Sitting of 24 June 1845

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT. For West Suffolk. v. Colonel Rushbrooke, deceased.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Deodands Abolition; Accidents Compensation.
Private.—1o. Lord Barrington's Estate.
2o. Lady Sandy's (Turner's) Estate.
Reported.—Preston and Wyre Railway Branches (re-committed); St. Helen's Canal and Railway (re-committed).
3o. and passed:—Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway; Totnes Markets and Waterworks (No. 2); Lyme Regis Improvement, Market, aud Waterworks; Oxford and Rugby Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. F. Maule, from Minister, Elders, and others of Free Church, Northill, Perth, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. H. Baillie, from North Uist, against Universities (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Bouverie, Mr. F. Maule, and Mr. Morison, from several places, in favour of Universities (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. G. W. Hope, from the Legislative Council of Canada, for Alteration of British Possessions Abroad Act.—By Mr. C. Wood, from Bankers and others of York, for enforcing Observance of the Treaty with Buenos Ayres.—From C. M'Donnell and Sons, for Repeal of Duty on Paper.—By Mr. Borthwick, Lord C, Fitzroy, Mr. Brotherton,

1153
and Viscount Howick, from a great number of places, in favour of the Ten Hours System in Factories.—By Mr. Craig, from Ordinary and Extraordinary Directors of the Association for Improving the Sanatory Condition of Edinburgh, for Sanatory Regulations (Health of Towns).—By Mr. Bouverie, from Chemists and Druggists of Peterborough, for Alteration of Physic and Surgery Bill.—By Sir T. Acland, from Master Mariners and Mariners or Ilfracombe, for Alteration of Merchant Seamen's Fund Act.—By Mr. Bouverie, from Provost, Magistrates, and Councillors of Dumbarton, for Alteration of Poor Law Amendment (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Bramston, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Ord, from several places, for Diminishing the Number of Public Houses—By Mr. F. Dundas, and Captain Wemyss, from Orkney, and Fife, for Ameliorating the Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).—By Viscount Howick, from Sunderland, against Timber Ships Bill.

LAWS OF THE ISLE OF MAN.
Dr. Bowringsaid, he had upon the Paper three questions to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham). They referred to an illegal arrest and imprisonment which had taken place in the Isle of Man. He understood that the attention of the Lord Chancellor had been called to the matter since he had before mentioned it in the House; and he hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet was prepared to give some explanation of the occurrence. In order that the right hon. Gentleman might be enabled to do so explicitly, he had set forward the questions which he wished to ask in detail on the Paper. They were as follows:—
"Whether John Walters Coldicot was committed, on or about the 9th day of September last, to Castle Rushen, in the Isle of Man, on a charge of assault, without any examination or hearing before a magistrate? Whether, on complaining of the irregularity and hardship of his commitment to the Lieutenant Governor of the island, the case was referred by the said Lieutenant Governor to the committing magistrate himself? Whether the original committal was not to compel the prisoner to keep the peace for six months, and whether, the six months being passed, he was not and is not now detained in gaol?"
Sir James Grahamsaid, in consequence of the former statement of the hon. Member, he had communicated with the Governor of the Isle of Man on the subject. It was necessary that he should preface his answer by remarking that the law of the Isle of Man was local and peculiar, and very dissimilar from the law of this country. It appeared that the person alluded to had been charged before a magistrate, about the early part of September last, with a grievous assault on his wife. According to the law of the island, a warrant was issued for his apprehension, against which it was open to him to appeal. No
1154
appeal, however, had been lodged in the case; and he was accordingly sentenced to find security for six months, himself in 40 l. and two sureties in 20 l. each. He expressed himself unable to find sureties, and was unwilling to enter into his own recognizances; and having lodged no appeal against the decision made in the case, he was detained in prison. Under these circumstances it appeared that on the 16th of October, he being then in prison for want of entering into security to keep the peace, a detainer for a debt of 14 l. was lodged against him. Now, that fact was altogether omitted in the account of the transaction given by the hon. Gentleman, though from that time forward he had been confined on the debtors' side of the prison. In the month of April, the gentleman by whom he had been originally committed for want of security to keep the peace, consented to his liberation, provided he would enter into his own recognizances, without being under the necessity of finding sureties. The prisoner, however, refused to do so. He was bound to suppose that the hon. Gentleman who brought this case before the House was not aware of the character of the individual on whose behalf he asked these questions. He (Sir James Graham) had already told the House that this person had been committed on the present occasion on account of a most violent and brutal assault on his wife; but it appeared that this was not the first time that he had been guilty of a grave crime. He had been on a former occasion actually convicted and imprisoned for two years, on account, of an assault with intent to commit a rape on his own daughter.
Dr. Bowringwished to ask, in addition, whether the right hon. Baronet would not consent that the state of the law, which permitted the irregularity of a person being committed to prison without inquiry, should be altered?
Sir James Graham: I am not aware that any breach of the law, or any irregularity, has been committed on this occasion.

RAILWAY LEGISLATION.
Mr. Gisbornewished to ask the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government, whether parties applying to Parliament for Railway Bills would be still obliged to deposit plans or sections with the Railway Department of the Board of Trade; or whether any alterations in the present system were intended to be made?
Sir Robert Peelwas not at present prepared to make any announcement on the subject to which the hon. Member referred. It was one to which Her Majesty's Government had directed their attention, and which required much consideration. They were, of course, desirous to acquire as much experience as possible in the working of the present railway system before any decision was come to, and it was also necessary that the matter should be brought before Parliament at a period of the Session which would ensure full and calm deliberation to a subject of so much importance. Taking these two considerations, therefore, together—namely, the necessity of having as much experience as possible on the working of the present system, and also of having ample time for coming to a calm and fair consideration of the matter in Parliament, he thought the present period of the Session too late for bringing the subject before the House.

THE TARIFF.
Mr. Laboucherewished to take that opportunity of directing the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade to a matter connected with the recent alteration in the Tariff, which, though it did not affect any large class of traders, was still calculated to injure some individuals of high character in the commercial world. It besides involved such manifest injustice, that he trusted some satisfactory answer would at once be given respecting it. The question arose from the alteration made in the rate of duty chargeable on the article called morphine, which was a preparation of opium, and had latterly nearly supplanted that drug in medical practice. The House having left the duty on opium, which was the raw material, untouched, while it considerably reduced that on morphine, the consequence was that the foreigner who got his opium duty free would be enabled entirely to supplant the morphine manufacturers in the market of this country. One respectable chemist in Edinburgh, who had erected a laboratory for the production of morphine, which astonished all who had an opportunity of inspecting it, from the beauty of its construction, had carried on a thriving and profitable trade in this article; but he was now apprehensive that the foreign chemists would be enabled to undersell him in the market, so as entirely to destroy his prospects. The entire revenue derived from the duty on opium did not
1156
amount to more than 3,000 l. or 4,000 l.; and when the injustice done to the native manufacturer was so obvious, he thought there could be no difficulty in providing a remedy.
Sir George Clerksaid, the point alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman had been already brought under the notice of the Board of Trade by the individual in Edinburgh whom the right hon. Gentleman had referred to, and who was apprehensive that the alteration in the Tariff would be injurious to his business. Prior to the year 1842, there was a duty of 16 s. a pound on morphine when imported; but none had ever been imported under that duty. In 1842, the duty was reduced from 16 s. to 5s., with the same result, as not a single ounce of it had been since introduced, and he had not the slightest apprehension that this state of things would be at all altered under the present system.

CONSTITUTION OF JURIES.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he had promised to answer the question which the noble Lord had put to him a few days since, with respect to the Bill about being introduced for facilitating the challenge to the array. He had since then communicated with the Lord Chancellor on the subject, and he was now able to state that that noble Lord would bring the Bill forward in a few days.

THE SLAVE TRADE.
Mr. Hutt: Among the various proposals which have been submitted to Parliament for revising measures which erroneous principles of legislation and mistaken humanity have imposed upon the country, I am surprised that none has been made for reconsidering the nature and results of that system by which we have undertaken to put down the Slave Trade. There has long existed in this country a very earnest and generous desire to extinguish the Slave Trade. Every successive Administration which, during the last forty years, has assumed the direction of public affairs, has exerted itself vigorously and perseveringly for the furtherance of this popular object. During that period—the last forty years—we have had Governments not distinguished by devotion to the real welfare or the constitutional liberties of their own countrymen; but I know of none which did not appear sensible to the wrongs and sufferings of the people of Africa. And the zeal of Government in this respect has always

1157
been warmly seconded by the public opinion of the country, especially where that opinion has been affected by the more religious communities. The ardour of these parties for the extinction of the Slave Trade has been occasionally extreme; indeed, the intensity of their feelings on this subject has made them strangely insensible on many others. For instance, since the termination of the late war there have been periods of great national distress—a sudden paralysis has affected all the operations of productive industry, and public economy has been fiercely demanded by the cry of the nation. But even then I can recollect no occasion on which any doubt has been expressed by any one as to the propriety of keeping up a large expenditure for the suppression of the Slave Trade. There have been times, too, when, from the reduction of establishments, our naval force has hardly been adequate to the duty of protecting our maritime and commercial interests, when more than a fourth of the naval power voted by Parliament has been employed in protecting the African population; but I cannot call to mind any proposal having been made to reconsider that policy. But what is more remarkable, we have been conscious of great miseries at home; we have had it proved to us, not only by personal observation, but by the more accurate and reliable investigation of royal Commissioners, that millions of our own countrymen—I speak of the three kingdoms — pass from the cradle to the grave in a state of moral and physical destitution little superior to that of the savages of the desert; and while we have done little or nothing for their relief, we have shrunk from no exertion, and scrupled at no expense, for repressing misery in Africa. Foreigners have thought these contrasts too violent for sound morality, and have asserted that there was something selfish and sinister in the prodigality of our African sympathies. They believe that we have other objects than disinterested humanity. I will not undertake to say, that none of those who have promoted the abolition fervour have derived personal advantage from the agitation. I have no doubt that many have; but of the country I can confidently affirm, that no people ever engaged more warmly in an undertaking which they were urged by their own interests to pursue. I am no apologist for the Slave Trade. I regard it as an appalling crime, and I feel as much satisfaction as any man can do in contemplating
1158
our exertions against it, so long as they have been confined to our legitimate sphere of action. But I contend that we cannot, without culpable neglect of nearer and higher duties, assume the task of extirpating the crime from among all other people, or patrolling the world to put it down. I deny entirely that we are under any kind of moral obligation to attempt it. But giving that question up, suppose that it is the paramount duty of this country to put down at any cost, at any risk of the consequences to ourselves, the frightful crimes which other nations are habitually perpetrating against the people of Africa; admit that instead of occupying ourselves with the welfare of our own suffering and neglected countrymen, we are right in ex pending our means and our exertions in warding off evil from the tribes of Africa, in extinguishing in fact the Slave Trade, are we extinguishing it? Here is the pith of the case. We have gone on for thirty years, not only assuming that a distant and barbarous people had more claims on our conscience than our own countrymen, but blindly and indolently assuming also that treaties, and commission courts, and preventive squadrons, meant suppression of the Slave Trade. I think it is time to inquire whether our assumption be correct. I want the House of Commons to ascertain the fact. We have been pursuing a system, very expensive as I am prepared to show, and deplorably destructive of the enterprising and gallant men engaged in our naval service, as I can prove also—a system which is constantly compromising the honour of the British Crown by lending us to form treaties with foreign countries, which foreign countries habitually disregard—a system which is for ever bringing us into collision with jealous and powerful nations, and thereby hazarding the peace of the world. Well, we have tried it long—we have tried it perseveringly, in almost every shape, under almost every modification of circumstances. What is the award which our long and large experience at last pronounces on the efficacy of our system? Is it possible that we have tried it in vain? I entreat the attention of the House to this point. For more than thirty years together we have busied ourselves with nothing so much as the abolition of the foreign Slave Trade—the abolitionists have had placed at their disposal the utmost latitude, one might almost say licentiousness of means—public money to any extent—naval armaments watching

1159
every shore and every sea where a slaveship could be seen or suspected—courts of special judicature in half the intertropical regions of the globe—diplomatic influence and agency, such perhaps, as this country never before concentrated on any public object. Well, we have succeeded in abolishing the Slave Trade, of course? Sir, we have failed, with consequences which it is frightful to contemplate. These are not my opinions, nor the opinions of any one whose judgment you can call in question; they are the opinions of those who have had the management of the suppression machinery, and who are responsible for its operation—I mean Sir Fowell Buxton and the Anti-Slavery Society, the noble Lord the Member for London, the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, and even of Lord Aberdeen. In 1839, Sir Fowell Buxton, to whose memory the right hon. Baronet paid the other evening so just and so feeling a tribute, published an elaborate and valuable work on this subject. After drawing together with great accuracy and research all the facts which could be brought to bear on this important question, and sifting and weighing them with that fairness and candour which were the amiable attributes of his mind, Sir Fowell Buxton came to this conclusion:—
"Towards the end of the last century the cruelty and the carnage which raged in Africa were laid open. From the most generous motives, and at a mighty cost, we have attempted to arrest this evil; it is, however, but too evident, that under the mode we have taken for the suppression of the Slave Trade it has increased. It has been proved, by documents which cannot be controverted, that, for every village fired, and every drove of human beings marched in former times, there are now double. For every cargo then at sea, two cargoes, or twice the numbers in one cargo, wedged together in a mass of living corruption, are now borne on the wave of the Atlantic. But, whilst the numbers who suffer have increased, there is no reason to believe that the sufferings of each have been abated; on the contrary, we know that in some particulars these have increased; so that the sum total of misery swells in both ways. Each individual has more to endure; and the number of individuals is twice what it was. The result, therefore, is, that aggravated suffering reaches multiplied numbers."
Such were the opinions of this humane, enlightened, and honourable man. Sir Fowell Buxton, who represents the inventors and patrons of the system, states, in 1839—
1160
"It is, then, but too manifest, that the efforts already made for the suppression of the Slave Trade have not accomplished their benevolent object. Millions of money, and multitudes of lives, have been sacrificed; and in return for all, we have only the afflicting conviction that the Slave Trade is as far as ever from being suppressed. Once more, then, I must declare my conviction that the Slave Trade will never be suppressed by the system hitherto pursued."
Such was the conviction which a careful review of the whole system forced on the mind of this virtuous and enlightened man. The Anti-Slavery Society echoed the same sentiments. But I have greater authorities than these. The noble Lord the Member for London is admitted by men of all parties to have displayed, in the arduous office of Secretary for the Colonies, talents and accomplishments of no ordinary character, in dealing with the various questions which came under his notice. What said the noble Lord on the subject of the Slave Trade, at the close of 1839? Writing an official letter to the Lords of the Treasury on the subject, he expressed himself in the following terms:—
"Under such circumstances, to repress the foreign Slave Trade by a marine guard would scarcely be possible, if the whole British Navy could be employed for that purpose. It is an evil which can never be adequately encountered by any system of mere prohibition and penalties."
I come now to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman attended a grand meeting at Exeter-hall, on the 1st of June, 1840, for the extinction of the Slave Trade. The right hon. Gentleman was more prudent in his anticipations on that occasion than some of his colleagues. He did not profess to expect that the Niger Expedition would instantly convert the interior of Africa into an Atalantis of happiness; but he is reported to have said—I had not the good fortune to be present—that the efforts for abolishing the Slave Trade had failed, and had even aggravated the misery of individual cases; and in order, as he said, to prove to the company that the Slave Trade was still in all its sinful vigour, he quoted from a newspaper one of those dreadful cases of the loss of life on board a slave vessel, with which we are but too familiar. I think, in this instance, out of 900 slaves crammed on board a small brig, 700 had perished in a voyage between Mozambique and the Cape of Good Hope. Lord Aberdeen's authority is perhaps more important, as it is of more

1161
recent date. Lord Aberdeen has not, indeed, pronounced any opinion, as far as I know, upon the whole question; but it is impossible to read his despatches to Mr. Bulwer, in 1844, and to the British Minister at Rio Janeiro, without seeing that he fully participates in the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman in 1840. Then there is the petition of Thomas Clarkson, presented to the House at the beginning of this year. Now, I think this is authority enough. I shall not attempt to strengthen this part of my case by showing how perfectly the views of our consuls and commissioners in various parts of Africa and America coincide with these convictions at home. I pass them by, and proceed at once to the facts derived from official Papers, on which it is to be presumed that the opinions of those great authorities were mainly founded. I find that the number of Africans carried away from their native country, at the beginning of the present century, was estimated in official documents at 90,000 or 100,000. At that time, Great Britain was actively engaged in the trade, and appropriated more than one-half of it. In 1807, the Abolition Act passed. The withdrawal of Great Britain from all participation in the Slave Trade necessarily diminished the amount of the exported slaves. The war was not favourable to the foreign Slave Trade; and there is reason to believe that, at the close of the war, this infamous traffic had not, in any degree, recovered its former magnitude. What is the amount of it now? What is the number of Africans who are now dragged away from the country, and sold into everlasting slavery and exile? It cannot be less, and it may be more, than 200,000 per annum, or double the number the Slave Trade ever reached before we undertook to put it down. It is still on the increase; the numbers will, of course, vary in particular years, under the influences that affect all commercial operations. Nor do I deny that the means we have directed against the Slave Trade, such as the penalties of piracy, the Equipment Treaty, the Right of Search, have all given at times a temporary check to its operations. The sanguine abolitionists have hailed these transient interruptions as evidences of the triumph of their system. It was a gross error. Their system, however, has exercised no durable suppressive influence whatever. The wave has retreated; but the tide has steadily advanced. Mr. Maclean, the late Governor of Cape
1162
Coast Castle, who, I believe, did more than all our treaties, and all our squadrons, for the suppression of the Slave Trade; and whom the Colonial Office, with its usual wisdom, has removed from his sphere of usefulness — Mr. Maclean estimated the number of slaves carried away in the year 1838, from the Bights of Benin and Biatra, at 140,000. Lord John Russell says—
"But after the most attentive examination which it has been in my power to make, of official documents, and especially of the Correspondence communicated to Parliament from the Department of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I find it impossible to avoid the conclusion, that the average number of slaves introduced into Foreign States or Colonies in America and the West Indies, from the Western Coast of Africa, annually exceeds 100,000. In this estimate a very large deduction is made for the exaggerations which are, more or less, inseparable from all statements on a subject so well calculated to excite the feelings of every impartial and disinterested witness. But, making this deduction, the number of slaves actually landed in the importing countries affords but a very imperfect indication of the real extent of the calamities which this traffic inflicts on its victims. No record exists of the multitudes who perish in the overland journey to the African Coast, or in the passage across the Atlantic, or of the still greater number who fall a sacrifice to the warfare, pillage, and cruelties by which the Slave Trade is fed. Unhappily, however, no fact can be more certain, than that such an importation as I have mentioned, presupposes and involves a waste of human life, and a sum of human misery, proceeding from year to year, without respite or intermission, to such an extent as to render the subject the most painful of any which, in the survey of the condition of mankind, it is possible to contemplate."
This is an estimate of the numbers landed in America, and taken from the west coast of Africa only. The noble Lord says that, limited in that way, the number exceeds 100,000, Sir F. Buxton proved from official Papers that the number of negroes introduced in 1838 from Africa into Cuba and Brazil was 140,000–61,000 into Cuba, and 78,000 into Brazil. But this is only an account of the slaves whom our consuls or agents had ascertained to be introduced. It is no return at all of the whole body actually imported into the two countries. Take, for instance, Brazil. The Consul General reports to the Foreign Office that he had received information of 78,331 having been clandestinely imported into the five

1163
principal seaports of Brazil; but can we suppose that when so many are smuggled into these five ports, that large numbers are not also landed on the remaining line of coast—a coast extending 2,600 miles, and abounding with harbours, creeks, and rivers, where disembarkation could be easily effected. 140,000 slaves are, however, proved to be landed; one-third more, or 46,000, must on an average have been torn from the coast of Africa; the average loss being from 30 to 35 per cent. 8,000 were in that year captured by British cruisers. We have thus 194,000 slaves exported from Africa for the supply of Cuba and Brazil during the year 1838. But Cuba and Brazil are not the only countries engaged in the Slave Trade. Porto Rico, Buenos Ayres, Texas, and the United States, are all participators in the crime. I know that persons have doubted whether the United States really import any slaves. I presume the Members of this House doubt it whenever the Sugar Duties are under discussion. I believe, however, that such is the fact. I rest my opinion not on the circumstance that it has been constantly alleged in the American Congress; not on the circumstance that there are so many slaves in America who do not know the English language; but upon this: I know that in Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, there is a large demand and a high price for every slave offered there for sale. I know that Americans are actively engaged in the Slave Trade for the supply of other markets. The Papers before the House constantly refer to slave ships belonging to American owners, fitted with American capital, sailing under American colours. Is it credible that under circumstances such as these, and the temptation of very high prices in America, that African born negroes are not introduced there? They may not be introduced directly from Africa; they may come through Texas, they may come through Cuba; but it would contradict all human experience to doubt that, with these facilities, high profits did not ensure the supply. Well, then, we have ascertained that in 1838, 194,000 negroes were torn from Africa, for supplying the markets of Cuba and Brazil; and there is presumptive evidence, amounting almost to a certainty, that a much larger number were actually smuggled into those countries. We have the importations into Porto
1164
Rico, Texas, Buenos Ayres, and the United States yet unaccounted for; can we hesitate to conclude that the Slave Trade is now, after all our expenditure and exertions, double what it was in 1814? Well, it may be said that my evidence only goes to show it was so in 1838; it may have diminished since. We have had the Right of Search Treaties of 1841, and the Treaty with Portugal of 1842; it may have disappeared altogether. What says the Slave Correspondence recently placed in our hands? The Commissioners at Sierra Leone state, at the beginning of 1844:—
"From the foregoing statement your Lordship will perceive that, unhappily for the case of humanity, the Slave Trade has greatly increased during the year 1843."
The Commissioners at Havannah state, at the same time:—
"The list of vessels proceeding to the coast of Africa is far exceeding that of the last year. We regret having it further to state, as a matter of public understanding, that the trade is to be allowed to continue as much connived at as ever previously. From our former despatches, and the one we have hereafter to submit on the state of the trade during the last month, your Lordship will see the alarming extent to which these proceedings are now projected."
On the 7th August, 1844, the Commissary Judge writes to Lord Aberdeen:—
"During the last month, I regret to have to report that the Slave Trade has exhibited proofs of unabated activity."
The Commissioners at Rio afford corresponding testimony:—
"The total number of slaves, as shown by the present return, is not one half of the actual number successfully imported. We are assured that nearly 40,000 have been landed within these provinces in the period. This sudden augmentation during the past year is attributable to the continued encouragement and protection afforded by the Brazilian Administration to all slaving adventures. The greater number of slave ships which have effected the landing of their cargoes, have escaped our vigilant observation in consequence of the novel system recently followed by the slave dealers, which has proved eminently prosperous."
Mr. Hesketh, the Consul at Rio, states, on the 2nd April, 1844:—
"The clandestine importation of slaves is carried on as extensively as ever."
Now, Sir, I wish to place those broad

1165
facts before the common sense of the House. If this question is to be made a subject of casuistical dispute—a contention about words and terms, or a feat of strength in oratory, why, I now admit my utter incapacity to meet the right hon. Gentleman on such grounds; but upon the truth—upon the facts of the case — upon the practical results of the system, I fear no one whatever; and I trust, and believe, that I have now stated sufficient to the House to establish that part of my Resolution which says, that the traffic in slaves is undiminished. I have another charge against this rash and idle system. It actually grows the crime which it proposes to put down. We are constantly complaining that the people of Cuba and Brazil do not co-operate with us in our crusade against the Slave Trade. I know they do not; but is their estrangement from us in this work really a matter of astonishment? They have no fondness for the Slave Trade. The respectable people, the persons of wealth and intelligence in both countries view the traffic with consternation and horror. The extraordinary disproportion of the negro to the white population of Brazil has long been viewed by all prudent men of that State with anxiety and alarm. The same in Cuba. The British Commissioners at the Havannah write thus to Lord Aberdeen at the beginning of last year:—
"The consternation among the planters is exceedingly great; and within the last month there was a memorial presented to the Governor of Matanzas, signed by upwards of sixty of the most respectable planters and inhabitants of that city and the neighbourhood, of a most remarkable character. The memorialists complained in express terms 'of the bad faith towards England, in the continuing to permit the introduction of negroes, to the great injury of the island, and against the earnest wishes of the great majority of the people.' We are sorry we have not been able to procure a copy; but we have these expressions from a gentleman who read it, and on whose statement we can rely. This petition was directed to the Captain General, and was delivered to the Governor of Matanzas to be forwarded, who tore it in the presence of the parties deputed, telling them that it was the most friendly act he could do for them, as such a petition was an insult to the Government, and they would be looked upon as conspirators. The memorialists on this determined to present one to the Captain General direct, on hearing of which the Governor of Matanzas, Don Antonio Garcia Ona, called some of the principals, and told them
1166
that unless they desisted he would have to proceed against them officially."
A copy was afterwards discovered and transmitted to Lord Aberdeen. It is among the Papers presented this year to Parliament. It is a vehement condemnation of the Slave Trade, and a most earnest appeal to the Government to put it down. It may be thought singular that, with so unquestionable a concurrence in our views, and with so many Treaties pledging them to co-operation, these people should not only refuse us all assistance in our common object, but, on the contrary, should treat all our abolition efforts with unmitigated hostility. But there is really nothing astonishing in the matter. It is one of the unhappy effects of the preposterous system of meddling and interference out of our legitimate sphere of action. The very means we resort to for putting down the Slave Trade actually promote its continuance by enlisting the passions and prejudices, and even the national pride and honour, of all the slave-trading countries in its defence. No nation—as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh observed some nights ago—no nation likes to be told by another, we are more virtuous than you. The very assumption of such superiority provokes contradiction — provokes in the hearts of those we admonish a disposition to justify both their conduct and their principles. But we do not confine ourselves to admonishing and lecturing our neighbours on morality, though the annual Slave Trade Correspondence proves that we do a great deal in that line. We do, however, something else—something far more exasperating. Now, I should like to know what would be the feelings of any of the inhabitants of our own coast — Brighton, for example—if they were in the habit of hearing that British vessels engaged in smuggling had been chased, burnt, sunk, or run ashore by Russian or American ships of war, fitted out to suppress their illicit operations with France; if every now and then they beheld vessels belonging to their own port, on board which they knew that their own townsmen were serving—over which their own national colours were flying — destroyed off their own town, or captured and carried away as a prize before their own eyes by the ships of a foreign nation—of a foreign nation which, arrogating to itself superior conscientiousness, had promoted

1167
a league to put down public immorality throughout the world. What would be the natural feelings of the people of Brighton in such exasperating circumstances? Would they not violently rebel against the foreign dictators, who came to teach them morality with fire and sword? As for my gallant Friend the Member for Brighton, I am convinced that he would immediately leave off legislating for oysters and periwinkles. He would put to sea, and become a smuggler on a principle of public spirit. But, indeed, Sir, it is true, the course we are pursuing deprives us of the assistance—the cheapest, the most powerful, the most effectual which we could have, in the public opinion of the countries in question. We not only fail to secure that valuable co-operation, but we actually contrive, in spite of the alarm of this people about the Slave Trade, to array public feeling against us. By the vigilance of our consuls, and other agents, we are supplied with something like an account of the number of those unhappy beings who are annually carried off from their country and sold into slavery for life. But, Sir, we have no account—for no computation can be formed—of the multitudes who are massacred in the progress of the operation. We know nothing of the numbers who annually perish while penned up in the African baracoons, waiting for embarkation—nothing of the numbers who perish in the ship's hold, even in the most favourable voyage across the Atlantic—nothing of those who are suffocated under the hatches in a storm, or who are heaved alive into the sea on the approach of a cruiser—far too little of those who annually sink under the effects of confinement, suffering, and disease in the slave ship, in the dreadful period between their capture by our cruisers, and the adjudication of their case by the Commission and Admiralty Courts. Of the sufferings of those who survive the horrors of the voyage, there is no one to give us an account. All that we know is, that the whole constitutes a complication of tortures of human mind and body—scenes of misery, blood, and death, such as are probably unmatched in any other passage of earthly affliction. And, mind, before we undertook to suppress the Slave Trade by force, there was little or nothing of this. Both the seller and the buyer of the slaves were interested above everything
1168
else in the safety of their articles of trade. The slaves were brought down by the African chiefs to convenient spots on the coast; there they were expected by the European dealer. After they were purchased, they were openly and leisurely embarked. They were generally accommodated on board ship in a way to secure their physical well-being. The first concern of their owner was their preservation. The moment we undertook to destroy the trade by violent means, all this was changed. The first object now of the slave trader was not the safety of his cargo, but his own escape from capture; and the consequence has been an accumulation of horrors in all the operations of the Slave Trade, such as, to use the words of Mr. Burke, no eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no tongue can describe. I now come, Sir, to the most critical part of my subject; but, having at last taken it up, no false delicacy shall restrain me from speaking plainly what I feel with deep sincerity to be true. Our system is the direct cause of these horrors, and for that system we are personally responsible; and we—myself—every man who has a seat in the Legislature, but, above all, the Ministers of the Crown, who might put a stop to these deeds of atrocity if they would, and who will not do it, are participators in the perpetration of the crime. The slaves are now brought down in gangs of thousands to the baracoons on the coast, and have there to wait until they can be embarked so as to elude the vigilance of our cruisers. If they have to wait long, as they get little food, they usually perish in multitudes from starvation, or from diseases incidental to destitution. When a slaver arrives, and the victims are looked over by the buyer, the sickly and emaciated being condemned, are deliberately murdered. The rest are embarked. I dare say that few Members of this House ever saw a slaver. I have. I had an opportunity of inspecting two a few years since at Nantes, on the eve of their departure. It is not necessary for me to give any other description of them than that, in order to insure swift sailing, they were built so low that they were almost gunwale-edge with the water. The Slave Trade Correspondence, recently presented, speaks of a vessel only twenty-three inches between her decks. Into this dark and miserable hole human beings are crammed by hundreds. They

1169
are massed together like herrings in a cask. Of course they suffer and they die. Why, think of 400 human creatures forced between the decks of a vessel of only eighty tons, in the Torrid Zone, and carried across the Atlantic. Sometimes whole cargoes are extinguished. Of those who survive many are dislocated and distorted for life from the unnatural posture in which they have been fixed in the ship's hold during the voyage. The body will often stiffen into a permanent curve, and may never regain an upright position again. Now, Sir, I will not proceed. I will say nothing about the consequences when disease or storms at sea add their visitation to this thick compound of horrors. Most persons have read the Rev. Mr. Hill's pamphlet. I will only remark that most of the statements are substantially verified in the Papers before the House, as are all the other facts I have adverted to. Such, then, Sir, is one part of the price that is paid for maintaining our system of abolishing the Slave Trade. Now, are these cruelties to last for ever? Yon are preparing for their continuance; I believe for their aggravation, too, by your Treaty with France. But have you no fear how you deal with blood? Can any object be really good that is to be accomplished by human sacrifice. Sir, it is not by calling the Slave Trade inhuman and wicked that you can justify proceedings such as these, much less entitle them to support in a Christian assembly. Whenever I may perpetrate knowingly and recklessly cruelty and bloodshed, but most of all when I do so in the name of humanity and religion, denounce me as a hypocrite and a felon! I shall be no better. Humanity never taught such a system as this, and still less the Christian religion! But there is another and a different chapter in this melancholy history. I think I have shown that our system is productive of nothing but evil to the people of Africa. They do not suffer alone. The system has its victims among our own countrymen. England is annually weeded of her best and her bravest in order to carry on this idle and mischievous project for stopping the foreign Slave Trade. I do hope that those who, gratified by yearly rehearsals of our innumerable ineffectual treaties, by computations of the slavers we have uselessly destroyed, and of slaves we have vainly captured, will occasionally turn their thoughts to the homes in England which their devices
1170
have left desolate, and to the hearts within their own land they have made hopeless for ever. What the amount of this idle destruction may be, I have no means of stating to the House. Some Returns which I moved for many weeks ago on this subject have been found so difficult to make up, at least I presume so, that with all the zeal of the subordinate Members of the Government for promoting a fair consideration of this important subject, they have not been able to get them presented to the House. Probably they will be laid on the Table to-morrow. The same reason applies, though in a less degree, to the expenses of our system. Sir Fowell Buxton stated more than five years ago, that our anti-slave trade measures had cost the country since the peace about fifteen millions sterling. This included the sum of 1,300,000 l. paid to Spain and Portugal as bribes to induce them to abandon the traffic. We originally offered them nearly 2,000,000 l.; but as they have carried on the Slave Trade with double activity ever since they engaged to leave it off, we may think ourselves very lucky that we only paid them 1,300,000 l. The annual expenses are generally taken at half a million; they are probably rather more. The Commissioner of Inquiry on the Coast of Africa estimated the expense incurred in that part of the world, and independent of the salaries and contingencies at home, at 229,090 l. per annum. The Mixed Commission Courts cost the country 15,000 l. per annum, and the officers have all retiring salaries. Many of the other charges vary with the number of men of war employed in the service during the year, the number of slave ships and slaves captured by them, and the amount of money to be paid by this country for illegal detention. Putting all these expenses together, I suspect it will be found that we carry on these insane operations at an expense exceeding half a million per annum, and that the whole cost of them since the peace has been nearly 18,000,000 l. sterling. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that there are objects at home on which this money could be beneficially and philosophically employed. I have brought before you the sums of money which our anti-Slave Trade vagaries annually cost the noble and suffering people of this country. I have adverted to the dreadful sacrifice of our seamen by which you carry them on. I have shown you the horrible cruelty and butchery which your

1171
system enforces on the Slave Trade. I have shown you that the system itself rather tends to promote than suppress the trade. Lastly, I have shown you that your system has, practically, not suppressed it at all, but that the trade has increased it under your system, and that in a prodigious ratio. Now, I think I have a right to demand of the right hon. Gentleman either to invalidate my statements — to disprove my facts — or candidly and honestly to admit my conclusions, and abandon the system. I may be asked, then, what I am prepared to recommend as its substitute. I say, withdraw your cruisers; they are far worse than useless for your purpose. Encourage as much as possible commercial intercourse with the coast of Africa; not by Niger expeditions—which was a most insane application of a principle, wise enough in iiself—but, as was recommended by the West African Committee of 1842, by promoting the formation of simple and inexpensive establishments on both sides of the coast of Africa. At the same time give to your West India islands every possible facility of importing free labour from the tropics. You may then do so without fear of exciting the irritable jealousy of other nations on the question of slavery. By doing this you will sap the foundations of slavery, by underselling its productions. You put down the Slave Trade by destroying the speculation. I may be told that if you give up your squadrons on the coast of Africa, the Slave Trade will burst forth like a torrent. Where is this torrent to go to? Not to Cuba and Brazil. They can hardly import more than at present—they will not import at all if you will only give to the law which prohibits importation the best, the wisest, and most powerful assistance which the law gathers in every land from the support of public opinion. Every intelligent man in Cuba and Brazil is well aware of the awful dangers which are impending over his country, created by the importation already effected. Nothing, indeed, can be more alarming. At present, indeed, all is still—
"The storm yet sleeps, the clouds yet keep their station—
The bloody earthquake yet is in the womb—
The unborn chaos yet expects creation,
But all things are disposing for their doom.
The elements are waiting but the word—
Let there be darkness—and they grow a tomb."
1172
Whether in the inscrutable purposes of Providence it is decreed that that hour of retribution, so fearfully anticipated by the observers of both countries, should arrive or not, it is out of our province to conjecture. But this at least is certain, that should the day of insurrection ever appear—and may God in his mercy long avert it—the convulsion will be bold, and bloody, and tremendous, in the same degree as the crimes which have brought it on have been inexcusable for their wickedness. You may say there are other slave-trading countries than Cuba and Brazil; but let even them beware—let Texas beware—let the United States of America beware. Should that menacing meteor, which is now blackening all the horizon of Cuba and Brazil, ever burst upon the country, its mission will hardly be accomplished till it has visited brighter borders and fairer cities. And if the proud republic of North America shall not learn to avoid the calamities in her career—if she shall still persist in encouraging the growth of slavery, and the practices of the Slave Trade—she may one day see the most prosperous provinces of the present Union confederated with the half-savage dominions of Hayti. The hon. Member concluded by moving—
"That the course pursued by Great Britain, since 1814, for the suppression of the Slave Trade, has been attended by large expenditure of the public money, and by serious loss of life to the Naval Forces of the Country, and that it has not mitigated the horrors of the middle passage, nor diminished the extent of the traffic in Slaves."
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, the only difference between the sentiments of the hon. Gentleman and those entertained by Her Majesty's Government was as to the manner in which they were to arrive at the object both had in view—viz., the suppression of the Slave Trade. Undoubtedly he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the best way to do so was to withdraw the whole of our force from the African coast, to leave the trade unchecked, except by the force of public opinion alone. It was only last year that a new system had been adopted. England had doubled her force upon that coast; and officers had been appointed to commands there who were most intimate with it; and the ships, instead of cruising about as they did in former times, had now fixed stations, in a manner blockading those parts of the coast in which the Slave Trade had flourished

1173
most. The new plan had been in operation for a very short time, but the accounts of its working which had reached the Admiralty were so far satisfactory. There had been recently received from the Commodore on the Coast of Africa, accounts bearing date December 31, 1844. He reported—
"The measures taken for the watching of the Gallinas had proved completely successful."
And on the 5th of April, 1845, the Commodore reported—
"I have the honour to submit to their Lordships' consideration the enclosed list of captures of slave vessels, amended from the latest returns, from which it appears that the total amount of seizures during the last twelve months has been forty-five, of which one only has been released by the tribunals to which their cases were subjected. I humbly venture to hope that their Lordships will be pleased to accept this result as a satisfactory proof of the zeal and diligence of the officers on this station in the execution of their duly. It is very gratifying to me to be assured that the Slave Trade has been severely checked, and in some of its principal haunts effectually suppressed; and I entertain a sanguine expectation that the continued vigilance of the squadron will give it still further and more decisive blows, although it may, as yet, be too much to calculate on its final and total extinction; and yet even that result is not beyond my hopes, when I see the faithful exertions made by the Portuguese Government in the cause of the Slave Trade suppression on the southern part of this station."
Another feature in the case which was new was, that of the whole forty-five only twelve were captured with slaves on board—all the rest had been taken while they were attempting to get in. With regard to the loss of life amongst our own force on that coast, the statement which the hon. Gentleman had been instructed to make was very much exaggerated. If he would refer to the Returns upon the subject, he would find that between 3 and 4 per cent. was the actual loss from casualties, disease—in fact from all causes. And with regard to the other observations of the hon. Member, he must allow him to add, that there was fully as much wretchedness under the old state of things as at present. The hon. Member did not seem to remember that the slave trader had still the same interest in getting his slaves over in a healthy state that be had before. At the same time, however, it must be admitted that the slaves used to be kept
1174
too long in the baracoons; but since those baracoons had been attacked and destroyed, very few of the slaves had been brought down in that way. Those who dealt in slaves were beginning to see that the trade had become more expensive than it was. Now as they had every reason to believe, therefore, that they had succeeded in inflicting a very severe blow upon the iniquitous trade, in his opinion it would not be a wise measure to put down our force at that moment. Besides, we had lately entered into an arrangement with France, the effect of which would be again to double the force already upon that coast. It was impossible for a seaman to say that no vessel could escape; but most undoubtedly as the force upon the coast was increased, the chances of escape for slave vessels was very much diminished, the risk they ran was greatly increased, and the carrying on the trade would be rendered more expensive, and, consequently, less worthy of being followed. They ought to give the new plan for putting down the trade a fair trial, the more especially after the additional force to be provided by France. He had as great an abhorrence of the crime as the hon. Gentleman himself; but if the Motion of the hon. Gentleman were agreed to, it would do much mischief, by putting aside the Treaties we had entered into with the native chiefs. They were now anxious enough to accept our presents, for the purpose of abstaining from the trade; but undo the Treaties, remove our force from their shores, and they would immediately return to their old traffic in human flesh. The Motion, if agreed to, would create much more misery and mischief than the hon. Gentleman was anxious to remove. He would, therefore, give it his most strenuous opposition.
Viscount Howickentirely concurred with the hon. Member for Gateshead in the views he had expressed; but in the present state of the House would not advise him to press his Motion. As to the promises held out by the right hon. Baronet, and his expectations from the new system, he must confess he had the smallest possible faith in them. For the last thirty years, Parliament had, at intervals, been assured, by one Government after another, that some new scheme had just been devised which would effectually put an end to the Slave Trade; former plans, it was always admitted in such cases, had

1175
been failures, but the new device was exactly the thing. The new scheme, however, invariably turned out as unsuccessful as its predecessor; and such, he apprehended, would be the case with that now in operation, and from which the right hon. Baronet augured so much. The ingenuity of the slave trader, whetted by the enormous profits realized, had always proved more than a match for us. At the present moment the Slave Trade to Brazil and Cuba was greater than ever; but, in his decided opinion, were we to desist from our so futile efforts, the Governments of both Cuba and Brazil would find it necessary to interfere, in obedience to the public opinion of the respective States. Already, the increase of slave population was exciting much alarm in the minds of the Cuban merchants, and the rest of the non-coloured community; and were our efforts to cease, the augmented importation of negroes, and the prospect of still increasing importations, would produce an effect on public opinion, which would render the interposition of the local Government essential. And there was as little doubt that the local Governments, both of Cuba and Brazil, could effectually interpose, as there was that our interference was of comparatively no avail. Nay, our interference in one material way aggravated the evil; for it generated in the minds of the States with whom we interfered, a spirit, not unnaturally either, of resentment at what they considered our meddling in what did not concern us. Indeed, he could not but think that the foreign Governments in question had exhibited no inconsiderable forbearance, patience, and good humour, considering the way in which we harassed them at every turn, in a traffic which they regarded with very different feelings from those which it excited in this country. He doubted much whether we should exhibit similar toleration of another nation interfering with us in a similar way. As to the Mixed Courts of Commission, they were a mere mockery; it was absolutely a mere toss-up, whether the judgment went for the British capture, or the Brazilian or Cuban slayer. With reference to the combined operations, whence the right hon. Baronet anticipated such augmented success, he (Viscount Howick) much doubted, whether they would not do more harm than good; there was danger alike of the French and English officers agreeing too well, and of
1176
their differing too much. The best mode of putting down the Slave Trade, as had been pointed out by his hon. Friend, would be the extension of our commercial relations with the African coast, which result the French squadron would certainly not be disposed to promote. We had had an illustration of that in reference to the gum trade. As the Government was determined to persevere in their present policy, it only remained for those who objected to it to express their dissent, leaving the whole responsibility on the shoulders of Ministers. He would, however, express a hope that the right hon. Baronet would give an assurance to the House thus far, that if, at the end of a year or two from the present time, the new plan was found not to answer, he would come forward and, honestly confessing the fact, adopt a different policy.
Sir R. Peel: I am sure the noble Lord will not consider that I mean towards him the least disrespect, if I decline to follow him in his observations upon the subject of the Convention recently ratified between this country and France. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion, deprecated the introduction of that question; and I have the less reluctance in declining to enter upon it now, as the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) has given notice of a Motion which will lead to the discussion of it in a distinct and separate form. With regard, then, to the Motion at present before the House, I think the hon. Gentleman who brought it forward, has proceeded upon totally erroneous grounds. I admit that the measures adopted by Her Majesty's Government have not been successful in abolishing this traffic. I also admit that the horrors of the Slave Trade continue — abated in some degree, but still to an extent which every friend to humanity must deplore. But when the proposal was made to abolish the Slave Trade, it was foreseen, whatever measure you might adopt to effect it, that would lead in some degree to an aggravation of the evil. Those who were averse to the abolition of the Slave Trade said, that if it were abolished slave smuggling would follow to a greater extent than then existed. Still, general considerations of humanity prevailed over objections of that nature; this country determined to set an example to the rest of the world, and abolished the Slave Trade; not, however, without feeling that,

1177
in some particular cases, the evils of the illegal traffic might be greater than those of the permitted traffic. Upon this question, as upon others, this country was subject to hot and cold influences. It is unnecessary for me to refer to the origin of the feeling which had been excited against the Slave Trade. The evidence which was taken before the Council was quite sufficient to have raised that feeling—a feeling which was only to be satisfied by the abolition of the Slave Trade. In the course of that evidence it was stated, in reply to a question upon the point, that they did indulge in merriment on board slave trading vessels, but that the occasions were those of funerals, when the body of some unfortunate slave was committed to the deep, amidst the general exultation of the survivors at his being released from the horrors of his situation. Such evils as these were not new or unprecedented; and they raised such a feeling in the country as led to the abolition of the Slave Trade. Although I am aware that the avidity of slave dealers would lead them to make the passage in the shortest possible time, and although I don't mean to deny that owing to the vigilance of our cruisers, the horrors of the voyage are increased, yet, upon the whole, I greatly doubt whether or no the sufferings of the unfortunate slaves will be diminished, if you relax in your vigilance. It is notorious, notwithstanding the suspicions of the hon. Gentleman, that there are but two countries now carrying on the Slave Trade to any great extent—Brazil and Cuba; and I shall not despair, if the efforts of this country be persevered in, that even as regards those two countries those efforts will be crowned with the success which they deserve. With respect to Brazil, such is the extent of cultivatable land, so great is the demand for slaves, and so great also is the disposition upon the part of the authorities to connive at the introduction of slaves, that the withdrawal of your cruisers from the coast of Africa would give a stimulus to the Slave Trade which you can hardly imagine. I think the hon. Gentleman has greatly exaggerated the number of slaves that are introduced into the different countries which sanction slave labour. I very much doubt if the whole number imported into Brazil and Cuba exceeds 35,000, whereas he has estimated them at 180,000. The hon. Gentleman proposes to encourage the
1178
produce of our own Colonies by the introduction of free labour, which he says will successfully compete with slave labour. But even supposing his anticipation upon that point to be well founded, see what a length of time must elapse before he could realize it. I admit the advantage of introducing free labour into your own Colonies, but I apprehend that the two systems are not consistent, and that an attempt to make them so would give encouragement to the direct Slave Trade. I deeply lament the failure of our exertions; but holding the opinion I held on the occasion which has been referred to, I still think there is a prospect of ultimate success, and that it would be most unwise in us to relax in our efforts for the suppression of the Slave Trade. The hon. Gentleman says it is carried on to an immense extent on the Coast of Africa. I believe that impression to be erroneous, and I have here a letter from our naval officer which tends to prove it is so. The letter is dated from Her Majesty's ship Cleopatra, off Quilimane, December 20, 1844; and the writer says—
"I think we are doing very well against the Slave Trade on this side of Africa, and a twelvemonth after this it will be a rare thing to hear of a slave vessel on the coast, if the present number of vessels are employed to prevent it. There were ten agents employed at Quilimane to collect slaves for the Rio vessels, nine of which have left, and the other remains only to collect the property and wind up the affairs of the company. There are now about 2,000 slaves ready to be embarked, and vessels are expected every day for them. It is no easy thing for them to get off safely, as the Governor of Quilimane, who has just arrived, will not allow the trade to be carried on from that river, and the Governor General is very earnest in putting an end to it by all the means in his power. He has given me authority to capture any vessels employed in the Slave Trade from any river, harbour, or roadstead belonging to Portugal, and has sent a very strong letter to the Governor of Inhambam for allowing the Kentucky to enter the port under American colours, telling him he will make him responsible should a similar occurrence take place."
On the east coast of Africa, so far as relates to South America, we have great reason to believe that the Slave Trade has been suppressed through the cordial co-operation of Portugal, whose conduct within the last two years has, I must say, been most excellent. Portugal has, during that time, lent us a sincere and cordial co-operation. The civil authorities of Portugal had sent

1179
out a commander who had manifested the utmost desire to give us every possible assistance for the suppression of the Slave Trade. A slave vessel having been captured by the Alert, was carried before a Mixed Commission on the Coast of Africa; but the death of one and the removal of another of our Commissioners, left the matter in the hands of the two Portuguese Commissioners, who, acting singly, and without any stimulus from the presence of our Commissioners, proceeded at once to the condemnation of the vessel. Captures have even been made by Portuguese vessels. A Portuguese garde-marine, on the 27th of May, 1844, captured the Brazilian brig Caçador, having on board 850 slaves; the commanding officer recommended the garde-marine for promotion, on account of his vigilance; the recommendation was attended to; the promotion was granted, and Lord Aberdeen expressed his satisfaction at, and acknowledgment of, the example which had thus been set. That was not the only instance. In another case another Portuguese officer distinguished himself by effecting the capture of a Spanish slave-trade vessel, and was accordingly promoted. These acts upon the part of the Portuguese Government—these promotions of officers for capturing Brazilian and Spanish Slave Trade vessels have produced an effect through the Portuguese navy which leads to the hope and belief that the co-operation of Portugal is not only sincere, but that it will be most effectual. Indeed, the whole conduct of Portugal has been such as to deserve the grateful acknowledgments of every friend to humanity. With regard to the United States, although the force they have sent to the coast of Africa is limited in amount, and does not exceed 80 guns, the experiment has not been unsuccessful, as may be seen from the following letter:—
"Sierra Leone, April 4, 1845.
"My Lord—We have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's despatch, No. 2, of the 19th of February, transmitting the copy of a despatch from Her Majesty's Commissary Judge at Havannah, containing a copy of his Report on the Slave Trade at that place for the month of December last. Of the slave vessels mentioned by Mr. Kennedy, we have already, in our despatch, No. 25, of the 24th ultimo, notified to your Lordship the capture and condemnation of the Huracan; and we have now the pleasure of communicating the capture of the Spitfire, on the 25th ultimo, in the Rio
1180
Pongas, by the United States vessel of war, Truxton, Commander Bruce, by whom the prize was brought into the harbour, and is about to be despatched to Boston for trial. The seizure of the American slaver was effected by the boats of the Truxton, which rowed up the Pongas in company with the boats of Her Majesty's steamer, Ardent, Commander Russell, both parties carrying British colours, upon an understanding between the two commanders, by which means the American crew of the Spitfire were induced to mistake the Truxton's boats for those of the English cruiser, and having hoisted, in supposed security, their own ensign, were immediately seized. A Spanish vessel, which was captured by the British boats at the same time alongside the Spitfire, is now before this Court, and will be reported to your Lordship in due course.
"We have the honour to be, with the greatest respect, my Lord, your Lordship's most obedient and most humble servants,
"M. L. MELVILLE.
"JAMES HOOK.
"The Right Hon. the Earl of Aberdeen, K. T.," &c.
The same course was taken with the Spanish vessel. The Spanish slaver hoisted the Spanish colours, thinking to escape, and was seized. There was no interruption here with legitimate commerce; they were vessels with slaves, and were seized by the joint operations of America and this country. I cannot, therefore, help entertaining a sanguine hope, that if a determined effort be made by the joint action of the United States, France, and Portugal, with this country, that effort will be successful. Under these circumstances, I trust the hon. Gentleman will take the advice of the noble Lord, and, in the present state of the House, not press his Motion to a division. Had there been a fuller House, I should have been prepared to enter at greater length into the question. I do not think there is any evidence whatever to justify the House in adopting this Motion. The loss of life and the expenditure of money to which the Motion refers, are no doubt open to objection; but I think, nevertheless, that upon the whole, it greatly contributes to the mitigation of the horrors of the Slave Trade. Whatever the amount of the present evils may be, I believe that if, at the present moment, you withdraw your squadron from the coast of Africa, and permit the unrestricted import of slaves into Cuba, but above all, into Brazil, you will give an impetus to the Slave Trade, which will render fnture efforts to suppress it useless.

1181
Under these circumstances, and seeing the cordiality with which France, Portugal, and the United States, are co-operating with this country for the suppression of the Slave Trade, I do hope that the hon. Member will consent to withdraw his Motion.
Sir C. Napiercould not agree with the hon. Member for Gateshead, or with the noble Lord, in the propriety of abandoning the blockade on the coast of Africa. If we now, with the favourable prospects before us of putting down the Slave Trade, abandoned the blockade, we should see the coast of Africa converted into a regular place for the rendezvous of vessels, and in all probability they would find regular convoys. That the middle passage had been rendered worse by the blockade there was no doubt, and frequently slaves were thrown overboard when the vessels were chased. Still those were evils which it was impossible altogether to prevent. The gallant Admiral had told them that the profits of the Slave Trade were not so great as they had been, for out of forty-five vessels captured only twelve had slaves on board, which proved that only a portion of the number fitted out of the coast of Africa could succeed. He thought, therefore, we ought to persevere, and to put out our energies, which if they had been properly used, the Slave Trade would have been put an end to long ago. We had now taken up the matter seriously; we had steam-vessels on the coast, and forty-five sailing vessels; and if the right hon. Baronet gave equal assistance with what he was likely to receive from America, he would put down this trade. The gallant Admiral had told them what must be very gratifying, that the loss of British life was not more than 4 per cent.; in fact, he thought he said it was only 2 per cent. It would have been well if they had been told also the percentage of men who were invalided and sent home; but if we only lost 4 or 5 per cent. of the men employed, the experience gained by the officers and men on the coast would well repay that small loss of life. He was also glad to hear from the right hon. Baronet that Portugal had, at last, taken vigorous steps to support our Government. He would have entered into the question of the new Treaty with France, but it seemed to be generally understood that all observations on that point were to be left till the subject of that Treaty was regularly before
1182
the House; and he would, therefore, only add, that he perfectly concurred with the right hon. Baronet in the propriety of withdrawing the present Motion.
Viscount Palmerstonrose to address the House; but
An hon. Memberhaving moved that the House be counted, and only twenty-nine Members being present,
The House adjourned at a quarter past nine o'clock.

Preamble
MINUTES. BILLS Public—1a. Courts of Common Law Process; Courts of Session (Scotland) Process; Courts of Common Law Process (Ireland).
2a. Tenants Compensation (Ireland).
Reported.—Military Savings Banks.
3a. and passed:—Museums of Art.
Private.—1a. Totnes Markets and Waterworks; Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway; Lyme Regis Improvement, Market, and Waterworks; Oxford and Rugby Railway.
2a. Sampson's Estate (Ward's); Reversionary Interest Society; Quinborowe Borough; Wolverhampton Waterworks; Bridgewater Navigation and Railway; Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway; Leeds and Thirsk Railway; Newcastle and Darlington (Brandling Junction) Railway; Exeter and Crediton Railway; Waterford and Kilkenny Railway; Sheffield and Rotherham Railway; Caledonian Railway.
Reported.—Blackburn Waterworks; Lord Monson (or Countess Brooke and of Warwick's) Estate; Dundee Waterworks; Kidwelly Inclosure; London and Greenwich Railway; Kendal Reservoirs; Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Tynemouth Extension) Railway; Manchester Court of Record; North British Railway; Belfast and Ballymena Railway; Southampton and Dorchester Railway; North British Insurance Company.
3a. and passed:—Lord Barrington's Estate; Lynn and Ely Railway; Midland Railways (Syston to Peterborough); Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth Railway; Midland Railways (Nottingham to Lincoln); Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway; Battersea Poor; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Coal Turn; Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings Railway (Keymer Branch); Ely and Huntingdon Railway; Great Grimsby and Sheffield Junction Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Chelmsford, for the Suppression of Intemperance especially on the Sabbath.—From Camden and Kentish Towns, Borough of Marylebone, against the Insolvent Debtors Act Amendment Act.—From W. Clarke, Esq., of Chancery Lane, London, in favour of the Ecclesiastical Courts Consolidation Bill.—From Clergy of Diocese of St. David's, and from Inhabitants of Woodford, against Increase of Grant to College of Maynooth.

NON-ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS ON COMMITTEES.
The Earl of Charleville, presented a Report from the Select Committee on the Glasgow Bridges Bill, that three Members of that Committee had attended to-day; but that owing to the absence of Lord Gardner, a Member of the Committee, it had been compelled to adjourn without transacting any business.
The Duke of Richmondmoved that another Peer be appointed to this Committee in the room of Lord Gardner, and that Lord Gardner be summoned to appear in his place in the House, on Thursday next, at five o'clock, to state the reasons of his absence. It was absolutely neeessary that, considering the great amount of legislative business, every Peer appointed to a Committee should attend it, for in the event of non-attendance the parties were put to a very great expense. Their Lordships had exemption from serving on juries and performing other offices, inconsequence of their duties in that House; and they ought, therefore, to attend regularly to the discharge of the business of the House, otherwise the country would sustain the greatest inconvenience.
Lord Broughamperfectly approved of the course taken by his noble Friend—it was, in fact, a matter of course. He did not, however, believe that the noble Lord (Gardner) intended to fly from the performance of his duty; but, at the same time, he thought it right to stale for his information, that it was the greatest mistake to suppose that attendance upon that House was purely voluntary on the part of their Lordships. Every Peer was bound to attend what was technically called the 'service' of their Lordships' House, and there were numerous precedents where the House had compelled an attendance. It occurred in the Queen's case, where a fine of 100 l. was inflicted. There were other cases in which Peers had been ordered to attend the service of the House, and where the second vote was that they be committed to the Tower for the non-payment of the fines. The noble Lord knew that he was to be appointed to this Committee, and although he would be the last person who would wish to inflict a hardship, by his absence did inflict it to-day. He was not perhaps aware, that by the Standing Orders of 1827 no business could be proceeded with unless there was a full Committee, or he would not have put the parties to expense by his non-attendance.
Lord Campbellhad lately had occasion to search the Journals of their Lordships' House, and had found innumerable instances of the House having compelled the attendance of Peers, both for the service of the House and in Committees, by fine, and subsequently sent them to the Tower for the non-payment of the fine.
1106
It also appeared, that until the end of the seventeenth century all Peers were compelled to attend, not only in their places when the roll was called, but they were not allowed to leave the House until the House adjourned. Their Lordships might perhaps think that the appearance of the House sometimes, between seven and eight o'clock, might render it necessary to recur to the same strictness of discipline. He found that during a debate in the reign of Charles I. a right rev. Prelate applied for leave to quit the House before the debate was finished, and it was with considerable difficulty that the leave was granted. He rejoiced that the Motion had been made, because he was quite certain that their Lordships would cheerfully perform the duties which were imposed upon them.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas quite sure that it would be unnecessary to enforce the attendance of their Lordships by a recourse to any measures which had been mentioned. He had not the slightest doubt that the noble Lord (Lord Gardner) had inadvertently failed to attend this morning.
The Marquess of Clanricardethought that their Lordships should consider what course ought to be pursued, not only with reference to the present case, but in other similar cases. The great mass of legislative business before the House peremptorily required that every Peer should be punctual in his attendance to discharge the business of the House. It might be very well to say that they were prepared to do their duty; but they should recollect that they had not only a duty cast upon them, but an immense responsibility. It was fit for them, therefore, to consider whether they should not compel a full attendance of Peers on the Committees, if they wished to get through all those Bills which were under the consideration of the House of Commons.
Lord Broughamwas about to move, when this discussion arose, for the appointment of a Select Committee to communicate with the Committee of the House of Commons, relative to the great mass of legislation that was now before that House, for it was utterly impossible, even if every Peer should attend every day, to go through all the hundreds of Bills that would be brought before them.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that the judicial Peers must be absolved from attending on the Committees, and the

1107
noble Lords who had property on the different lines of railway under discussion must also absent themselves.
The Motion was then carried.
Then it was Ordered, That Alan Legge, Lord Gardner, do attend in his place in this House, on Thursday next, at five o'clock, to state to the House the reasons for his not attending the said Committee.
The Earl of Chichesterpresented a Report from the Committee appointed to investigate the Aberdeen Railway Bill, that the Earl of Ormonde, a Member of the Committee, had failed to attend that morning.
The Earl of Ormondesaid, that being out of town, he received the notice too late to attend the said Committee.

COURTS OF COMMON LAW PROCESS BILLS—(ENGLAND, IRELAND, AND SCOTLAND).
Lord Campbellsaid, that at the earnest request of those for whose opinions he had the most sincere respect, he begged to lay upon the Table of the House three Bills relative to the Common Law Courts Process, from which he trusted the public would still derive very great benefit. If he were to consider his own ease and comfort only he should wash his hands of these Bills; but he felt that in the discharge of his public duty he was bound to bring them forward for the consideration of the House, because, from what he believed was a mere misapprehension, the public were in danger of losing the benefit that would be derived from them. When the subject was last before their Lordships, the name of a very hon. and respected Gentleman, a friend of his (Mr. Serjeant Murphy), was mentioned, and he was sure their Lordships would bear in mind that he said nothing of that learned Serjeant that could be at all considered offensive to him; but that on the contrary he spoke in high terms of approbation; and had the learned Gentleman been present, he would have been aware that what fell from his two noble and learned Friends on his right and left was perfectly good humoured, and ought not to have given him the slightest uneasiness. They all entertained the highest opinion of him, except that perhaps some thought that learning could not be combined with exquisite humour. They were told by Pope that there were some dull Serjeants—
"Who shook their head at Murray and at wit,"
1108
but Murray subsequently became the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, and was one of the most illustrious Judges that ever adorned the Bench of England, and he had no doubt that his learned Friend, Mr. Serjeant Murphy, was destined to obtain honourable distinction.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he owed some apology to Mr. Serjeant Murphy for the terms he had used when saying that the Bills were sacrificed to a joke. He was not aware at the time that his noble and learned Friend Lord Campbell had told the learned Serjeant that he did not wish him individually to proceed with the Bills. If the learned Gentleman had been at the Bar of the House during the discussion, he would have known that his observations were made with the most perfect good humour.
Bills severally read 1a.

MADEIRA.
The Marquess of Breadalbanebrought forward the Motion of which he had given notice, respecting religious persecution in the island of Madeira. It appeared that a medical gentleman, long resident there, a Dr. Callé, a Scotchman and a Presbyterian, had been, although a man of very moderate views, subjected to persecution by the authorities in that island, on account of his religious opinions, and for having acted in accordance with his religious belief. Now, by the Constitution, the constitutional law of Portugal, secured by Treaty, toleration was permitted to strangers, so long as the Roman Catholic religion was respected. By the Treaty of 1842, concluded between Her Most Faithful Majesty and the Queen of Great Britain, the free exercise of religion was guaranteed to all British subjects residing within the dominions of the former. Dr. Callé was in the habit of having divine service at his house, where many parties who entertained the same belief usually attended. The first aggression against Dr. Callé consisted in his receiving a command from the civil Governor of Madeira, dated 16th March, 1843, to abstain from having any meeting of Portuguese subjects in his house, and from speaking to them on religious concerns, either in his house or out of it. Dr. Callé asked the Governor by what authority he gave him this order; but received no answer, except by a proclamation being published, threatening

1109
him as a disturber of the public peace, as well as all who went to his house. Police officers were appointed to attend at the doors of his dwelling-house to insult his friends as they went out; and he was himself most grossly insulted, and threatened with being stoned in the streets. Dr. Callé, notwithstanding, continued the meetings at his house; but the police officers, in the presence of many British subjects who witnessed their proceedings, prevented patients and persons who came to him for medicine from entering his house. He was cited before the assistant British Judge Poello, who, on the 23rd March, 1843, pronounced the charges of heresy and profanity brought against him to be invalid, regard being had to the Treaty of 1842, and that other means than legal proceedings must be resorted to in order to induce him to desist. On the 5th July, this decision was allowed by the Juiz Ordinario Machado; but on the 11th July, he pronounced Dr. Callé guilty of heresy and blasphemy, according to the old Portuguese laws of 1646 and 1769, made in the days of the Inquisition. The British Consul in the island of Madeira being appealed to, answered that the law must have its course, showing thereby, as he (the Marquess of Breadalbane) could not help thinking, a blameable indifference to gross injustice and persecution exercised upon a British subject, who had been guilty of no violation of the law. Dr. Callé appealed without success—first, to the Judge of Rights and British Conservator, then to the superior courts of Lisbon, and was for five months confined as a criminal. He was ultimately liberated, but the system of annoyance against himself and his friends was continued; and last year a woman, who was the mother of seven children, was sentenced to death for adopting Protestant opinions, and twenty-one inhabitants of the island were seized and their houses pillaged. He need not dwell on the great importance of preserving religious liberty in an island to which so many British subjects resorted for the purpose of health, commerce, or amusement. The Treaty secured to British subjects the liberty of celebrating Protestant worship in their own houses; and was it to be said that it was a crime in the British subject if Portuguese subjects entered his house and listened to it? The noble Marquess then referred to, and
1110
quoted from the Memorial of the British residents of Madeira, addressed to the Earl of Aberdeen, in which the question was fully set forth. He asked what object the Treaty was to serve, if it was not to guarantee the right of Protestant subjects of Britain, resident in the dominions of Portugal, to worship in their own dwelling houses? He should like to hear from his noble Friend what exposition he gave to the provisions of the Treaty, what rights of toleration or liberty of conscience British subjects possessed in the island of Madeira, after this gross infringement of them, and what course he meant to take as to those proceedings of the Portuguese Government against a British subject?
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, he would endeavour to give his noble Friend a very short answer to the long Address he had made to their Lordships upon the subject; for although his noble Friend had read the Article of the Treaty with Portugal twice, he would have done well to have read it once more, in order to have understood it thoroughly. Clearly the object of the Article in the Portuguese Treaty was, that it should be protective of the rights of British subjects in the exercise of their religion; it was not aggressive, and gave them no facilities for proselytising the Catholic subjects of Portugal. Dr. Callé was a gentleman who belonged to what was called the Free Church of Scotland, and possibly that gentleman's notion of what might be called a moderate performance of ministerial duties, somewhat exceeded that which their Lordships would consider to be a moderate exercise of that function; and certainly in performing his ministrations in that island, he strongly suspected, from what he had seen respecting the language and missionary proceedings of his fellow labourers in this country, that his language was not always respectful towards the Roman Catholic religion. He had yet to learn that the Government of Portugal was, by the toleration offered to British subjects in the Portuguese dominions, bound to permit either an injurious attack on the religion of the State, or the proselytising of Her subjects. If Dr. Callé wished to preach to his Protestant countrymen of any denomination, there would not be the least difficulty or objection to his doing so. But that gentleman had opened an hospital—being, he had no doubt, a very benevolent man, and he supposed also wealthy, for he

1111
practised gratuitously—at least as far as the reception of Portuguese patients; and in religious matters also, not content with preaching to his own countrymen, he preached in the Portuguese language, thereby showing, however much the natives of Madeira might profit by those predications, that certainly his own countrymen would not be much the better for them. Dr. Callé was very zealous, and very successful too; for he had succeeded in converting very considerable numbers of the inhabitants of Madeira, and it became an object with the Portuguese Government to put a stop to those proceedings, from interfering with which he must maintain that the Treaty did not in the slightest degree prevent them. Although his noble Friend had read the Article of the last Treaty, which he would not repeat, yet he thought it would throw some light on the subject, if he were to read a few words of the preceding Treaty of 1810, which was conceived exactly in the same spirit, although more plainly expressed as to what was the real object and meaning of the privileges mutually granted. By this it was stipulated that—
"British subjects resident in the Portuguese dominions shall not be disturbed, troubled, prosecuted, or annoyed on account of their religion; but shall have perfect liberty of conscience therein, and leave to attend and celebrate divine service, either in their own private houses, or in their own particular churches and chapels, provided they were built in such a manner as externally to resemble the private dwellings; and also that the use of bells was not permitted therein."
The same provision was contained in the Treaty of 1842, but in language clearly showing that it was only a permission for the free exercise of their religion. That condition existed, and had never been interfered with; and there was not the least attempt on the part of the Portuguese Government to interfere with the free exercise of the Protestant worship among Protestants. The question of proselytising was quite another matter; it was quite a distinct question, whether British subjects were injured by being precluded from interfering with the religious opinions of their neighbours. He could not maintain any opinion of that sort. At all events, in a matter of this description, the principle of reciprocity might fairly be required. Their Lordships might recollect that it was only last year
1112
we had repealed a number of barbarous, absurd, and arbitrary Statutes still in force against the Roman Catholics in this country. He happened that morning to have been looking over the First Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners on the state of the Criminal Law, and he saw there a recommendation which applied perfectly to the case of Dr. Callé, and his efforts for conversion. They said—
"With respect to the provision of the Irish Act, 2 Queen Anne, c. 6, above set forth, making it penal to convert Protestants to the Roman Catholic religion, we are of opinion that it ought to be repealed, as the belief of Protestants in the truth of their religion does not require to be upheld by such a penal enactment, and also by the penalties of prœmunire"
He thought a Portuguese subject, seeing this Act on the Statute Book, would have as good a claim to require reciprocity from us by its repeal, as his noble Friend thought he had a right to claim the freedom required for Dr. Callé. His noble Friend had mentioned—he must say not quite candidly—the case of one of Dr. Callé's votaries, who was condemned to death for blasphemy and heresy, leaving their Lordships to understand that this poor woman was in danger of being put to death, if not actually executed. He thought their Lordships would be surprised to learn that the penalty this person had undergone was a fine of 30 s. and three months' imprisonment—[The Marquess of Breadalbane: Fifteen months.] She only suffered three months' imprisonment. Even that might be too severe a penalty; but his noble Friend should have explained what was the real penalty incurred. He could assure their Lordships that capital punishments were as little inflicted for such offences in Portugal as in England. No person had been put to death in Portugal on religions grounds—certainly not for a century; and the Inquisition, from the time of Pombal, had had no existence. With respect to this case, the person in question was a Portuguese subject; but although she was not a subject of England, when he (the Earl of Aberdeen) had heard of it, he wrote to Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon to take all the means in his power to represent unofficially, but earnestly, to the Portuguese Government, the horrible consequences of any such sentence being inflicted for the offence alleged; but he

1113
had received the explanation he had already given to the House. As far as the privileges of British subjects under the Treaty were concerned, they were intact, and their Lordships might depend upon it, would be asserted and maintained; but there was not the least reason to suppose that the Portuguese Government intended interfering with them. With respect to another part of this case, he admitted that though Dr. Callé might be subject to Portuguese law, they were bound to proceed against him according to law; and no doubt the early proceedings in his case were arbitrary, contrary to law; and pronounced by the superior tribunals of Lisbon to be so. So far there was a case for redress, and he would explain to their Lordships what redress had been obtained. In consequence of those irregular proceedings of the authorities of Madeira, he did think it proper to make an estimate of the losses Dr. Callé might probably have sustained, from the want of his professional employment during the time of his confinement, when bail was refused by the Judges, and also from the inconvenience he had sustained in such imprisonment, though he had suffered no further hardship than the mere confinement; for his treatment was I admitted by himself to have been most kind and humane. Accordingly, after some consideration, a definite sum was fixed upon to demand from the Portuguese Government, and the amount proposed was assented to by them. Before payment of the sum could be made, Dr. Callé arrived in Lisbon; and finding, when there, that although these irregularities had been committed, yet, in reality, he had no case against a new prosecution, and wishing to return to Madeira, he proposed to Her Majesty's Minister to compromise the affair with the Portuguese Government, and to give up all demand for any compensation, if they would permit him to return to Madeira and resume his residence there; giving also a pledge that he would abstain from his system of preaching and proselytising, which had drawn down upon him the visitation of the authorities. The British Minister at Lisbon communicated that proposal to him, and he (the Earl of Aberdeen) thought the sooner the matter was arranged the better; and he therefore authorized the Minister at Lisbon to agree to it. Dr. Callé had returned to Madeira,
1114
he hoped not to resume his practice of preaching in the Portuguese language; but he dared to say that he would be very useful in the exercise of his profession. He could assure the noble Lord that religious liberty was as fully recognised in Portugal now as it ever was.
Lord Broughamhad one doubt, on the noble Earl's explanation, which he dared to say that noble Lord would be able to clear up. He was not aware, if any person was prosecuted in this country and sentenced by due course of law to be imprisoned three months, that he could, on a Court of Error reversing that judgment (as was the case with some persons in Ireland last year) call on the Government to give compensation. If no such right existed in this country, he presumed it did not elsewhere.
Lord Beaumontwished to make an observation or two on the conversation which had just taken place. He must say, he regretted deeply the intolerant spirit which still prevailed in Portugal and some other countries; but he must say, that great exasperation was caused by the missionaries of the Bible Society, and another society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Countries. These societies had the command of enormous wealth, and employed men of great talent and zeal, for the purpose of proselytising the followers of another faith. This was well known abroad; and those persons so employed, if they fulfilled their duty, must never avoid an occasion of endeavouring to gain over persons attached to doctrines which they considered erroneous. We knew, by recent publications, that in Spain zealous and able men were traversing that country for the purpose of making converts. Those societies acted in direct opposition to the Treaties with foreign countries, which merely gave the teachers of heretical doctrines the power of administering spiritual instruction to persons of their own faith and country, but did not justify an interference with the natives. He must say he had himself heard, and from high authority, bitter complaints of the manner in which the missionaries had acted in various Catholic countries. As he said, be admitted the intolerant spirit that existed in Portugal; but the only way to qualify or remove it, was by removing from our Statute Books any vestige of intolerance. A beginning was made in this good work last year,

1115
which he hoped would be followed up in the present.
The Bishop of Salisburywished to correct an error into which the noble Lord (Lord Beaumont) had fallen. He stated that a feeling of irritation had been caused by the Bible Society and by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. It was no part of the machinery of the latter society to send missionaries into foreign countries. The object which it had in view was to send missionaries to our Colonies and Foreign Dependencies, and to heathen countries.
The Marquess of Breadalbanewas satisfied the explanation of the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) would not give satisfaction to the religious public of this country. It was no answer to say, there were persecuting laws on our Statute Book. As to the Free Church of Scotland, he was satisfied the members of that Church would stand competition with those of any Established Church, both for sincerity of faith and liberality of sentiment. The case which he had brought forward involved a great public question, and had not been met in anything like a satisfactory manner.
The Earl of Abeedeenwished to explain as to the amount of compensation alluded to by the noble and learned Lord. The proceedings in this case were something more than a mere irregularity. There was an illegal imprisonment for five months, contrary to law, treaty, and justice; and although the individual alluded to was well treated, his confinement furnished a fair case for compensation, which would have been given, but for his own wish to compromise the matter.
Subject at an end.

TENANTS COMPENSATION (IRELAND) BILL—QUESTION.
The Marquess of Salisburytook the liberty of asking a question of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies. He had understood, that the consenting to the second reading of the Tenants' Compensation Bill would not bind any noble Lord to assent to the compulsory clauses. He wished to ask if such was a correct understanding.
Lord Stanleysaid, he understood the question to be, whether by consenting to the second reading of the Bill his noble Friend was committed to the compulsory clauses. He had no hesitation in saying, that he did not consider any noble Lord
1116
to be so committed. He was quite prepared to say, that the only extent to which any noble Lord was committed by agreeing to the second reading was, that it was expedient to secure, by legislative enactment, to the tenants of Ireland compensation for such improvements of a permanent character, adding to the permanent value of the fee of the estate, as they should effect on the land, supposing they should be ejected therefrom before they had derived any return from the outlay. Whether the landlords should have the power of interposing a veto, and of preventing such improvements, was a question entirely open to the House to consider in Committee; and no noble Lord would be pledged by agreeing to the second reading of the Bill, but was at perfect liberty to reject the measure when before their Lordships.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, under these circumstances, he should not oppose the second reading.
The Marquess of Londonderry: Am I to understand there is to be a legislative interference between landlord and tenant?
The Marquess of Clanricarde: I should like to know what are the voluntary and what the compulsory clauses?
Lord Stanley: It was very difficult to answer so many questions put at the same time. He had endeavoured to state distinctly that no Peer would be pledged to the compulsory clauses of this Bill by assenting to the second reading: and what he understood his noble Friend to mean by compulsory clauses were those which gave the Commissioners in Dublin the power of directing certain improvements, even though the landlord should object to them.

TENANTS COMPENSATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord Stanleymoved that the Bill be now read 2a.
The Marquess of Londonderry: If the landlords had the same discretionary power as they enjoyed at present, he should not object to this Bill. But if a Commissioner in Dublin had the power of dictating what arrangements should take place, he should consider it a most prejudicial measure. This Bill had grown out of a Report which contained a mass of valuable information; but this Bill did not certainly confirm the principle laid down by the Commissioners, that the rights of property should be respected. He understood a measure of this description was first suggested by a

1117
Member of the other House, a man of talent certainly, but one whose political opinions had undergone a variety of changes; for he was at first a supporter of the disturber-general of Ireland, and then a Federalist. He understood, however, that this gentleman was always a supporter of fixity of tenure; and, therefore, he concluded that he was in a great measure the author of this Bill. He much regretted the rapidity with which the Commissioners had been compelled to carry on their inquiries. He admitted that the noble Earl at the head of the Commission was a man of great talent; but when he understood that these Commissioners did not approve of the machinery of this Bill, then, as an Irishman, acquainted with the country, he claimed a right to be heard as to its provisions. It was no party question; it was a question concerning the welfare of the whole country. The Bill was introduced, he admitted, with the view of serving the agricultural interest in Ireland. But it should always be borne in mind, in legislating for Ireland, that a measure which was applicable to one part of the country was inapplicable to another. He not only opposed this Bill as not requisite in his part of the country, but he had the signatures of thirty-six Peers backing that opinion. Could he give their names, he was satisfied the noble Lord would not press the Bill in the face of such a remonstrance. It was true the Bill was introduced in a very eloquent speech; but that speech failed in carrying conviction to his mind that the machinery of this Bill was called for. There was one most extraordinary clause in the Bill, which not only gave the Commissioner the power of deciding differences between landlord and tenant, but enabled him to impose a fine of 20 l. That was putting the landlord under the control of this junto. The landlord would thus be exposed to a vexatious surveillance, and the tenant, though expecting some relief from this measure, would only be seduced by it into the expenses of litigation. It might be said, "This law does not apply to your estate, for tenant-right prevails there." But he might say to his tenants, "If you choose to take advantage of this enactment, you must give up that tenant-right under which you have been contented and happy." The tenant-right was interpreted in this way, that when the tenant and his descendant conduct themselves properly and
1118
pay their rents, they shall never be disturbed. This produces a confidence which stimulates industry, and the farm became the bank where the tenant invested all his savings. The sale of the interest of the tenant on the farm was a guarantee that the fruits of his labour should never be taken away from himself or his family. If their Lordships consulted the blue books on this Table, they would see what extraordinary improvements were effected on those estates where the tenant-right existed. It was a mistake to suppose that compensation was what was required. What the tenants wanted was security for their tenure. But, then, a mistaken notion had got abroad as to that security. Tenant-right and fixity of tenure were very different things. The latter system established in favour of the tenant a proprietary right, and was a violation of the principle of ownership of land. Fixity of tenure, in short, was a system as mischievous, as tenant-right—properly understood and under proper limitations, it would be beneficial. At present, however, the spirit of improvement was so active in Ireland, that he thought things would go better if left to themselves, than were they to attempt to force measures like the present, in opposition to the decided feeling of everybody connected with Ireland. He believed that the Bill was disapproved of by all the noble Lords connected with Ireland, who had expressed an opinion on the subject; it was disapproved of by an individual in another place who was supposed to represent the feeling of a majority of the Roman Catholics of Ireland; it was disapproved of by Mr. Sharman Crawford, who formerly submitted a measure on this subject to the other House of Parliament; and yet the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) persisted in pressing it, and had expressed his anxiety that it might pass a second reading that night. He must say that he regarded the principle of this Bill as obnoxious in the highest degree; and he thought their Lordships ought, if possible, to stop it in limine. He held in his hand a protest or remonstrance against the Bill signed by thirty-six Peers, having property in Ireland; a document which, as it embodied the feelings of so important a body, he would read to the House. It stated that—
"We the undersigned Peers, connected by property with Ireland, having given our best consideration to the Tenant Compensation

1119
Bill now introduced into Parliament, whilst we admit to the fullest extent the principle that the tenant is justly entitled to receive from his landlord compensation for all capital expended in bonâ fide improvement made in accordance with the consent of his landlord, are of opinion that the tendency of this measure is so destructive to the rights of property, and likely to be so injurious in its operation, should it be found practicable, that we hope Her Majesty's Government will not persevere in it."
This was the opinion of thirty-six Peers, Members of their Lordships' House. As for himself he would only add, that he would never consent to allow any appeal by tenants from their landlords to a Commissioner sitting in Dublin.
The Earl of Gosfordrecommended the Government to withdraw the present Bill, and to introduce a new Bill without the clauses objected to in the present one.
Lord Stanleysaid, that he was content that the Bill should have the fullest consideration in the Select Committee, both as to its principle and details. Before that tribunal both could be fully discussed and canvassed; but he was not prepared to say—he was not so satisfied of the justice of the objections urged against the measure, as to be prepared to say—that he was ready to withdraw it. On the contrary, he was prepared to defend the Bill as it stood, and it would be with the greatest reluctance that he would see their Lordships reject the second reading of a measure going upon the principle of securing compensation to tenants for improvements, by which they added to the value of their Lordships' property. He had hoped, after what had fallen from his noble Friend, that any lengthened discussion might, for the present, be avoided. The question was before their Lordships, and if there were a general understanding, founded on the statement which had been made, and the Bill were allowed to go to the Committee without further discussion, they would be more able to consider the matter after the Select Committee had examined it, and made such alterations as they might think expedient before it was submitted to the final decision of the House.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that notwithstanding thirty-five or thirty-six noble Lords had signed a declaration condemnatory of the Bill, he must declare his conviction that the principle which it contained was a good and sound one, and
1120
thar principle mainly consisted in making compensation for improvement compulsory. What was the origin of the Commission of his noble Friend (the Earl of Devon)? A Bill similar in principle to the present had been introduced into the other House by Mr. Sharman Crawford. It was withdrawn on the assurance that a Commission would be issued to inquire into the subject. That Commission was appointed, therefore, for the express purpose of investigating the matter, with a view to the adoption of the principle contained in the Bill in question. The present measure, however, he was happy to see, did not contain a provision which made part of Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill. According to that measure, a tenant could make improvements on his farm without consulting the landlord about them, or obtaining his permission, and then he could come upon the landlord for compensation for the improvements thus effected. The present Bill, however, contained no such clause. It provided that a full inquiry should be made as to the necessity and propriety of the improvements before they were undertaken. This arrangement, he contended, was a much better one than that contained in the Bill to which he had alluded. Those who opposed this Bill objected, as he understood, to the machinery by which its object was sought to be attained, and not to that object itself. If a tenant was to be allowed to carry on improvements for which he could claim compensation, he thought it only fair that some previous inquiry should be made as to the necessity of such improvements. The question was whether the machinery of this Bill was or was not desirable? He approved of the machinery as well as the principle, and he believed that the appointment of the Local Commissioner of Improvements in Dublin was an improvement upon the suggestion of his noble Friend's Commission. It might be said that some of the Members of that Commission disapproved of this Bill; but be thought that, though they might object to its details, they could not disapprove of its principle. He was aware that it might be said, and had been said, that this Bill involved a violation of the rights of property. This he fully and entirely admitted. He allowed that in this country such a principle would not be tolerated; but, in the peculiar state of Ireland, some measure of this kind was

1121
absolutely and indispensably necessary. Reports after reports had been laid upon their Lordships' Table confirmatory of the fact, that in Ireland, circumstanced as that country was, improvements in land could not be carried on. This state of affairs was produced by some causes which could not be removed by legislation, and by others which it was the province of legislation to remove. It was well known that the soil of Ireland was fertile in the extreme, and yet land which might yield fivefold its present produce was lying waste and uncultivated. Now, it might be asked what was the cause of such a state of things? In his opinion the cause was this—that neither landlords nor tenants were able to effect the necessary improvements; the landlords could not or would not undertake them, and the tenants were unable to do so. Was it not advisable, then, that, under such circumstances, the Legislature should step in to effect, with justice and fairness to both parties, that which was necessary for the welfare of the country? If this were admitted, the only question was, were the provisions of the Bill now under consideration founded on principles of justice and fairness towards the landlord and the tenant? In his opinion, the great and fundamental principles of this Bill were just and fair, although it might contain some provisions which in Committee it might be deemed advisable to alter and amend. If, however, the Bill was referred to a Select Committee with the object of altering what he considered one of its main principles, namely, the compulsory clauses, they would at once defeat the great object of the measure.
The Marquess of Clanricardethought that the speech of the noble Earl was worthy of the Bill to which it related; for as the former exhibited a most original mode of dealing with property, so the latter was not a whit behind in the startling doctrines which it set forth. He had often been asked what was the precise object of the Commission of his noble Friend (the Earl of Devon). To that question, he never found himself in a situation very explicitly to reply. It now appeared, however, from what had fallen from the noble Earl, that the Commission was appointed and sent to Ireland because Mr. Sharman Crawford's Bill had miscarried, and it was expedient to find out some other mode of carrying out the
1122
principle of compulsory compensation to tenants.
The Earl of Wicklowobserved, that he had said nothing but what the noble Marquess might read in the newspapers of the day.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that although he was in the habit of looking to newspapers for information of various kinds, he did not refer to them in order to ascertain the object of a Government measure, more particularly when, as in the present case, he was referred to the Commission itself as setting forth the objects for which the Commission was appointed. The Commission certainly stated that the inquiries of the Commissioners were to be directed to ascertaining whether existing laws might not be so altered as to encourage the cultivation of the soil, and to extend a better system of agriculture; but it did not contain a word as to any compensation to be afforded to tenants for improvements they might effect. He thought the noble Earl had very justly stated that if they struck out the compulsory clauses they would do away with the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill before them was to secure to the tenant compensation for improvements he might have executed on his farm; improvements whereof the owner in fee derived the permanent benefit. If such were the principle of the measure, it was one which stood in much need of practical improvement and application in England and in Scotland, as well as in Ireland, for they had often heard that amendments of the law of landlord and tenant in Great Britain were very desirable. He did not know whether or not such were the case, but he would say that the opposition of the people of Ireland to the present measure would be at once withdrawn if they only struck out of the Bill one clause—the 28th, the shortest of them all—providing that the provisions of the measure should extend only to Ireland. No such Bill would be entertained for a moment if proposed to be applied to this country; and were such an attempt to be made, he would like to hear the indignant eloquence with which the noble Duke on the cross benches (the Duke of Richmond) would oppose it. But what was there in the circumstances of Ireland to make it necessary to have recourse to "violation of the rights of property," as the noble Earl

1123
termed it? What was it which made it advisable that in that country the rights of property should be violated? Was it thought that they were held too sacred there? Was it deemed that justice had been so strictly administered in Ireland, that it was expedient to relax its sway? Of all countries over which the Crown had sovereignty, Ireland was the one in which they should be most cautious of enacting any such law? What had of late years been the drift of their Irish legislation? Had it not been, as far as they could, to assimilate the laws of that country to those of Britain? And if they meant to preserve tranquillity—to support the Union—they must persevere steadily in that course of legislation. It was a mistake to suppose that the Bill was opposed only on the part of the landlords. It would be opposed also by the tenants, and justly so; because it was one which tended to lessen the feeling of good will which subsisted between the two classes. He reminded the House that the fact was notorious, that improvement was proceeding at present very rapidly in Ireland—to a greater extent, indeed, than ever had been the case before. There never was a moment when it was less necessary, and less expedient, to interfere between landlord and tenant, than at the present time. The spirit of improvement was abroad in both classes. The farmers were every day becoming more willing to be led in the path of advance by their landlords, and more ready to look upon suggested improvements in a proper light, and not as mere innovations upon old-established use and wont. It was not the state of the farmers which ought so much to occupy their attention, as that of the pauper population of Ireland. The Poor Laws had done nothing for that country; and, at this moment, the pressure of pauperism upon land was most severe—greater, indeed, than it had ever been before. He repeated, that he objected to the principle of the Bill. He could never agree to the appointment of a Government officer who was to be enabled to interfere in the most vexatious manner between landlord and tenant. The noble Earl concluded by moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
The Amendment having been put,
The Earl of Fortescuesaid, much as he regretted to differ from so many noble Peers connected with Ireland, and from so
1124
many of those noble Lords with whom he usually acted, and whose opinions on such a subject were entitled to far more weight and authority than his, yet he should not do justice to the views he had long entertained of the defects of the law, and of the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland, if he did not express his entire concurrence in the main principles of the Bill, and if he did not give it in the present stage—without, however, committing himself to the details of the measure—his cordial support. He fully admitted what had been stated by his noble Friend as to the great extent of the improvements now going on in Ireland, and he was disposed to think that the noble Earl opposite in some degree underrated the extent of the progress now making. The Report of the Land Commission spoke in the strongest terms on the subject. But he believed that, notwithstanding that improvement, the necessity for the present Bill existed in the peculiar circumstances of Ireland—circumstances differing entirely from those of this country, in respect of the relation of landlord and tenant. It was known to every one connected with land in England—and he believed the same observation was equally applicable to Scotland, though not being personally connected with it, he could not speak so positively of that country—that no landlord let a farm without providing suitable buildings, and seeing that the whole was generally put in good and tenantable repair; and the cases were rare indeed in which the whole expenses, especially as to the buildings, were not borne by the landlord. But in Ireland the direct contrary was the case. In that country—he spoke especially of those parts of it with which he had been personally acquainted—whatever improvements were made, whatever repairs were required in fences or drains, and whatever buildings were necessary to be erected, had to be done, if they were done at all, by the tenant, and at his expense—in some cases, certainly, with more or less assistance from the landlord; which assistance had, he understood, been increasing of late years, but which assistance had been, he believed, until a few years ago, the exception, and a very rare exception, and not the rule. He was, therefore, he thought, justified in saying that the circumstances of the two countries were not similar. Now, he thought if these expenses were to be borne by the tenant, encouragement should be given to him to make them, by insuring him compensation for the outlay, if the tenancy

1125
were terminated before a fair return had been obtained. At present the tenant had no security that, if the property were sold or passed into other hands, advantage would not be taken of the improvements made by him to raise his rent to an unreasonable extent. The noble Earl opposite had referred to the Bill introduced by an hon. Member a year or two ago in the House of Commons, professing to have an object somewhat similar to that of the present Bill. He did not remember what occurred on the occasion of the introduction of that Bill; but taking his information from the usual sources as the noble Earl had done, he did understand that the Prime Minister of the Crown had held out a sort of promise that an inquiry should be instituted into the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland, with the view of producing some means for affording, under certain limitations, the kind of compensation to tenants contemplated by Mr. Sharman Crawford in his Bill. That was what he understood to be the object of the Commission, and the principle of this Bill; and believing it to be a measure of justice to the tenant, and likely to conduce to the improvement of the country, he was prepared to give it his cordial support. He could not concur with the general condemnation of the Irish Poor Law that had been expressed on the other side—he believed the law had been of considerable advantage, and if it had not accomplished all that had been expected of it, still it had afforded relief to many; and though it had not superseded mendicancy, and given relief to all that required it, it had nevertheless materially lessened, in the aggregate, the misery and sufferings of the destitute poor. He thought that compulsory power should be retained; for though in cases where there was already a good understanding between landlord and tenant, the Bill would, no doubt, be a dead letter, without wishing to say anything harsh of the Irish landlords, it could not be denied that there were many, who, from want of means or other causes, were unable to give that assistance to their tenantry which they required. He conceived, too, that this Bill would do more than had ever been done hitherto for the relief of the labouring classes, inasmuch as it would give a great stimulus to employment in Ireland, by securing to the employer a fair return for the capital expended in improving the property he occupied. He looked upon the compulsory clause as a necessary and essential part of the Bill; so much so, indeed,
1126
that he should be almost inclined to withhold his support from the measure were that clause omitted. He hoped his noble Friend would not think it necessary to persist in his opposition.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, it would have been impossible for him to vote for the second reading of this Bill, had it not been stated to be the intention of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) to refer it to a Committee up-stairs; and if he had not stated that the principle of the measure was to give compensation to the tenant for permanent improvements made by him, but the benefit of which he might not now enjoy, because the landlord had the power of ejecting him from his farm without such compensation. This was a principle which, in his opinion, ought to be carried out, not only in Ireland, but he hoped to see the day when it would be also carried out both in England and in Scotland. In many parts of this country, it was true, custom gave the tenant compensation for such improvements, when he was compelled, under such circumstances, to quit his farm, but that custom was not general; and he regretted, when the Government were applying this principle to Ireland, they had not undertaken to extend it also to England and to Scotland. He believed the principle of the measure was founded in strict justice, and was, in every respect, most expedient; and so far from setting the tenant against the landlord, it would tend to cement that union which they all believed to be essential to the interests of both, and to the interests also of the country at large. He thought their Lordships should pause before they determined upon rejecting such a Bill, brought forward on the authority of the Government, and with the avowed object of improving the condition of, and doing an act of justice to the tenants. The principle of the Bill, as he understood it, had his warmest support; and he trusted that the Government, while they were thus doing justice to Ireland, would not forget to do equal justice to England and Scotland. He could assure them that such a measure would be received by the landlords and farmers of those countries with gratitude and thanks; and though he did not believe that it would make them popular with the farmers—for he did not believe that anything would make them again popular with that class—it would be looked upon as a step in the right direction; and he regretted that Government had taken so many that had an opposite tendency.
Lord Monteagleremarked that though it could not be denied that a large portion of the population of Ireland was in a state of great destitution and suffering, yet on the whole there was an admirable system of improvement going on, and there might be even an accumulation of national wealth. But the question he had to ask himself with reference to the Bill now before the House was, whether it was calculated to remedy the mischiefs complained of? And he must say that some of the arguments which had been advanced in favour of reading the Bill a second time, and referring it to a Select Committee, presented to his mind insuperable obstacles against taking that course. The noble Earl opposite considered the compulsory part of the Bill most important; and the noble Earl near him (Earl Fortescue) looked upon that provision as the very essence of the Bill. Now, he (Lord Monteagle) regarded the compulsory principle as so fatal an interference with the rights of property, and so fatal a disturbance of the beneficial efforts now in operation in Ireland, that the mischiefs that must result from that principle would far more than counterbalance any good that could be expected from the measure. Then, if they consented to go into a Select Committee, they gave a great advantage to the supporters of the Bill; and he, for one, was not prepared to concede to them that advantage, especially when in supporting the second reading, they declared the compulsory principle to be so important a part of the measure that it would be valueless without it. He was not prepared to admit, either in regard to Ireland, England, or Scotland, such an interference with the rights of property as that compulsory principle would occasion. The noble Duke on the cross benches said, he wished to see the same principle applied both in England and in Scotland. Let it be so applied, and let the Government undertake to propose a Bill, founded upon the same principle upon which the noble Duke said he grounded his vote, applicable to other parts of the United Kingdom, and he (Lord Monteagle) would be ready to vote for it; but not till then. But his noble Friend opposite, who also supported the Bill, did not take the same ground; for he said the principle of the measure was not only generally inapplicable to the rights of property, but was a principle which would not be tolerated in this country; and he contended that it was a principle equally mischievous to the tenant as to the landlord. He,
1128
however, rested his opposition to the measure upon the arguments he was about to state—he spoke under the correction of the noble Earl who had presided over the Commission from whose Report this Bill had originated—if he misstated the facts. He had stated that there was a great spirit of improvement now afloat in Ireland. They were aware, and no one more than the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond), that in respect to agricultural improvement in England, there had been of late years a great development not only of agricultural industry, but of scientific application of new principles, chemical and mechanical, and especially of new principles in reference to draining, not previously known. Now, of all countries to which the principles of improved drainage might be applied with the most immediate and certain benefit, that country was Ireland. He would undertake to show that the principle of agricultural improvement well defined for its successful prosecution, was now at work in Ireland, and also to show that the Government Bill, if it passed into a law, would impede and check their operation. Now, was there any one branch of agricultural improvement in which it was more necessary that it should be carried on on a large scale than drainage? They all knew that Ireland was divided into the smallest possible patches of land—by the courtesy of the country, called farms; but which in England, did they there exist, would require some new name wherewith to designate them. To carry on, therefore, drainage in Ireland properly and effectually, it must be carried on upon a larger scale than could be expected to originate from the occupiers of these small holdings; and care must be taken that in draining one farm the neighbouring land was not injured; but to consider it possible that any effectual system of draining would originate from the holders of twenty, ten, or even five acres of land, was the most consummate absurdity of which any man could be guilty. He would take the liberty of stating to their Lordships how improvement in this respect was then proceeding. It had been discovered that the land of Ireland contained resources of which formerly they were not aware. Experiments had been tried on particular estates under scientific direction, and the effect was not confined to those estates. He would state a case with which he was familiar. It was far from being an isolated one. He believed that on every well-managed estate, if not for

1129
the sake of his tenantry, at least with a view to his own interest, the landlord employed a good scientific agriculturist, who was fixed upon not only for the benefit of the land in his own possession, but for that of the tenants around him. The landlord placed this person at the command of his tenants, and the drains were laid out, not only for the benefit of the particular farm, but with a view to the improvement of other farms. When the drainage was complete, the proprietor and the holder of the land contributed in a given established proportion to the expense. This was not the description of a single case; he could mention many Members of that House who were working with their tenants to effect that object.
Lord Stanley: This Bill will not interfere in such cases.
Lord Monteagle: Won't interfere with them? It will stop them altogether. This system of Act-of-Parliament improvement would put an end to all improvement. Act-of-Parliament improvement in this, resembled Act-of-Parliament improvement in morality, and Act-of-Parliament improvement in religion—it would defeat its own object. There were some things not susceptible of compulsion, and when they found these things going on in the right direction, Act-of-Parliament interference was likely to direct the energies of men from their exertion to the purposes of good, rather than to stimulate them to further exertion in the direction to which they wished them to go. With regard to the condition of the houses of the tenantry in Ireland, he must say, that he never looked at the houses of his own tenantry without regret and something like self-reproach at their condition; but then they were all improving, and all parties were doing their best, and doing it by a voluntary agreement between the landlord and tenant, by which the landlord furnished the necessary outlay of money, and the tenant the required outlay of labour. But if Parliament interfered, and a Goverment Commissioner was appointed to go from Dublin to all parts of the country, and say what house should be built, and what amount should be paid as compensation for improvements made by the tenant, so far from promoting a good understanding between them, the only result would be to foment differences, and to encourage litigation between them. Again, much had been said of central despotism; but never was there a despotism so complete, but at the same time so impracticable,
1130
as that which this Bill proposed to establish. Twenty millions of acres, subdivided into the smallest possible portions of land, were to be brought under the view of a single Commissioner, a fixture in Dublin, and the Sub-Commissioners appointed, not by the Government on their own responsibility, but nominated by him. If these persons were to be appointed, let the Government appoint them on their responsibility; if not, if they were to be appointed at the will of this one Commissioner, it was impossible that any satisfactory result could follow, or that the Bill could work with effect. It was true some of these objections might be remedied in Committee; but he should not act fairly if he consented to the Bill going to a Committee when he thought it was quite impossible that anything could be made of the Bill. He believed if they passed the second reading they would create expectations on the one hand, and excite fears on the other, which legislation would not afterwards be able to remove. Disappointment and injurious legislation had been the source of many calamities in Ireland. Its history was full of misery; and now, over-excited hopes, not accompanied by any gratification, would be the greatest of evil to any country, but most of all to Ireland; it would enable those disposed to do mischief to interfere in the relations between landlord and tenant—a subject of such great delicacy that they ought never to approach it without the certainty that they could succeed in their object, and that the object itself was a good one. He, then, said that if they would not disturb the relations between landlords and tenants—if they would not excite hopes which they might not be enabled to realize—they would not now, in the month of June, go on with a Bill which had for its principle this—that they could not rely upon the generous feelings of the Irish landlords—that they had no confidence in those landlords' knowledge of their own interests—but that a compulsory bill and a paid officer were requisite to improvement of the lands, and justice to the tenants of Ireland. He warned noble Lords against the mischief and danger of the course they were pursuing.
The Earl of Devonsaid, that if it were for one moment to be imagined that, in his anxiety to take part in this Bill, he was acting on the principle of an entire distrust of the Irish landlords, or on the belief that they were disposed to act harshly to their tenants, and therefore must be interfered

1131
with by law, he should reluctantly appear as its supporter. Though he might look for great improvement from the great body of landlords in Ireland, and particularly of those who were present discussing this measure, yet be was equally aware, from facts that could not be disputed, that throughout a great part of Ireland improvements could not go on through any co-operation on the part of the landlords; and, therefore, that this measure was absolutely necessary. He admitted that, with the opinions his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) had expressed, the open and the plain course was to vote against the second reading. He admitted that this was a Bill to secure remuneration to the tenant for the outlay of his own labour and capital on a farm, even though the landlord might not have consented to the improvements made on it. Objections of various kinds, he was aware, had been made to the Commission over which he had presided. It was singular that that Commission, composed of Irish landlords, should be said to take views entirely favourable to the tenants; and yet that it should be charged from others as taking evidence in favour of the landlords, and not paying any respect to the real interests of the tenants. Under charges like these, he felt perfectly easy; and he could truly say, that the greatest pains had been taken to collect the evidence impartially; and a very large body of unimpeachable testimony had been obtained, and was embodied in the Report laid before their Lordships. He could assure noble Lords that they were not aware of what was going on in parts of Ireland with which they were not connected. Now, one great object to be secured by this Bill, was that of bringing into employment the superabundant labour of the lower classes in Ireland. To the country and to that House it was important to know that for four or five months in every year, a great portion of the labouring classes of Ireland were utterly unemployed; and it was believed that if this Bill were passed into a law, there would spring up in Ireland the greatest possible desire for extending agricultural employment; and the employment of the labouring classes in Ireland, he would assure them, was not merely a matter of private interest, but it was one in which the safety and tranquillity of the State were intimately concerned. Their Lordships would bear in mind, that when they spoke of the "improvements" of farms in Ireland, they used a term which in England
1132
would be applied to things that would be considered as "indispensably necessary" to a farm. Bearing, then, this definition in mind, he denied that the object of the Bill was to interfere between landlords and tenants in the "improvements" of their farms. He was one who would be sorry to think that the Legislature pursued a measure which would give facilities to landlords, and yet when tenants were wishing to make "improvements," and a Bill was proposed to give them security for such improvements, that they would not pass such a measure for the benefit of the tenants. His four colleagues in the Commission were taken from the four provinces of Ireland; and if they were mistaken in their conclusions, then it must be from any other cause than the want of materials for forming a correct judgment. This measure which they sanctioned was analogous to that which had been proposed by Mr. Sharman Crawford, and had been preceded, in 1835, by a measure of Mr. Lynch and Mr. Wyse, than whom there did not exist two more zealous or more enlightened friends to Ireland. Objections had been made to such measures. Formerly it might be said they legislated upon theory; but this measure had been founded upon a mass of evidence taken before a Royal Commission, and had not been taken up upon fanciful or ill-conceived grounds. There had been examined by the Commission 303 witnesses; of these, 47 were landed proprietors, 47 agents, 128 farmers, and 81 not classed. Those included persons from all parts of the country. They were invariably asked what they conceived to be the best mode of encouraging the tenants to improve the land?—and in answer to that question, 55 of these witnesses considered that the right way to encourage tenants was to give them leases; and 146 gave their opinion to this effect, viz., that it was most important to secure to the tenants, on the expiration of their leases, or upon ejectment, a fair compensation for their outlay in labour and capital. The first witness who gave that opinion was Mr. Sharman Crawford himself, who was a resident, an excellent landlord, and a man of great practical experience. Almost all agreed that it was of the utmost importance that the tenants should feel that they were not to be turned out without compensation for what they had done; that was of great importance. Many of their Lordships might, perhaps, wish to confine compensation to those who had made the improvements

1133
in accordance only with the wishes of the landlord; but when the witnesses were asked if there were any cases of persons who, having made improvements, had been turned out without compensation, the answer was, that there were a few such cases, but that where one did exist, it was always fatal to further improvements in that part of the country. Without troubling the House at that time more with the evidence, he trusted that their Lordships would refer to it themselves before they came to any ultimate decision; for he did assure them that there was a very large volume of evidence to show the necessity for the interference of the law to provide compensation for the tenants, even in cases where the landlords did not desire, or did nothing themselves towards effecting those improvements. It had been objected that this Bill, more especially the compulsory clauses of it, gave an undue interference with the rights of property. In reply to that, he denied, in the first place, that the principle was at all a new one; and, in the second place, he would ask, what could the landlord suffer if he got his land from the tenant greatly improved, and had to pay only a fair sum for the capital expended upon it? His strong feeling was, that the measure, by creating a security in the minds of the tenants, had a tendency to secure property and the rights of the landlord. A right had for many years existed in many parts of Ireland, by which the tenant, without even the notice required in this Bill, could plant trees upon his farm, which trees he might take away when he left the farm, without giving the landlord any benefit from them; the landlord being, on the contrary, injured by the land being left encumbered with the stumps of the trees. But under the operation of this Bill, as now contemplated, the tenant would leave the land in an improved state, instead of encumbered and injured, as in the case he had just mentioned. It was objected, also, that if the landlord were displeased with the improvements sought to be effected by the tenant, he might serve the tenant with notice to quit, the tenant being a tenant at will. That might be so; but was that a ground upon which any of their Lordships would be likely to rest their objections to this measure? If there were cases in which landlords would so act, it was much better so to act than to allow the tenant to go on making improvements, and then turn him out after having made them.
1134
Another objection made surprised him. It was said that this Bill, most injurious and objectionable as it was as regarded landlords, was still more objectionable as regarded tenants. The noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) admitted the necessity for large and extensive drainage, and said that the contemplated improvements in drainage could not be executed except on a large scale, being paid for from the pockets of the landlords. In many cases that might be so; but there were hundreds of thousands of acres held by tenants holding a few fields, which might be drained with advantage, by the tenants applying to their fields the system of what he might call surface or agricultural drainage, in contradistinction to that contemplated by the noble Lord; and that was precisely the species of improvement which tenants of small capital might effect. The Bill did not, as had been generally alleged, interfere with any contracts that existed between landlords and tenants, or with those which they might in future make. If it was found to be otherwise, it might easily be altered to that effect in the Committee. He thought, however, that it would be found as he had stated. The measure was intended to encourage contracts between landlords and tenants; and he (the Earl of Devon) could not insist too much upon the importance of giving such encouragement. He should, indeed, be extremely glad to see some provision introduced into the Bill for the purpose of instituting a registry of such contracts, with a view to their better enforcement. What would be the situation of the Irish landlord under the present measure? That class would be under compulsion to do that which the English landlords did voluntarily and of ther own accord, namely, make a fair and equitable compensation to their tenants for improvements on their land. If the avowed and prominent principle of the Bill was acceded to by their Lordships, the machinery by which that principle was to be carried into effect could be very easily settled in the Committee to which it was proposed to refer the measure, should it pass the second reading.
Lord Carewobjected to that part of the Bill which referred the tenant to a Commissioner in Dublin when he contemplated an improvement, with whose sanction he might affect that improvement, even against the will and inclination of his landlord. The noble Lord was understood to say, that he thought it but right that the tenant should receive a fair remuneration

1135
for such real improvements as were effected by him.
The Earl of Essexsaid, that if a pledge were not given that the compulsory clause should be withdrawn, he would vote against the second reading of the Bill.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, that although he did not approve of all parts of the Bill, he intended to vote for the second reading, reserving to himself the power of voting in Committee against any parts of it which might seem to him objectionable. His opinion originally was, that the compulsory clause, though of an important character, was not so objectionable as to induce him to vote against the second reading of the Bill, as he thought it might be modified in the Committee. But the language of noble Lords, and the tone of the debate generally, had changed this opinion, more particularly since his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Wicklow) had declared that the Bill was nothing without the compulsory clause. He had heard no arguments which in the least justified so great a violation of the rights of property as the Bill proposed to effect. He was unwilling to crush the Bill at the second reading; and if the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies would put the question on the ground that the Bill was worth something without the compulsory clause, he expected, from his known candour, the noble Lord would say so at once. But if he considered that the compulsory clause was an essential part of it, then, although he was very reluctant to do so, he was willing to go into the Committee upon it, and to discuss the point there.
The Earl of Rodencould not agree to a measure which was to interpose a Government officer between him and his property. As one of the landlords of Ireland, who were prepared to do their duty, he could not consent to the second reading of a Bill which would go to put an impediment between him and his tenantry in doing for them what he might conceive, and what they might think, to be best for the mutual interests of landlord and tenant. To look to the interests of his tenants was a duty which he owed to them; and they would, he was sure, much rather look to him for the proper management of his own property, and of those lands which they held of him, than to any Government officer. It was his intention to oppose the second reading of this Bill.
The Marquess of Normanbyhad anticipated
1136
from the beginning, that many inconvenient consequences would arise from the Commission, at the head of which was the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Devon), because he was well aware that many exaggerated expectations would be excited as to the result of that Commission; and the result had been as he had foreseen. These expectations were very different indeed from the result, if they were to measure that result by the Bill now under consideration. One great convenience which was expected from the Commission by its promoters was, that under it those specific subjects upon which it might be thought desirable afterwards to legislate, would be so arranged and methodized, that when that House and the other House of Parliament were called upon so to legislate, a great many difficulties would be removed which otherwise might obstruct them. He would call their Lordships' attention to the result, if that were to be measured by the Bill now before them. The noble Earl himself, with the exception of the compulsory clause, upon which he (the Marquess of Normanby) would pronounce no decided opinion at present—the noble Earl himself seemed to doubt whether this Bill was the best measure that could be devised; his doubts as to the Government officer were quite obvious. He thought that, considering the state of the Session, and the impossibility of the measure coming from a Committee in time to pass into a law this Session, the Government ought to take upon themselves the responsibility of any temporary disappointment that might be felt from its not being proceeded with at present. Those noble Lords who must be looked to in that House for advice upon such subjects, were of all shades of opinion, and all assured the House of the impracticability of passing the measure this Session. If his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies could state to the House that he felt there was any probability that the result of a Select Committee would be that the measure might be carried this Session, he should be sorry to take so strong a step as voting decidedly against the second reading. The state of Ireland, as regarded the relation between landlord and tenant, was very different from that of this country. He could not shut his eyes to the effect of that system in that country; but he said this without imputing blame to any one, for the result of his experience was, that ample justice should be done to the merits of a very

1137
large number of the Irish landlords. During his administration in Ireland, he had found many landlords, of all persuasions, ready to make personal sacrifices to counteract the effects of the system under which they held, beyond what would be required from their brother landlords in this country. The whole system, however, was so different, that he felt the necessity of establishing a better system of protection to the tenant for improvement; and to that part of the Bill he gave his most unqualified approbation. If his noble Friend could assure the House that it was likely the Bill might pass this Session, he should be inclined not to withhold his assent from the second reading; but he begged him to consider the danger of prolonging expectation which might end in disappointment. Ireland had not been neglected this Session—a good deal of business connected with that part of the Empire had occupied the attention of Parliament—and he suggested to his noble Friend the consideration whether he might not postpone this measure to another Session, when it might be accompanied by some of those other measures to which the noble Earl had referred.
Lord Campbellsaid, that any law which would secure compensation to the tenant for his improvements must be a just law, and deserving of support. But he must look for the principle of this Bill in the Bill itself; and when he looked at its enactments, he found that the Government officer was the principle of the Bill. Anything that would give effect to agreements between landlord and tenant, he should think highly commendable; but the principle of this Bill was to give to a tenant power, with the concurrence of a Government officer, to make alterations in the land which he held, whether the landlord liked it or not, and whether they were advantageous or prejudicial to his estate. Such a violation of the rights of property, instead of facilitating the agreements between landlord and tenant, which the noble Earl considered so desirable, would very greatly discourage them, and would promote dissensions and disputes between the parties. Where there was a lease, the solemn contract between man and man would be interfered with; and in the case of tenancies at will (for which the Bill was chiefly meant), it would have no operation, and would not be needed, except where the landlord and tenant disagreed about improvements; and then it would put an end
1138
to the tenancy. By law, the raising of rent was an eviction; and the result would be, that the rent could not be raised during the whole period contemplated by the proposed arrangement without the crisis being brought on, and the landlord being immediately liable to pay for the improvements. He gave the Commissioners the highest credit for their labours to suggest a useful measure; but, not approving of the manner in which they sought to effect that object, he could not vote for the second reading of the Bill.
Lord Stanleysaid, he could perfectly understand that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Londonderry) and the noble Earl (the Earl of Roden), conscious of the good management of their own estates in Ireland, conscious of the footing upon which they (like many other noble Lords) and their tenants stood, should feel it a sort of imputation upon themselves and their co-landlords there that a Bill of this kind should be introduced: he could understand the natural feeling of repugnance which led them to object to legislation of such a description. But the noble Duke on the cross benches had stated, that he so entirely approved of the principle of granting compensation to tenants for improvements of which they had not derived the full benefit during their occupancy, that he should be glad to see it extended to England and to Scotland. Now, if these noble Lords were not the exceptions, but the rule, in Ireland, he (Lord Stanley) should not be prepared to submit such a measure as this; and if the cases in which compensation was not awarded, through the good feeling of the landlord or the custom of the country, in England and in Scotland, were not the exception, but the rule, then there would be ground for extending this Bill to England and Scotland. But although he admitted the expediency of legislating, as far as possible, upon the same principles for Ireland as for England and Scotland, yet, because the circumstances of Ireland as regarded the relations between landlord and tenant were so widely different from those which obtained here, that he felt the Government were justified in applying principles of legislation to Ireland which they were not called upon to introduce in the other portions of the Empire, where it was not called for by the necessity of the case. The principle that the tenant should receive compensation for permanent improvements, was pretty generally admitted. He had hardly heard a single

1139
objection to that principle; and yet, practically, exceptions were taken, not to the machinery by which the Bill sought to effect that object, but to the principle upon which the Bill was founded—the principle of enabling tenants to have such legal compensation. His noble Friend at the Table (Lord Monteagle) had said, that this Bill would interfere not only with good and kindly feelings at present existing between landlord and tenant, but with great improvements which were now going on in that country; but he did not think his noble Friend's arguments bore out that assertion. This Bill would not apply to those cases in which the landlord and tenant were on good terms. Where the estate was well managed, where there was abundance of capital on the part of the landlord, and abundance of confidence on the part of the tenant, and where the latter had effectual security, either in the duration of his lease or otherwise, for compensation for his improvements, this Bill would not be called for—would not apply—and, he frankly admitted, would be a dead letter and a nullity. But was it the fact that, in the majority of cases in Ireland, the landlord had abundance of capital, or that the tenant possessed the security of a lease? Was it not the fact, on the contrary, that a great portion of the land of Ireland was held by tenants at will of encumbered proprietors, who had no capability, not only on account of their own encumbrances, but also on account of the strict manner in which they were tied up by settlements, of making improvements; and was it not, consequently, expected that if any improvements were to be made—if any building, fencing, or draining was to be done, it must be done by the occupying tenant, even though holding as tenant at will? To that state of things this Bill did apply; and if that was a correct picture of the general state of the land in Ireland, he asked was it not necessary—he did not say desirable—to give the tenant upon the land so circumstanced, if he laid out his capital in effecting improvements, security that he should receive some compensation for his outlay? How, otherwise, could it be expected that they would lay out their capital? Could it be denied that upon a vast space of the surface of Ireland there was immense room for improvement to be effected by labour, and that there was a vast amount of superabundant labour seeking for and desirous of employment; but the employment of which was checked because
1140
there was no certainty of a return for the laying out of capital? In England, the right was secured not only by law, but by the custom of the country, which was equivalent to law: that right was capable of being pleaded in a court of law, and compensation was awarded for improvements, made not only with the consent of the landlord, but if made without asking his leave for a single one of them. That custom, which had the force of law in England, applied to various improvements and outlays of a very limited duration. In I certain parts of the country, the tenant was entitled to compensation for using bone-dust as manure, though that might not produce an effect upon more than two or three crops. Notwithstanding that, however, and even though the landlord should not have sanctioned the expenditure, he would be compellable, by the custom of the country, to make compensation. Take another case of a more exclusive character—that of drainage. In a great part of the south of England, where there were large quantities of copse wood and faggot wood, nothing was more common than to drain with that faggot wood. The tenant, even the tenant at will, never asked the opinion of his landlord whether he should drain a particular field: he drained it. The work might last twelve, fifteen, or twenty years; but it was not permanent, though durable. And yet, without asking leave of the landlord, the tenant being a tenant at will, and being ejected by his landlord, would summon him for compensation, and the custom of the country would compel him to pay the tenant. But that was neither the law nor the custom in Ireland; and he asked their Lordships to apply that by law in Ireland, which by custom had the force of law in England. And what were the apprehensions that were conjured up respecting this Bill? They were, that the Irish occupying tenant of a small farm would, at his own expense, incur a fearfully alarming outlay of money on the property of his landlord. He thought these apprehensions most unfounded. A tenant might expend his capital improvidently, unadvisedly, or wastefully; but however improvidently or unskilfully he employed it in England, he was secure of compensation. He said that the tenant in Ireland ought to have compensation, even when the landlord did not consent to his improvements, as was the custom in this country.
Lord Beaumontinterposed, and observed, that the away-going tenant had a right to

1141
plead the custom of the country to have the case referred to arbitration as to what amount the landlord should pay him. With regard to drainage, it would apply to the labour of two years only; and with respect to bone-dust manure, only to the previous year.
Lord Stanleysaid, he did not wish to push the argument further than it could stand. All he meant to argue was, that in England the custom of the country with the force of law gave the tenant compensation for certain improvements of the landlord's land.
The Earl of Essexremarked, that the landlord had it in his power to object to the demand; but if he did not object, that would imply assent.
Lord Stanleyresumed: He was merely urging upon their Lordships to apply the same principle to Ireland by law which was recognised in England by custom. But the tenant in Ireland was not left absolutely to apply his capital or his labour in improvements, at his own discretion. He was bound by the Act to obtain from the Government officer—whom a noble and learned Lord had most erroneously called "the principle of the Bill"—a form of application, and according to that form to give notice to his landlord of his intention to make particular improvements. This proposal he was compelled to submit to his landlord, and it would be the duty of the Government Commissioner, for the greater security of the landlord, to see that notice of the intended improvements was duly served. A period was then to be given to the landlord to object; and it would be a question, which he admitted to be fairly an open question, whether the landlord should have the power, at that stage, to put a veto on the further proceeding. He himself did not think that in the present state of Ireland it would be wise to give the power of an absolute veto; but, on the other hand, he did not go the length of some noble Lords in maintaining that the compulsory clause was the only valuable part of the Bill, and that without it the measure would be useless. He frankly admitted that he thought its omission would damage the Bill; but, even without it, he considered that the measure would be an important improvement of the law. It had been said, on both sides of the House, that it was desirable to afford facilities for voluntary agreements between landlords and tenants; and one noble Lord had pointed out the expediency of means
1142
being taken for registering such voluntary agreements. The Bill, as it stood, did provide means for making and for registering such agreements. The proposal of the tenant and the assent of the landlord, if he did assent, would go up to the office in Dublin, where a register would be kept of the proposed improvements—the estimate for their formation, and the time within which they were proposed to be executed. There would also be a register of the previous expenditure on the same property under the Act, so as to furnish a ground for calculation whether the land was capable of bearing a further change. So far from the Government officer being the principle of the Bill, he declared that if any noble Lord could suggest any more advantageous, any more inexpensive, any more easy or impartial tribunal, to which reference could be made; to that part of the Bill he did not attach the slightest importance, beyond the convenience of having one general office, to which application and reference could be made. Their Lordships all said, that they were quite willing to give security for compensation to the tenant for permanent improvements. The noble and learned Lord said that the tenant was to receive compensation for work, whether beneficial or prejudicial to the landlord's property. Why the whole Bill proceeded upon the assumption that the improvements would increase the feesimple of the estate, and raise its letting value. If they did not, he could not conceive that the idlest tenant, the man with the most labour at his command, would embark in speculations or improvements which would not remunerate him for the time he was to hold the land. He might hold for a longer or shorter term, but he would calculate whether or no that which he intended to do would be beneficial to the land he worked. His noble Friend at the Table would propose as a remedy for the evil of the existing state of relations between landlord and tenant, "to leave things alone." On well-managed estates it might be very well to leave things alone; but this Bill would not apply to well-managed estates. On well-managed estates, where the landlord maintained an agriculturist for the purpose of instructing his tenants, how was the present Bill likely to interfere with the arrangements between the landlords and the tenants? The only effect of the Bill here would be to provide that, where the tenant laid out his money on the estate he should have compensation, either in

1143
money if evicted, or by duration of term if he remained in possession. It had been stated that the landlord would have no means of knowing how the works of any particular improvement were done. In the first place, it would be still more the interest of the tenant to have them well and substantially done, when the expense was entirely his own, than if it were divided between the landlord and him; but in addition to this, there was a provision in the Bill to the effect that, during the whole time that the works occupied in their execution, the landlord or his agent should have free access, and be enabled to see how the work was done. Their Lordships admitted the principle of compensation. How were they to secure to the tenant that this compensation should be awarded? It had been said, "by giving him a long lease—give him a fixity of tenure." That was what the Legislature could not do. Talk of the rights of property, and then call upon the Legislature to secure to the tenant a long lease! That would, indeed, be a most serious interference with the rights of property; and such an interference he, on the part of the Government, repudiated the right or the power of Parliament to make. What the Government proposed was, not to interfere with respect either to a long or a short lease; but where the tenant laid out his money upon the land, and thereby increased the value of the feesimple, and the landlord then took advantage of his being a tenant at will, and turned him out of the estate—the Government then said that it was the duty of the Legislature to interfere, and in case the landlord did not give him compensation, to afford him the means of obtaining it by law. That was the principle of the Bill. But there they were bound to secure its operation; and that in fact was what was called the compulsory part of the Bill. But would any one contend that the compensation should be left to the landlord? If it were left to the landlord, the tenant would practically be without any compensation at all. Some person must be appointed to award that compensation between tenant and landlord. Would their Lordships drive the tenant to a court of law? In many cases, where there might be a litigious, angry, or prejudiced landlord, determined to deprive his tenant of all compensation, and against whom he might have some other ground of offence, he might drive him to such law expenses as to render ultimately the amount of compensation
1144
nugatory. It was the desire of the Government to introduce a cheap and impartial tribunal for the settlement of these questions. For this purpose very little discretionary power would be given to the Commissioner. The principle upon which the compensation should be awarded would be laid down in the Act of Parliament. The Bill said, that compensation should be awarded according to the amount which the tenant had originally laid out—so much for draining, for building, and for ditching, and then a proportionate amount would be deducted for the time which he continued to occupy the land after these improvements had been made. The amount of the outlay and the time during which the improvements were made was to be registered. The arbitration would not be attended with any expense to the parties, because it was thought that the advantage to the public, in having these questions adjudicated, was so great that the expense ought to be defrayed out of the Treasury. Could their Lordships expect a more impartial tribunal? Did they think a local jury would be better, or more impartial? If their Lordships thought that a better mode of arbitration might be adopted, let it be suggested, and if it would be the means of ascertaining the amount of compensation to be awarded to the tenant, he should not object to its discussion, for a just compensation was the only principle for which he contended. It was unnecessary to press upon their Lordships the necessity of inducing the tenant to lay out his capital on the land, for nobody denied it. But while all admitted that, yet they almost all appeared to be agreed in rejecting the only practical means by which to effect that object; namely, the course suggested by his noble Friend (the Earl of Devon), that of securing to the tenant compensation for his outlay. He asked their Lordships to go into Committee upon this principle—to bear in mind that the state of Ireland was far different from that of England and of Scotland, and to bear in mind the necessity of great improvement in Ireland, and, at the same time, the inability of a large proportion of the Irish landlords to contribute towards that improvement, or to encourage the tenant to make such improvements by granting him a lease; and also to bear in mind the necessity of fixing the mode which should secure by law that which in England and Scotland, if not secured by law, was by custom. He begged their Lordships

1145
to recollect that this was not a new principle—he did not mean to say, that the case of an occupying tenant, and that of a tenant for life, or a tenant under settlement, were exactly analogous — but he entreated their Lordships not to consider that the supposition of such an analogy was altogether fanciful, and that there was not room for the occupying tenant to say that while the House of Lords were studious to devise measures for the advantage of that class to which they themselves belonged, they did not put in the same position the occupying tenants. The tenant for life had, by numerous Acts of Parliament, been empowered without the consent of his successor to lay out any portion of money for the permanent improvement of his estate, and then to charge the expense upon his successor. He might be far advanced in years—his tenure might be only three or four years' duration—and yet their Lordships had not hesitated to say that such tenant might have those powers which he had just mentioned. Comparing this with the case of the occupying tenant in Ireland, he might be told there was a difference in principle as to the tenure; still would they say there was not such an analogy between the two cases as to lead the occupying tenant to look with suspicion upon such legal provisions when he was himself deprived of any such analogous protection? Let the landlords of Ireland take what security they pleased that the improvements should be real, valid bonâ fide substantial improvements; but he did trust that when they had taken that precaution, they would not, after they had encouraged the tenant to lay out his capital, and had held out to him the prospect of his having a just compensation awarded to him, reject a Bill which was intended to give him that compensation, and which would only operate to give him that compensation in the event of his being evicted by his landlord. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had stated that Her Majesty's Government should take upon themselves the responsibility of disappointing the hopes entertained in Ireland, which would be the result of rejecting this Bill. On the part of Her Majesty's Government he (Lord Stanley) must, in the exercise of his best judgment, refuse to take upon himself that responsibility. The Government had acted upon the judgment, not of enthusiasts, not of men dependent upon party ties, but upon men acting upon a full knowledge of the real state of Ireland.
1146
It was upon the recommendation of such men that the Government had introduced a measure falling far short of what was desired by many, for they had encountered the danger of creating disappointment by not going beyond the recommendations of those to whom they had entrusted the task of inquiring into this matter. But, on the other hand, they would now he most justly open to the charge of creating disappointment, and of incurring the highest responsibility, if, after having founded a measure upon the recommendation of men of the highest character and of the greatest experience—men taken from all parties in Ireland—and whose recommendation was sustained by witnesses from every quarter—men separated from each other by politics and by religious opinion, but who in common were all connected with the landed interest of Ireland, Her Majesty's Government would have incurred a serious responsibility if, after all this, they were to consent to abandon a Bill introduced under such circumstances. They would then be justly open to the charge of creating a feeling of well-founded disappointment and dissatisfaction among the people of Ireland, and of shaking that confidence which he trusted the people of Ireland reposed in the liberality and justice of the British Parliament. That was not a responsibility which he, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, was prepared to undertake. He was certainly prepared calmly and deliberately to consider in Committee all the details of the measure; but if, without going into Committee their Lordships should think fit to reject the Bill, the responsibility must rest, not upon Her Majesty's Government, but upon their Lordships.
The Earl of Essexasked a question respecting the compulsory clause.
Lord Stanleysaid, that the 10th Clause of the Bill, to which the noble Earl had referred, was what in the course of the discussion had frequently been termed the compulsory clause; and he considered it most important for the efficiency of the measure that that clause should be retained. He did not, however, go so far as some noble Lords, who had expressed their conviction that if this clause were withdrawn the Bill would be entirely ineffectual: but he was ready to go into Committee, leaving that clause entirely an open question.
The Earl of Essex: You do not withdraw it?
Lord Stanley: No.
The Earl of Rodenwished to ask the noble Lord if it was to be understood that this Bill had received the unanimous approbation of the Commissioners?
Lord Stanleysaid, he was quite willing to state that this Bill had not received, in regard to its machinery, the unanimous assent of the Commissioners. He believed some of the Commissioners were of opinion that an appeal to the Assistant Barrister, for the purpose of deciding the points at issue, would be more advantageous than an appeal to the Government Commissioner. But the Commissioners were unanimous in their recommendation, first, that means should be provided for registering voluntary agreements between landlords and tenants as to improvements; next, that when the landlord and tenant could not agree with reference to such improvements, the tenant should be empowered to serve notice upon his landlord of any proposed improvements; and that the desirableness of such improvements should be determined upon by two mutually chosen arbitrators, with power of appeal to the Assistant Barrister; and also, that if a tenant should be ejected within a fixed period—thirty years having been mentioned—he should be entitled to an amount of compensation proportionate to the improvements he had effected.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, he could not but feel that the practical effect of this measure would be to introduce a new principle—namely, the intervention of an authority at Dublin for the purpose of compelling landlords to defray an expenditure which, in their judgment, might be improper and unnecessary, and which they might not think conducive to their interests. He entertained very strong objections to this Bill; but, at the same time, he felt for the position of Her Majesty's Government. The Government had given their assent to a Commission of Inquiry, attended with circumstances of publicity, of notoriety — he was almost going to say of ostentation, but that such a term might seem offensive to his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Devon), who had so industriously, so ably, and so assiduously conducted that inquiry—and they had excited among the Irish people, whose hopes and expectations were very easily raised, the most extravagant and undue expectations, which, whatever measures might be adopted, would still be disappointed. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) had stated that he was prepared to abandon the compulsory clause
1148
of this Bill. [Lord Stanley: No, no.] The noble Lord had, at least, said, that he considered it would be advisable to adopt this Bill, even if their Lordships should think fit, in Committee, to omit the compulsory clause, That statement had been made by the noble Lord, not only once, but twice or thrice, in the course of this debate. The noble Lord had also assured them, that though he was desirous of retaining the Commissioner at Dublin to judge for the landlords of Ireland how they ought to improve their estates; yet that if the landlords of Ireland should be so obstinate and conceited as to think they knew better than that Commissioner could do how to improve their own paoperty, he (Lord Stanley) was, with the same candour, ready to give up the Commissioner with the compulsory clause, and cling to what would then remain of the Bill.
Lord Stanley: The noble Marquess is entirely wrong on both points. What I said was, that I did not go so far as some of my noble Friends, in thinking that this Bill would have no beneficial tendency, even if the compulsory clause was withdrawn, though I thought that clause a great additional advantage to the Bill. I also stated that I did not think, as has been said by a noble Lord opposite, that the Government officer is the principle of the Bill, because I was ready to admit any other mode of arbitration which would secure to the occupying tenant the same advantage and security for his compensation. I said also, with regard both to the Commissioner and the compulsory clause, that while I adhered to my belief that both were most advantageous, and while I was prepared to defend them, I did not intend to pledge any noble Lord who might vote for the second reading to the adoption of either of those principles, and that I was ready to discuss them in Committee. I certainly did not consider that discussion and abandonment have the same signification; I think the meaning of those terms is widely different. As I leave to noble Lords, after the second reading of the Bill, the discretion and the right of dealing with the principles I have mentioned in Committee, so must I reserve to the Government the right of considering the Amendments, whatever they may be, that may be made in the Bill in Committee, and of determining what course they will adopt.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, the statement contained in the last part of the noble Lord's explanation, their Lordships

1149
had heard for the first time; all the rest the noble Lord had stated for the second or third time; but the reservation on the part of the Government, whether it would proceed with the Bill at all if these alterations should be made, was only now mentioned. He had never meant to imply that the noble Lord was willing to abandon the Bill; but that if outvoted in the Committee, he would be willing to give up the compulsory clause, still thinking it worth while to preserve the rest of the measure, as likely to be useful to Ireland. He was not prepared to say the Bill would be of no benefit after these alterations were made, but he thought no very essential feature of the measure would remain afterwards. The compulsory principle was a new one, to which their Lordships ought not to consent without grave deliberation; the appointment of a Commissioner in Dublin was also a most questionable provision, tending to be cumbersome and inconvenient in operation. It would lead to perpetual disputes; it would be of no advantage to a respectable tenant and a good landlord, while it would put a weapon into the hands of a litigious person, to be used in order to obtain revenge upon his landlord. The noble Lord had stated that the Bill referred to building, fencing, draining — things that were clear and simple enough; but there remained behind the question of what kind of building, and what sort of draining and fencing, would be best calculated to make an improvement: on these points it would be difficult for the Commissioner to arrive at a right judgment. Voluntary agreements between landlords and tenants in Ireland had been of late years increasing, and were increasing every day; it was this wholesome spirit of improvement the Legislature ought to encourage. The noble Earl (Devon) had stated the Bill would not impede the action of the spirit of mutual agreement; but it would lead the tenant to another quarter besides his landlord; he ought to apply to his landlord in the first instance. [Lord Stanley: It is done in the Bill.] [A noble Lord: Through the Commissioner.] That was what he objected to; the tenant ought to apply to the landlord in the first instance. If, however, the noble Lord attached importance to what might remain of the measure after it should be altered, he would not take on himself the responsibility of arresting its progress in the present stage; the House should have an opportunity of considering how these objectionable parts could
1150
be removed, and what could be the efficacy of what remained in reference to the present state of Ireland. The Bill was important to England and Scotland as well as to Ireland; though the circumstances of the countries were different, yet the principle of the right of property was the same in all three, and they could not long introduce a new principle in one for many years, without being compelled to apply its operation to the others. If the Bill proceeded, it ought to be referred to a Select Committee; and he should vote that it be so referred, reserving to himself the right of afterwards reconsidering the whole measure, being as anxious as the noble Lord to promote the prosperity and encourage the improvement of Ireland.
The Earl of Devon, in reference to the question of the unanimity of the Commissioners on the present Bill, read some passages from their Report.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, the noble Earl had given them no information whatever; what they stated in the Report was known before; the question was, had all the Commissioners agreed as to the provisions of the present Bill?
The Earl of Devonwas undertood to say that they had not all agreed with respect to them.
On Question that "now" stand part of the Motion? House divided:—Contents 48; Not Contents 34:—Majority 14.
Bill read 2a.
House adjourned.
The following Protest against the Tenants Compensation (Ireland) Bill was entered on the Journals.
DISSENTIENT—

1. Because whilst we are most solicitous to support any measure which produces, or which has any tendency to produce an improvement in the condition of the occupying tenantry of Ireland, we are unable to discover in the provisions of the present Bill any enactment which will have that beneficial effect.

2. Because we consider the improvement of agriculture and the extension of a demand for labour in Ireland, to depend very mainly upon the mutual good understanding and co-operation between landlord and tenant, and the contribution of the capital of the one class in aid of the industry of the other, which the provisions of this Bill seem calculated to check and limit, rather than to increase and to encourage.

3. Because the intervention of a Government officer, called in, not as a guide and adviser, by two parties anxious to combine in the execution of a definite system of well-considered

1151
improvement, but interposing at the request of one party only, and possibly against the consent of the other, appears to us manifestly unjust in principle, and likely to lead to dissensions and jealousies, where it is most important that goodwill and cordiality should permanently exist.

4. Because we consider the compulsory introduction of new and varied obligations between parties who have already entered into contracts, and this without a saving of those existing contracts, gives to this Bill an ex post facto operation, contrary to justice and to the first principles on which sound legislation should proceed; principles which have hitherto been regarded by Parliament as sacred and inviolable.

5. Because the introduction of a measure like the present seems peculiarly rash, dangerous, and inopportune, at a time when it appears from the Report of the Commissioners that "in spite of many embarrassing and counteracting circumstances, in almost every part of Ireland, unequivocal symptoms of improvement continually present themselves to the view, and when there exists a very general and increasing spirit and desire for the prosecution of improvements from which the most beneficial results may fairly be expected."

6. Because a facility of erecting new buildings on small farms, without taking any adequate security for the future and permanent appropriation of those buildings to those uses only which may be conducive to the real interest of the tenant as well as of the landlord, and to the improvement and good cultivation of the land, can hardly fail to promote the increase of a pauper population, lowering the rate of wages, augmenting the price of food, adding ultimately to the competition for leases, and thus aggravating incalculably many of the most serious evils incident to the condition of the Irish peasantry.

7. Because a provision to encourage the levelling of existing fences is not only inapplicable to the greater part of Ireland, but, as being unaccompanied by clauses to provide for the erection of new fences of a permanent or improved character, or indeed of any fences at all, seems to us most irrational and absurd.

8. Because even if it is assumed that the principle of the Bill is as wise and just as, for the reasons stated, it appears to us indefensible and impolitic, it is manifest that the machinery provided in this Bill by the establishment of a single officer of the Government in Dublin, acting through Assistant Commissioners, nominated by himself, is wholly inadequate to the performance of duties extending over the whole surface of a great country.

9. Because the enactment of an ill-considered measure like the present, may raise serious obstacles in the way of a wiser system of legislative interference, to which we should feel disposed to give our most favourable consideration: a system which, by affording guidance and instruction, where skill and science
1152
are required; in facilitating the application of capital where capital is needed and is likely to be profitably applied; by encouraging co-operation not only between landlord and tenant, but between parties interested in adjacent estates; by securing to the tenant the strict and accurate performance of all covenants entered into with him, and a full return for all improvements which he has effected with his landlord's approval; by securing to the landlord the maintenance of all improvements to which he may be called on to contribute, shall increase the amount of agricultural produce, shall augment the national wealth, shall stimulate and render more permanent the demand for labour; and thus without the violation of any principle shall facilitate the discharge of the duties, whilst maintaining the rights, of property, and shall thus improve the condition of all classes of Her Majesty's Irish subjects.

MONTEAGLE AND BRANDON,

GOSFORD,

CAMPBELL,

CHAWORTH (MEATH),

CROFTON (except for 7th reason),

CHARLEMONT (ditto),

LISMORE,

SOMERHILL (CLANRICARDE),

KINNAIRD AND ROSSIE,

CAREW,

CLANBRASSILL (RODEN)

LUCAN (except for 7th reason),

CHARLEVILLE,

STRADBROKE,

MASSAREENE (excepting 7th reason),

SANDWICH,

ROSSE (except for 7th reason),

LORTON (ditto),

EGMONT,

KINGSTON,

VANE LONDONDERRY.