Sitting of 24 March 1848

MINUETS.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Property Tax; Stamp Duties Assimilation; Game Certificates for Killing Hares (Scotland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED.—By Sir T. Acland, from Com-martin (Devon), complaining of the Conduct of the Roman Catholic Clergy (Ireland).—By Mr. Gibson Craig, from several Charitable Institutions in Edinburgh, and by Mr. John Vivian, from the Governors of the Swansea Infirmary, for Exemption of Charitable Bequests from the Legacy Duties.—By Sir Benjamin Hall, from several Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, for an Extension of the Benefit Societies Act.—From Members of several Lodges of the Ancient Order of Druids, for Sanitary Regulations.—By Mr. Sotheron, from the Surrey Iron Railway Company, praying for Leave to attend a Trial and produce certain Documents relating to that Company.

MURDER OF A GAMEKEEPER.
MR. BRIGHTrose for the purpose of putting a question to the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, and he did so with great reluctance, as the question was one which he felt must be productive of pain to the right hon. Gentleman. Two men were at present under sentence of death, in the county gaol of Durham, for a murder committed on a gamekeeper of the Duke of Cleveland. He perceived by the public papers that a respite had been sent down from the Home Office for one of these unhappy individuals; and he understood also that the town-council of Durham, and also the jury before whom the case was tried, had forwarded a memorial to the Home Office for respite or commutation of punishment in the case of both the prisoners. When the subject of the abolition of the punishment of death had been recently before the House, a feeling seemed to prevail in favour of the system existing in France of giving in verdicts under extenuating circumstances, the custom being, under such verdicts, never to enforce the extreme penalty of the law. Now, he did not mean that the case of these men differed in point of guilt from many others in which the extreme penalty of the law was enforced; but what he thought was, that a circular which had been signed by the jury was to be regarded in the light of a recommendation to mercy, and that it ought to be treated as such. The question which he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet was, whether he had any objection to state if such a memorial from the jury had been received by him; and also whether he had any objection to place a copy of it on the

967
table? He asked the question, because he-had received communications on the subject from many persons in Durham, whose views were well worthy of attention, and also because he believed that a very strong feeling existed in that part of the country with respect to the present state of the law.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that no matter how proper the hon. Gentleman's motives might have been in bringing forward such a subject, he could not help expressing in the strongest terms his deep regret that questions of the kind should be asked in that House on matters the whole circumstances connected with which it Was quite impossible could be fully laid before the House. He had doubts whether such a course of proceeding did not tend very much to impede the Executive in the proper discharge of the painful duty which devolved upon them. With regard to the present case, in which the sentence had been finally signed, he could only say that it had received the most careful consideration from him; and, painful as the decision to which he had been forced was, he did not feel himself at liberty to shrink from it by the anticipation of any comments that might be made upon his acts in that House or elsewhere. He would only say, that the verdict of the jury had not been accompanied by any recommendation to mercy. He had subsequently, however, received from the neighbourhood many applications for a commutation of sentence, and among others a memorial to that effect, signed by the jury by whom the case had been heard. He did not feel it to be advisable to lay that memorial before the House, as, if he did so, it would be necessary to accompany it with all the counter statements and communications which he had felt it his duty to call for in order to enable him to come to a decision on the subject. He thought that such a mode of proceeding would be subversive of the constitutional practice followed in such cases.

EMIGRATION TO CANADA.
MR. HAWESsaid, in answer to Mr. Reynolds, the House was no doubt aware of the distressing circumstances connected with the emigration to Canada last year. The character of that emigration would be perceived from the one fact that out of about 90,000 emigrants who went to Canada last year, no less than 15,000 died on board the vessels, or immediately after
968
their landing. Under these circumstances, it was not to be wondered at that many applications had been made, on the part of the colonists, to be protected from a recurrence of such disasters. His noble Friend (Earl Grey) felt it to be his duty to make various suggestions, which were submitted to the House of Assembly in Canada, as well as to the other North American colonies, and adopted by them. Under the regulations thus come to, different rates of taxes on emigrants were to be adopted. In cases where the emigrants were landed in a perfectly healthy state, no alteration was to be made in the whole charge of one dollar for each emigrant. If the vessel went into quarantine, that charge was to be doubled, and if the quarantine was of long continuance the tax might be still farther increased; but in no case was it to exceed 20 s. for each person. The tax would also be doubled in the case of very aged or helpless emigrants, and also in case of arrivals after the 20th of October. The great object of these precautions was to compel those who had the charge of sending out numbers of emigrants from these countries to take the necessary precautions for preventing a recurrence of the dreadful scenes of last year.

SUPPLY—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL, in rising to move the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply, explained the course he meant to adopt in forwarding the Bills before the House, and then continued: But I wish to make a statement with regard to the general business of the House, so far as legislation is concerned at this time: first, because it is a comparatively early period of the Session; and in the next place, because I have every reason to thank the House for the attention it has given to the business brought before it by the Government; for I do not know an instance when the Government wished to press business forward in which the House has not been disposed to assist them. What I say, therefore, will be said without making the slightest complaint either against the House or against individual Members. My noble Friend the Member for Bath (Lord Duncan) has given to-night an instance of his wish to accommodate the business of the Government by not bringing forward his Motion with regard to the expenditure and management of the Woods and Forests; and I own I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman

969
who has given notice of a Motion with regard to the slave trade (Mr. H. Baillie) would follow the same course which has been taken by the noble Lord and by the hon. Member for Montrose with regard to the resolutions he intends to move. My noble Friend the Member for Lynn (Lord G. Bentinck) has stated that the Committee upon the case of the sugar planters is about to enter upon distinct deliberation, and to make a report in a few days; and I think that, under these circumstances, the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baillie) should not be brought forward until after their report has been received. There are other reasons why the House, if it wishes that matters of legislation should be deliberately considered at a time when there is a full attendance of Members, should not interpose with abstract questions upon days devoted, by the practice of the House, to the business of the Government. I beg to submit to the House that there have been in the course of the last thirty years very great changes in the mode of conducting the business of the House, either of Government or of individual Members. I remember when I first entered Parliament, it was not usual for Government to undertake generally all subjects of legislation. The Government, at that time, generally confined itself to those measures which properly belong to the Administration, or to any particular subject which seemed to them to require immediate attention. At the same time there were at that period Motions generally made that the Orders of the Day, though Notices had precedence, should come in on any day of the week; therefore the business of the Government proceeded at a more rapid pace than it now does. Two great changes have since taken place, and it may be that both of them have been changes for the better; but they are certainly somewhat inconsistent and incompatible with each other. The one is, that for many years, that is, since the passing of the Reform Bill, it has been thought convenient on every subject on which an alteration in the law is required, that the Government should undertake the responsibility of proposing it to Parliament; and the other great change is, that measures of all kinds are now discussed by a greater number of Members, and a far greater number of Motions are made by individual Members than was formerly the case. The consequence of these changes has been, that, though subjects of legislation of very great importance
970
are brought into this House, it is found impossible by any Government—the preceding as well as the present—to bring them on at a time when they can receive fair deliberation; and, therefore, they are frequently put off till quite the end of the Session, when there is a very inadequate attendance. I know it has been often said, though said without much reflection, that there are important measures which have not, though they ought to have been, pressed forward. If the House will consider what is the nature of its own orders, they will see how impossible it is for any Government to press forward measures which should take time for consideration. There are two days, and only two days, in the week, allotted to Government business. That generally gives, considering adjournments and other circumstances, only eight days in the month; and when about four months of the Session have elapsed, it is frequently said that nothing whatever has been done. But out of those four months it will be found there are only thirty days, and no more, in which the Government business can take precedence. Now, I am not making any complaint of this, nor am I asking for any additional number of days. I only wish the House to consider, if they think it necessary that Bills should be brought forward, and pressed more than they are now; and if they are satisfied with the present mode of conducting the business, that, at least, they should reflect it will be important to press them forward for the general purposes of legislation at an early period of the Session. In the present year there are many important questions yet to come under consideration. The income-tax will expire in April next, the Mutiny Bill must be renewed, and the estimates must be voted; but the two questions alone—supply and the income-tax—will probably take up about two months of the days which the Government have at their disposal. The only practical consequence I wish to draw from what I have stated at present is, that upon this, a Government night, the hon. Gentleman being requested should not press his Motion, but allow us to proceed with the Government business. I hope hon. Gentlemen will turn the question in their minds; and perhaps some proposition may be made hereafter which will suit the convenience of the House, and meet with general consent. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply.

SLAVE TRADE.
MR. BAILLIEregretted that he could not assent to the wish of the noble Lord, because the Motion he intended to propose had reference to a most wasteful expenditure of public money, which, in his opinion, ought to be considered before any further supplies were granted. The time had arrived when it was necessary to dispel the delusion that had prevailed with regard to the slave trade. When the naked truth should be revealed, it would become apparent, that all the blood and treasure which for so many years past had been expended for the purpose of suppressing the slave trade had been poured forth in vain—that all our efforts had not only failed in attaining the object this country had in view, but had actually increased the slave trade, and added tenfold to its cruelties and horrors. If those facts could be clearly and distinctly proved, then it would be most criminal to persevere in a course that was attended with such melancholy and fatal results. The most competent naval authorities had repeatedly declared that the whole Navy of England would not be sufficient to maintain an effective blockade upon a coast of 6,000 miles in extent. In 1845 the House had been informed that new and important measures were about to be adopted, from which the Government anticipated the most successful results. But at the very time that communication had been made, the Government had actually surrendered to the Government of France those treaties for the mutual right of search, by which alone the utility of our squadron could be tested, and by which alone the object could be effected for which those treaties had been made. At the time of the late Government coming into office, they had found difficult and delicate questions pending both with France and the United States; questions that were calculated to interrupt our friendly relations with both those Powers. Amongst these was the question of mutual right of search, concerning which both the people of France and of the United States were peculiarly sensitive. It was true the late Government had settled those questions, and peace had been preserved. But how? By giving up the main point at issue. It might have been wise to take that course; but the point of mutual right of search was, at all events, wholly given up, and it was not just that the people of England shold be held responsible for maintaining, at a vast expense, a squadron on the coast of Africa,
972
after that squadron had been deprived of those powers by the exercise of which alone it could effect the object for which it was afloat. The measure of Her Majesty's Ministers, as he should be prepared to prove, had, to a great extent, augmented the slave trade; and Sir Fowell Buxton remarked, that not only had our efforts to put it down cost fifteen millions, but that the numbers exported had increased, while the loss of life had risen to 25 per cent. Ten years had elapsed since Sir Fowell Buxton's celebrated work was published, and in the interval the annual expenditure had increased from 1,000,000 l. to 1,200,000 l. He (Mr. Baillie) estimated the aggregate expenditure by this country in its efforts to suppress the slave trade, as follows:—

Expenditure from 1808 to 1847

£29,752,271

Bounties upon captured negroes, civil establishments, &c.

153,434

Compensation for emancipation

20,000,000

Making a total of

£49,905,705

To this sum there must be added the extra price which the people of this country had been compelled to pay for sugar and rum in consequence of the Emancipation Act of 1835. On sugar he estimated the difference at 10 s. per cwt., which on 46,810,994 cwt., imported from 1835 to 1845 inclusive, would amount to 23,137,122 l. The enhanced price of molasses and rum within the same period he reckoned at one-third that of sugar, or 7,712,371 l.; and for the half of the year 1846, he took it at 1,631,832 l. Therefore, the sum thus paid by the public in increased prices was 32,481,325 l., which added to the direct cost of 49,905,705 l., made an aggregate which this country had had to pay for an experiment which had entirely failed, of 82,387,030 l. This statement, founded on facts, he conceived, was an ample justification on his part for interfering with the Committee of Supply. As regarded the rate of mortality in slave vessels, Sir Fowell Buxton had estimated it at 25 per cent; but according to the authorities at Sierra Leone it averaged 33 per cent, whilst the slave merchants at Havannah calculated it at 331–3 per cent. Previous to 1807, when the trade was free, the mortality was only 8¾ per cent. Could the House, he would ask, persist in pursuing a system which had produced such deplorable results in deference to a misguided and mistaken philanthropy? He would now come to the great impulse which had been given to the

973
slave trade since 1846, in consequence of the measures of Her Majesty's Government in reducing the duties on the produce of Cuba and Brazil. But he would first enable the House to form an opinion as to the possibility under any circumstances of putting down the slave trade, by giving it some idea of the enormous profits obtained by those who carried on that traffic. [The hon. Gentleman read an extract from a Sierra Leone newspaper, of November 10, 1846, which detailed the capture of a brigantine of only 74 tons burthen, having on board 547 slaves, all stowed away in the smallest possible space, and in the most wretched condition conceivable, and stated that the captain of this vessel was to receive 30 dollars a head as freight for the negroes; and allowing that the average of one-third of the cargo perished on the passage, if he succeeded in evading the cruisers, his freight would amount to no less than 4,637 l. 10 s. 6d. on a twenty-six days' passage. And the importer of this cargo of human beings would only have to pay at the rate of 4l. per head for the negroes at the place of shipment, while the average price a slave fetched in the Brazilian market was 50 l., which, making every reasonable deduction for the other expenses, in addition to freight, left a profit of 200 per cent to the slave merchant.] This statement fully corroborated the calculations and assertions on this subject of Sir P. Buxton, who said it was an axiom at the Custom-house, that no illicit traffic yielding a profit exceeding 30 per cent could be suppressed; and he could prove that the slave trade yielded five times that amount of profit. He had in his hand an official despatch from Havannah, stating that a slaver called the Venus had brought a cargo of 1,000 negroes there, by which the speculator in human flesh would realise a clear return of from 100,000 to 200,000 dollars. The despatch concluded with these words:—
"Would any man who knows the state of Cuba pretend that this is not enough to shut the mouth of the informer, arrest the arm of the police, blind the eyes of the magistrates, and open the doors of the prison?"
And the evidence of Don José Cliffe, which was presented to the House only the other day, went to show that the profits accruing upon the slave trade far exceeded those derivable from any other species of traffic. The House would now be able to judge of the insurmountable nature of the difficulty they had to centend with in their efforts to
974
extinguish the slave trade, by reason of these huge profits, which were such irresistible lures to the grasping sordidness of the slave merchant. All the accounts lately received from Africa attested the fact of the immense impulse given to the slave trade by the recent measures of Her Majesty's Government. Mr. Oldfield, the medical officer, and one of the survivors of Laird's unfortunate Niger exploring expedition, was, perhaps, a better authority on this point than any other person living. In a letter, dated December 3, 1847, he stated that it was quite obvious that the present measures adopted for the suppression of the slave trade were totally inefficient, and utterly abortive; and that though during the past year there had been an unusual number of captures, yet the number of slavers that had evaded the cruisers was much larger. From March, 1843, to June, 1845, there were 45 Brazilian, 18 Spanish, and one Portuguese vessels condemned in the Courts of Mixed Commission at Sierra Leone, and 4,408 slaves emancipated; from January, 1845, to June, 1847, 36 vessels were condemned, all Brazilian property, and 4,118 slaves emancipated. Between the 6th and 15th August, no less than five full slavers were sent to Sierra Leone, having on board 1,421 slaves. He had a vast number of letters from emigration agents in Africa. One, dated Sierra Leone, May 13, 1847, stated that six Brazilian prizes had been brought in; that already 1,300 slaves were in the Queen's yard; and that Brazil had that year more than double her usual supply of slaves. Another, dated from the same place, July 3, 1847, stated, that "the slave trade was increasing beyond any year since its nominal abolition." But there was a letter from the Governor of Sierra Leone to Earl Grey, dated so late as October 1, 1847, in which he said, "This traffic is not only not diminished, but it is prosecuted, if possible, with more vigour than ever." One of our naval officers at Montevideo reported that it was increasing all along the coast of Brazil. It was a well-ascertained fact, that the profits on a successful trip paid for several failures; and so long as these enormous gains were made at comparatively little risk, it was a perfect farce to try to put down the slave trade with the present naval force on the coast. And this appeared to be the opinion of every individual who could be regarded as a competent authority on the subject. The country had been placed in a false position

975
by the conduct of the Government. The people of England were bound to maintain, at a vast expense, a squadron upon the coast of Africa, not to put down the slave trade (for it had been proved that it was unable to accomplish that object), but to raise the price of slaves to the planters of Cuba and Brazil. By raising the price of slaves in those countries, we raised the price of their slave produce, of which the people of England were now the chief consumers; and thus the people of England were compelled to pay a large annual sum in order to raise the price of that sugar of which they were to become the purchasers. Was this the way in which the present Government intended to carry out the principles of free trade? The people of England were patient and of long suffering; but he was very much mistaken if they would long continue to endure so great an absurdity as this. He knew well what would be the appeal made to the House by the noble Lord who presided over the Foreign Affairs. He would ask, whether the people of England were prepared to retrace their steps after all the great and enormous sacrifices that had already been made? He would ask, whether they were prepared to recede from the engagements into which they had entered with foreign Powers, and to which they were bound by so many treaties; and whether they were prepared to display the immensity of their own folly to the world? He would answer that he was prepared to adopt that course, because he believed it to be conducive to the interests of humanity—conducive to the interests of the African negro—and last, not least, conducive to the interests of the suffering people of England. He would now proceed further to show the grounds upon which he stated that the course we had pursued had actually increased the slave trade. He was given to understand the way in which that trade was carried on was this—certain planters in Cuba required a supply of (say a thousand) slaves; they make an agreement with a slave merchant, who fits out his vessels, and writes his instructions to agents on the coast of Africa to ship from thence, not 1,000, but 3,000 slaves. He calculates that 1,000 will die upon the passage—that 1,000 may possibly be taken by cruisers upon the coast—and the remaining 1,000 will amply repay him for his adventure; and thus, when the market only requires the supply of 1,000 slaves, owing to our interference, 3,000 victims were
976
sacrificed. It might, perhaps, be asked, what were the views now entertained by the anti-slavery party in the country? He confessed he scarcely knew whether such a party were now in existence; but he knew that the greater portion of those who formed that party supported the measures of the Government by which the slave trade had been augmented and increased. He was inclined to think that great apathy now existed throughout the country upon the subject. If, however, he was mistaken, and had misinterpreted the sentiments and feelings of the people; and if they were as decided now as they were fifteen years ago, to make any sacrifices in order to put down the slave trade, then he would say they had the power, and he would now proceed to state the way, and, as he believed, the only way, in which that great object could be accomplished. It was well known that the only two countries which carried on the slave trade with the coast of Africa to a great extent were Cuba and Brazil. With both these countries (that was, with Spain and Brazil) we had made solemn treaties for the suppression of the slave trade; by both, those treaties had been not only disregarded, but their violation had been openly and avowedly encouraged by their respective Governments; they had even gone so far as to give peculiar privileges to the slave vessels. Such conduct is, without doubt, an insult to this country; and how have we resented that insult? In a truly Christian spirit of returning good for evil, we had consented to receive all their slave produce into our markets. This might be acting in a Christian spirit, but it was not the way to put down the slave trade. If that object was ever to be attained, it must be by an exhibition of force and determination on the part of this country. The fleet must be removed from the coast of Africa, and sent to blockade all the ports both of Cuba and Brazil, and the Governments of those countries must be informed that none of their produce will be allowed to come to Europe until their engagements are faithfully maintained with us—until good and sufficient guarantees are afforded that the slave trade is effectually suppressed. There would be no more difficulty in putting down the slave trade in the island of Cuba than there was difficulty in the island of Jamaica if the Government really was sincere: it was the will and not the power that was wanting. If, however, the Government of England

977
was not prepared to adopt this course, if they were afraid of the consequences that might ensue, let that not be an excuse for continuing a system which was only a lamentable exhibition of weakness and of folly. There might perhaps be some who thought that the course which he proposed would, by rendering the labour in Cuba and Brazil cheap, prove injurious to our own colonies. Let them set their minds at case in that respect; our own colonies were already utterly ruined, and beyond the reach of any further injury, even from the malice of the Colonial Office. He was well aware that those who professed ultra free-trade opinions, thought that our West India colonies were a useless incumbrance to us—that we ought to buy our colonial produce in the cheapest markets—and that it was quite immaterial to the people of this country whether they bought sugar from Cuba and Brazil, or from Jamaica and Demerara. The hon. Member for the West Riding of York carried his opinions still further: according to him our naval and military establishments were useless incumbrances, and we had only to carry out free-trade principles to their legitimate extent, in order to bind together the whole human race in one common bond of brotherhood, and that political as well as national animosities would then cease to exist. When that hon. Gentleman became the Prime Minister of this country—which many of his admirers thought him destined to be—he would doubtless choose for Secretary for Foreign Affairs the hon. and learned Doctor the Member for Bolton, who was president of the Peace Association, whose principle it was that war, under no circumstances, could be justifiable, and that henceforth all wars were to be avoided, either by timely submission or a reference to the arbitration of foreign Courts. When England was blest by two such Ministers, we might doubtless expect to see realised these dreams of a golden age about which the ancients had written, but of which it seemed that we, more fortunate, were destined to witness the results. For his own part, though not a supporter of the noble Lord opposite, still he preferred by far the sad realities of his Administration to the flattering promises of those two hon. Gentlemen. He was not surprised, however, that those who enunciated these opinions should become the leaders of the people, for the people were the same in all ages; and whether it were the adoration of a serpent or calf—whether it were the religion
978
of Johanna Southcote or of Joe Smith—political like religious enthusiasts would have their day; and if there was one thing more certain than another which we learnt from history, it was this—that it was in vain to struggle with, or to attempt to cure, the follies and absurdities of mankind. The same West Riding of York which now returned as its representative to Parliament the champion of free trade, in the year 1831 returned Mr. Brougham as the champion of that anti-slavery party whose policy it had been shown had cost this country upwards of eighty-two millions, and had ended in being a total, an acknowledged, and an unredeemed failure. When this subject was brought under the notice of Parliament, in the year 1845, the Motion was met by the Government of the day with an assurance that new and important measures were about to be adopted, from which they anticipated the most successful results. Those measures, like all that had preceded them, had proved to be utterly abortive; and he did not entertain a doubt that the present Government would give similar assurances to the House. But he intreated hon. Gentlemen to reflect on the dreadful sacrifice of life by which these renewed experiments continued to be attended. He held in his hand a return given by the Admiralty, headed—
"An estimate of the charge to the public for the ships of war of all classes employed for the suppression of the slave trade, and also of the number of men lost in that service."
The total charge for the squadron was 706,454 l.; the number of deaths of officers and men, 259; and the number of men and officers invalided, 271; making a total loss to the service of 530 men—an amount equal to that which some of our most brilliant victories cost us. But if this sacrifice of our bravest officers and seamen did not deter them from a perseverance in their present course, he called upon the House of Commons as guardians of the public purse to reflect on the amount of money which the people of England were annually compelled to pay. By a return presented to Parliament, it appeared that the expense of maintaining the squadron for the year 1845 was 706,454 l.; to this must be added the maintenance of all our establishments upon the coast of Africa, Sierra Leone, Fernando Po, Cape Coast Castle, and Ascension. Then the maintenance of captured negroes, bounty on captured negroes, mixed courts, vice-admiralty

979
courts, slave-trade commissioners—all these expenses could not be estimated at less than from 300,000 l. to 500,000 l. a year, which, added to 706,454 l., as before stated, amounted to a sum of not less than 1,000,000 l. or 1,200,000 l. a year. This was equal to the whole amount of the window duty. He called upon all those who represented popular constituencies to aid and assist him in relieving the people of England from this unjust burden—to aid and assist him in dispelling that delusion which had so long been practised upon the people, and by means of which they had been made to pay so dearly the penalty of the weakness and the folly of their rulers. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that negotiations be entered into with Foreign Powers to relieve this country from the engagement under which it labours of maintaining a squadron upon the coast of Africa."
MR. HUMEsaid, that when, upon former occasions, he suggested the propriety and expediency of reducing our naval establishment on the African coast, he showed that we were not only spending money uselessly, but occasioning a great deal of misery. The plan on which we proceeded involved an expenditure of not less than a million a year, and, so far from doing any good, it produced much mischief. Of late this country acted, or seemed to act, upon some principle; but if the general tenor of our policy were examined, it would be found that, with reference to the slave trade, we very often acted upon contrary principles. He had seen within the last few weeks statements illustrative of the progress of estates cultivated by slave labour; those were estates on which 60,000 70,000, and 80,000 dollars had been expended, and the returns showed that the owners got back their money in about three or four years. Now those and a multitude of similar facts proved that the cultivation of sugar by means of slave labour was enormously profitable. What was our practice? We permitted the importation of slave-grown sugar, and we made war upon all who carried on the slave trade. What consistency was there in that? He would appeal to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and he would ask him was it right that the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs should be allowed to ride his hobby so unmercifully as to put the country to an expense of a million annually,
980
doing great injury to the Navy, and outraging the feelings of humanity? Was it to be any longer endured that we should go on under the guise of humanity to practise nothing but the most grievous cruelty? It was perfectly well known that nothing could stop the smuggling of men into Brazil and Cuba, the profits being so enormous. A treaty had been signed with Belgium, calling on the Belgians to join with us in putting down the slave trade. Such a proceeding showed that unless the House should interfere, it was hopeless to put an end to the course of Government. This country ought not to be ashamed to proclaim to the world, that after a trial she had found that her schemes were not only not successful, but injurious. The noble Lord had had letters addressed to him from the Anti-Slavery Society, pointing out that every successive despatch from the coast of Africa proved that we were adding to the horrors of the odious trade. In 1845, 1846, and 1847, we had 26, 27, and 28 men-of-war, with 297 guns, and 3,000 men, exposed to that climate. The number of deaths was 500. Scarcely a man had been on the coast of Africa for three years who was not in a state of disease. The papers which had been laid before the House a few days ago showed that up to the latest period the trade had been increasing. So far from being checked, as the noble Lord had said, new life had been given to it by our encouragement in admitting the produce of these islands. He would therefore ask the noble Lord not to be satisfied with merely checking it and keeping it under some control, but to adopt means to put it down carefully and quietly. In the correspondence between the American Government and the noble Lord, it would be found that the British Minister was literally insulted, if it was possible for one diplomatic Minister to insult another. Lord Aberdeen was there insulted in the strongest manner, because he expressed an earnest desire to exert himself to procure the abolition of slavery throughout the world. Mr. Calhoun said—
"You have no right to interfere with that which the United States think the best form of government. There are portions of the United States which disapprove of slavery as much as any other country; other portions are not willing to relinquish it; are we to allow you to interfere with those States with whom we do not ourselves interfere?"
Formerly we carried on the slave trade, and refused to put it down when some countries required England to do so. What

981
would Great Britain have said if the United States, Spain, or France, had desired her to abolish slavery? Why should we now attempt to dragoon the whole world? He was convinced, from the correspondence, that if this country attempted to force Brazil to put down the slave trade, the United States would make common cause with her, and it would be a ground of war. He believed that the only course by which it was possible to put down the slave trade was to make free labour as cheap as slave labour. Furnish an adequate supply of labour to the colonies, and there could be no doubt that, with the enterprise, climate, and capital which the English colonists possessed, they would succeed in producing a cheaper article than was produced in the slave colonies. He asked hon. Members to read document No. 136, which had lately been laid on the table of the House, from which it appeared that it was extremely dangerous to carry coercive measures much further. He had taken a few extracts from the papers upstairs, all of which stated the great increase of the slave trade, and the impossibility of putting it down. Captain Wynne, from the Cape of Good Hope, stated that there was a prospect of an increase in the trade for the next month, and that the only part of Her Majesty's settlements free from it was Mozambique, and forty miles to the southward. Consul Hesketh wrote from Rio to Lord Palmerston that there was an increased traffic with slaves, both by steamers and slave vessels. Consul Porter, from Bahia, wrote that there was increased activity in the slave trade. From Rio the Consul wrote, in November, 1847, that Portuguese houses were fitting out vessels, knowing that the public authorities had an advantage in the trade. From Pernambuco, on the 30th of September, it was said that after a cessation of two years the slave trade had reappeared. Similar accounts were received from the Havannah and Sierra Leone. When the House was called on to vote money for public establishments, it was time to show in what way so large a sum as 12,000 l. might be saved. On these grounds he seconded the Motion.
MR. G. THOMPSONrose and said, that he had not intended to have said anything on the question; but as it seemed that no Member of her Majesty's Government was inclined to rise and show cause why this inordinate expenditure of money, and this most awful sacrifice of human life, should be any longer continued, he would
982
briefly state the reasons which induced him to give his vote most cordially in favour of the Motion brought forward by the hon. Member. He believed he should not be accused of any want of sympathy with those victims of that nefarious outrage upon the rights of man, and upon the divine law—the enslavement of the human race. But he did hold that it was not right that this country, so heavily burdened in other respects, should also bear the heavy and almost utterly useless burden of attempting to put down the African slave trade. The experiment had been tried since, he believed, the year 1808, and what had been the result? He would venture to say that the number of slaves that would have been imported into the colonies, if there bad been no preventive squadron, would have been extremely small, compared with those that had been smuggled over the Atlantic, and there put up to auction. In his judgment (but he would not lay much stress upon that argument) it was not right to seek an object, professedly humane and holy, by such cruel means as those to which we had resorted in our attempts to put down the slave trade. He granted that we had every motive, religious as well as humane, to make our own soil in every part of the world sacred to freedom—to give the largest practicable amount of liberty to those who lived under our government. It was equally our duty to make at all times a consistent protest against the enslavement of the human race; but he denied that it devolved upon us as a duty to have recourse to arms and cruisers, and an expensive preventive service, for the purpose of pursuing that object of pure humanity. The attempt that had been made to effect that object had been a complete failure; be would not say that the attempt, however humane and praiseworthy, had, in fact, increased the horrors of that nefarious traffic to an incalculable degree. He had studied with the utmost attention for many years the statistics of this question, and he had endeavoured to ascertain the number of those who had fallen into the hands of the man-seller; and the result of his studios was that our efforts had proved completely abortive. But there was another reason which induced him to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member, and that was, that we bad found nothing but uncertainty on the part of those other Governments and States that had professedly united with us to

983
put down this traffic. The noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs would not, he thought, deny that scarcely in one instance in which treaties had been entered into between him and the representatives of other States, had the letter and spirit of those treaties been carried into effect. Scarcely one country besides our own had at any one time kept upon the coast of Africa the stipulated number of ships. The burden had fallen almost exclusively on us; and that burden, he conceived, had now become an intolerable one, for every motive which could be assigned for the expenditure of so large a portion of our money upon the coast of Africa applied with tenfold weight at the present time to the condition of our own fellow countrymen around us. There was still another reason which induced him to vote for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and that was this—he thought he was tolerably well informed of, though he should not trouble the House with any statements or facts in reference to the matter with regard to the history of the colony of Sierra Leone, and of other settlements on the African coast, and of those adjacent thereto. Now he would undertake to say, and to the best of his ability to demonstrate, that this preventive service had been the fruitful source of innumerable frauds, under the name of humanity, from the year 1808. He would not add anything to what had been said in commendation of the gallantry of those who were in command of our ships on the coast of Africa. The conduct of our sailors, and others in that service, had been most praiseworthy; but he did contend that Sierra Leone, and the other settlements which we had established in Africa, had been the hotbeds of fraud and chicanery. Mercenary and self-seeking men availed themselves of the humanity and liberality of the people of this country to increase their own gains, and to profit illicitly by the very trade which we had gone to such expense of blood and treasure to put down. He had all possible confidence in the efficacy of free labour to put down slave labour; he had no confidence in any other expedient. If free labour could not put down slave labour, then it appeared to him that freedom was not the law of nature. But how had they dealt with the slavery of other countries? Had they not for a long series of years utterly excluded the resources of our vast Indian possessions from this country? Efforts were made by other countries to
984
increase sugar cultivation in their colonies, and they gradually sprung into magnitude, wealth, and prosperity. And what was the fact now? Why, that whilst the comparatively barren colonial possessions of other countries were yearly yielding immense returns to their possessors, our rich and unlimited possessions, which, within a very few years, would, if cultivated, yield us 400,000 tons of sugar per annum, were lying comparatively waste. If they desired to put down slavery in Cuba or the Brazils, or any other country, they must adopt an enlightened and just system of encouraging free labour in our own vast possessions; and he would undertake to say, that if they did so, they would be quite able to compete with the labour of other countries, however fertile their soil might be. In the present depressed and impoverished condition of the trades and manufactures of this country, in the midst of the sufferings and complaints of the people at large, he could not consent any longer to this expenditure of money with the professed (and he believed sincere) object of putting down slavery; but as they saw that attempt had been altogether inefficacious, and had tended to increase rather than mitigate the sufferings of those for whom the expenditure was made, he joined with others in that House in expressing his deep abhorrence of the system of slavery; and his sincere hope was that other countries, like ourselves, might come to the conviction that the system was unjust and unholy in its character; but at the same time, he confessed he did not see how the duty of attempting to put down slavery in the world devolved solely upon this country, to the manifest desertion of the interests of our own vast colonial empire, an attention to which was the surest way of putting an end to the horrors of slavery. By employing free labour in our vast and fertile colonies in the growth of sugar, cotton, or coffee, we should demonstrate to the world what he believed was the conviction of all sound philosophic minds, that, all other things being equal, free labour was in every country in the world superior to every description of slave labour.
LORD H. VANEsaid, that it seemed to be the general desire that this discussion should not be pressed upon the present occasion; but, nevertheless, he would trouble the House with a few words upon the subject. It certainly seemed to him inopportune to ask the House to decide

985
this question at once, before they had received the report of the Committee on this subject. One of the reasons urged by the hon. Gentleman in support of his Motion was, that as they were about to go into a vote of supply, he thought this was a fitting occasion in which to make such a Motion; but he (Lord H. Vane) thought that that was the very reason why the House should pause before it proceeded to discontinue a system which certainly involved an expenditure of money. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. G. Thompson) took a similar line of argument, and said, that in the present distressed state of the country, and considering the great depression, acknowledged on all sides, to exist in the manufacturing and commercial branches of society, the House ought not to agree to so large an expenditure of money for this purpose. Now it did appear to him that there was one consideration which the hon. Member had totally lost sight of, and that was, that it would be totally impossible for that House, by a vote of that night, and in such a time as the present, to recede at once from the engagements which this country had entered into with other countries. Before they could do so, lengthened negotiations must be entered into with those countries. And was this a time, when there was a Provisional Government in a neighbouring great country, to expect that such negotiations could be fairly entered into? At present he would say no more upon the subject, but he should certainly oppose the Motion.
MR. URQUHARTsaid, it was impossible to present to the House a graver or a simpler case—grave from the expenditure of money, life, and character—simple from the clear, conclusive, and unrefuted evidence of the utter failure of all the objects for which that expenditure had been incurred, and the aggravation of all the ills which it had been designed to relieve. The House, since it met, had been engaged in the fruitless contemplation of the misery of the people, greatly increased beyond the scale of former suffering, and in the industrious voting of supplies, surpassing even the limit of former expenditure. If ever then there was a period when economy and reduction were an obligation, it was the present. If ever there was a time when the House stood in need of redeeming its character with the nation from the charge of extravagance, it was the present; and the present Motion afforded the opportunity.
986
The sums voted on former evenings had been so voted in obedience, right or wrong, to the conviction of a great majority of the House, of the existence of dangers abroad; but this vote had reference to a system standing by itself, which was not associated with any general purposes of policy, or a part of the doctrines professed either by the Administration in power, or the party out of office. It was in furtherance of a project adopted by both those parties and the country, in consequence of the arguments and the authority of certain individuals who vouched for this system, and who prognosticated certain consequences from the steps which, in obedience to their suggestions, had been taken. It was now a public notoriety that the system had proved a failure, and that the prognostications had been belied. Nor was this all. Those who, at the present time, represented the system, had confessed that failure to be as complete in respect to their object, as humiliating in respect to themselves. The hon. Member for Inverness-shire had quoted a passage from Sir F. Buxton, which had not failed to produce a deep impression on that House; but he regretted that his hon. Friend had not continued the quotation, and read the lines which followed, and which were to the effect—he could not charge his memory with the precise terms—that "had there been any reluctance on the part of the Government, any lukewarmness on the part of the nation—had the means placed at their disposal been less ample, or the period of time afforded for making the experiment loss sufficient, there would have remained some consolation for past reverses, and some hope in future attempts; but all these having been employed, and having failed, it only remained to make the frank and unreserved confession of that failure." But it was not only failure which they had to deplore, but aggravation of the evils themselves; and yet in face of such a confession and such results, and after the enormous expenditure already incurred, they were still called upon to burden the people of this country with a million and a quarter yearly. Could such conduct be called policy? Was it not rather delusion? Was it not insanity? If at length they had recovered their senses, was not the fact of that change to be displayed in reversing the acts which in that unhappy condition they had committed? Why had their past conduct been insane? They had

987
surrendered their reason to philanthropy—a good motive, but a dangerous guide; they had sought a desirable end, but by unhallowed means; they had set at nought justice and law—they had trampled upon the independence of foreign States—they had endeavoured to fix the name and character of piracy upon acts which the law of nations recognised, and under certain conditions sanctioned. They had scorned the warnings of the greatest of modern and judicial authorities, and, obedient to the dictates of philanthropy, but contemptuous of the dictates of law, they "had pressed forward to the attainment of a desirable end by means warranted neither by public honour or by private morality." Hence these lamentable results. England was to have been the leader of this great philanthropic question; she was to have been the soul and head of a great European league of benevolence and civilisation, for the good of humanity and to her own glory. She had made this the great aim and end of her diplomatic effort since the Peace; she had mooted it in private negotiation—she had persuaded by argument—she had seduced by bribes—she had forced by threats, other nations, into slave-trade treaties. The consequence had been to disgust the nations with this philanthropic cant, and to raise up real obstacles to the putting down of this infamous practice. Wherever she had on other grounds made herself the object of fear and detestation, she furnished inducements to withdraw from engagements so entered into, or to leave them unfulfilled. To violate them was an opportunity of injuring England. But while she aroused hatred, she presented acts calculated to awaken suspicion. Vehement to put down slavery, she had taken upon herself the task of preparing a vast province of the New World to pass from its union with the Mexican States to its incorporation with the United States, by sanctioning its transition from a free to a slaveholding State. The United States of Mexico did not acknowledge slavery—England took upon herself to recognise the independence of Texas on condition of the abrogation of that law, and thus open that country to the extension of slavery from the United States, and furnish the occasion and the inducements for its incorporation. What then could be inferred, save that England was dishonest in her professed purposes, and had an avowed object behind to serve? A petition from the West Indies urges this
988
House, as one of three measures proposed to save the West Indian colonies from ruin—to increase restrictions on the slave trade, so that by raising the price of slaves they might be better able to struggle against the competition of Cuba and Brazil. What conclusions could be drawn save this—that our efforts to put down the traffic were dictated by a selfish regard to our own interest, under the assumed pretext of an insulting philanthropy? The noble Lord who had preceded him, had, he understood, before he entered the House, stated that there might be difficulties in the way of any change in consesequence of engagements with foreign Powers. The proposed resolution was not that engagements should be broken, but that measures should be taken to release other countries from engagements which they had undertaken most unwillingly, solely at England's request; and which now there was every probability of being less satisfactory than they had been before. He therefore trusted that the House would, by its vote, free the country from this intolerable load of taxes, embarrassments, guilt, and disgrace, and put an end to a system which led to the employment of our forces on services which could only be termed buchaneering expeditions; which exposed officers on their return to this country to have to stand before the courts of law as defendants in actions brought against them by slavedealers for services undertaken in obedience to superior instructions—services of so anomalous a nature that when the law was taken in their own hands against them—by the men whom they had captured as pirates, they were acquitted by our judges. He returned his sincere thanks to his hon. Friend for his courage as well as his ability in bringing forward this question. It was, as all matters of high and public interest, distasteful to the House; and he implored the representatives of popular constituencies to consider whether a case like this did not interest them at least as much as those parochial discussions which were ever sure to engage their earnest solicitude. He entreated of them to consider whether the exposure of this night did not suffice to prove to them how dangerous it was for a great people to neglect any department of its affairs, for from this one they might judge of the remainder of that class which it had pleased them to designate and to treat as foreign. He would conclude with citing the words from the learned Judge

989
from whom he had already quoted, who, so far hack as 1816, declared from the bench, "That these diplomatic congresses and treaties by which they pretended to establish peace in Africa, must, if persevered in, render peace in Europe impossible."
CAPTAIN PECHELLwould not have risen on the present occasion but for some expressions which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, who had been pleased to term the efforts of the officers and men engaged on the coast of Africa for the suppression of the slave trade as buccaneering expeditions. He had thought that the hon. Gentleman, who was so fertile in language and argument, would have shown how those officers and seamen had conducted themselves to prove his assertion, that the object of that squadron had failed. But it appeared to him the hon. Gentleman had failed to establish his own position. The hon. Gentleman had not shown the points to which he attributed the failure of the experiment. The hon. Gentleman was fond of matters of diplomacy, and he thought he must have seen that the Treaty of 1845 had greatly contributed to lessen the power of our cruisers on the coast of Africa. In respect to that treaty he must say there had been a complete truckling to Prance. Let the hon. Gentleman bear in mind what our gallant seamen and officers suffered from the influence of a pestilential climate! But, instead of tendering his thanks to these men, the hon. Gentleman (he hoped he did not intend it as a sneer) spoke of them as persons engaged in buccaneering expeditions. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would on reflection see that these were expressions which were hurtful to the feelings of the officers and seamen who were employed in this service. He thought the Motion of the hon. Gentleman was inopportune, being calculated to excite the apprehension that this nation wished to back out of her engagements in respect to this squadron. For his own part, he believed it to be impossible for us to prevent the trade on the coast of Africa, without having a sufficient supply of ships.
MR. HUTTsaid, that as Chairman of the Select Committee to whom the whole subject of the slave trade had been referred, it might be expected that he should say a few words. It would be useless, however, for him to go over the whole of the ground which he had attempted to traverse a month ago. Between himself and the hon. Member for Inverness there
990
was really no difference of opinion; and he must express his satisfaction that on a subject to which he had given so much attention, he should have the pleasure of being associated with so able an advocate. But the whole subject was now under the consideration of a Select Committee, and when the House considered the pains which were being taken by that Committee, and when they reflected how deeply the subject had enlisted the best feelings and sympathies of the people, he did not think they would deem it prudent to come to a premature decision on one branch of the question. He had heard nothing since he had last addressed the House which in the slightest degree altered his opinion; but, under the circumstances in which he and the House were placed, he felt it his duty to oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
MR. MOWATThad made up his mind to support the Motion. He thought the great experiment in which this nation had engaged was one worthy of its character; but after the clear statement made by the Mover of the address, which was uncontradicted by any Member of Her Majesty's Government, he saw no other conclusion to which he could come, but that the great experiment which had been made had wholly and totally failed. The very policy which led this country to allow the importation of foreign slave-grown sugar could not fail to give a great impetus to the slave trade. We were pursuing a course which involved increased expense to augment the price of the produce which was to be consumed in this country.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I do not mean to dispute that this is a subject very well deserving the most attentive consideration of the House, and that it may very properly he brought before us at a time when a vote of supply is demanded; of course, I admit, that when the Government ask the House to vote money, it is competent for any hon. Member to propose means by which, in his opinion, expenditure may be saved. But, on the other hand, seeing that the whole of this subject was not long ago, and, after considerable debate, referred for examination to a Select Committee, I think the hon. Member (Mr. Baillie) has not exercised a sound discretion in bringing it again before the House on this occasion. If the hon. Member thinks he can prove the matters which he has asserted that he can, I would suggest to him that it would be a

991
more fitting and appropriate course for him to have proved them before the Committee, than to assert that he could prove them in debate, when matters of detail cannot be treated with that sort of accuracy with which a Committee can sift them. Do not let it be understood, as the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seems to suppose from my not having spoken earlier, that I acquiesce at all in the main assertions of my hon. Friend; I feel that it would be inconsistent with the objection I have stated for me to go into any minute reply to the hon. Gentleman. But I would really ask the House to bear in mind, that this is a matter arising, not out of any particular measures of the present or the late Government, but of a system of policy which all Administrations, from 1815 till now, have adopted at the earnest request and entreaty, not only of Parliament, but of a majority of the country; and that we are called upon to reverse that whole policy at once and hastily, by an Amendment to the proposal for going into Committee of Supply. I will not go into the argument that we ought to retrace our steps for the suppression of the slave trade, from motives of humanity; I think that is an argument which will not be pressed by any one who has much attended to the subject. But the ground that is taken is, that we have tried this system for thirty years, and that it is acknowledged to have failed. Now, I for one, do not admit that. We have not been trying this for thirty years, at least with means in any degree sufficient for the purpose. We are endeavouring to put down the slave trade by means of the right of search, by which alone a maritime police can be carried on; but, until 1839, we did not possess that right by treaties with other Powers, and the slave trade under the Spanish or Portuguese flags, south of the line, was carried on free from molestation. It is only from 1839 that you can say that the system has had in any degree a fair trial. It is said that it has not produced the effects expected or desired; but the statements of the hon. Member himself (Mr. Baillie) show that to a certain extent at least it has succeeded. He adverted to the great profits made in the slave trade; but they can only be made by the great excess of the value of a slave when sold in America over his value when purchased in Africa, and over the expense of transport; and it is manifest, when such a profit is made, that the supply must fall infinitely short
992
of the demand. Then, it is as demonstrable as a proposition in Euclid, that if you took away those impediments which have narrowed the supply, the two prices would nearly equal each other; and the conclusion is, that the measures of prevention have lessened the number transported from Africa. That fact alone shows that this system has not utterly failed; that if it has not put down the slave trade, it has very materially diminished the number of negroes taken. But it is to be remembered also, that we, that is, the successive Governments of the country, have by negotiation persuaded many countries altogether to abandon the slave trade; that Prance and Holland no longer pursue it, and Portugal scarcely, and that the traffic is now carried on almost entirely by a colony of Spain and by the Brazils. If England had not made the efforts that she has to induce other countries to adopt her view of the criminality of this traffic, in all probability France and Holland, and all countries possessing colonies, would have carried it on to the utmost extent of cultivable land in those colonies; and, therefore, in this matter also, we have been instrumental in preventing a great deal of human suffering. People let the phrase pass from mouth to mouth without examination, that our measures for repressing this crime have greatly aggravated the horrors of the slave trade. I utterly disbelieve it. Why should they? If you tell me of the sufferings of the negroes in the "middle passage" now, I will venture to say I can point you to statements of suffering quite equal in former times. It is said that the slavetraders employ fast-sailing vessels; but the greater the value of the negro in America, the greater the inducement to land there alive as many as possible of the number embarked in Africa; and if our efforts for prevention have given an artificial value to the negro landed in America, we have given the slave-trader a greater interest in taking care to land all that he buys. If, therefore, the practice still prevails of stowing the ships with a greater number than can be landed in America, it arises, not from our measures of prevention, but from the blindness of avarice, which operated equally before we adopted our present system. Again, it is said that we are pursuing methods which render other countries hostile to us. Why, we can exercise no authority or power in this respect but what is conceded to us by the voluntary act of other countries

993
engaging in treaties with us. It is quite true that many of the subjects of Portugal and Brazil concerned in this traffic are animated with feelings of resentment against England for having persuaded their Government to enter into such engagements with us; but that is the hostility of men desirous of committing a crime, towards persons employed in preventing them from committing it. However, I think this is not the proper time to go at large into this great question; the whole subject has been referred to a Committee now engaged in examining every branch of it; and I think the Motion is, in point of time, premature, and in point of form is urging the House to come to a conclusion without waiting for those elements for its decision which the labours and the report of the Committee will place before it.
MR. DISRAELI: The hon. Member for Gateshead thinks that there is some similarity between the speech with which a month ago he favoured the House, and that which has been made to-night by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness. I had not the privilege of listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Gateshead; but I have respect for his talents—of which indeed I have many proofs—that I can easily believe that his speech was as clear and as able as that of my hon. Friend; and as both spoke upon the same subject, I have no doubt there would be some similarity. But I beg to say that there is a difference in the course which has been recommended by him and by the hon. Member for Inverness; for the hon. Member for Gateshead did not recommend the House to do anything, whereas the hon. Member for Inverness recommends the House to act decisively, and with effect. The noble Lord who has just sat down reminds us that on the Motion of the hon. Member for Gateshead the subject had been referred to a Select Committee. Sir, the House agreed to that course; but it agreed to no more than that the question should be referred. But I want the House for a moment to consider this—is the question of so much importance that they wish it to be settled? and if it is a question of so much importance, is the reference of it to a Select Committee exactly the process by which it will be settled? Night after night questions are referred to Select Committees. Two Select Committees have been appointed to-night to decide questions of importance which ought to have been decided,
994
in my mind, by the debates of this House or in the Cabinet. Do you mean to carry out this system? I wish some hon. Member would move for a return of the number of Select Committees now sitting. It would be one of the most remarkable returns ever presented to this House. But if you go on referring subjects of legislation and of administration to Select Committees, there will soon not be a sufficient number of Members to sit upon them. I am at present a Member of a Select Committee of great importance—I regret every hour that I am absent from it—but this afternoon I have been put upon an Election Committee, and I can only account for this by the number of Select Committees which the Government have already been induced to accede to. The present, then, is a different Motion from that of the hon. Member for Gateshead, for it recommends to the House to take a decided and a practical step; and that is the chief if not the only reason why I shall support it. But the noble Lord tells us that though this system has been pursued for a long time, the little effect produced has resulted from its not having been till lately fairly tried. Now mark the reasoning of the noble Lord. I do not charge it against his Government, for I agree with him that the system has been pursued by several Governments. The noble Lord says that this system has not been fairly tried, for it was only in 1839 that the right of search, which the noble Lord represents as a necessary ingredient of the system, was conceded. We know that this right of search was obtained only in 1839; but we know, also, that six years afterwards you again renounced it. I think, therefore, we have a right to suppose that in the right of search there is something impracticable—something that, when its action is clearly developed, is found to be so much opposed to the reciprocal intercourse of nations, that the more the system is pursued, the more you are forced to renounce that which you acknowledge to be necessary to the system. Well, then, I take the case on the broad ground on which it has been placed by my hon. Friend. There is a great cry for economy, and an acknowledged difficulty with regard to the revenue of the country. Now we have shown to us a sum which may certainly be counted at a million per annum expended on a service of a questionable character, and which prevents to that extent a reduction in taxation, that

995
you, the representatives of the people, night after night declare to be of the utmost importance to your constituents. Acknowledging, which I do not—admitting, which I am not prepared to do—that the system has been successful, still it is a question whether it is politic and expedient now to pursue it. It would be your duty, if it were successful, to calculate whether the interest and advantage of your constituents is not on the side of your terminating the system, and in expending the money in some way or other to the advantage of the people of this country. It is impossible, after what we have heard of the distresses of the country—it is impossible now, when the resources of the country are universally admitted to be in a state of embarrassment—it is impossible that a deaf ear should be turned by Members to a remonstrance which points to a principle of questionable policy, expending a sum which cannot amount to less than a million a year of the national resources, and adding to the expenditure of eighty millions which has already been wasted during the last thirty years in the same manner. But I ask the House if one statement made by my hon. Friend has been met? The noble Lord says, indeed, with regard to the increase of sufferings alleged by my hon. Friend, that he doubted—he denied—that there had been any increase of suffering. But the noble Lord did not deign to enter into details, or circumstances, or facts, to shake our faith in the lucid statements of my hon. Friend. I will put this point to the noble Lord. The possession of a certain number of water casks is made the test by your system of the ship being a slaver. What is the consequence? The consequence is that these ships do not take on board that number of water casks. The consequence is, that there is not a sufficient supply of water—that only once in two days the slaves get what is called a drink of water. That is the consequence of your treaties and your legislation; and yet you say that by them the sufferings of the slave have not been increased. This is evidence which was given a few days ago before your Committee, which is not a Secret Committee; and it is a clear proof that the sufferings of the slaves are greatly increased by this system. Well now, if, as regards the financial statements of my hon. Friend, and if as regards the increase of sufferings on the part of the slaves, his statements have not
996
been doubted or disproved, I beg the House to recollect a third great question in this system—the national discontent which it has created, the misunderstandings between this country and others of which it has been the fruitful parent. We know very well—take one instance which occurs to me, and which must occur to every one—take the case of Brazil. Even now, in this day of unadulterated free imports, we hear hon. Gentlemen express their regret that we have not made a treaty with Brazil. It was only the other night that the noble Lord regretted the failure of these negotiations, attributing it to the pride of the Brazilians, who fancied theirs was the most important trade in the world. I have no hesitation in saying that if not the sole, at least one of the principal causes of the discomfiture of the negotiations with the Court of Rio for a commercial treaty, is our conduct with regard to the slave trade. That is a difficulty which meets us in every court and in every colony. And if we see that this system is a source of vast expenditure—if we see that it causes an increase in the sufferings of the slave population, for whom we have sacrificed and are still prepared to sacrifice so much—and if, in the third place, we see that this system is fruitful in national misconceptions, and is the cause of failure in the subject of our commercial negotiations, which are now so important—if we see these three great allegations sustained by facts—then I say this House will listen with attention and respect to any hon. Member who calls upon us to put an end to it. But when we remember that in addition to these three reasons an appeal has been made to us, on the ground that there is, at this moment, great national suffering and great financial embarrassment—night after night hon. Members are racking their brains to know how to find the ways and means—then, I say, every hon. Gentleman would incur great responsibilities if he did not attend to the representations which have been made by the hon. Member for Inverness, and if he did not give his vote in support of the hon. Member. That will add to the national credit, and prove to the people of this country that we are prepared to reduce the establishments, not in those departments which are necessary to the maintenance of its honour and power, but where, through a long series of years, we have attempted to realise ideas which were founded in ignorance of human nature and

997
of the state of the world. For these reasons I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONexplained that the right of search he referred to as necessary to a fair trial of the system was a right of searching vessels under the Spanish and Portuguese flags, and that that right had not been given up.
SIR T. D. ACLANDagreed with the hon. Member who had spoken last, though on different and higher grounds than he had taken, that they ought not to be regardless of the character of the country, which he thought they would be if they were now to abandon a system which had for its object the highest point of redeeming benevolence. He thought they would at least better maintain their credit by showing that if they were to change their policy they would not do it on light grounds—that they would not overturn in the debate of a single night the policy that they had steadily pursued for thirty years. The hon. Member who proposed the Amendment spoke of the health of the squadron, and pointed to the reports of 1845 and 1848, as if they were contradictory of each other. He certainly thought they required explanation; but that only showed the more the danger of acting precipitately. From the information he had received he had reason to believe that the last return was the more correct one. On the 7th of April last. Commodore Hotham wrote to inform the Lords of the Admiralty that the general health of the squadron was excellent—that the per centage of deaths, including the hospital, did not exceed 4¾ per cent, which would be considered a marvellous low average in any part of the world. This was altogether in the face of the report for 1845, which stated the loss of life in the squadron at 250, with a sickness of nearly equal amount. If this discrepancy existed with regard to figures, how much more likely was it to occur in questions which, after all, were matters of opinion. In the same despatch from which he had already quoted, Commodore Hotham said it was the general opinion of the best informed persons at Sierra Leone, that the slave trade in that neighbourhood had received a decided check, and that the natives were beginning to turn their attention to legitimate traffic, rather than engage in the precarions trade of slaving. In that sentence, he thought, was contained the whole philosophy of the question. He was satisfied that the system
998
of a maritime police alone could not put an end to slavetrading. His opinion was, that by checking the traffic in slaves, they would give the legitimate traffic room to operate, and then the natives would learn that the labour of a man was more valuable than the sale of his person. And here he must warn hon. Gentlemen interested in the commerce of the West Indies, that there were other interests which could not go on without the protection of our Navy. The legitimate traffic with Africa had greatly increased within the last twenty years. The declared value of our exports to the west coast of Africa was, in 1826, 150,000 l., while a year or two ago it amounted to more than 500,000 l. This legitimate commerce was still going on, and he had no doubt it would ultimately abolish the slave trade, but, in the meantime, it needed the protection of the Navy.
LORD J. RUSSELL: I wish to address a few observations to the House, not upon the general subject of the efficacy of the system adopted with respect to the slave trade, but with reference to the position of the question as it stands before us. I will, therefore, abstain from entering into any discussion as to whether we have thrown away a vast sum of money, and aggravated the horrors of the slave trade by our efforts to suppress it; but I venture to remind the House that according even to the statement of those Members who urge those considerations upon our attention, this course has now for more than thirty years, under different Administrations, been continued at a cost of 80,000,000 l. Is it then reasonable, even supposing a primâ facie case to be established against the system, that at a time when a Committee is actually sitting to inquire into the facts of the case, and on a night devoted to the consideration of the Army Estimates, when no one supposed that such a question would be seriously discussed, we should be called upon to subvert the policy which has been pursued for thirty years; to render nugatory all the vast expenditure of treasure which has taken place; and to rush, without seeing our way, into a new system which we are to-night told will lead to happier results? That is the question with respect to which the House is really called upon to decide. The House has already decided on a course; upon the proposition of the hon. Member for Gateshead it has appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the subject.

999
When that Committee shall have brought its labours to a conclusion, and its report, accompanied by the evidence, shall confirm the representations made by the hon. Member for Inverness, it will be time enough for the House to adopt the course which the hon. Member calls upon us now to pursue; or it may be that the House will see cause to modify the system, without altogether abandoning it. I am not prepared to admit that the abandonment of our system of maritime police on the coast of Africa might not have a prejudicial effect on the interests of this country. My hon. Friend who has just spoken has referred to the extension of our commerce with the coast of Africa. There can be no doubt that, as regards a large portion of the African coast, the slave trade has been superseded by legitimate commerce, and that year by year civilisation is extending itself amongst the inhabitants. But if it were advisable to alter your policy as regards the slave trade, surely it would not be advisable to take away the protection to legitimate commerce. The question is not simply whether you will continue the system in its present shape or abandon it altogether; for you may probably find, when the evidence of the Committee now sitting is laid before you, that there are various considerations and various courses of policy on which you will have to deliberate, and when it may be found that you will have to alter some parts of your policy, while there are other parts which you cannot consent to abandon. The hon. Member who introduced this subject, presuming that a case was made out, has referred to the question as one simply of economy; but let me again refer to what is really the fact, that we have this question under inquiry, and that the result of that inquiry may be to confirm the faith of those who now believe that the system has been successful, and is likely to be so in future. Supposing that to be the case, would it be very creditable to this House at once, on a question of economy, to abandon that system at the present moment? The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire has said in effect—"Secure your power; secure all those establishments that are necessary for the dignity of the country and the real business of the Executive; but upon this, a mere question of humanity, cut down your establishments, and thus relieve the burdens of the country." Sir, I can conceive no course so little honourable to this House as to say—"Here are
1000
establishments which it is necessary to our power that we shall keep up—powers which, for the sake of the Executive Government, it is necessary that we shall keep up; but this is an item coming under the head humanity—you may make a million by abandoning it—humanity is not necessary—let us get rid of so much taxation, and save so much in the estimates." What I wish the House to consider is, that this is a question not to be decided summarily on the strength of a statement made by an hon. Gentleman on a day devoted to other business—but it is a question to be decided after due examination and consideration. The hon. Member for Montrose says—and I wish I could agree with him in all his anticipations—that it will be found that free labour is less expensive than slave labour, and that if it receive proper encouragement it will beat slave labour out of the field. Now my expectations go a good way with his; and I am inclined to believe that with due encouragement to free labour, which I cannot say that we have given to the extent that we ought—I say that I am inclined to hope that free labour will be able to compete successfully with slave labour. But if we have not given sufficient encouragement to free labour—if rightly or wrongly our fears of the slave trade have induced us to place impediments in the way of free labour—so that where there is a great quantity of labour at hand, as in India, capital has not been applied for the purposes of cultivation—surely. Sir, that very fact forms a reason for our not acting precipitately, and for using due deliberation ere we attempt to make any change in our system. You may find, a year hence, that you can safely abandon a great part of your present system, if free labour is able to compete successfully with slave labour. On that ground you may act with confidence, and you will not have to reproach yourselves with having abandoned a system which would have led you, had you persevered in it, to a successful result.
SIR R. PEEL: I am not one of those who think this a convenient occasion to revive the discussion that took place in 1845, as to the policy of the treaty then entered into with France, for the purpose, not of abrogating the rights we then possessed, but of substituting some other system for the suppression of the slave trade, that was thought likely to be more efficaciously applied than that which we then

1001
possessed; but I think, not with standing the explanation of the noble Lord, the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire still seems to labour under misapprehension as to the extent to which this country has relinquished the right of search. We possessed the right of search in 1845 in regard to all those countries that carried on the slave trade. We had the right of search in respect to Portuguese vessels, in respect to Spanish vessels, and in respect to the vessels of Brazil. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that, by the transactions of 1845, the right of search was abandoned by this country with regard to the vessels of Powers carrying on the slave trade; but, in fact, we retain at this moment, in 1848, in full possession every right of search that we had at the commencement of 1845 with regard to vessels of any country excepting France. We have still a full and complete right of search as to Portugal, the Brazils, and Spain. As to the policy of the treaty of 1845, when that subject was discussed in this House with a full knowledge of the facts—with the most recent and complete information as to the policy of Government—the policy in question met with the almost unanimous approbation of the House—the noble Lord, who disapproved of that policy, although he brought forward a Motion on the subject, not caring to take the opinion of the House, because he admitted that it would be against his views, and limiting himself simply to a demand for papers. Well, but what was relinquished in 1845? We had the right of search reciprocally with France, extending along the whole of the west coast of Africa—we had no right of search along the eastern coast at all, and only on certain portions of the sea lines of Cuba, the Brazils, and Madagascar. With respect to French vessels, indeed, we had no right of search at a higher latitude than that of ten degrees. France and England were to give warrants granting the right of search of the vessels of the two countries respectively in those parts where the right was reciprocal; but we were not entitled to ask for warrants for more than double the ships held by France. Consequently, if France were jealous of British power, and if she objected to this right of search, by limiting the number of vessels for which she made application for warrants, she had the power of preventing us from employing any greater number of warrants than she chose. If she employed, for example, only five vessels on the coast of Africa, we had power to employ
1002
only ten. France, I believe it is admitted, does not carry on the slave trade. I believe there is no suspicion of French vessels carrying on that traffic; but this House feared that slave vessels might assume the French flag, and accordingly we still have the right of visiting French vessels under the restrictions I have specified. It did appear to us that if we could insure the co-operation of France, even with limited powers of search, the moral influence of two such great Powers acting cordially in concert with each other would be more efficacious for the suppression of the slave trade than the course previously followed. It was no unseemly deference to French opinions or prejudices that led us to adopt the Treaty of 1845. We had a bonâ fide belief that in the state of opinion then prevalent in France, with respect to the right of search, we were more likely, by the provisions of this treaty, to have efficacious aid from that country than if we insisted on maintaining the right given to us by the Treaty of 1838. I am not in a position to give an opinion as to the result of this arrangement equal to that which can no doubt be given by the members of Her Majesty's Government; but I must again remark, that our right of search has not in the slightest degree been affected by the Treaty of 1845. With respect to the present Motion, I shall certainly feel it my duty to vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Inverness. That Motion might have been very good if moved as an amendment on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hutt) a month ago. He moved that the House should go into a full inquiry as to the policy of adhering to our present system. The House assented to that Motion, and a large number of Members have accordingly been applying themselves to the question. I did not object to that Motion, though I participate in the opinion expressed tonight by an hon. Member, that there is great evil in appealing too frequently to the opinions of Select Committees. There is a danger of weakening the power of the Executive Government; but I am not quite sure that this is not a case in which the House is specially called upon to make inquiry, because our present policy for the suppression of the slave trade is not so much the policy of the Government as of the country and the House itself. The House in 1839 did, on the Motion of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, with an unanimous voice, address the Crown to enter into fresh

1003
treaties, and invoke in a greater degree than before the aid of other Powers for the suppression of the slave trade. And is this house to vote to-night an address to the Crown, praying that the Crown should enter into negotiations for the purpose of abrogating the treaties that exist for that purpose? It is possible that the House may have changed its opinion; but I think it should be our policy not to take that step without having instituted a full inquiry as to the efficacy of the system which was imposed on the Executive Government by this House. If that system has failed, it is open to the House to revoke it; but for the credit of the House, surely, that decisive step ought not to be taken without that full inquiry, the necessity for which in this case justified the appointment of the Committee, in order, if possible, to throw the fullest light upon the subject. That Committee is already formed; it has summoned before it many of the most distinguished officers who have been employed upon the service; and I, for one, am disposed to suspend my judgment until the report of that Committee be brought forward. I wish to leave my mind free upon the subject, and therefore I must decline stating my own impressions, founded upon the facts which have already reached us, until I have the fullest information possible on the subject. There has been a change, no doubt, with respect to the sugar duties. It is impossible not to feel that the admission of slave-grown sugar may have made a material alteration in the case. I pronounce no opinion. It may be shown that that admission may only increase the necessity for vigorous exertions on the coast of Africa. We have heard to-night of the enormous profits of the slave trade—amounting often to 400 and 500 per cent—and I certainly am not prepared to say that our efforts to suppress the trade should be relaxed, and that having opened our markets to slave-grown sugar, we should leave the coast of Africa open to the traffic of slavetraders. Neither am I prepared to assent to the proposition which would compel the Executive Government to appeal to France; and I say so without referring to all the considerations which must be presented to our minds upon that subject at the present moment. I am not prepared to assent to a proposition which would fetter the hands of the Executive Government, by resolutions adopted without inquiry—nay, adopted in the face of the inquiry which not a fortnight ago we assented to—a proposition
1004
by the execution of which the authority of the Executive Government with France would certainly not be much increased, and certainly would not be likely to add much to that of the House of Commons. It is a better course, I apprehend, to leave the matter in the hands of the Executive Government. It is a course, indeed, only consistent with good policy, and with the character of this House, if, having assented to an inquiry, we permit it to take its course, and to lay before us all the information which it is likely to supply, before we take any decisive step in the matter to which that inquiry relates.
MR. BOUVERIE, amidst calls for a division, said, that the question was, whether the policy which they had been pursuing, expending millions of money and sacrificing hundreds of lives, was a right and just policy or not? Was it right to tax the people of this country for an object which did not properly fall within the range of the Government at all?
The House divided, on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 216; Noes 80: Majority 136.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Charteris, hon. F.

Adair, R. A. S.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Adderly, C. B.

Childers, J. W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Christy, S.

Anderson, A.

Clay, Sir W.

Anson, hon. Col.

Clay, J.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Armstrong, R. B.

Clerk, right hon. Sir G.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Cocks, T. S.

Codrington, Sir W.

Ashley, Lord

Coke, hon. E. K.

Baring, H. B.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Coles, H. B.

Barnard, E. G.

Colvile, C. R.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Compton, H. C.

Bellew, R. M.

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Courtenay, Lord

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Craig, W. G.

Bourke, R. S.

Currie, H.

Bowles, Adm.

Currie, R.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Damer, hon. Col.

Brackley, Visct.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Bramston, T. W.

Davies, D. A. S.

Brisco, M.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Brockman, E. D.

Deedes, W.

Brotherton, J.

Dod, J. W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Buller, C.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Bunbury, E. H.

Dnff, G. S.

Busfeild, W.

Duncuft, J.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Dundas, Adm.

Cardwell, E.

Dundas, Sir D.

Carew, W. H. P.

Dunne, F. P.

Carter, J. B.

Ebrington, Visct.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Edwards, H.

Cayley, E. S.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

1005

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Morpeth, Visct.

Evans, W.

Morison, Gen.

Farrer, J.

Morris, D.

Ferguson, Col.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Napier, J.

Floyer, J.

Norreys, Lord

Foley, J. H. H.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Forbes, W.

Paget, Lord A.

Fordyce, A. D.

Paget, Lord C.

Forster, M.

Paget, Lord G.

Fox, R. M.

Palmerston, Visct.

Fox, W. J.

Parker, J.

Freestun, Col.

Patten, J. W.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Pechell, Capt.

Glyn, G. C.

Peel, right hon. Sir R.

Gordon, Adm.

Philips, Sir G. R.

Grace, O. D. J.

Pigott, F.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Pinney, W.

Greene, T.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Grenfell, C. P.

Power, N.

Grenfell, C. W.

Pugh, D.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Pusey, P.

Grey, R. W.

Rawdon, Col.

Guest, Sir J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Reynolds, J.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Ricardo, O.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Rich, H.

Hawes, B.

Romilly, J.

Hay, Lord J.

Russell, Lord J.

Hayes, Sir E.

Russell, F. C. H.

Hayter, W. G.

Rutherfurd, A.

Headlam, T. E.

Sandars, G.

Heathcoat, J.

Scrope, G. P.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Seymour, Sir H.

Henry, A.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Heywood, J.

Shelburne, Earl of

Hodges, T. L.

Sheridan, R. B.

Hodges, T. T.

Smith, right hon. R. V.

Hood, Sir A.

Smith, J. A.

Hope, Sir J.

Smith, M. T.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Hutt, W.

Spearman, H. J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Jermyn, Earl

Stanton, W. H.

Jervis, Sir J.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Strickland, Sir G.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Jones, Sir W.

Thompson, Col.

Jones, Capt.

Thornely, T.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Kershaw, J.

Tollemache, J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Townshend, Capt.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Traill, G.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Turner, G. J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Tynte, Col. C. J. K.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Vane, Lord H.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Verney, Sir H.

Macnamara, Maj.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Ward, H. G.

M'Gregor, J.

Watkins, Col.

M'Naghten, Sir E.

Wawn, J. T.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Magan, W. H.

West, F. R.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Westhead, J. P.

Maitland, T.

Willcox, B. M.

Marshall, W.

Williamson, Sir H.

Martin, J.

Wilson, J.

Matheson, A.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Matheson, Col.

Wyvill, M.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Yorke, H. G. R.

Miles, P. W. S.

TELLERS.

Milnes, R. M.

Tufnell, H.

Monsell, W.

Hill, Lord M.

1006

List of the NOES.

Alcock, T.

Knox, Col.

Alexander, N.

Law, hon. C. E.

Anstey, T. C.

Lockhart, A. E.

Bankes, G.

Lushington, C.

Benbow, J.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Bennet, P.

Meagher, T.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Masterman, J.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Blandford, Marq. of

Moore, G. H.

Blewett, R. J.

Mowatt, F.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Nugent, Sir P.

Bright, J.

O'Connor, F.

Broadley, H.

Osborne, R.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Pearson, C.

Burroughes, H. N.

Pilkington, J.

Castlereagh, Visct.

Raphael, A.

Clifford, H. M.

Roche, E. B.

Cobden, R.

Salwey, Col.

Crawford, W. S.

Scholefield, W.

Disraeli, B.

Seymer, H. K.

Douro, Marq. of

Shafto, R. J.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Sidney, Ald.

Duncan, G.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Dundas, D.

Stafford, A.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Ewart, W.

Stuart, Lord D.

Fagan, W.

Stuart, J.

Fergus, J.

Sturt, H. G.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Sullivan, M.

Fuller, A. E.

Tancred, H. W.

Greene, J.

Thompson, G.

Gywn, H.

Trelawny, J. S.

Hall, Sir B.

Urquhart, D.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Wakley, T.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Hope, H. T.

Williams, J.

Hornby, J.

Wood, W. P.

Hudson, G.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Ingestre, Visct.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

TELLERS.

Ker, R.

Baillie, H.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Hume, J.

FORCIBLE EJECTMENTS (IRELAND).
On the question that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of Supply,
MR. P. SCROPErose to move an humble Address to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to direct an indictment to be preferred by Her Majesty's law officers against the parties concerned in the illegal destruction of several houses, and the forcible ejectment of their inmates, which took place within the union of Galway, on or about New Year's day last, and which appears to have occasioned the deaths of several of the unfortunate beings so ill-treated, by the evidence taken on oath before Major M'Kie, poor-law inspector of the union, by order of the Commissioners; which evidence is printed at length in p. 467 of the fifth series of papers relating to the relief of distress and state of the unions in Ireland; thereby to show, by a practical example to the

1007
people of Ireland, that the law affords its protection to the lives and property of the poor as well as of the rich, and that it can and will be enforced by the Government when broken against the one no less than against the other. It was a question of the very highest importance—a subject of the most serious and weighty character. The facts on which he relied affected those very classes in Ireland who deserved the most attentive consideration of the House. It was the poorest of the people in that unhappy land who had been thrust out of their houses at the dead of night, and left houseless wanderers on the face of the earth. With guards of the military and police, they were sent out of their houses, and with a small sum of money, were left to wander over the world. Several attempts of the hon. Member to read some extracts having been met with opposition, he concluded by putting the Motion of which he had given notice.
MR. E. B. ROCHErose to encourage the hon. Member to proceed in his Motion. He hoped, notwithstanding the impatience of the House, and the unwillingness with which they had heard the hon. Member, that he would press this question, which was one of the greatest importance to the poor people of Ireland. The houses of the poor were pulled down without either justice or law, and he submitted that the hon. Member should be heard on the Address.
The ATTORNEY GENERALthought that he could relieve the hon. Gentleman from the difficulty in which he was placed. He had asked whether an indictment was to be preferred by the law officers of the Crown against the parties concerned in the illegal destruction of several houses in Gal-way, as appeared by the evidence taken before Major M'Kie, the poor-law inspector of the union of Galway. There was no doubt of the law upon the subject. If a landlord gave a notice to quit to a tenant, after the period of his tenancy had expired, such landlord had a perfect right to enter the premises, provided he did so peaceably. If he entered by force he might be indicted for such forcible entry; and if a riot was occasioned, the party might be indicted for a riot. If, on the other hand, the entry was made before the notice to quit had expired, and before the term for which the tenant held his lease had ended, the tenant was entitled to a civil remedy. Of the law there was no doubt whatever. He apprehended that it was not usual in this country, certainly not in Ireland, to make
1008
any amount of private wrong the subject of a public indictment.
MR. S. CRAWFORDcomplained that in a case of such atrocity the House was told that it was not the duty of the Government to institute an inquiry. He knew it was an indictable offence, as the Attorney General had stated, and that the parties might be taken before a magistrate; but what were the poor people to do when the magistrate himself was the party concerned in the ejectment? for Mr. Blake, who was the party accused of this inhuman act, was himself in the commission of the peace. He considered it was the duty of the Government immediately to send down a Commission to find who was to blame.
The EARL of ARUNDEL and SURREYhad seen the evidence relating to this monstrously cruel transaction; and if it were not the practice of Government to indict in such cases, the sooner that became the practice the better.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, this was a question of far more importance than the one which had engaged the attention of the House for the last five hours. They had been discussing African slavery; but he must be permitted to ask whether Irish slavery, and the murder of the Irish people, were not more important than the mitigation of African slavery? He had heard with deep regret the reply of Her Majesty's Attorney General, that the only remedy in this dreadful case was to be obtained by resorting to what was called the ordinary operation of the law, as that amounted to the fact that there was no redress at all, considering the power of the oppressor and the weakness of the oppressed. The accused in this case, Mr. Blake, a magistrate of the county of Galway, had admitted in the evidence that he had unhoused the people without the sanction of either law or justice, and sent them forth upon the wide world in the inclement month of December, and that lives had been sacrificed in consequence. If there were no law to punish this conduct, he would still ask the Government whether this magistrate was to be allowed to remain in the commission of the peace? He recollected that Mr. Alexander O'Driscoll, a Cork magistrate, had been dismissed for striking a boy while he was engaged in his magisterial duties; but that offence was a most venial one compared to that of Mr. Blake. He cautioned the House against passing over the offence of Mr. Blake, for if they did, it would teach the people of Ireland that they were to

1009
have no redress under such atrocious circumstances, and their confidence in the justice of that House, which was every day diminishing, would become
"Small by degrees, and beautifully less."
He appealed to the House whether it was not indispensably necessary to institute an inquiry, and called upon the Government, if it had no power to prosecute, to do the next best thing, and dismiss Mr. Blake from his office as a magistrate, since he was charged with the commission of a most atrocious offence, on the authority of Major M'Kie, a gentleman holding a commission in Her Majesty's service.
SIR R. PEEL: I can easily believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General is perfectly correct in stating that, according to the existing law, the Government cannot interfere in this matter; but if that be so, it is the more incumbent upon us, when cases of this kind are brought under the notice of the House, where the law affords no remedy, and where the Government are powerless, to exercise at any rate the moral power which we possess, by marking our indignation against such occurrences. I shall read to the House what is the report of a military man on the case—a person employed by Government, and in whose statements apparently the utmost confidence may be placed; and I doubt whether in any country calling itself civilised, a case of more grievous injustice ever occurred. Major M'Kie, in his report to the Poor Law Commissioners, stated, that—
"It would appear from the evidence recorded, that the forcible ejectments were illegal; that previous notices had not been served; and that the ejectments were perpetrated under circumstances of great cruelty. The time chosen was for the greater part nightfall on the eve of the new year. The occupiers were forced out of their houses with their helpless children, and left exposed to the cold on a bleak western shore in a stormy winter's night; that some of the children were sick; that the parents implored that they might not be exposed, and their houses left till the morning; that their prayers for mercy were vain; and that many of them have since died. I have visited the ruins of these huts (not at any great distance from Mr. Blake's residence); I found that many of these unfortunate people were still living within the ruins of those huts, endeavouring to shelter themselves under a few sticks and sods, all in the most wretched state of destitution; many were so weak that they could scarcely stand when giving their evidence. The site of these ruins is a rocky wild spot, fit for nothing but a sheep walk."
That these ejectments were illegal is expressly stated in the report of this gentleman
1010
to the Commissioners. I know, however, that the law is powerless in procuring redress in such cases; but I know also, that the mere statement of the facts in the House of Commons, accompanied with the expression of such feelings as can alone he excited when such facts are narrated to us, will not be without its influence; and I must say that we owe an obligation to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Scrope) for bringing forwerd this Motion; for not having permitted this ponderous volume to rest in oblivion; and for having invited us, by our comments, to mark our sense of the proceedings referred to.
MR. HUMEwished to ask whether there was any Government in Ireland, and if so, why it did not deem it a duty to interfere in such a case as this? Were there any public officers to take cognizance of these things? If not, would it not be much better to let the people of Ireland govern themselves, than to allow such scenes as those they had heard described to-night occur again? He was not at all surprised that there should be a call for a repeal of the Union. They had, in the course of their debates, spoken of the sufferings of slaves in the middle passage; but they had now evidence that even more grievous sufferings might have to be endured in the midst of civilised life. This was a case which put the Government on their trial. Why, he would ask, had not the Government, through their officers, taken cognizance of these outrages against the common feelings of humanity? He trusted Her Majesty's Ministers would not rely upon moral influence alone, as suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth; but that, if the law was not sufficient to protect the poor and helpless from the tyranny of their landlords, the Government would at once bring in a measure to afford them that protection. He was quite shocked at the statements he had heard; he was not aware of anything having occurred of so distressing a nature; and he hoped the Government would not lose a day before devising means for preventing the recurrence of such outrages against the people.
SIR G. GREYsaid, it was quite evident the hon. Member for Montrose had not read the papers that were before the House relating to these occurrences. If he had, the hon. Gentleman would have seen that it was through the instrumentality of the Government that the statement of facts which had so strongly excited his indignation

1011
had been disclosed. The question with reference to the conduct of Mr. Blake simply was, whether he had, as alleged, illegally destroyed these houses? That question had been submitted to the law officers of the Crown; and, in the absence of the Attorney General, he (Sir G. Grey) on a former occasion ventured to say that upon the statement of the facts, the Government had no power to institute a criminal prosecution against Mr. Blake for what he had done. His hon. and learned Friend had since then declared that the opinion which he (Sir G. Grey) gave was perfectly correct. At the same time, he (Sir G. Grey) expressed his opinion as to the character of the facts. He did not at all conceal the opinion he entertained as to the nature of those proceedings. His right hon. Friend (Sir W. Somerville) was at present in communication with the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland respecting the facts which had been brought under his consideration; and if it were practicable for any proceedings to be taken in regard to them, there could be no doubt that the Irish Government would immediately institute such proceedings. He (Sir G. Grey) had himself personally communicated with Mr. Hatchell, the Solicitor General for Ireland, and that learned Gentleman had told him that his attention had already been directed to a case of a similar character—that of Mr. St. George, which had been alluded to on a former occasion—and his (Mr. Hatchell's) opinion was, that although there was a case of apparent illegality, yet there was not, in fact, any case of real illegality. The circumstances were these: the middleman was legally ejected, and those who held under him were necessarily ejected also, the latter parties not being entitled to any notice to quit from the superior landlord. He mentioned this to show that there were no legal means at present existing to check proceedings of this kind; at the same time, he hoped it would convince hon. Members that it was not to be assumed there were obvious cases of criminality which might have been prosecuted, but that the Government had shrunk from discharging their duty in that respect.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, that the whole conduct of the Government, both in relation to this atrocious affair, and to the administration of the poor-law generally, acquitted them entirely of the charges made against them. It was not to be expected that these ponderous blue volumes should be waded though except by those who had
1012
a local interest in the details; but he called upon the House and the country to remember how the Irish Members had acted on a former occasion. They had been told that cases like this would happen; and when the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry was pressed upon the Government and the House, that Committee was refused. He did not now impugn the wisdom of this refusal; but he called attention to the way in which the arrangements then made told on this inhuman and cruel transaction. If a smaller area of taxation had been agreed to, Mr. Blake would have had to bear the burden of his own poor, and not have been enabled to cast out his impoverished tenantry to be supported by others. He was sure that the disinclination the House had shown to listen to the hon. Member (Mr. Scrope) arose from its unwillingness to discuss incidentally a matter which called for a graver treatment and a different temper than the House could be expected to give at so advanced a period of the evening.
MR. O'CONNORcondemned the Attorney General for the heartless manner in which he got up and told the House that there was no law in existence to meet the case. If property had been touched, there would have been a law, or, if not, one would have been quickly proposed; but when the lives of the poor Irish were at stake, the House treated the matter with cold indifference. He would tell the Government that theirs was an exterminating Government, and that they refused to look after the interests of the people, though they were dying by thousands every day, while the landlords received every advantage they asked. He felt insulted as an Irishman when he saw the people starving upon a land large enough and fertile enough to maintain them all in affluence, contentment, comfort, and peace. Let the Government look to what was passing in other countries, and then say whether this was a time to trifle with the people. They sympathised with Poland; but while Poland was redolent only of the fresh blood of the martyrs who had fallen for their country, Ireland was stinking with the decomposed carcases of her starving people, who had been cut off by famine, "unhouselled, unanointed, unannealed." ["Oh! oh!"] It was the truth; ten persons had been buried in one coffin.
SIR H. VERNEYsaid, that hon. Members who had talked of Poland and of slavery could not say that any hon. Gentleman

1013
in that House had ever said that those topics were of more importance than the prosperity, the comforts, and the advancement in civilisation of their Irish fellow-subjects. On the contrary, the deepest anxiety had always been manifested; and he believed, from the bottom of his heart, that the sentiments, the opinions, and the statements of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. O'Connor) were entirely destitute of foundation. He believed he spoke the sentiments of every English Gentleman in the House, that they desired to go hand in hand with Ireland to assist her and promote her prosperity. Under the providence of God, they possessed institutions which were the blessing of the country, and which other countries were now endeavouring to secure.
MR. OSBORNEthanked the hon. Member for Stroud for having brought forward this charge. He (Mr. Osborne) was not previously aware that such statements as that which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth had made were contained in the report; and he would ask the Government whether the Lord Chancellor had communicated with Mr. Blake, respecting his situation in the commission of the peace; for if he were cognizant of those proceedings he ought to be dismissed; and, if there were any law in Ireland, he ought to be prosecuted. He found that the son of Mr. Blake, not content with turning the people out of their houses, had actually beaten one within an inch of his life; and if the House did not interfere from motives of humanity, it ought from motives of selfishness; for it could not be expected that if such atrocities were perpetrated with impunity, the people of Ireland would remain contented. He wished to hold no violent language; but, he did gay, that unless the Government took up this subject with a strong hand, and instituted a searching inquiry, it would be impossible to answer for the peace of Ireland from day to day.
COLONEL DUNNEexpressed his abhorrence of the atrocities that were stated to have been committed.
MR. MONSELLsaid, it appeared that the people who were turned out and who died, did not die from want, but from exposure to the weather, being turned out in the middle of the night in snow and rain; and he believed that if the Government acted with vigour, they would establish against the persons guilty of these atrocities the crime of manslaughter. But, although
1014
the Government had been in possession of these facts for months, no steps had been taken to punish the parties concerned in them. He entreated the Government to attend to this, and let the Irish people see that their lives were as much the care of the Government as those of any other persons in the empire.
SIR W. SOMERVILLEcould not say whether those persons could be punished by law; but the attention of his right hon. Friend the Attorney General had been called to it, and the circumstances were now under his consideration.
MR. P. SCROPEreplied, his object was attained by calling attention to the subject. If the law to punish did exist, let it be vindicated, if not, let a law be passed to do justice to all—to the poor as well as to the rich.
Subject at an end.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY—SURVEY OF THE METROPOLIS.
House in a Committee of Supply.
On the question that 40,000 l. be granted for the scientific branch of the service,
MR. WYLDwished to ask the hon. and gallant Officer (Col. Anson), whether any portion of this vote was to be given for the survey of London for the purposes of the Health of Towns Bill?
COLONEL ANSONreplied, that a portion of it would be devoted for that purpose; but the subject would come before them in detail on a future occasion.
The EARL of LINCOLNwished, before the vote was put, some more definite answer was given to the question of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Wyld), as to whether the ordnance survey of the metropolis was to be defrayed out of this vote. It was desirable to know whether it would be necessary to suspend the surveys in the other parts of the country to proceed with that of London. He hoped that they would not suspend the surveys in other parts of the country; for if they were stopped, it would entail great expense hereafter. He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would explain more fully what was the nature of the vote now proposed, and what was the expense of the survey of the metropolis.
COLONEL ANSONwould in the first place answer the last question of the noble Lord. The whole amount of the charge in the Ordnance estimates for the surveys of the United Kingdom was 60,000 l., and the charge for surveying the metropolis

1015
would of course form a considerable item. The expense of the survey of London was at present the charge for triangulation, upon which comparatively few persons were employed, and the expense up to the end of the month would be about 1,000 l. The charge for block plans and engraving would be comparatively large. The block plans would cost between 4,000 l. or 5,000 l., and the engravings nearly 19,000 l. He should state also, there were several other surveys going on for the purpose of engraving plans of large towns. He had been asked by an hon. Member whether the Government intended to have ordnance surveys made of other towns for the purposes of the Health of Towns Bill. There were already in existence a great number of ordnance surveys of large towns many of them engraved, or being engraved. There was a greater demand for such surveys for towns in the manufacturing districts than for those of less importance. Certainly it was not intended to propose such a survey for all the towns in England. It became a question of expense, and it was obvious that such a proceeding must be attended with great expense; but of course it was a matter for the consideration of the House.
MR. HUMEhad not yet heard a distinct answer to the question as to who was to pay for the survey of the metropolis and other towns. He certainly had heard that the survey was to be made by the Ordnance, but had never heard that London or other large towns were not to pay for the expense out of their local funds.
COLONEL ANSONsaid, that the money came out of the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the Ordnance Department permission to draw on account of the expenses, which were estimated at 1,000 l. to the 1st of April. But 500 l. was the amount to be paid in advance for the present. How the whole of the cost was to be finally paid he could not say: that, he conceived, was a question which would lie with the House of Commons. For his own part, he thought the City of London might contribute a portion of it.
MR. WYLDthought the survey for the Sanitary Commission was entirely unnecessary. It was calculated that it would cost 25,000 l. But he was satisfied it would cost at least 200,000 l. The Dublin survey had cost nearly 200,000 l. with the cost of engraving; and it was proposed that there should be a simple block survey of the metropolis at a cost of 20,000 l.
1016
[Colonel ANSON: it was 15,000 l.] It could not be completed for the money. The whole metropolis had been already surveyed under the Parochial Assessment Act, and there could be no need of a further survey. That survey had cost the inhabitants 300,000 l., and they would object to submit to a further demand. A level, indeed, was wanted; but that could be prepared from the parochial survey at a cost of 15,000 l., without bringing a number of surveyors from the northern districts.
MR. OSBORNEthought that with the uncertainty which existed with regard to the block plan, they would be blockheads if they thus voted 1,000 l. to get in the wedge for this triangulation; and where the expense was to end, no person could tell. He did not think they understood what they were going to do, and submitted that the vote should be postponed.
VISCOUNT MORPETHdid not intend to shrink from any representation he had made to his colleagues of the Government. He did not see that there was any injustice to the country in large in doing for London what the inhabitants of London were doing for the country at large. A certain sum was voted every year for the Ordnance survey of the United Kingdom; other towns in the country were now in the course of regular survey; and when it was considered of importance, with a view to sanitary improvements, that a survey should be commenced in London, he did not see the injustice of taking a portion of the sum voted for the whole kingdom, and applying it to the commencement of that work.
The EARL of LINCOLNsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) thought there was no injustice in taxing the rest of the country for this survey of the metropolis; but here, in reality, rested the whole of the question. In the noble Lord's Bill, at least as originally introduced, a provision was made that every town which was surveyed for sanitary purposes was to pay, by a rate imposed upon it, the expense of such survey. If the various towns throughout the country were, in pursuance of that provision, to be obliged to pay such expenses, then undoubtedly it would be a great injustice to take a large and wealthy city like London out of the category. If they paid for the survey of London, why should they not adopt the same rule with regard to York, Nottingham, Bristol, and other towns? In that case, instead of those

1017
towns being rated for the expense of the survey, they too must have their surveys paid for at the public expense. This was not a vote for 1,000 l., but for a much larger sum, and he thought that the House ought to know what the whole estimate would be. It bad been stated at from 20,000 l. to 25,000 l. In a Bill which he had himself proposed to bring in six years ago, the original estimate was between 20,000 l. and 30,000 l., but it gradually rose to above 100,000 l., when he pressed for a more accurate estimate. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord would be prepared with full information before he asked the House for a second vote.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed and adjourned at half-past One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Lord Carleton.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Criminal Law Administration Amendment.
Reported—Queen's Prison.
3a and passed;—Audit of Railway Accounts.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Ipswich and several other Places, against the Admission of Jews into Parliament.—From several Members of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, for the Extension of the Provisions of the Benefit Societies Act to that Order.

CRIMINAL LAW ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL.
LORD CAMPBELLmoved the Second Reading of the Criminal Law Administration Bill, the object of which was to establish a Court of Appeal in criminal cases. A great part of the criminal law in this country was administered at the quarter sessions, and it sometimes happened that very difficult questions of law arose there. When such cases arose, the practice was to lay them, through the instrumentality of the clerk, before the Home Secretary, who called in the Attorney General to advise with him; and it occasionally happened that the question submitted to them was disposed of in a manner that was not at all satisfactory. Even where the cases came before the Judges of Assize, very great inconvenience arose from there being no competent tribunal of appeal. The practice was, that when a point arose before a Judge, on which he did not wish to decide, he reserved it for the opinion of his brethren in Westminster Hall. In the meantime there was a verdict of guilty, and sentence was pronounced; and at the beginning of the ensuing term the Judge stated the case for the opinion of the other Judges. This was not a tribunal sanctioned by the law. The case, when submitted to them, was not regularly argued, and they did not publicly give any judgment upon it; no reason was assigned for the decision to which they came, and if they decided in favour of the party, the only course was that a pardon was granted as if the party had been really guilty of a crime. That was a very defective state of the law, and the object of this Bill was to establish a Court of Appeal for disposing of all points of law which were raised in the administra-

965
tion of criminal justice. When the point arose at quarter sessions, the question was first to be referred to the Judge of Assize, and if he found any difficulty in deciding it, he was to submit it to the Court of Appeal in Westminster Hall. In respect to all cases arising in the first instance before Judges of Assize and in criminal courts, they would be brought before this Court of Appeal, where they would be regularly heard and discussed, and public judgment pronounced upon them. In case the decision of the Judges was in favour of the prisoner, then the judgment would be vacated, and he would be released from all imputation upon his character. Some persons might think the Bill should have gone further, and that it should establish the right to move for a new trial on the facts in all criminal cases, according to the analogy prevailing in civil cases. Though he hoped he had not shown any want of courage in proposing reforms of the law, still he was not prepared to propose to their Lordships that such a system should be established. He was not advised, nor had he heard of any machinery by which that system could be established with advantage to the country. There had been a great deal of exaggeration with regard to the necessity of such a proceeding, although he admitted it would be desirable if it could be done. In civil cases it would be indifferent to the public what delay might arise; but in criminal cases it was necessary that punishment should follow as speedily as possible. Now, one mischief which was likely to arise from the institution of this right of appeal was, that it might enable the rich delinquent so to delay the proceedings as to exhaust the public indignation at his offence by mere lapse of time. This, however, might be provided against; and what he therefore proposed was that the Bill should be now read a second time, and then be referred to a Select Committee, on which he should be glad if even all their Lordships would serve; for his wish was that every kind of information bearing on the subject should be obtained. If it should be thought that a right of appeal on the merits should be given as well as on questions of law, and if such a scheme should be considered practicable, he would be glad to render all the assistance in his power to effect that object. At present he contented himself with confining the appeal to questions of law only.
Bill read 2a.
To be referred to a Select Committee. House adjourned.