Exchequer Bills (£9,024,900); Consolidated Fund.
Reported.—Slave Trade (Brazil); Waste Lands (Australia).
3°. and passed:—Valuation (Ireland); Turnpike Roads (Ireland).
Private.—1°. Earl of Powis's (or Robinson's) Estate.
Reported.—London and Norwich Direct Railway.
3°. and passed:—White's Charity Estate; Rochdale Vicarage (or Molesworth's) Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Sir R. H. Inglis, from Proprietors of the Midland Railway, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. W. Gladstone, from Charles Miller, for Amendment of Law relating to the Rating of Tithes.—By F. Scott, from Port Phillip, for Separation of that District from Government of New South Wales.—By Mr. M. J. O'Connell, from several places, for Repeal of Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland) Act.—By Mr. Hawes, from Talybout, and Amlwch, for Establishment of County Courts.—By Mr. Wyse, from Charles Byrne, for Inquiry.—By Mr. Wyse, from several places, for Encouragement to Mechanics' Institute (Ireland).

CEYLON.
Mr. Tufnellwished to put a few questions on the subject of Ceylon to the Under Secretary of the Colonies, in consequence of the numerous representations that had been made to him, since the debate of Friday last, from the friends and connexions of the civil servants of that Colony; amongst whom the conduct of the Government had produced the greatest anxiety. He asked, first, at what period the six months were to commence, during which the civil servants were to make their election, either to retain their offices or their lands? Whether the term of two years for the disposal of the landed property was definitely settled? And, lastly, which was of the greatest importance, whether civil servants might be allowed to retain their lands, provided they gave up
1286
the active management. He hoped that he should receive a definitive answer upon these points; and that, after what had already passed, as little as possible would be left to the discretion of the Governor of that Colony.
Mr. G. W. Hopesaid, that the civil servants of the Government, in Ceylon, would be afforded the fullest information without delay; and they should have had that sooner but the Governor was obliged to wait until he obtained some detailed information from England. The time of election had been extended from six months to a year, and the time allowed for the disposal of property was fixed at two years. With regard to the third and most important question put by the hon. Member (as it was necessary to wait for some information from Ceylon) still he thought an arrangement might be made which would prove satisfactory to the civil servants. He was happy to add that the dissatisfaction which prevailed at the first issuing of the Minute had much diminished.
Mr. Tufnellfelt great satisfaction at hearing the answer of the hon. Gentleman, and he had only to add that he hoped as little as possible would be left to the discretion of the Governor of Ceylon.
Mr. Hopesaid, he had reason to believe that the dissatisfaction which had been expressed in Ceylon had, in a great degree, subsided.

SLAVE TRADE—BRAZILS.
Sir Robert Peelmoved the Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Slave Trade Brazils Bill.
Mr. M. Gibsonwished to make one or two remarks before this stage of the Bill had passed; and in addition to these, he was desirous of putting a question to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government with respect to the Bill. He had given the measure the fullest consideration, and he had looked to the opinions of those who were competent judges, and he was unable as yet to regard the measure in a favourable light, in any point of view in which he regarded it. It appeared to him very questionable whether, according to international law, they could make the provisions of the Bill binding on Brazilian subjects; and if it were, he did not think that it was calculated to assist the course of policy which we were desirous of carrying out with respect to the Slave Trade. It seemed to him to be a dangerous doctrine to set up proclamations instead of law. It

1287
appeared to him to be a dangerous doctrine to make the dictum of the Executive Government—of the temporary advisers of the Crown—equivalent to the effect of law; and he did not think that the subjects of another country ought by such a dictum to be dealt with and punished for a crime which the law and tribunals of their own country had not declared to be a crime. There was no law in the Brazils which declared the Slave Trade to be piracy, and the Government of this country knew that there was no such law. How then could we consistently pass an Act, the object of which was to punish Brazilian subjects to a degree to which they would not be punishable in their own country, and for an offence which the laws of their own country had not declared that they ought to be so punished. Another question arose which it was most desirable to have answered by the Government before they passed this Bill, namely, whether we had power to inflict punishment upon Brazilian subjects for an offence against our laws, they having no such law; and he confessed himself to be still at a loss to understand the explanation which the Attorney General had given on the last occasion when this subject was before the House. The policy of such a course as this appeared to him to be fatal to a good understanding with Brazil, and to be quite opposed to the object with which it was introduced, of inducing in the public opinion of Brazil an opposition to the Slave Trade, and a desire for its abolition, as it was rather calculated to excite hostility in Brazil to our exertions, and become dangerous to the interests of British subjects and to British trade in the Brazils. It appeared to him also that it was calculated to prevent the co-operation of Brazilian subjects in our exertions, which co-operation, it would seem from Papers that had been laid on the Table of the House, might have otherwise been expected, as measures were in progress in Brazil to put an end effectually to the Slave Trade. That was an additional reason why they should have abstained from a measure of such bad policy as this, and he therefore felt it his duty to enter his protest against the measure. He begged now to make the inquiries of which he gave notice. He wished to know whether the Brazilian Minister in this country had addressed to Her Majesty's Government any remonstrance or communication relative to this Bill? If such a communication had been received by the Government, he thought that the House was en-
1288
titled to see the communication or remonstrance, and that it should be laid before Parliament. He thought that as they were called upon to share in the responsibility of the Executive, the Executive Government should place the House in the same position in which they stood themselves—and should have a full opportunity of judging both of the law and the policy of this measure. He would ask the right hon. Baronet, then, if a remonstrance had been received, and, if it had, whether he could lay it on the Table of the House? If it was received, why should they not delay this measure till they had printed this remonstrance or communication? The Report was brought up on Monday last, and the matter was postponed till this day, and he was not chargeable with that delay. He did think that they should not be acting properly, and that they should not be doing what was required, if they acted without the fullest information. He would conclude by requesting Her Majesty's Government to inform them whether they had received that information.
Sir R. Peelthanked the hon. Member for having given him an intimation of his intention to ask this question. He was quite confident that the hon. Member would not take advantage of the late period of the Session to defeat this measure. It was true that he postponed the Bill on a former occasion, in order to have an opportunity of maturely weighing a suggestion of an hon. Member, by whom no suggestion could be made which would not be worthy of attention. He had postponed the Bill till that day in order to have an opportunity of further deliberation, and having the opinion of the highest authority upon the subject; and he hoped that the delay caused in that manner would not prejudice the measure at this period of the Session. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that he had given the most mature consideration to the Bill; and that, having, in addition to that, taken the opinion of the highest authority on the subject, his opinion remained unaltered with respect to it. According to the opinion of that authority to which he had referred, under the First Article of the Convention of 1826, the Sovereign of this country might consider the carrying on of the Slave Trade, on the part of Brazilian subjects, an act of piracy. The First Article of that Convention was to the effect, that after the expiration of three years, to be reckoned from the exchange of the rati-

1289
fications of the Convention between the two nations, it should not be lawful for any subject of the Emperor of the Brazils to be concerned in carrying on the African Slave Trade, under any pretext, or in any manner whatsoever; and that carrying on the Slave Trade after that period, on the part of subjects of His Brazilian Majesty should be deemed piracy, and treated as such. There was not in that Convention any obligation on Brazil to pass a municipal law to make the offence of carrying on the Slave Trade piracy. Carrying on the Slave Trade could not be piracy by international law, as they would see, if they recollected that this country had carried on the Slave Trade at no very remote period. The simple act of carrying on the Slave Trade was not, therefore, piracy by international law; but the carrying on of the Slave Trade had been made by various other countries piracy under municipal law, when that trade was carried on by the subjects of the country so passing the law; and the United States was the first of those countries to which the honour of passing that law belonged. The United States passed a law in 1824, by which the Slave Trade was declared piracy, and the subjects of the United States rendered liable to the punishment of piracy under the municipal law of that country. Thus, the countries which had so made the Slave Trade piracy, under their municipal law, had the power to punish their own subjects for carrying on that trade; and at that time a new description of piracy was created between the United States and Great Britain. Under the Convention with the Brazils in 1826, this country had a right to take cognizance of the carrying on of the Slave Trade by Brazilian subjects subsequent to the year 1830; for under that Convention Brazil declared it to be piracy on the part of the subjects of the Brazilian Government. By the Convention of 1817 with the Brazils, a mutual Right of Search was agreed to; and whilst that was in force, it suspended the Article in the Convention of 1826; but by the abrogation of the Convention of 1817 in 1845, the Article in the Convention of 1826 was brought into full force, and remains now in full force, between this country and the Brazils, the Brazilian subjects who carry on the Slave Trade being, by that Article, declared guilty of piracy. The hon. Gentleman said, that the Brazils had passed no law to make it piracy, and inferred, therefore, that so long as the
1290
Brazils passed no law to make the carrying on of the Slave Trade by Brazilian subjects piracy, Great Britain had no right to interfere with them. [Mr. M. Gibson: I said, no right to pass an Act of this kind.] Of what kind? The Government of the Brazils had avowed the fact which this country maintained, that carrying on the Slave Trade was piracy, and had entered into a solemn engagement that all its subjects who were found carrying on the Slave Trade should be held guilty of piracy. If that was not the mode of effecting the recognition of the Slave Trade as piracy, what other mode would they adopt? He relied on the common sense of the House in supporting him in the statement, that unless this country took cognizance, in some way or another, of the carrying on of the Slave Trade by the subjects of the Brazils, the stipulation would be of no use. Piracy was not a crime merely against municipal law; and the hon. Member, of course, knew that, by international law, piracy was punishable by all nations; and when a country, in a Convention, declares an act to be piracy, it gives not to all countries, but to that particular country with which it formed the Convention, in which such declaration was contained, a power to deal with the act so described as an act of piracy. If this country were prepared to take no measure in relation to the Convention, it was quite clear that the Slave Trade might be carried on to an unlimited extent under the Brazilian flag; and, according to the hon. Gentleman's opinion, this country would have no power to interfere. It was impossible to say to what extent the abominable crime of slave trading might be carried on, if Parliament separated without establishing a power to prevent it. He would now refer to the view which the Government of the Brazils took of the power of this country to recognize slave trading on the part of the Brazils. In the year 1829, the Brazilian Minister applied to this country to do away with the Courts of Mixed Commission which were constituted under the Convention of 1817. He made this request on grounds of considerable importance to this question. On the 4th of October, 1830, the Chevalier De Mattos, then the Brazilian Minister in this country, addressed the following letter to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs:—
"Wimpole-street, October 4, 1830.
"The Slave Trade on the coast of Africa being totally forbidden to Brazilian subjects

1291
from the 13th of March last, and those who shall hereafter engage in it being liable to punishment, in virtue of the stipulations of the Treaty of the 23rd of November, 1826, by the ordinary tribunals of the two high contracting parties, the Undersigned, &c., has been directed by his Government to concert with that of the King the dissolution of the Mixed Commissions established at Sierra Leone and Rio de Janeiro, now entirely superfluous. In consequence of which, the Undersigned has the honour to request his Excellency the Earl of Aberdeen, &c., to be pleased to take the proper measures for carrying the above resolution into effect, with regard to the Commission at Rio de Janeiro, at the end of the next month of December; and in respect of the other, on the 30th of June, 1831, the term at which all the causes pending in the Commision of Sierra Leone must be completely decided. The Undersigned avails himself, &c.
"The Chevalier DE MATTOS.
"His Excellency the Earl of Aberdeen, &c."
England had already provided that her subjects engaging in this trade should be treated as pirates, and be tried by the municipal law. This letter of the Chevalier, therefore, only amounted to a statement that Brazilian subjects were then placed in the same position; and the words of the Chevalier, "by the ordinary tribunals of the two contracting Powers," directly implied that the Brazilian Government thought it unnecessary then to keep up the Mixed Commission Courts, because the ordinary Courts of Admiralty were sufficient. The Brazilian Government also asked that slave ships of theirs, which might have left the coast of Africa, and were not aware that the Convention had been executed, should be exempted from its operation. The English Government, although averse to allow the Slave Trade to continue one hour longer than was necessary, consented that vessels which had quitted the coast of Africa before the 13th of March, 1830, should be allowed to proceed to any port in the Brazils without being subject to be treated as pirates on their way. On the 4th of November, 1829, the Brazilian Government published a Proclamation stating the result. It ran thus:—
"Notice to the Assembly of Commerce, Agriculture, Manufacturers, and Navigation of the Empire of the Brazils, by a Portaria of the following tenure:—
"The Chargé d'Affaires of this Empire, near the Government of His Britannic Majesty, having succeeded in the measures which had been most earnestly recommended to him by this Secretary of State's Office for Foreign Affairs, in order to obtain a reasonable term
1292
for settling the affairs on the coast of Africa, which are still pending, relating to the lawful traffic in slaves, the said Chargé d'Affaires has obtained, by a note of the 16th of September last, from the competent Minister and Secretary of State, the Earl of Aberdeen, the assurance that the British Government was about to issue instructions to the commanders of naval forces, and to the respective authorities, informing them that the Slave Trade, conformably to the agreements existing between Great Britain and Brazil, shall be lawfully continued by the subjects of this Empire on the coast of Africa, until the 13th of March, 1830; and, consequently, that those Brazilian vessels, employed in that traffic, which can prove that they have finally left the coast of Africa on or before that period, shall prosecute and finish their bonâ fide voyages direct from Africa to any port in the Brazils, without incurring the liability of being treated as pirates, according to the Convention, notwithstanding their being met with at sea after the said period of the 13th of March, 1830. His Majesty the Emperor ordains, that this notice be communicated by the said Secretary of State's Office for Foreign Affairs to the Assembly of Commerce, Agriculture, &c., in order to give it due publicity.
"Marquis of ARACATY.
"Rio Janeiro, November 4, 1829."
This was sufficient proof that the Brazilian Government knew that their vessels were liable to be treated as pirates if found at sea after the 13th of March, 1830. The construction put on the Convention by the British Parliament was precisely similar. The power of the Vice Admiralty Courts over such acts of piracy had been superseded by the Courts of Mixed Commission, and this Bill contained a clause to remove any restriction of the jurisdiction of the Vice Admiralty Courts by the Convention; it gave to the Vice Admiralty Courts that power which Lord Stowell was of opinion they ought not to have in cases of piracy, and it also declared they were to have that power. They did not ask for any unnecessary power—they merely declared a power to deal with property, not to deal criminally in those cases with Brazilian subjects, and there was, he could assure the hon. Member, nothing inconsistent with the law of nations in the Bill as it stood. The choice was, in fact, between treating the Slave Trade, carried on by the Brazilians, as piracy, or permitting the Brazilian Slave Trade to be carried on to an unlimited extent, or the Brazilian flag from being used by others for the purpose of carrying on the Slave Trade. He should have

1293
thought, on the part of the Government and the Crown, that they were grossly neglecting their duty towards the House if they had not made this proposition. When he recollected the addresses which, within the last few years, had been unanimously presented by the House to the Crown, urging it to enforce, by every means at its disposal, existing stipulations with respect to the Slave Trade, he should have thought the Crown and the Government guilty of great neglect towards the expressed wishes of the House if they permitted Parliament to separate without demanding from it merely this, that the jurisdiction of the Vice Admiralty Courts, which had been destroyed by Parliament, should be re-established, when the necessity for their re-establishment had arisen. He had the strongest confidence that this Bill was in conformity with the principles of the law of nations, whilst it was the mildest measure to which they could resort, in order to claim from the Brazilian Government the performance of the stipulations entered into by this country with that Government, not to further the commercial prosperity of this country, but contracted with a view to the interests of humanity, and for the purpose of throwing difficulties in the way of a traffic which constituted the greatest existing blot on civilized nations. With respect to the question put to him by the hon. Gentleman, the Brazilian Minister did, on Monday last, present a protest against this measure. The hon. Gentleman asked him to lay this protest before the House. He certainly could not permit the document, which had been received by his noble Friend, to be an obstacle in the way of passing this measure, on the necessity of which they were nearly all agreed. He was unwilling also to present the protest referred to, without, at the same time, presenting the answer to it. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would be contented with the assurance that these documents would be included in the whole correspondence, which, when in a complete state, would be laid before the House, and that the hon. Gentleman would not seek to avail himself of his willingness to give the information sought for as a reason why there should be any delay with regard to the present measure. He trusted, that the Brazilian Government would soon permit us, as Portugal had done, by en-
1294
tering into a Convention, giving a mutual Right of Search, to repeal the present Treaty between the two Powers, and revive between them, instead thereof, something in the nature of a mutual Right of Search.
Report brought up.
Sir R. Peelmoved an additional clause.
On the Question that it be read a second time,
Mr. Huttsaid, he looked upon this Bill as of an important character, and as a measure dealing with a very difficult and delicate subject. If it should hereafter appear, that we had not a sound and legal basis for our proceedings, difficulties should arise from this measure, and they be referred for adjustment, as other difficulties had been, to a foreign Sovereign, if that foreign Sovereign should decide that we were in the wrong, he was sure that such a result would be contemplated by every one in that House with feelings of the deepest regret. He doubted very much, if we were not proceeding, in regard to this measure, somewhat too fast. When the right hon. Baronet stated, that persons of the highest legal authority concurred with him in the view which he had taken of the Treaty of 1826, he very much doubted whether the right hon. Baronet had good ground on which to stand; and if he had not known that the views which he entertained were the views of men better qualified than he was to judge upon the subject, he would not have ventured to say a single word upon the present occasion; but, fortified as he was with the opinions of others, whose opinions he thought entitled to deference and respect, he would venture to suggest whether we might not now be proceeding rather precipitately. The right hon. Gentlemen called their attention to the First Article in the Treaty. There were two points in that Article. The first was, that the two countries should consider the Slave Trade as unlawful; and the second, that Brazilians engaged in that trade should be deemed and treated as pirates. He should have supposed that the natural construction of this Article was, that those found so employed should be deemed and treated by their own Government as pirates, subject to the penalties laid down by their own municipal laws. The executive authorities of the two countries entered into this Treaty. If, by such a Treaty, the subjects of Great Britain,

1295
engaged in piracy, should be handed over to the Brazilian Government, to be dealt with according to Brazilian laws—[Sir R. Peel: This Treaty was a marked and peculiar one. It was a unilateral Treaty. It did not make British subjects punishable for piracy. The First Article provided that Brazilian subjects engaged in the Slave Trade should be deemed guilty of piracy.] He was well aware that such was the nature of the Treaty. But suppose we had undertaken to hand over our own subjects concerned in the Slave Trade to the authorities of the Brazils, to be dealt with according to their laws. Now, by the laws of most countries, he believed that piracy was made punishable with death. By a recent Act of the British Legislature, they had, in certain cases, remitted capital punishment as the penalty for piracy. Were they prepared to contend that the British Crown, the executive authority of this country, could hand over a British subject to the Brazilian authorities, to be subjected to penalties in the Brazils, which the laws of his own country would not permit the Government to enforce against a British subject? But if they permitted the Brazils to treat British subjects concerned in the Slave Trade as pirates, and if the municipal laws of that country should be allowed to pronounce against them as such the penalty of death, the Government would then be doing nothing more nor less than handing over British subjects to undergo, in another country, such penalties as the Legislature of their own country had declared that they were not liable to. The Government, by this Bill, asserted a right to treat, to a certain extent, in like manner the subjects of the Brazils in this country—a right which they could not possess in regard to Brazilian subjects, unless they could confer the same upon the Brazils in regard to British subjects. If the constitution of this country conferred upon them the power of thus handing over British subjects to be dealt with according to Brazilian laws, although those laws should conflict with the laws of their own country, it was a subject which deserved their deepest consideration. Such a power appeared to him in every way repugnant to a constitutional government. Lord Aberdeen stated that he was prepared to enforce the law against the persons of Brazilian subjects engaged in the Slave Trade, treating them as pirates.
1296
The right hon. Baronet did not ask such a power, and seemed to doubt very much whether he had any ground for making such an appeal to Parliament, and whether such a power would be conformable to the provisions of the Treaty. He regarded the present measure as in every respect a pernicious one, and as a measure by which, instead of securing, we should defeat our own objects. We should have called upon the Brazilian Government to pass a law dealing with the Slave Trade as piracy. If they had refused to pass such a law, Great Britain might have treated their refusal as a casus belli. He felt assured that this Bill would effect no good whatever, and that the attempt to check in this way the Slave Trade, would only aggravate the evils which we were so anxious to eradicate.
Captain Pechellthought that this Bill introduced anew principle in dealing with all vessels equipped for the Slave Trade, and which were to be adjudicated upon by our Vice-Admiralty courts.
Clause read a second time and added to the Bill; to be reprinted and read a third time.

GAMES AND WAGERS.
The Games and Wagers Bill was read a third time.
Mr. Humemoved an addition to the 13th Clause, that costs should be allowed to informers, as between attorneys and clients, in all actions that were suspended under the operation of this Bill.
The House divided on the Question, that the words be added to the Bill:—Ayes 10; Noes 44: Majority 34.

List of the AYES.

Baine, W.

Villiers, hon. C.

Cobden, R.

Wyse, T.

Dennistoun, J.

Yorke, H. R.

Gibson, T. M.

Hawes, B.

TELLERS.

Pechell, Capt.

Hume, J.

Smith, B.

Warburton, H.

List of the NOES.

Arkwright, G.

Cripps, W.

Ashley, Lord

Dodd, G.

Baring, rt. hn. W. B.

Douglas, Sir H.

Barnard, E. G.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Bennet, P.

Escott, B.

Bodkin, W. H.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Borthwick, P.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Broadley, H.

Gardner, J. D.

Cardwell, E.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Corry, rt. hn. H.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Courtenay, Lord

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

1297

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R. J.

Greene, T.

Pringle, A.

Grimston, Visct.

Scott, hon. F.

Hamilton, W. J.

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

Henley, J. W.

Spooner, R.

Hope, G. W.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Jones, Capt.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Kelly, F. R.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Verner, Col.

M'Neill, D.

Meynell, Capt.

TELLERS.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Young, J.

Pakington, J. S.

Baring, H.

Bill passed.

WASTE LANDS (AUSTRALIA).
On the Motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Waste Land Australia Bill,
Mr. Hawesobserved that the Bill seemed to proceed on the assumption that there was a redundancy of convict population, and that it was necessary to find profitable employment for them. How was it that a Colony with so much redundant labour, and having such abundance of good land, should be in a state of distress? How could they account for this anomaly? And what was the remedy here proposed? The repeal of an Act of Parliament, the policy of which nobody had ever questioned. It was the most unnecessary piece of legislation he had ever seen. It stood self-condemned, and if he could get a seconder, he would divide against the Bill. He moved that the House will on this day month resolve itself into the said Committee.
Mr. Warburtonwould second the hon. Member.
Mr. Robert Scottsupported the measure, which, he said, was brought forward to assist a most deserving class of persons in a distant Colony. The opposition had arisen from the monopolising jealousy of the New Zealand Company.
Mr. Humesaid, the present measure had nothing whatever to do with New Zealand. He should vote against the Bill, and condemned the policy of the Government towards our Australian Colonies, as calculated to retard the prosperity of those Colonies, and stop emigration.
Mr. Pakingtonsupported the Bill, and urged upon the Government the necessity of providing more effectual religious instruction for the emigrants. The Government had granted 30,000 l. for religious instruction in New South Wales; but that
1298
was not sufficient, while in Port Phillip and other distant settlements no means existed for the relief of religious destitution. He thought some portion of the funds derived from land sales should be devoted to the purposes of public worship and religious instruction in those distant Colonies.
Mr. G. W. Hopedefended the Bill, the effect of which would be to provide profitable employment for the redundant labour of the Colony. Six thousand convicts had been employed at the charge of this country, in works of irrigation and other public works, by which the value of the lands in the Colony had been increased; and it was no more than common justice, therefore, that in the benefit derived from the sale of the waste lands, the means of reimbursing ourselves for that outlay should be allowed. Another advantage which would result from the measure was, that it would give to the stockholders of New South Wales a tenure on better terms than that they now enjoyed. With regard to the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Mr. Pakington), he could assure him that the Government was as anxious as he could possibly be to provide for the spiritual destitution of the inhabitants of these Colonies; but they felt that if to effect that object they proceeded in opposition to the feelings of the colonists, they would do more harm than good.
Mr. Milner Gibsonwould support the Amendment were it pressed to a division. The Government would not allow the settlers to bring their produce to the best market. As to the speech of the hon. Member for Droitwich, he thought it was very much out of place. It was food and clothing that the settlers wanted rather than spiritual instruction.
The House divided on the Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—Ayes 35; Noes 7: Majority 28.

List of the AYES.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Denison, E. B.

Ashley, Lord

Dick, Q.

Baring, rt. hn. W. B.

Douglas, Sir H.

Barnard, E. G.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Bennet, P.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Bodkin, W. H.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Borthwick, P.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Greene, T.

Cripps, W.

Henley, J. W.

Darby, G.

Hope, G. W.

1299

Lincoln, Earl of

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

McNeill, D.

Spooner, R.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Stuart, H.

Packe, C. W.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Pakington, J. S.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Polhill, F.

TELLERS.

Pringle, A.

Gardwell, E.

Scott, hon. F.

Young, J.

List of the NOES.

Cobden, R.

Warburton, H.

Escott, B.

Yorke, H. R.

Gibson, T. M.

TELLERS.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Hawes, B.

Villiers, hon. C.

Hume, J.

House went into Committee.
On Clause 12,
Mr. Hawesprotested against the Bill, which was in the teeth of their Governor's recommendations, and inefficient in itself. They were going to great and unwarrantable expenses for the sake of their convict population, at the time that they would not open to the produce of the Colony the only market accessible to it.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that the convicts had been employed at the expense of this country in cultivating lands in the Colony. These lands had afterwards been sold, one half of the proceeds being devoted to the promotion of emigration. As, however, the supply of labour had began to exceed the demand, it was now proposed to devote the produce of the sales to the expenses of the Colony, with a view of reducing the general taxation in this country.
The clauses agreed to.
The House resumed.
On the Motion that the Report be brought up,
Mr. Villierssaid, that were the Government to resolve upon a measure admitting Australian corn into this country, he was sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth would withdraw his opposition to the present Bill. Considering the great change which had come over the opinions of country gentlemen, he did hope that they would make some demonstration of their readiness to acquiesce in so reasonable a measure.
Bill reported.

THE LATE FIRES IN QUEBEC
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose to move the Address of which he had given notice, praying that Her Majesty would grant a sum not exceeding 20,000 l. for the relief
1300
of the sufferers by the late fires at Quebec. In moving a Resolution to this effect, he was sure that he would only be doing that which would be strictly in unison with the feelings of the House. He need not attempt by any powers on his part to induce them to perform an act of kindness and of policy to which he was sure they would be most ready to assent. The calamity with which they had to deal was one of a most extensive nature. He was unable to give to the House those details which must be so interesting to all who were disposed to concur in the Resolution he was about to move, but the facts of which he was aware were these:—On two several occasions—on the 28th of May, and again on the 28th of June—fires broke out in different places in Quebec, the conflagration on the first occasion lasting from eleven o'clock in the morning until ten o'clock in the evening; on the other from twelve o'clock at night until eight o'clock the next morning. And although he did not know how many dwellings had been destroyed by the two calamities, yet with respect to the last of them he was informed that upwards of 1,200 houses had fallen a prey to the flames. And as the duration of the second fire was about the same as that of the first, he presumed that they could not expect that any smaller number of houses were upon the occasion of the first unfortunate occurrence destroyed. They were also aware that the fires took place in that part of Quebec inhabited by a poor and labouring population, and, therefore, the sufferers were those who were least able to provide for themselves the means of repairing the calamity which had fallen upon them, and which had entailed the loss of great part of their little property, leaving them in a state of the greatest destitution. He was happy to state that every possible exertion had been made upon both occasions by the troops stationed at Quebec, and by the officers commanding them, in order first to arrest the flames, and then to afford succour to the sufferers. There was but one feeling of zeal and interest displayed by the military, and he believed that it was mainly owing to their unremitting exertions that the calamity had not proved more extensive than it did. Every effort, too, he was bound to say, had been made by all persons in authority to afford relief to the sufferers, in providing for those who found themselves homeless, some temporary accommodation. The Governor of

1301
the Colony had come forward with the view of providing shelter for the unfortunate persons in question; and he felt, upon an occasion of this sort, independent of the calls of humanity, that it was most consistent with good policy to show that when our fellow subjects proceeded to distant Colonies they were not forgotten, but that if they were exposed to any sudden calamity, not only did we in this country as individuals sympathize with and strive to aid them, not only did the Crown feel the deepest interest in the alleviation of the calamity, but that Parliament was ready and willing to take the earliest opportunity of coming forward, and marking their sense of the suffering endured, by the means they were prepared to adopt for its relief. He begged to move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the Resolution which he was about to submit, on which to found an Address to Her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to direct that a sum not exceeding 20,000 l. should be apportioned for the relief of the sufferers at the recent fires in Quebec.
House in Committee.
Resolution agreed to. House resumed.
Resolution to be reported.

LAW OF SETTLEMENT.
Mr. W. H. Bodkin, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to the settlement of the poor in England and Wales, begged permission to state shortly the objects which he had in view, more in the hope that the House would permit him to bring in his Bill, and thus enable him to have it printed and circulated throughout the country during the recess, than with any hope of being able to proceed further than the present stage at present. He did not propose, as was contemplated by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, to make any alteration in the present Law of Settlement. His object was to mitigate, if not to remove entirely, two very serious and very pressing evils which were found to exist under the present administration of the Poor Laws, in so far as the removal of paupers was concerned, and likewise in regard to the adjudication of disputed settlements. Under the present law a great deal of unnecessary hardship was inflicted by the immediate removal of persons from a parish to which they became chargeable by
1302
reason of sickness, accident, or other sudden and inevitable dispensations of Providence. It was very hard upon such persons to be compelled to see their little households broken up, and themselves and their families transported to a distant part of the country, in consequence of their becoming temporarily chargeable to the parish; and, moreover, he must point out that the evil was not all on one side, for a great and often an unnecessary expense was incurred by the parish in enforcing such removals. The Bill which he supposed to lay on the Table provided against both these evils, by enacting that no person circumstanced as he had described should be liable to be removed to his or her place of settlement until relief should have been continuously given to them for a certain specified number of days after the sickness or accident by which they had been rendered chargeable, should have ceased or have been remedied. The Bill of the right hon. Baronet did contain a proposition by which it was to be enacted that no widow who became chargeable by her husband's death should, be removed to her place of settlement until twelve months had elapsed since the death of her husband; he proposed to introduce that provision into his Bill, and to make such removal likewise contingent upon the consent of the widow being obtained. The next provision which he proposed to introduce into the Bill would remedy a most enormous and growing evil, which prevailed to a very serious extent under the present Poor Law. When the magistrates at quarter sessions had decided upon the evidence of parties before them, as to the place of settlement of persons chargeable to the parishes within their jurisdiction, those decisions came under the cognizance of the Court of Queen's Bench by appeal from the quarter sessions, and it was found that in consequence of technical objections, and without any reference to the merits of the case, or the real and substantial justice of the magistrates' award, these quarter sessions' decisions, in four cases out of five, were upset and reversed by the Court of Queen's Bench, thus entailing a useless, as well as a very heavy expense upon the ratepayers. What he proposed to do in order to put an end to a practice so ruinous was, to constitute a referee under this Bill, who should be a barrister of a certain standing, and who

1303
should be empowered to take evidence, to examine witnesses, and to decide upon the legality of the quarter sessions' decisions in cases of disputed settlement, due regard being had to the justice of each case, and technical points being overruled and set aside. He did not propose to alter in any degree the present Law of Settlement, or to make any change in the mode of proving the settlement; all he sought to effect was, to put a stop to the present system of allowing technical objections, instead of the real merits of each case, to govern the decision of the Judge to whom the appeal against the decision at quarter sessions was referred; and, having thus explained the objects which he had in view, he begged to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to orders for removal of the poor to their places of settlement, and the trial of appeals against such orders.
Sir J. Grahamwas sure that the House and the country would be greatly indebted to his hon. and learned Friend, who was a gentleman of great experience and legal knowledge, for devoting his time and abilities to a matter of such great importance, not only to the poor, who suffered extremely from removal, but also to the country generally, to whom these removals caused great expense. He should readily give his most anxious attention to the measure. The fact that it had emanated from his learned Friend, was a proof that it would embrace a great practical knowledge of the subject, and that it would conduce to an early and satisfactory arrangement of the question. The Law of Settlement as it at present stood was, he thought, most injurious and unsatisfactory; but he knew that the greatest possible difference of opinion existed as to the means which should be adopted for amending it. He himself could not, of course, propose any amendment which in his conscience and judgment he did not think would be effective. In his opinion, parochial settlements, small township and parish settlements, were the very root of the evil; at the same time, he knew that many persons believed, on the contrary, that it would be nothing less than sacrilege to interfere with those small settlements. However, he should be most happy to attend to the measure now introduced, which was limited to the subject of removal, though, in his opinion—and he thought it would
1304
be found so at last—the Law of Settlement was so intimately blended with the law of removal, that they could not come to a satisfactory arrangement of the one without including the other. He could not at present state what measure he might consider it his duty next Session to adopt; but, in the mean time, he certainly promised his hon. and learned Friend, that the measure before them should receive his careful perusal and best attention
Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
House adjourned shortly after nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Municipal Districts, etc. (Ireland); Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Valuation (Ireland).
2a. Coal Trade (Port of London); Customs Laws Repeal; Customs Management; Customs Regulation; Smuggling Prevention; Shipping and Navigation; Customs Duties; British Vessels; Warehousing of Goods; Customs Bounties and Allowances; Trade of British Possessions Abroad; Isle of Man Trade; County Rates; Stock in Trade.
Reported.—Joint Stock Companies (Ireland); Grand Jury Presentments (Dublin).
3a. and passed: — Lunatics; Bonded Corn; Railways (Selling or Leasing); Real Property (No. 3); Fisheries (Ireland); Testamentary Dispositions, etc.; Compensations and Criminal Jurisdiction of Assistant Barristers (Ireland); Militia Pay; Stamp Duties, etc.; Masters and Workmen.
Received the Royal Assent.—Excise Duties on Spirits (Channel Islands); Unclaimed Stock and Dividends; Church Building Act Amendment; Militia Ballots Suspension; Jewish Disabilities Removal; Law of Defamation and Libel Act Amendment; Bail in Error; Art Unions; Geological Survey; Loan Societies; Foreign Lotteries; Highway Rates; Highways; Shrewsbury and Holyhead Road; Rothwell Prison; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Turnpike Trusts (South Wales); Drainage by Tenants for Life; Colleges (Ireland); Bishops' Patronage (Ireland); Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Jurors (Ireland); Unions (Ireland); Spirits (Ireland); Drainage (Ireland).
Private.—1a. Eastern Counties Railway (Cambridge to Huntingdon).
2a. South Eastern Railway (Deal Extension).
Reported.—Duddeston and Nechells Improvement; Dublin Pipe Water; Grimsby Docks; London and Croydon Railway Enlargement; Bolton and Leigh, Kenyon and Leigh Junction, North Union, Liverpool and Manchester and Grand Junction Railway Companies Amalgamation.
3a. and passed: — Earl of Powis's (or Robinson's) Estate; Monmouth and Hereford Railway; South Wales Railway.
Received the Royal Assent.—Wear Valley Railway; Aberdeen Railway; Norwich and Brandon Railway (Diss and Dereham Blanches); Bristol and Exeter Railway Branches; West London Railway Extension and Lease; Dundee and Perth Railway; Edinburgh and Northern Railway; Aberdare Railway; Clydesdale Junction Railway; Scottish Central Railway; Caledonian Railway; Newcastle and Berwick Railway; Edinburgh and Hawick Railway; London and South Western Metropolitan Extension Railway; Liverpool and Bury Railway (Bolton, Wigan, and Liverpool Railway, and Bury Extension); South Eastern Railway (Tunbridge to Tunbridge Wells); Gravesend and Rochester Railway; Newport and Pontypool Railway; Scottish Midland Junction Railway; Manchester and Leeds Railway; Wakefield and Pontefract Railway) Falmouth Harbour; Cromford Canal; Sheffield Waterworks; Saint Helen's Improvement; Bermondsey Improvement; Westminster Improvement; Tacumshin Lake Embankment; Saint
1272
Matthew's (Bethnal Green) Rectory) Morden College Estate; Hawkins's Estate; Earl of Onslow's Estate; Lord Monson's (or Countess Brooke and of Warwick's) Estate; Gildart's (or Sherwen's) Estate; Heaviside's Divorce.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Proprietors of Midland Railway, against the Running of Railway Trains on the Sabbath.—By Lord Cottenham, from Abergavenny, and numerous other places, for the Establishment of Local Courts.—From Charles Bristow Drought, Clerk, M.A., for Inserting Clause in the Drainage of Lands Bill, to dig for Water in Commons, with a fair Recompense to Lords of Manors and Land Proprietors.—From Jonas Dunn, and others, Solicitors of High Court of Chancery (Ireland), for Alteration of Law relating to Taxing Master, Court of Chancery (Ireland).—By Lord Redesdale, from Inhabitants of City of Westminster, and from several other places, for Postponing the Lunatics Bill, and for the Appointment of a Committee to Inquire into the past and present Condition of the Care and Treatment of Lunatics in England and Wales, whether Pauper or otherwise.—By Lord Campbell, from the Honourable Newton Fellowes, of Eggesford, Devon, and from Occupiers of Land in Eggesford and Chawleigh, for Amendment of Tithes Commutation Act.—By Lord Beaumont, from Charles Mott, of Haydock Lodge, Lancaster, a Licensed House for the reception of Lunatics, for Insertion of Clause in Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Bill.—From Thomas Bradfield, for Repeal of 6th Section of 1st and 2nd Vict. Cap. 101, and to re-enact 55th Clause of 1st and 2nd Will. IV. Cap. 76., or to limit the present Coal Trade (Port of London) Bill, for one year only.

IRISH GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY—CASE OF JOHN STINTON.
Order of the Day for taking into consideration the Report of the Select Committee (made to the House on the 12th instant), respecting John Stinton, a witness, read.
The Earl of Besboroughrose to call the attention of the House to a part of the proceedings before the Committee appointed to inquire into the alleged cases of fraud connected with the Dublin and Galway Railway. It was stated that fraudulent and false names had been signed to the contract deed, and, amongst others, by a person of the name of John Stinton. This appeared to be the case, from the evidence taken before the Committee; and he (the Earl of Besborough) was directed, on the 12th of July, to report the case to the House. On consideration, however, it was thought that this person might make some explanation before the Committee on the Bill with regard to this matter. Such, however, was not the case; he had, therefore, thought it to be his duty to place the matter before the House. Since he had entered the House, doubts had been expressed to him as to whether perjury had been committed or not. The noble Earl then proceeded to read the evidence of John Stinton before this Committee, in which he denied that he had ever passed by any other name in connexion with the Dublin and Galway Railway Company, or

1273
that he had signed the deed of the Company more than once. A Miss Golding proved that Stinton had received letters at her residence, which were directed to a person of the name of Mr. Baldron, and that he had always passed in that name in her presence, and had opened the letters so directed. Stinton afterwards admitted that this was true, but denied that he had signed the deed more than once, or had affixed the name of Baldron to it. He admitted also that such a person as Penton did not exist. Mr. Stanley, a most respectable stockbroker, stated that he had seen Stinton, whom he knew as a jobber, sign the contract deed of the Company three times in one day, and that he had changed his dress on each occasion. This struck him as a remarkable circumstance; he could not, however, state whether this person had affixed another name than that of Stinton. Robert Parish, the porter of Crosby Hall Chambers, swore that he knew Stinton as a bootmaker in the neighbourhood, and that, at his request, he had taken in letters for him directed to Penton, which were always opened by Stinton. No person of the name of Penton ever had chambers at Crosby Hall. These were the facts of the evidence to which he wished more particularly to call attention.
The Lord Chancellorsuggested that the noble Earl should point out the particular parts of the evidence on which he relied as the ground for prosecution.
The Earl of Besboroughhanded a copy of the evidence to the Lord Chancellor, and pointed out some particular passages in it, and then proceeded to read again to the House the passages in the evidence to which he had before alluded. He concluded by stating, that he had given notice of his Motion in the terms, that the Attorney General be directed to prosecute the party; but not being a lawyer, he would wish to leave the course to be pursued to the judgment of some of his noble and learned Friends near him.
Lord Campbellsaid, he would admit that he had not looked into the evidence until after he had come down to the House; but from his experience in criminal prosecutions, he would advise their Lordships to be cautious in adopting any particular course. He had no doubt but that this man Stinton had lied abominably, and that he ought to have been reported to their Lordships; but the question for them to decide was, whether the case admitted of a prosecution for perjury. The witness had told the Committee that he should acknowledge what he had
1274
before told them was false, but he added that he would then tell the truth. In a trial for perjury, the whole of the evidence would be laid before the jury; and the learned Judge would tell them, he had very little doubt, that the prisoner had not committed perjury in the eyes of the law, because in his supplemental answer he denied his false statement previously given, and his true statement was received. This principle of taking the entire evidence as one act was carried so far, that in Chancery causes, where a bill and afterwards a supplemental bill were filed, the answers to both were taken as one answer; and if the respondent denied in his second answer what he had stated in his first, he was not considered in law to be guilty of perjury. The case was clearly one which the Committee were bound to report to the House; but perhaps the course which they ought to have adopted was, to report that the witness had been guilty of equivocation; and then, if the shorthand writer's notes were read at the bar of their Lordships' House, no noble Lord would have hesitated about voting that the witness be committed to Newgate for equivocation; and he (Lord Campbell) would certainly have heartily concurred in such a Motion: but he did not think this was a case in which they could persecute for perjury.
Lord Cottenhamsaid that, from what he had heard of the evidence, and the mode in which the witness had explained himself, he confessed he would feel some difficulty in coming to a final decision on the matter; but, if he were not mistaken, he believed the terms of the order which their Lordships would have to make, in a case where a witness had grossly misconducted himself, as this man obviously had done, would leave it to the discretion of the Attorney General to prosecute, if he thought fit so do to. Were the House to give a peremptory order in the matter, it would be tantamount to deciding as Judges in the case without a trial. Under similar circumstances, the Court of Chancery would not take any summary proceedings, but would refer the case to the Attorney General.
Lord Campbellsaid, while he had been Attorney General, several cases similar to the present were referred to him, and in every instance the orders of Parliament were of a peremptory nature. In the case of Stockdale, who was ordered to be prosecuted for a libel on the House of Commons, the Attorney General of the day very likely thought

1275
it a foolish prosecution, hut, from the terms of the order, he was compelled to file the information.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, there was one point in the case to which he wished to direct the attention of the House. It was, that the Committee had told the witness to take care of what he was about, for if he perjured himself he would be liable to prosecution. No perjury had been committed, he believed, after that; and he thought the caution was intended as an intimation that the House would not prosecute him for what had previously occurred.
Lord Monteaglesaid, the Committee had reported on the 12th of July, and now, on the 31st of the month, their Lordships were required to come to a decision respecting the charge contained in that Report. There was no doubt but that the case was one which could not be passed over altogether. The offence was clearly a moral perjury, whether it happened to be a legal perjury or not. It was a perjury for the purpose of accomplishing a fraud, and deceiving their Lordships and the other House of Parliament; and such an offence could not be suffered to rest without any notice being taken of it. There was, however, no doubt, even if the individual were less ingenuous than he appeared to be, that he had had since then sufficient time to take himself out of the country; but after, by the recent decision of their Lordships respecting this Railway Bill (the Dublin and Galway), they had punished innocent persons for the faults of others, it would be contrary to every principle of justice were they now to allow one who was really guilty to go scot free. The course which he would recommend was, that the question should be referred to a Committee upstairs for half an hour, with instructions to report to the House what steps were necessary to be taken.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had never seen the evidence until it had been alluded to at the Table. He doubted very much whether they could proceed with a prosecution for perjury, under the circumstances. The witness stated that he had never passed as Baldron; and he afterwards explained what he had meant by that answer in this manner: he said he had often received letters addressed to the name of Baldron; but that he did not think that meant passing by the name. They could scarcely hope to assign perjury on that part of the evidence, with any probability of success. Again, the witness said he did not know
1276
Miss Golding; whereas it appeared afterwards that he had asked her to receive letters for him, and that she was the keeper of a public-house. It did not follow, however, that because he had been in the habit of seeing her standing behind the bar in a public-house, and had requested her to keep letters for him, that he should, therefore, know her name to be Golding. He thought the course suggested by his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) to be the most judicious one they could take, as they ought to pay that mark of respect to the Report of the Committee, no matter what decision they might find it afterwards necessary to come to.
The Earl of Besboroughsaid, he would beg leave to move that, the Report of the 12th of July be referred to a Select Committee, with instructions to report to the House what steps it would be necessary to take with respect to John Stinton, reported to the House to have been guilty of perjury.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, they should allege on the indictment what the perjury was, and select from the evidence the particular passages on which they relied.
Lord Monteaglesaid, it might be supposed out of doors that the Committee had acted unjustly twards this person.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the fact was quite the reverse. He had been himself of opinion that the witness had committed perjury, for which he could be prosecuted, until he came to look into the evidence.
Lord Monteaglesaid, lest any such supposition might exist, he would beg to read two of the questions and answers that had been given as an instance. In No. 405, the witness was asked, "Do you know William Baldron, silk throwster?—No." And again, in No. 489, the question was repeated, "Do you know William Baldron?—I do."
Motion agreed to.

TITHES COMMUTATION ACT.
Lord Campbellpresented a petition on the subject of the commutation of tithes, and said that a very doubtful question existed whether, in cases where tithes had not been paid for many years, they were now really payable or not. Several actions had been brought to decide the point; but they had all proved decidedly abortive, and the Judges were, he believed, equally divided respecting it. It was, therefore, he thought,

1277
absolutely necessary that there should be some further legislation on the subject, and the sooner it took place the better. Were it not for this point, he believed tithes would be commuted all over England before the present time.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the subject was a very important one; and the conflicting opinions respecting it, only showed how lawyers would sometimes differ. He concurred with his noble and learned Friend, that the Act required some Amendments; and, if the matter were intrusted to his hands during the recess, he would take care to have steps taken respecting it, before the next Session of Parliament.

GREECE.
Lord Beaumontsaid, he would proceed to put to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen) the question of which he had given notice on a former evening. It might be in the re-Collection of their Lordships, that when on a recent occasion, he had brought the affairs of Greece under their notice, and had ventured to state that the conduct of the Government at Athens was such as to call for some advice, if not more active interference, on the part of the Allied Powers, he had been met by the noble Earl with an assertion, that affairs in that quarter were not in so bad a state as had been believed; and that nothing had occurred which was of a serious nature. It might also be in the recollection of the House, that when, on the same occasion, he (Lord Beaumont) alluded to the disorganized state of society in the frontier districts of Greece, on the side of Turkey, and added that a regular system of brigandage was carried on by the subjects of Greece in that quarter, the noble Earl replied, by declaring that there had been only one isolated instance of robbery across the border, and that of so unimportant a character as not to deserve comment. He (Lord Beaumont) knew not if the noble Earl was better informed now, than he seemed to be then; for if he was not, he was sadly behind the rest of Europe in knowledge on this subject. The details of numerous incursions, some of which had been attended with bloody consequences, were well known both in London and Paris; the very names of the parties who headed these marauding bands were known, and many of the cases had been given at length in the German papers. While these events were daily occurring on the frontier, a
1278
no less disgraceful system was carried on in the interior; the regular forces had been disbanded, and the safety of the country entrusted to the Palikeri; neither order nor justice were respected in the internal administration of the country, and the peaceful continuation of its foreign relations was hourly endangered by the lawless conduct of the border population. Colletti and the Greek Government had taken no steps to put an end to this disgraceful state of things, unless the proclamation which had been issued might be considered as an exception, wherein the Government call on the population of the frontier districts to form themselves into a militia, for the purpose of suppressing the robbers who infest them—a measure which is more calculated to increase than diminish the evils complained of; for when the lawless character of the mountain population is considered, and the disorganized state of society throughout the country taken into account, the proclamation is neither more nor less than an attempt to put down robbery by giving arms to the robbers themselves. An officer named Valenza, of whose appointment to a command on the frontiers he (Lord Beaumont) had on a former occasion complained, had not been removed or reprimanded; although it was known that the noble Earl himself had objected to that officer's appointment, and even gone so far as to instruct Sir E. Lyons to request his removal. He (Lord Beaumont) hoped the noble Earl would be more explicit on the present, than he was on a former occasion; for his words had been actually construed into a positive approval of the Greek Government, and the noble Earl himself was mentioned as an abettor of Colletti. Different interpretations, it was true, had been given in different quarters of the noble Earl's speech; but the general impression in Athens itself had been, that the Foreign Office here was not inclined to cordially support Sir Edmund Lyons in his remonstrances, and the Greek authorities were consequently induced to look entirely to the French Minister for advice or countenance in their proceedings. Now, he (Lord Beaumont) hoped the noble Earl would lay aside his diplomatic reserve, and see the necessity of distinctly stating his sentiments with regard to the Government of Colletti, and no longer let any doubt be entertained of his opinions on the general condition of public affairs in Greece. It was most foolishly, as well as most wrongly considered abroad, that the interests of

1279
France and England were at variance both in Greece and Turkey. Nothing could be more erroneous: the interests of the two countries were essentially the same in both quarters—their object was, or ought to be, identical. England and France alike were deeply interested in preserving the independence, integrity, and due influence of the Ottoman Empire, who was and could be the only safe keeper of the Dardanelles; for should the key of that gate be wrenched from her, and the opening and shutting the Dardanelles and Bosphorus be at the discretion of a northern Power, the trade and possessions of England and France in the Mediterranean would be at the mercy of Russia. In the like manner, our interests and those of France were identically the same in the smaller State of Greece. We were both interested in creating there an independent commercial community, totally unconnected with the great political questions which agitated the rest of Europe—a neutral spot in the Levant for the benefit of trade and commerce, and not an arena on which the rival jealousies of the greater Powers might deploy their political intrigues. Although the two countries required the same course of policy to be pursued for their mutual advantage, the Consuls of England and France in the East were generally at variance; and while a single glance at the map would convince any impartial person, that the objects of the two Governments ought to be the same, political parties in the Levant were invariably split into an English and French faction, This state of things must have been caused by the want of energy on the part of the authorities at home, and the consequent neglect in despatching proper instructions to their representatives abroad. Some portion of this unnatural state of hostility between the Consulates of England and France, might be attributed to a disposition on the part of the French Government to flatter the vanity of some of their servants, who sought to enhance their personal importance by arrogating to themselves the exclusive right to protect the Christians in the East. Now, he (Lord Beaumont) maintained, that the Porte should have the sole government of its own subjects; but should the Sultan, in consequence of the interpretation of some ancient or supposed agreement, delegate to the European Sovereigns authority, in certain cases, over those of his subjects who professed the Catholic faith, England should not allow France, or any other Power, to take a position thereby to
1280
the detriment of her interests; or permit the Consuls of these Powers to put themselves in advance of ours, on the plea of enjoying exclusively the privilege of protecting the Christians of a single sect. After a few other observations, the noble Lord concluded by putting the question of which he had given notice—namely, whether the Government had received any information of the state of the frontier between Greece and Turkey? And, if so, whether they had taken any steps to induce the Greek Government to adopt measures to prevent the continuation of the disgraceful state of things known to exist there? Also, whether the Government had not sent instructions to Sir Edmund Lyons, requiring him to demand of the Greek Government the dismissal of an officer or person named Valença; and what reply, if any, had been received to such demand?
The Earl of Aberdeen: I am ready to admit, my Lords, that the peculiarity of our relations with Greece may justify the noble Lord in bringing various matters under the attention of your Lordships in connexion with that country, which, under other circumstances, it would not be desirable to do, neither, indeed, would the noble Lord be justified in so doing. In the first place, this country has, in conjunction with France and Russia, created this State of Greece; we not only created it, but we guaranteed its independence and the integrity of its territories. This, therefore, gives us a right to take such precautions as not to render that guarantee more onerous than it necessarily ought to be. We have also guaranteed the payment of the interest of a loan contracted by the Greek State, which we have been called upon to discharge ourselves for the last two or three years. This, therefore, gives us undoubtedly a right to interfere so far in the internal affairs of this State as to see that we should be released from these obligations as rapidly as possible. And the Greek Government would do well to recollect that, by the provisions of the Treaty, we are enabled to enter into possession of such of the revenues of Greece as we think proper for the repayment of the debt so contracted; and they should consider that this is not a vain formality, but a right, the exercise of which must depend on the good faith of the Greek Government itself, and the endeavours they make to discharge the obligations under which they lie. But the noble Lord must recollect that although this is true, as a consequence of the rela-

1281
tions in which we stand towards Greece, it may be carried to such an extent as to leave no shadow of independence whatever in the Government of that country. I am ready to admit that the present state of Greece, in many respects, is such as to give pain to all who wish well to the prosperity and welfare of that State. No doubt outrages have been committed; murders, robberies, and violence of various descriptions have been perpetrated, none of which can be compatible with a government of peace and order. I do not feel, therefore, that we are precluded from giving any such counsel and advice as we may think calculated to remedy these internal disorders; but I do not feel that I am called upon to give any opinion of the Government of Coletti, as required by the noble Lord. He may express any opinion which he may think proper; but it is not my province to give any opinion of the conduct of a Minister of a Foreign and friendly State; I give such advice on the part of Her Majesty's Government as we think likely to be useful; and I hope, notwithstanding what the noble Lord has said, that such advice is not without its salutary effect, With respect to what he said of the excesses committed on the frontier, I must repeat that there have been gross exaggerations on the subject. Unfortunately this frontier is inhabited by a race of men imperfectly civilized; and I am afraid I must admit that, if the Cretans are said to have been always liars, I believe the province of Greece has been always inhabited, more or less, by robbers—and this is a robber population. Unfortunately, the acts of which they are guilty are not regarded in the same manner as they would be by more civilized countries; it is a species of warfare which is looked upon almost with the same respect as legitimate warfare. Now, I do not deny that various outrages have taken place on the Turkish frontier, but that they have been carried to such an extent as has been described I utterly deny. On one or two occasions these small predatory bands have crossed over the boundary, and have been dealt with very properly but very severely by the Turkish troops, and several of them have met with what they richly deserved—the most severe treatment. Some of them have also been put to death by the Turkish troops. But to suppose for a moment that the Greek Government would either support or encourage such proceedings as those for the purpose of carrying on ag-
1282
gressions against Turkey, is perfectly incredible. True, they do not repress them, for they have not force sufficient to put them down; but what they are most desirous about, is to remove the overwhelming Turkish force which is assembled on the frontier. But that the Government of Greece, a country without any military force, should endeavour to provoke hostility on the part of the Turkish Empire, is perfectly impossible; and when coupled with the consideration, the declaration of the three protecting Powers of England, France, and Russia, that they would neither tolerate aggression on the part of Turkey on the one hand, nor Greece on the other, if such a notion as that alluded to is entertained by Coletti, or any other Minister in Greece, it would fully qualify him for a place in a lunatic asylum, did any such exist in his country. The noble Lord says that a certain person has been placed in command of the forces on the frontier, who ought not, in the noble Lord's opinion, to be so appointed. It is said that the man alluded to has been remarkable for having taken a conspicuous part in some transactions which occurred four or five years ago, and was mixed up with some excesses which were committed on the Turkish frontier. With respect to this man's appointment to a command also, there is another misrepresentation. I admit that it would have been more desirable not to have employed this man at all; but every one knows the difficulty which all Governments sometimes find in satisfying those parties who have claims upon them. Now, it was thought necessary to give this man an employment; but he is not in the command of any force whatever on the frontier. He is not on the frontier. I understand his command is thirty or forty miles from the frontier. And what is the force which this person commands, who is supposed to inspire terror into the Turkish empire? Why, he commands eighteen men; and they are not soldiers, but a species of local guard—of national and provincial guard. And it so happens—although I agree in the opinion that, considering the notoriety he has acquired, it would have been better not to have employed him at all—but it so happens that he is employed at his own home where he has a small farm, which he occupies and cultivates himself, and which unfortunately happens to be nearer the frontier than could be wished. But that he occupies any post that can excite

1283
uneasiness on the part of the Porte, or the friends of the Porte, is really not the fact. I have given such an opinion as I thought I was called upon to give to the Greek Government respecting this person, and other matters connected with the state of the frontier; but I do not think it necessary to state to the noble Lord what these opinions are, or what the result has been. I have taken, and shall continue to take, all such measures as I think prudent and likely to be useful in establishing the tranquillity of Greece; because, after all, it is impossible to conceive that any Government — be it a Government of the worst Ministers possible—should have any interest in promoting a state of confusion, anarchy, and disorder. They may take erroneous means to arrive at the pacification of the country, but that must be their object at last; and, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, I undertake to say, that all such counsels will be given as seem likely to contribute to that result. The noble Lord has said something about English influence at Athens no longer existing, and that French influence is predominant. I am quite surprised that the noble Lord, who knows something of the East himself, should be carried away by these absurd statements. Supposing it is admitted that the Greek Minister is connected intimately with the French Minister, and acts by his advice, what can he do? How can he affect English interests? We have our Treaty with Greece, and that Treaty gives us all the advantages which any State can possess; and is it possible that the Greek Minister could hurt a hair of the head of a British subject, without the most signal redress being executed? What is the meaning of this influence which is spoken of? I say, that influence depends on the acknowledged power and disinterestedness of this Government; that it reposes also on the character of the people with whom they have to deal—the wealth, the probity, and activity of our merchants. And do not ten Englishmen go to Greece for one native of any other State? It is our own fault, then, if they do not derive from their experience of English travellers a better opinion of us than of any other nation. These are the real sources of influence; and I defy M. Coletti or the French Government either, if they wished it, to weaken or destroy English influence in Greece in the only way in which it ought to exist, or in which we ought to desire it to exist. I have not found the slightest diminution of English
1284
influence in Greece. Quite the contrary; on every occasion which has arisen, there has been proof that it existed quite as much as we could possibly desire. But, I repeat, it has been the curse of that country, that parties there have endeavoured to create what is called an English party and a French party, or a Russian party; and that they have not thought only of a Greek party, for that is the only party we ought all to unite in supporting. And the Governments do not entertain any such different views of the matter: the whole arises from the over zeal of persons on the spot, and a morbid desire of popularity and of meddling with the affairs of the country. My Lords, I must decline to state more particularly the nature of the advice which I have thought it my duty, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to give to the Greek Government; but I have before said that, from the situation in which we are placed in relation to Greece, I consider that we are fully justified in that sort of interference which we believe to be necessary for the purposes to which I have alluded.
Lord Beaumontthought the speech of the noble Lord was more satisfactory than that which he had before delivered on the same subject; and he hoped the consequence would be a happier result, which he confidently anticipated from the firm tone which the noble Lord had assumed.

COAL TRADE (PORT OF LONDON) BILL.
The Earl of Dalhousiemoved the Second Reading of this Bill.
The Marquess of Londonderrycould not allow the Bill to pass without expressing his opinion on the subject. Coal was almost the only article imported into the port of London that was so grievously taxed. In 1840, the city of London gave up the coal tax to the Government. The annual revenue in that year was 125,000 l.; in 1841, it increased by 20,000 l.; in 1842, by 10,000 l.; and in 1843, by 5,000 l.; in 1844, there was a strike amongst the colliers, and the revenue decreased by 3,500 l. For the half of the present year, however, it had increased so as to make the average 165,000 l. from the present tax. As there had been so great an increase, and as it was likely to continue, he wanted to know why it was necessary to put a tax of an additional penny on this necessary of life? and why, too, coals alone were to be taxed for metropolitan improvements? He contended that the noble Earl who had brought the matter

1285
forward in the other House, knew nothing of the subject, and that the tax fell upon the coalowner, and not upon the poor or the consumer. The trade was already unjustifiably oppressed; and in a future Session some relief must be given, or extensive ruin would ensue.
The Marquess of Westminstersupported the Bill, and thought the proposed improvements in London and its vicinity, effected by means of it, would, on the whole, be highly beneficial.
After a few words from the Earl of Dalhousie, and an explanation from the Marquess of Londonderry,
Bill read 2a.
House adjourned.