Sitting of 18 April 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Naval Prize Balance.
Reported.—Larceny Summary Jurisdiction; Teuants at Rack Rent Relief; Parish Constables; Medical Charities (Ireland).
3° Indemnity.

THE NATIONAL LAND COMPANY.
SIR B. HALLsaid, seeing the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham in his place, he begged to put a question to him in reference to a Bill which before Easter he stated he would introduce as early as possible after the recess, namely, a Bill for the purpose of winding up the affairs of the National Land Company. He begged to ask him whether he now
496
intended to introduce that Bill, and if so, whether in the shape of a public or of a private Bill?
MR. F. O'CONNORsaid, that the hon. Member was quite right in stating that he (Mr. O'Connor) had declared his intention of introducing a Bill upon the subject alluded to. The truth was, he had not been able to be in the House until the night before last, having been ill since some time before Easter. He could tell the hon. Member, however, that he had made an appointment, which that hon. Gentleman was at liberty to attend if he chose—for a consultation to-morrow morning with Mr. Walmsley, of Parliament-street, upon the best mode of accomplishing the object. But he (Mr. O'Connor) had also a question to put to the hon. Baronet—whether it was true that the hon. Baronet had once been the trustee of funds belonging to some poor persons in his neighbourhood?
MR. SPEAKERcalled the hon. and learned Member to order, whereupon Mr. O'Connor resumed his seat.
SIR B. HALLbegged to say one word on what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham.
MR. SPEAKERsuggested that the hon. Member should take some other opportunity. The first Order of the Day related to the Larceny Summary Jurisdiction Bill, and the question before the House was, that the Speaker do now leave the chair. The hon. Member must, therefore, speak to that point.
SIR B. HALLobserved, that he should move the adjournment of the debate. But there would be an opportunity to-morrow of adverting to the matter on which he wished to address the House, when the Secretary for the Treasury moved the adjournment of the House; and he challenged the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham to be then in his place.
Subject dropped.

LARCENY SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGH,MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGH, moved that the House resolve itself into the said Committee upon that day six months, and begged the attention of the House whilst he stated the reasons which had induced him to give notice of the Amendment.

497
He did not wish to forestall any discussion, which might more properly be taken upon particular details of the measure. His objections were to the whole substance of the Bill. In point of principle, he thought it would be admitted that no subject could be more important than that which related to the administration of justice. In point of practice it would be enough for him to call the attention of the House to a return which he had obtained with much care of the total number of committals for trial at the assizes and quarter-sessions in the year ending December, 1849: the return specified the number of committals and the number of prisoners exceeding 16 years of age, together with the number of offences where property was stolen which did not exceed the value of Is. The total committals in 1849, by magistrates, were 2,024 in 52 of the largest towns in England. The total number of crimes committed by persons under 16 years was 251, being about one-eighth of the whole number. The number of offences committed, which did not exceed 1s., were about one-seventh of the whole. The total number of bills ignored was 26. These offences, it was conceded, were committed by persons of the poorer classes of the community, and what he objected to was, that you were proposing to change the statute, where the poor were concerned, while in every instance where the guilt or innocence of the more opulent classes of society was questioned, you left unchanged the ancient principles of the constitution. He thought it would be admitted on all hands, as a principle of the criminal law of this country, that there should be a competent judge, and a competent, impartial, and local jury. It was proposed by this Bill, as far as offences were concerned, to take away from those who were least able to defend themselves by reason of their age or poverty, the protection of a competent judge. It was proposed to substitute nothing which could be compared with what was taken away, and as such it was proposed to establish a principle dangerous to the best interests of society. The object put forward ostensibly was, to save expense to the ratepayers in each locality; and although it appeared a most legitimate object where the ratepayers were concerned, it did appear to be one open to the greatest objection when the pockets of the upper classes were to be saved at the expense of the legal rights and privileges of the lower. He did not know whether it might be
498
superfluous to mention this fact: until an Act of George II. no Judge of assize was allowed to try criminals in his own county. By a statute of Edward III. it was enacted, that where criminals were tried at quarter-sessions, one at least of the magistrates of the quorum should be "learned in the law," in order to act as a check upon the unlearned part of the bench; but this Bill took away altogether the quorum of the quarter-sessions, containing often persons "learned in the law," but substituted any two magistrates of the locality, learned or unlearned; and country Gentlemen might be reminded, without offence, that it was no part of their good qualities to be learned in the criminal statutes. He had obtained the opinions of practical men as to the effect of the Bill if it came into operation. The chairman of the county of Limerick, who had filled that situation for thirteen years, said—
"I am most decidedly opposed to the Bill as it is proposed. I should deeply regret, having to deal myself with criminal cases, to be deprived of the local knowledge of the jury, for, during the experience of many years, I have frequently seen the course of trials changed by the good sense of jurors, upon points material to the issue which had escaped the attention, or were misunderstood by the court or by counsel."
A learned Judge, in Ireland, whose name he forebore to mention, said—
"I think the Bill unnecessary and mischievous, both as regards England and Ireland. It is not what it professes to be—for the relief of prisoners, by accelerating their trials, or for their amendment, by means of proper correction."
One of the ablest judges of the county courts in England (Mr. Temple) had in terms still stronger stated to him (Mr. M'Cullagh) his strong objections to the proposed enactment. And he would say to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who supported this Bill—refer it to the Judges of the supreme courts of criminal jurisdiction, and ask for their advice ere you proceed further. It was no part of his duty to enter into the subject of the unfitness of magistrates to judge of innocence or guilt; but he would remind the House that when they placed the liberty and character of accused persons at the disposal of two magistrates, they were trusting it to the will, the ignorance, the partiality, or the caprice of any two gentlemen who might be upon the bench. If it should be necessary to accelerate trials, the State ought to provide the necessary tribunals. It was out of the

499
question that you gave an option whether the accused would be tried by these two gentlemen or by a jury. This option was not a reality, it was a sham. He would give an instance of what the option was. He heard only this day from the clerk of the peace of Portsmouth, that out of sixty-six cases which had been tried and adjudicated on under the Summary Jurisdiction Act since 1847, in no case was the prisoner told he had the option which it was proposed to insert in this Bill. It was stated, and with considerable force, that in the present state of this country taxation was of such pressure that there should be no waste of the money of the public in making a criminal amenable to justice. He did not suppose that any one in the House could dispute that proposition, or urge one word against its being duly considered; but there was a warning familiar to men, it was the danger of asking for public remedies for mere inconveniences, where departure from custom and principle was implied by the innovation. It was said that this was at most but an experiment. His answer was, experimentalise on yourselves in the first instance. If it were true that there was distrust and disaffection likely to be engendered by such a change in the criminal code, would it not be wiser that you should abolish trial by jury in cases where the high-born and luxurious were concerned, before you trifle with the patience of the ignorant? The opinion which he had received from a barrister whose knowledge as a practitioner at the bar, entitled him to speak with more confidence of the provisions of the Act, was worthy of attention. He said, "I am of opinion that the power of summary conviction ought never to be entrusted to judges in cases involving the infamy of the accused." He therefore did not think they would be acting rightly if they allowed this measure to proceed further without taking the sense of the House upon it.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
SIR G. STRICKLAND, in seconding the Amendment, deeply lamented to see the attempts which were continually made to do away with that which from his earliest years he had been taught to believe was the dearest right of Englishmen—he
500
meant trial by jury. The great objection which he entertained to the present Bill was that it gave to magistrates at petty sessions unlimited power to torture a person under sixteen years by flogging, without the intervention of a jury. It would be, in his opinion, extremely injudicious to give this unconstitutional power at a time when the public indignation had almost put an end to the practice of flogging in the Army. He believed that the old Mosaic law was humane—it provided that the stripes given should not exceed a certain number; but in this case the number was to be left unlimited, and he insisted that this part of the Bill was most unconstitutional. The advantages of trial by jury was, that it forced the judge who presided over the court so to expound the law that it should be understood by the most ordinary minds. But one of his main objections to this Bill was, that it placed authority in the hands of parties who were incompetent to administer the law. The magistracy of this country were perfectly incapable of administering the law in the cases contemplated by this Bill. He himself bad had for twenty-five years the management of the legal business at the petty sessions of the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire, and the result of that experience induced him to believe that the county magistracy were totally incompetent to exercise the power which this Bill would impose upon them. By the 10 & 11 Victoria they had been giving summary jurisdiction to one magistrate at sessions, or to two magistrates at petty sessions, to try and punish and convict, without the intervention of a jury, persons under fourteen years of age. He believed that ever since the time of Sir Matthew Hale fourteen years had been the commencement of the time at which any one was answerable for his acts; but now they were going one step further, and all persons under sixteen years of age were, by a sudden change of the law, called juveniles. To show that this was attracting the attention of all persons, he would read an extract from a well-conducted provincial journal, which stated—
"Let it be considered that this power is unconstitutionally given, at the very time when public opinion—we had almost said public indignation—had almost entirely put an end to the practice of flogging in the Army, where the necessities of discipline might have been some excuse. We believe that the old Mosaic law was humane, and that the number of stripes were defined by legislation. No such thing here. The flogging is un-

501
limited; and we think it might be proved without much difficulty that it gives to these two magistrates the power of life and death."
There was another most unconstitutional provision in this Bill; the learned Judges of the land had never yet been trusted with any such power. The other objection he had to this Bill was the utter incompetency of the tribunal to be entrusted with such a fearful power. The hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich very justly boasted of having been for many years chairman of quarter-sessions; and he said, that having been for many years chairman of quarter-sessions, he had acquired such a knowledge of the law of evidence that he was fully capable of trying a criminal. He objected to this Bill also, because it gave to the magistrate who may convict the criminal the power of nominating the constable who should inflict the punishment to be awarded to the criminal. He sincerely trusted that the Bill would be rejected by the House; and he hoped to live to see the day when the Juvenile Offenders Bill would be repealed. If they passed this Bill, they would entrust into the hands of two magistrates unconstitutional powers which were never given to the Judges of the land. He would let the House know that the real judge in the petty sessions courts was the clerks. That clerk had his own enmities and affections towards individuals in the neighbourhood, and if any of them at any time should appear as criminals before the magistrates, he, no doubt, would use his influence as his disposition directed him. It was said that this Bill would save expense, but, in his mind, it would add to it. There would be no economy in doing away with trial by jury, which was the birthright of Englishmen. He thought that if the Bill were passed, they would lose still more of that popularity which they had already lost to some extent.
SIR J. PAKINGTONsaid, that he thought that the time for debating the principle of the Bill was on the second reading. On the second reading there was a full debate and no division; and though the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had given notice that on that reading he would move an Amendment, yet he sat in his place and moved no Amendment. The Bill was then fixed for Committee; and when it came to that stage an Amendment was moved that the Bill should be divided into two parts. And now, for the third time, the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk moved an
502
Amendment that the House should go into Committee on that day six months. He was now in the hands of the House. If they desired it, he was quite prepared to debate the principle for the third time, and to answer all that had been said against it; but, without disrespect to the hon. Gentleman opposite, he must protest against the practice, and should persist in calling on the House to allow the Bill to go into Committee, when he should be ready to defend every portion of it.
MR. P. H. HOWARDshould give the Bill his strenuous opposition, because he conceived that the powers which it conferred were not in accordance with the spirit of the constitution. As the Bill at present stood, the degrading punishment of flogging might be inflicted on females as well as males. ["No, no!"] Might it not? Then he was glad to find that the Bill was not so odious as he had thought it. It was still sufficiently bad, however, to justify him in offering it every opposition, and he trusted the House would reject it by a triumphant majority, for, without sharing in any feeling of distrust towards his fellow magistrates, he was unwilling to confide to mortal man such an extent of arbitrary power as this Bill proposed.
MR. AGLIONBYhad great confidence both in the justice and the mercy of the magistrates, and if he were a criminal he would infinitely prefer being tried by them than to have the case sent before a jury. He cordially supported the Bill out of mercy towards the prisoners, whether innocent or guilty.
MR. HENLEYwished to know whether the hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, in pursuance of the power given to the Committee, intended to divide the Bill into two parts or not, because upon the answer to that question would depend his vote?
SIR G. GREYwished to say, before the hon. Baronet answered the question, that after the expression of the opinion of the House on a former occasion, it would be the wisest course for the hon. Baronet to consent at once to divide the Bill into two parts. He begged it to be understood that, in going into Committee, he did so for the purpose of supporting that part of the Bill which extended summary jurisdiction to the cases of persons from fourteen to sixteen years of age, and that he expressed no opinion upon any other part of the Bill.
SIR J. PAKINGTONsaid, it was quite

503
true that a majority of the House on a former occasion were in favour of the hon. and learned Recorder's instructions; but, as it was not usual to move an Amendment of such importance without notice, he believed he had a right to consider that division as hardly a fair expression of the opinion of the House. It was therefore his intention, if it was the pleasure of the House to go into Committee, to oppose the division of the Bill into two parts.
MR. LAWdoubted whether it was competent for the hon. Baronet to take the sense of the Committee whether or not they should obey the instructions of the House. But, supposing it was, he begged to remind the hon. Baronet, that, although he did not give notice of his Motion in the precise form he had moved it, he had given notice of one substantially the same, and had only altered it in order to meet a technical objection. Since the hon. Baronet was determined to oppose the division of the Bill into two parts, he (Mr. Law) must take a course which he should not otherwise have felt called upon to pursue, and vote with the hon. Member for Dundalk to negative the Bill altogether.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 76: Majority 57.
Question put, and agreed to.
The House then went into Committee.
Clause 1.
The CHAIRMANannounced that, according to an instruction of the House, the Committee had power to divide the Bill into two parts.
MR. LAW,in accordance with that instruction, begged to move that the Committee leave out all the words in the Bill which referred to adults.
Amendment proposed, page 2, line 28, to leave out the words "exceed the age of sixteen years, and also to all cases in which any person whose age exceeds the age of sixteen years."
SIR J. PAKINGTONinsisted upon the Bill being retained in its original shape.
SIR G. GREYsaid, it was quite true that the terms of the instructions agreed to by the House on a former occasion did not bind the Committee to divide the Bill, but certainly, after the clear and unequivocal expression of the opinion of the House on that point, he did not think it was expedient to reopen the question.
SIR J. PAKINGTONconsidered himself
504
justified in the course he was pursuing in consequence of the want of notice on the previous occasion. In his opinion the second part of the Bill was the most important of the two. Hon. Members who were so opposed to extending summary jurisdiction to adults in petty cases, must have forgotten the statutes which were known as Sir Robert Peel's Acts, by which a large mass of offences were brought under summary jurisdiction, and had given rise to no complaint of want of trial by jury. He maintained that there was a general feeling in favour of that portion of the measure, and that at present a large number of petty cases escaped altogether, because persons would not be at the expense and trouble of going twenty miles to a county town to prosecute before a jury. He denied the charge that it did away with trial by jury. It surely was no boon to a man to be kept in prison some forty or sixty days, in order to be tried by a jury for the offence of stealing an article which was of less value than the smallest current coin of the realm, and for which the jury refused to convict. Let them trust to the discretion of the magistracy of England in the exercise of summary jurisdiction, and there would be no reason to apprehend injustice. If the Bill were a serious encroachment upon trial by jury, he would not propose it, but it was no such thing.
MR. ROBERT PALMERwas of opinion that it would have been much better if the Bill had originally been divided into two parts, because there was no necessary connection between them; but he should vote with the hon. Member for Droitwich against the division of the Bill into two, because he saw that the desire of those who advocated the division was to get rid of the latter part altogether.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 102: Majority 52.
SIR G. GREYobserved, that the alteration which had just been effected would not render it necessary to begin de novo. It was competent to the Committee to proceed with the remaining portion of the Bill.
SIR J. PAKINGTONunderstood, then, that he was to proceed with the first part of the Bill.
MR. HUMEsuggested that as it had now been decided to divide the Bill, the better course would be for the Chairman to

505
do so at once, and then report progress, in order that the two Bills might be printed in their separate shape before they were called upon to consider them further.
SIR J. PAKINGTONthought as there appeared to be a general feeling in favour of the first part of the Bill, they might go on with that now, leaving the latter part to be dealt with as a separate measure hereafter.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, they ought to understand what the Bill was. The whole of the Bill now before them was to extend the summary jurisdiction of magistrates in the case of young persons from fourteen years, as the law now stood, to sixteen years of age; and the question which the Committee had to decide was, whether it was advisable to give justices at petty sessions the power of flogging and imprisoning children of sixteen years of age summarily. The whole Bill was confined to giving the magistrates the opportunity of enjoying this pleasure. Every step of the proceeding went towards depriving the people of this country of trial by jury. By whom was this bill brought in? By a Chairman of Quarter Sessions, one of a class for whom, abstractedly speaking—as Martinus Scriblerus towards the Lord Mayor riding on a great horse—he had great respect, but nothing beyond, and whom he was not disposed to indulge with any more power over the poor of this country. They first asked for, and got, jurisdiction up to fourteen years. They now asked for a further extension to sixteen years; and, in fact, by a sly artifice, which he hoped would be prevented by the course taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Recorder of London, they sought to extend it to persons of any age where the property stolen was under one shilling. This would, no doubt, be a very easy mode of dealing with poachers who stole pheasants' eggs, and such offenders. Let the Committee understand in what way justice was administered to the poor of this country. The offender was brought into a back parlour in the squire's house by the constable of the parish. The squire had another squire to aid him, neither the one nor the other knowing the least of the law, but both having strong prejudices in the case. There was no bar; and, though a member of the profession, he would not hesitate to say that the presence of the bar on such occasions was a great safeguard for the freedom of the subject. There was not oven a reporter of a newspaper present; and even if the county newspaper had a representative at the proceedings, it was not very likely
506
that any account detrimental to the character of a patron would be published. The fact was, a trial under such circumstances was a denial of justice to the poor man. It was a mockery and a shame, and he hoped the people of this country would stand up against this attack on the palladium of their liberty, as trial by jury had been called. He wished to see the honest man, the attorney, the barrister, and, above all, the newspaper reporter, watching these proceedings. He regarded the administering of a law such as this, in the back parlour of a country gentleman, as a base perversion of justice; and he should therefore feel bound to offer the Bill every opposition in his power.
MR. AGLIONBYwas not afraid of hard words, and would not suffer sarcasm to turn him from what he believed to be his duty. He was of the same profession with the hon. and learned Gentleman; he had been in the profession longer, and he had practised, he believed, more than the hon. and learned Member in courts where criminal justice was administered, and he begged to say most distinctly that he wholly differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman in his view of the subject. He was not, and never had been, a chairman of quarter-sessions; but he should none the less protest against ill motives being attributed to those functionaries, and against the assumption that the hon. Baronet, for example, was, as a chairman of quarter-sessions, less alive to the rights of the poor than the hon. and learned Gentleman. He had never even acted in petty sessions, and was therefore free from the charge of class predilections; but he would never admit that magistrates in petty sessions were guilty of the injustice which the hon. and learned Member imputed to them; and he strongly protested against the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that they took any pleasure in flogging people; he could not conceive, indeed, what pleasure there could be enjoyed by any man, on the bench or off it, in flogging people, and his conviction was that flogging, when ordered, was only ordered in fulfilment of what was always felt to be, on the contrary, a most painful duty. The hon. and learned Gentleman had complained that petty sessions were held in back rooms. He (Mr. Aglionby) believed that they were not now held, as they had been in the time of Fielding and some of our older novelists, in the back parlours of magistrates', or in the back rooms of pub-

507
lic-houses. If they were held in such places, he strongly protested against the system, and he would give his support to any Bill enacting that petty sessions should be held in some public place, where the bar and the press could attend, if they chose, to watch the proceedings. He fully agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield that the only safeguard for the poor, and for the rich as well, was publicity in all their proceedings.
MR. ROEBUCKbegged to assure the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth that he had not had the slightest desire to point to him in the observations he had made. Indeed, he knew nothing about that hon. and learned Gentleman, and was not aware that he had any peculiar interest in this question. He (Mr. Roebuck) had simply dealt with the matter as one in which the people of England were interested. He would ask why they did not give the county courts jurisdiction with regard to the class of offences to which this Bill referred? He would ten thousand times rather that such a power should be given to the judges of the county courts, than that it should be exercised by magistrates in petty sessions. Let them give the power of deciding these questions to the judges of those courts, who were bred to the profession, instead of thrusting the poor into dark holes, The hon. and learned Member for Cocker-mouth might talk about hard words; but it was well known that the poor were robbed, in the cases to which he was referring, of the advantages of publicity, and were placed in the hands of men among whom, although many might be learned, enlightened, instructed, and benevolent, some were ignorant and prejudiced. He called upon the House to insist upon publicity, and to take the class of cases to which the Bill related out of the jurisdiction of individuals who might be influenced by local prejudices.
MR. PACKEwas satisfied that it was quite unnecessary to defend the conduct of the magistrates of this country who sat in petty sessions against the animadversions of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. He wished, however, to refer to one point to which that hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded—namely, the want of publicity with regard to proceedings at petty sessions. Every Gentleman in the habit of attending petty sessions knew that those courts were as much open to the public as the quarter-sessions
508
or the assizes. In the county in which he resided (Leicestershire), four weekly newspapers were published, and the reporters for these journals regularly attended the petty sessions at Leicester and Longborough, and reported the proceedings.
SIR J. PAKINGTONsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield was so accustomed to indulge his sarcasm, and seemed to think it so necessary that he should give point to his speeches by attacking somebody, and the more sneeringly and ill-natured the better, that he felt no surprise that that hon. and learned Gentleman had selected him to-night as the object of his sneers. He was very happy to find, however, that the only ground on which the hon. and learned Gentleman sneered at him was because he happened to be chairman of the quarter-sessions. He would tell that hon. and learned Gentleman that he felt the fact of his having enjoyed the confidence of his brother magistrates for a period of sixteen years was no matter of shame to him, and he was quite willing to submit to any sneer in which the hon. and learned Member chose to indulge on that subject. When the hon. and learned Gentleman indulged in sneers and sarcasms at his expense, he thought, however, that he had some right to expect that the hon. and learned Gentleman should be accurate in his facts; and when the hon. and learned Gentleman, alluding to the measure of 1847, to which he (Sir J. Pakington) was a party, complained that persons of wealth dealt with the poor in their back parlours, the hon. and learned Member only showed his own utter ignorance. He thought it would be better for the character and credit of the hon. and learned Gentleman if he contrived to be somewhat better informed on the subjects upon which he spoke; for, if the hon. and learned Member referred to the Act in question, he would find that it gave certain powers to justices of the peace of any county, riding, division, &c., in petty sessions assembled, at the usual place, and in open court.
MR. ROEBUCKasked the House to deal with this subject as men of common sense, and to consider how justice was likely to be administered by two magistrates meeting at the accustomed place, in a country district, far away from anything like newspapers, lawyers, or attorneys. The hon. Baronet had talked about "open courts;" but he (Mr. Roebuck) knew something of these matters, for he

509
lived in the country, and knew what the country was, as well as the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, his whole life was passed among gentlemen exactly like the hon. Baronet. He (Mr. Roebuck) understood how magistrates met together, for instance, to stop a footpath. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire had said that in the crowded district in which he lived, the petty sessions were held in open court. Yes, if a petty session was held in a town it then became an open court; but what he (Mr. Roebuck) complained of was, that in the country they did not possess the advantage of this publicity. He did not wish to throw any imputation upon the gentlemen of England, but he wished to stop this Bill; and if the powers it proposed to confer were given to anybody, he hoped they would be devolved upon judges in whose courts publicity was not a mere name but a reality.
SIR G. GREYhoped that this measure would be discussed without indulging in these personalities. Some hon. Members seemed to think that the Bill involved a new proposal to give summary jurisdiction to magistrates in petty sessions; but he begged to remind the House that Acts were passed some years ago, at the instance of the right hon. Member for Tam-worth, which gave to magistrates in petty sessions the power of summary adjudication in cases of malicious injury to property. There was also an Act now in force—the Juvenile Offenders Act—which had been considered by a Select Committee of that House, and which gave the power of summary adjudication to magistrates in petty sessions, where the offenders were under the age of 14 years. That Act was passed with the general assent of that House and of the House of Lords, and received the marked and distinct approval of Lord Denman, the late Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, who, indeed, proposed an Amendment, which he eventually withdrew, in order to bring within its operation persons of adult age. The real question they had now to consider was the proper definition of juvenile offenders. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University had argued that persons under the age of 14 came within the recognised legal definition of youth. He (Sir G. Grey) presumed that the hon. and learned Gentleman had founded his argument on the fact, that, in law, children above 14 years of age were considered capax doli. The ordinary practice was, however, to regard
510
as juvenile offenders all persons under the age of 16. Up to the age of 16, for instance, prisoners were classed by the prison inspectors "juvenile offenders," as distinguished from adults. There was also some analogy in the regulations of the poor-law, which held that relief afforded to children under the age of 16 was relief to the parents. He thought, therefore, that the proposition now made was in accordance with the ordinary practice with regard to the distinction between juveniles and adults. A great deal had been said about intrusting powers of this kind to magistrates in petty sessions. He could only say, that the measure applicable to juvenile offenders under the age of 14 had now been in operation for two years and a half, and he was not aware that a single complaint had been addressed to him as to any abuse of the powers conferred under that Act. He believed it was a merciful administration of the law to preserve juvenile offenders up to 16 from contamination with hardened criminals before trial. He was, therefore, prepared to support this Bill as far as it related to the extension from 14 to 16 years of age, for he believed that might be very safely and beneficially done.
SIR J. PAKINGTONregretted as much as the right hon. Baronet the personality which had been introduced into this discussion, but he thought he could not be accused of commencing that personality. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, however, if he came down and attacked every one who was a magistrate, must not be surprised if he got an answer. That hon. and learned Gentleman had made another blunder in supposing that magistrates in petty sessions had the power to stop footpaths, for when their decision was appealed against, such questions were referred to the determination of a jury. He considered that the present Bill, in extending what he did not hesitate to call the benefits of the Juvenile Offenders Act to persons of 16 years of age, would effect a very advantageous change in the existing law.
MR. LAWsaid, the legal maxim applicable to children charged with great crimes was malitia supplet œtatem, so that their responsibility to the law depended upon circumstances, although they were exempted from the responsibility of contracts into which they entered under the age of 14, and which might prejudice them in after life; but the age of 14 was regarded as the period when juvenile life ceased, and

511
a more adult character commenced. He might remind the House, however, that whether they should whip a boy of 14 or a youth of 16 were very different questions.
MR. HUMEwas not disposed to throw any blame upon those who were engaged in carrying on the institutions of the country, because he thought persons who endeavoured to discharge such duties to the best of their ability deserved credit; but he believed that many offences were left to the adjudication of magistrates in petty sessions which might cause some persons to doubt whether justice was impartially administered. He thought, and he had made the suggestion some years ago, that they ought to have to every board of petty sessions a paid chairman who had been bred to the law. His suggestion had been objected to on the ground of expense; but he thought such expense would be true economy, if the better administration of justice was secured. Some complaints had been made of the places where petty sessions were held. An hon. Friend of his some time ago proposed the insertion of a clause in a Bill before the House, requiring that all petty sessions should be held in a public place, on particular days, and that they should be open to the public; but that clause was rejected. There was a return obtained with regard to petty sessions, and probably it would be found, upon going through it, that one-half of them were held in public-houses; in Cambridgeshire the number was 9 out of 12, and in Buckinghamshire about the same. In Worcestershire, it was stated, that there were 15 places where the petty sessions were held, and in four instances they were public-houses, in three they were the clerk's house, and in two the union workhouse. This was not the way to secure either publicity or respect for the administration of the law. As to what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had said, was it likely that a boy of fourteen would make a complaint to the Secretary of State? What said the prison inspectors? Was not the number of juvenile offenders increasing? He (Mr. Hume) should object to the extension of this summary jurisdiction from 14 to 16. If innocent persons were liable to be imprisoned three or four months, the courts should sit more frequently. The time was arrived, too, when the Government ought to come forward and commit the administration of justice to men learned in the law.
MR. E. B. DENISONobjected to extend the jurisdiction of petty sessions to offences committed by persons of the age of 16. There could be no doubt that the class of offenders between the age of 14 and 16 formed a very considerable portion of the rising rogues of the kingdom, and it was on that account that he doubted the propriety of allowing them to be tried in petty sessions. The hon. Baronet who had brought forward the measure observed that it had the almost unanimous consent of the magistrates of the kingdom. Now he (Mr. Denison) belonged to the West Riding of Yorkshire, which contained very nearly the largest number of magistrates of any part of the kingdom, and he had thought it his duty the other day, as chairman of the quarter-sessions, simply to bring this Bill under the notice of the magistrates, without making a single comment, and gave them an opportunity of expressing their opinions upon it, but he had heard nothing of any manifestation in its favour on their part; and he had reason to believe that it would not be generally resorted to in his district. Even now it appeared that out of 120,000 or 130,000 prisoners tried in the course of the year, 85,000 were already dealt with by summary jurisdiction. But, in addition to that, he had a right to argue, that out of 10,000 more tried at the quarter-sessions, and not included in the 85,000, the greater part would go to swell the number subjected to summary jurisdiction if this Bill should pass. He asked whether it was wise so to extend the summary jurisdiction exercised by magistrates, however well he might admit them to administer the law? It was undoubtedly true that quarter-sessions were frequently held in public-houses, in back parlours, and other objectionable places. He also objected to extend the summary jurisdiction, because the former Act had only been in operation three years, which was not long enough to enable them to form a satisfactory estimate as to its advantages.
MR. LAWwould move that the Chairman now leave the chair, with the view of raising the question as to the age of 16 years.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."
MR. M. MILNESthought, that if hon. Members had paid due attention to the state of juvenile crime in this country, they would see that the mode of dealing with young persons between the ages of 14

513
and 16 involved a question of the highest importance. The French law treated them as juvenile criminals up to the age of 16, and made special provisions for their punishment. Another consideration which I ought not to be lost sight of was, the danger of exposing young persons to the contamination of a prison at an age when their imaginations were most susceptible of impressions, and when the character, in fact, was formed for good or evil.
SIR J. PAKINGTONsaid, the hon. Member for the West Riding had adverted to the absence of any manifestation in favour of the Bill on the part of the magistrates of the West Riding of Yorkshire; but, at all events, it could not be said that they had taken any active part against it, and he himself (Sir J. Pakington) had had the honour of presenting a petition in its favour from the magistrates of the East Riding. With respect to holding petty sessions in public-houses, no one more heartily disapproved of the practice than himself; but the same objection did not apply to holding them in clerks' dwelling-houses, many of which contained convenient and capacious courts fitted up for the purpose; but, as far as he knew, whether the sessions were held in public-houses or elsewhere, their proceedings were always regularly published in the local newspaper. The hon. Member for the West Riding had talked of sessions held in back parlours; he should be glad to know to what magistrate he alluded as having held petty sessions in his back parlour?
MR. E. B. DENISONhad referred to the back parlours of public-houses only. With regard to the West Riding, he thought the magistrates of that district had shown something more than indifference, seeing that the hon. Baronet had sent round circulars to all magistrates urging them to support his measure.
MR. ROEBUCKwished to divest the question of all personal considerations, and begged the hon. Baronet's pardon if he had given him offence. The hon. Member for Pontefract, addressing himself to their sentimentalities, cited the instance of France, and told them that the age between fourteen and sixteen began and ended by distinguishing the boy from the man. What, then, did this Bill do? It enabled a magistrate to inflict punishment upon him when he had ceased to be a boy—a disgraceful and degrading punishment, which must cast a stigma on him for the rest of his life. Was the House prepared
514
to give to two magistrates, sitting, as the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire—himself the chairman of a quarter-sessions—confessed, in the back parlours of public-houses, without the aid of a jury, without any one of the bulwarks which the institutions of this country had thrown around us all, a power to degrade a young man for life by exposing him in the marketplace and ordering him to be whipped? Whip a boy, and there was nothing in it. If you struck your own child, which he would not advise any man to do—and if he had a child, and struck him, he would not be a man—but supposing a child to be struck, no imputation would be cast upon the boy, whereas a grave imputation would be cast upon a man if personal chastisement were inflicted upon him. He hoped, for the sake of the due administration of justice, that the House would support the proposition of the hon. and learned Recorder for the city of London, who had dealt with more criminals than any other Member of that House, and who had told them that this was a most mischievous Bill.
MR. J. H. VIVIANcalled attention to the heavy expense which counties had to meet at present for removing criminals from sessions to gaols, and said that some alteration of the law in this respect was needed.
VISCOUNT BERNARDsaid, that the existing law in Ireland had been instrumental in suppressing much of juvenile delinquency.
COLONEL THOMPSONsaid, the knotty point before the House appeared to be—at what age posterity should be whipped. Now, he was not for whipping them at all; and upon that principle he would endeavour to regulate his vote.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 70: Majority 9.
Same Clause: Amendment proposed, line 28, after the word "mentioned," to insert the words "exceed the age of sixteen years."
MR. ROEBUCKobjected to give the magistrates jurisdiction in the case of offenders sixteen years of age, and said he should take the sense of the Committee upon the point.
MR. AGLIONBYwould be willing to accede to the Amendment, or to the withdrawal of the Bill, if he saw any evidence that Government would take the matter up, or that the jurisdiction of the county courts' judges would be extended to juvenile offenders; but, in the absence of any

515
proof of the sort, he would support the measure.
MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGHcould not agree in the praises which they had heard bestowed on the Juvenile Offenders Act in this country or in Ireland. He believed the country would not be satisfied with any increase to the powers at present possessed by magistrates at petty sessions. The Juvenile Offenders Act had not proved a beneficial change in the law. He spoke from experience of the subject, having studied the working of the Act in the metropolis and elsewhere, and was convinced of the evils which had been caused by gaol contamination. He would just quote two instances of recent occurrence: one was a case of a boy not 12 years of age, who had been sentenced five times in a year and a half, and was now in prison; the other the case of a still younger boy, who had been punished twelve times in a proportionately short space of time. It was with surprise he heard hon. Members say that general satisfaction was evinced at this Bill. The opinion of Judges of the higher and inferior courts could be quoted against that assertion, and he had read many letters from all parts of the country which agreed in condemning its provisions. They could not, let them do what they might, they could not disguise from the people out of doors the fact that they were making one law for the poor and another for the rich; that they were exposing the poor to punishment without judge, jury, bar, or publicity.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he should vote for the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, though he was not influenced in the least by the arguments which he had heard on the subject, for those arguments had no foundation in fact. He was opposed to sending prisoners great distances to be tried, not so much on account of the prisoners themselves as on account of the witnesses, upon whom the demoralising effect of even a short stay in a large town was often strikingly apparent. Grand juries and magistrates had often remonstrated against the evil consequences of the present practice, With respect to the exercise of power by the magistrates, he could undertake to say that there was no jealousy felt towards them; quite the contrary was the fact; at the same time he did by no means think that their power should be extended in the manner now proposed by the Bill.
MR. P. HOWARDobserved, that the civil law fixed the age of 14 as that at
516
which a distinction was to be taken between the juvenile and the adult, and he thought that on this point the House ought to regard with great respect the opinion of those the most learned in the law, who had always held that that was the age at which persons accused ought not to be placed amongst the juvenile delinquents. With respect to giving the judges of the county courts the power of dealing with such cases, he should have no objection to such an arrangement, provided those judges were to summon juries to their aid; but, unless they were to possess the constitutional support of juries, he should decidedly object to their being invested with any such power.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 78: Majority 6.
SIR G. STRICKLANDobjected to that portion in which the preceding Acts were recited in order to give them effect. He said that the extension of this summary jurisdiction, and the giving the power to magistrates to inflict the punishment of whipping upon youths of 16, was unconstitutional, arbitrary, and cruel. He thought that in these days they ought to have recourse to moral instead of brute violence, and he should, therefore, move a proviso at the end of the clause to prohibit the whipping of youths above 14.
At the end of the clause, proposed to add the following proviso:—
"Provided alway, that nothing herein contained shall authorise or empower any Justice or Justices to order the punishment of whipping to be inflicted upon any offender whose age shall exceed the age of 14 years."
SIR J. PAKINGTONsaid, that the power of punishing youths under 14 years of age by whipping was already the law of the land, and it had been enacted with the humane and benevolent intention of enabling magistrates to save young offenders from the contamination of the gaol, by ordering them to be whipped and discharged. It had operated beneficially hitherto, and it might be found equally beneficial if it were extended to cases in which the offenders were of the age of 16. Why, whipping was a punishment that their own sons underwent in the public schools of this country.
MR. ROEBUCKhoped the House would not permit its extension to persons of the age of sixteen, because, as he had said before, the child was a child up to fourteen, but he was a man at sixteen. They all

517
knew what human nature was, and what its feelings were in that respect. The punishment to the boy was the mere bodily pain which he suffered. The punishment of flogging to the man was as nothing in respect to the bodily pain. His suffering arose from the sense of degradation. It was a grave and serious distinction. As to talking about whipping at school, why they all knew it was a totally different matter. There, there was a sort of triumph in the capability of enduring the bodily pain of a whipping at school. But strike a man with only a glove upon the face—there was no physical pain in the case whatsoever, but what would be the effect upon his moral sense? Were they prepared to make their peasant a slave, and to apply this degrading punishment, this last resort of poor and pitiful jurisdiction, to enforce their criminal code? Were they obliged to admit, in this age that boasted of its civilisation, that they could not govern their fellow men without the whip? He was surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen tell him that whipping belonged to the law of England. Whipping, it was said, was part of the spirit of the British law; then God help them if they were not to get out of that spirit! They had done so in the case of women, let them get out of it in the case of men; and he hoped to see the day when they might get out of it in the case of boys. There was great flippancy in taking of the case of boys, but let them recollect that "the boy is father of the man." [Laughter.] They might laugh at the phrase, but it was a very pertinent one. When he felt thus for himself, why should he not suppose that the same feeling was in the heart of the peasant? Fortune had condemned him to poverty, and let not the law also condemn him to degradation because he was poor. Would they like their own children to be whipped at sixteen?—but they were gentlemen. Were there no gentlemen who had committed larceny at sixteen? Were there no parents who would not sink into the earth if they knew that their sons at the age of sixteen were to be exhibited in the market place? And would not the poor peasant, when his child was brought into the market place feel the degradation as bitterly? [An Hon. MEMBER: There is to be no whipping in the market place.] Well, if not in the market place, it was to be in the prison. He would like to see if the hon. Member for Pontefract could explain the difference between flogging in
518
the market place and in the prison. He hoped the good feeling of the country would erase this stigma from the Bill. Bad as the thing might be, he trusted that the word would be fourteen instead of sixteen.
MR. LAWanticipated that one useful result that would follow from the adoption of the Amendment limiting the punishment to lads of fourteen, would be, that it would be a guide to Judges and to magistrates at quarter-sessions in limiting the age to which they should in future apportion the punishment of whipping. We had arrived at a time when it was felt that what was a fit punishment for boys, was an irritating, insulting, degrading, and unfit punishment for men.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had a right to object to a clause, and to draw a distinction between a boy of 14 and a boy of 16, and say the one was a boy and the other a man; but he had no right to say that this Bill had for its object the degradation of the poor. It was not the poor, it was the criminal. Those who supported this Bill considered that it was likely to diminish crime; and he agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich that in many instances it would be a mercy to the criminal himself. Though the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield said it was a degrading punishment, it might not be more so than incarceration for many months. And this he must say, that the son of a rich man would be subject to the same punishment. ["No, no!"] There was nothing in the Bill to make a distinction, and he did not believe that those who administered it would make a distinction; and he believed that in the case of the son of a rich man, it would be a mercy to flog him rather than send him to gaol.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERcould not help expressing his cordial concurrence with the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down; and, although it might be unpopular after the eloquent denunciation of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, yet he should not discharge his duty if, thinking that this was the cause of humanity, he shrunk from saying so on the present occasion. It appeared to him that they should not be led away by sentimentality, which might do very well in a popular assembly, but in that House they must look to the real and practical interests of society. They had to deal with a class in

519
which sentimentality did not prevail in the same degree as in their own. When they talked of stigma and a degradation, it was the duty of the Legislature to say crime was the stigma, and they must not be deterred from applying the corrective, because the criminal might for the moment have irritated feelings with respect to the punishment. And he would just ask the House whether that was not the best punishment which combined these qualities—the quality of being sufficiently severe to prevent repetition, the quality of being cheap, the quality of being quick in its operation, and of being expeditious in its infliction? Did not this punishment and personal chastisement unite all these points more than any other? In the first place, would it not be more feared by a boy, if he knew that he had to undergo sharp punishment and pain, though but for a short time, than if he knew that he had to go to prison and associate with others like himself, where probably his moral susceptibilities would be so blunted that he had no fear of imprisonment? They knew by experience that the fear of the punishment of whipping was the more effective. Then, which was the more merciful, which left the greatest stigma in the long run? The knowledge that a person had been in gaol, and had there served an apprenticeship to crime, was much more of a stigma than that of a boy having to undergo that kind of punishment which every gentleman's son in the kingdom had to undergo. Then there was the consideration of cheapness—and though far be it from him to urge that as a consideration apart from others—yet considered along with others, it was worthy of being taken into account. On these grounds he hoped the House would agree to the clause, believing as he did that the punishment of whipping, whatever might be said against it, was really merciful. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield said it made no difference whether the punishment took place in the prison or in the market place; but he entirely differed from this opinion. The irritation to the feelings, and the injurious recollection in the minds of others, were in direct proportion to the publicity of the infliction. But by the Bill before the House, an offender under the age of 16 might be once privately whipped, and there was an end of the market place.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he agreed with all that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had said on the subject of whipping.
520
He should object to whipping persons 16 years of age, precisely on the ground that the hon. and learned Gentleman objected to it. But he objected to it on other grounds, which made him revolt at the idea of passing the Bill in its present shape. The hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich proposed that the punishment should be inflicted by the order of two magistrates. Now, let them consider who magistrates were—how they were appointed, and the mode in which their business was sometimes conducted. Now, he believed there were many hundreds of magistrates to whom the country was greatly indebted; many who knew the law, and who were just and careful judges; but then he knew that magistrates were appointed frequently because they happened to be rich gentlemen of the neighbourhood, or because they happened to be the political partisans of a Government, and that they were not appointed from any inquiry into their capacity or knowledge. Take a rural district, for instance, and see a young man of 15 or 16 years of age brought before a magistrate, such as some of those whose conduct had been occasionally commented on in that House—let a police officer suggest that he is a lad of bad character, and had been known to go after hares—and allowing magistrates to be good men, as hon. Gentlemen believed them to be, and as he believed a great number of them were, he said it was more than that House ought to do with regard to the interests of the public to commit so severe and degrading a punishment to the adjudication and determination of gentlemen of that class. He was satisfied that the hon. and learned Gentleman was correct when he stated that the infliction of this punishment upon young men of this age by the sentence of two magistrates, without the intervention of a jury, would tend, in a multitude of cases, to create discontent in many parts of the country, and particularly in the rural districts, where public opinion had less influence on the conduct of magistrates than it had in towns. And if he regarded only the conduct and the character and the influence of the magistrates themselves, he would warn them against seeking from Parliament those additional powers, and he would ask them, more than any other men in that House, to vote decidedly against the proposition now before them.
MR. ROEBUCKwas at no loss to meet the argument of the hon. and learned Gen-

521
tleman the Member for Plymouth. He had put it on a ground he could perfectly understand, and he would meet him on that ground. He said first of all this punishment was cheap, was very painful, and did not inflict a lasting degradation. Now, he could show him there was another punishment quite as cheap, that would inflict a good deal more pain, and not a whit less degradation. Let them take torture. ["Oh!"] He had a right to argue the question as the hon. and learned Gentleman had put it. What was this punishment of flogging but torture? The hon. and learned Gentleman said they were not going to do it publicly, as if that would take away from the mischief. That would enhance the mischief, because it was no example, it had an effect only upon the individual. Now, what they wanted to do by punishment was not only to affect the individual punished, but, through the punishment of the individual, to affect the public at large. Let them take the thumbscrew. The boy came into the back room of a prison and put his thumb into the screw, and if that should maim him they should suggest some other portion of his body that could be screwed and do no harm. That would effect the object that seemed to be worthy of consideration with the hon. and learned Gentleman—the cheapness of giving pain. How cheap it is to give pain! The slightest knife, not worth a penny, would inflict a pain so great that they could not measure it by words that language would afford. Therefore let them strike that out at once—cheapness let them not consider—the only real question was, did this infliction degrade the man? Society was entitled to inflict such punishments as would deter men from the perpetration of crime; but they must be content with inflicting the least possible punishment that would be efficacious to this end. For if, for argument's sake, he could prevent the crime of murder from being committed by a fine of one farthing, that was the utmost penalty he ought to exact. He had no vengeance to gratify. Could they be asked to do anything more frightful in the way of degradation than to whip a man? When hon. Gentlemen said that imprisonment for a month was a greater degradation than flogging, they knew very little of their countrymen or of the idea they entertained of such an infliction. It was a degradation that would last for life, and no future conduct of the boy of 16 to the man of 60 would wipe out
522
the imputation. It would haunt him like a spirit from that hour, until the moment at which he breathed his last. He would be pointed out as the man who had been degraded by corporal punishment, and being so degraded, he will, like the slave in Homer, "lose half his manhood in being a slave,"
COLONEL THOMPSONsaid, one of the worst things about the Bill was, that there was no intention whatever of applying it to the children of the gentry. It was a Bill intended solely for application to the children of the working classes. Eton boys stole geese. He knew they did; for he had heard men holding His Majesty's commission declare they had done it, and add, moreover, that they did it in submission to the rules by which the sons of the gentry at public schools were forced to steal at the command of their superiors. But there was no intention that the son of a gentleman should be whipped for stealing, either in a prison or in the market place. All this only showed the low moral state of the upper classes, and one which the middle and working classes were ashamed of. He saw serious dangers in the plan. The people of this country had always been a thoughtful people, but sometimes a wild-blooded one. What might be the consequences if some man of a hot temperament saw the child of his affections sent home to him lacerated by the public executioner for having eaten a turnip? [A laugh.] It was very well for Gentlemen of good degree to laugh; but Wat Tyler turned out upon an insult to his child, and there was not a peasant's heart in the country that might not be moved to fearful thoughts of vengeance if such a misfortune should meet him in the proper mood. It would be one of those cases, where no habit of reverence for authority could be depended on to bind. He believed that even the negro slave, while slavery was legal in the colonies, would have risen in resistance, and multitudes in this country would have held him justified, if his child had been returned to him whipped as the children of the working classes in England were to be whipped by this law. He would warn the Members, that if the consequences fell in sorrow on themselves, they would have nothing to thank but their own insensibility to the feelings of their humbler countrymen.
SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Bath—[Cries of "Sheffield!"] He begged the hon. and learned Member's pardon, he should have

523
said for Sheffield—who was one of the greatest orators as well as one of the greatest actors in that House, had expatiated with great feeling upon the suffering of boys from 14 to 16; but the hon. and learned Member had left some of the punishment he proposed to the imagination of the House. An hon. and gallant Member had alluded to the Eton boys; but on looking round the House he would ask which of them were not Eton boys? He would ask them, moreover, who was it that liked punishment? If a person committed an offence, he should expect some result in the way of punishment. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield said, he could give them something as cheap, as lasting, and as painful as the penalty proposed. He supposed the hon. and learned Member meant hanging. Now, he asked what punishment they were to have? The hon. Member for Dumfries objected to hanging; other hon. Gentlemen objected to transportation; and the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, with the amenity he always displayed in that House, contended against whipping. But was crime, therefore, to go unpunished? The question was not whether hanging was good, or whether transportation was good per se, but where crime existed, crime must be punished. Punishment was necessary far more than prevention or repression—it was necessary for correction. He did not coincide with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that punishment was to be looked upon only in the light of a matter to prevent crime; for he thought that it ought also to be considered as a means of correcting and reforming offenders.
MR. PACKEsaid, that whipping was the law at present for boys of 16, when tried at the sessions. The question now was as to changing the tribunal; but the arguments had been directed against the punishment altogether. When whipping was inflicted at the sessions, it should be remembered that the jury had nothing whatever to do with the sentence; after they had found their verdict, it was for the bench to direct what the punishment should be. The object of the clause was merely to transfer this jurisdiction from the quarter to the petty sessions.
MR. HUMEhad been surprised to hear the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth advocate flogging for grown-up men. This was a Bill for regulating the punishment of juvenile offenders. What would the public say when they found the House so
524
ready to degrade persons just entering on manhood? It reminded him of the day when the corporal punishment of soldiers was defended to the extent of 500 or 600, or 1,000 lashes, on the ground that they were a class of men who were not sensible to punishment, and that was the only way by which they could be kept in discipline. The House was by degrees convinced of the atrocity and brutality of these punishments, and they were abandoned. Had not men from the ranks declared that many a good soldier had been destroyed by the first infliction of punishment—that in nine cases out of ten he was lost to the service, and no longer fit to be trusted as a soldier? Since the passing of the Act of 1827, the number of juvenile offenders had been greatly increased. There were instances of boys having been punished five, six, or ten different times; and was that any encouragement to extend this species of punishment? Did it not occur to the House that prevention was better than punishment, and that education might be more properly extended? Judging from the effect of corporal punishment being put an end to in the Army, he must conclude that the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth was erroneous. Corporal punishment under 14, when the culprits were considered children, carried no degradation with it. There was the greatest difference between this punishment being inflicted by the court of quarter-sessions, and by a couple of magistrates sitting in a back parlour. The chances of mistake were all the greater; and when once the sentence was carried out, supposing the parties afterwards proved to be innocent, where was the remedy?
MR. PLUMPTREwould prefer to see corporal punishment confined to those under fourteen.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, that two arguments had been brought against the proposal—first, that it ought not to be extended to culprits above fourteen; secondly, that the tribunal was not a proper one. He differed from both those arguments. If a magistrate could be trusted with the infliction of this punishment on boys of fourteen, why not on those of sixteen? The evil of the punishment had been enlarged on, but no reference had been made to the greater evils of other punishments. Suppose the other course pursued, there would be the solemnity of a trial at the assizes, and consequent imprisonment, a

525
thing much more likely to injure juvenile offenders than whipping. By sending them before the higher tribunal, their vanity and importance were flattered; and this would have the worst effect on themselves and their companions. Summary punishment was the most merciful course towards juvenile offenders.
MR. MUNTZsaid, he should have been disposed to support the proposition before the House, to prevent the contamination of boys in prison; but feeling the other objections so strongly, he had not been able to screw up his courage to that point, and had therefore voted against the Bill all the while. Many magistrates, with the best intentions in the world, had no knowledge whatever of law, and almost as little of justice. It often happened, too, that the clerk to the magistrates was the magistrate himself; and that was a very great evil. It had been asked, why should not the same punishment be applied at sixteen as at fourteen? Because, at fourteen they were boys; but he remembered that when he was sixteen, he felt very much like a man. He was, fortunately, one of those who had escaped that punishment; he had never suffered the infliction of a stripe in his life; and, when he was sixteen, that man would have been a very clever fellow who would have laid a stripe upon him. Then there was the possibility of an innocent party being found guilty; and when summary punishment was inflicted, it was without redress, without appeal, the man was degraded for life, no reparation could be made him. He regarded trial by jury as one of the greatest bulwarks of our liberties, and he should ever oppose any attempt to narrow its application.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the question before the Committee was, whether corporal punishment should be extended, by a court of petty session, to persons between the age of fourteen and sixteen. The question as to the propriety of flogging, as a punishment, was not before them; and, therefore, he would not enter into that question. With regard to the extension of the punishment, he would vote against it; and for this reason, that persons of the age of fourteen being considered as boys were flogged with a rod, but, in all probability, that would be considered too light a mode of inflicting the punishment on a person of sixteen, and the cat would be used. Now, a person flogged with the cat would be marked for life, and he would net afterwards be taken into the Army.
MR. SLANEYsaid, he should vote against the extension of flogging to persons of sixteen years of age, although he admitted that his hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich was actuated by the best intentions in what he proposed.
SIR R. PEELsaid, he wished to state, in a few sentences, the grounds on which he should give his vote. At present he found that the law established a distinction between boys who did not exceed the age of fourteen, and boys who were above that age. In the case of the boy who did not exceed fourteen, the law treated him as a. boy, and made him subject to corporal punishment, under the summary jurisdiction of two magistrates. In the case of the boy who exceeded the age of fourteen, true it was that he was not exempted from corporal punishment; but they threw around him this sanction, that they required that the conviction should take place before the ordinary tribunals of the country. It was now proposed to confound this distinction, and to permit the boy, between fourteen and sixteen years of age; to be subjected to corporal punishment the discretion of two magistrates. He apprehended that, before any such alteration of the law was made, which would, apparently at least, be at variance with the principle which of late years dictated a milder policy in their criminal code, a case of necessity should be made out. He had heard none such. He thought it much better that the distinction recognised by the existing law should be maintained, than that they should confound that distinction without any allegation for the necessity of so doing. He apprehended that there was a growing conviction that corporal punishment ought not to be inflicted except in cases of grave necessity; and although adults were subject to corporal punishment, yet, upon their conviction, the Judges generally acted on the principle of selecting some other punishment than that degrading one. But he must say, that if Parliament, without any allegation of necessity, widened the discretion with regard to corporal punishment, it would be giving a tacit encouragement to the substitution of that form of punishment for the milder practice which of late years had made such progress in this country. He held that the practice in public schools had no analogy to the case of corporal punishments inflicted on offenders as a degradation. In his opinion, this would be no improvement of the law. It might make no practical

527
distinction possibly, but it was important in this respect, that it would show that the House of Commons were prepared, without apparent necessity, to retrograde from that course which they had of late years entered upon.
Question put, "That the proposed Proviso be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 89: Majority 81.

List of the AYES.

Adair, H. E.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Alcock, T.

Grace, O. D. J.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Greenall, G.

Baring, T.

Greene, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Greene, T.

Bass, M. T.

Guest, Sir J.

Beresford, W.

Hale, R. B.

Blake, M. J.

Hall, Sir B.

Boldero, H. G.

Harris, R.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Hastie, A.

Bowles, Adm.

Hayes, Sir E.

Broadwood, H.

Heald, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Brockman, E. D.

Heneage, E.

Brotherton, J.

Henley, J. W.

Brown, W.

Henry, A.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Heyworth, L.

Chaplin, W. J.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Christy, S.

Hill, Lord M.

Clay, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Clay, Sir W.

Hodgson, W. N.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Howard, P. H.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Hudson, G.

Cocks, T. S.

Hughes, W. B.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Hume, J.

Copeland, Ald.

Humphery, Ald.

Cowan, C.

Hutt, W.

Crawford, W. S.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Denison, E.

Jones, Capt.

Devereux, J. T.

Keating, R.

Divett, E.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Knox, Col.

Drummond, H.

Law, hon. C. E.

Duncan, G.

Lawless, hon. C.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Duncuft, J.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Dundas, Adm.

Locke, J.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Lockhart, A. E.

Du Pre, C. G.

Lockhart, W.

Edwards, H.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Lushington, C.

Ellis, J.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Elliott, hon. J. E.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

M'Neill, D.

Evans, J.

Meagher, T.

Evans, W.

Mahon, Visct.

Fagan, W.

Mangles, R. D.

Farnham, E. B.

Masterman, J.

Farrer, J.

Matheson, Col.

Fergus, J.

Melgund, Visct.

Floyer, J.

Milner, W. M. E.

Foley, J. H. H.

Moffatt, G.

Fordyce, A. D.

Monsell, W.

Fox, W. J.

Morgan, H. K. G.

Galway, Visct.

Morris, D.

Glyn, G. C.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Goddard, A. L.

Muntz, G. F.

528

Napier, J.

Stafford, A.

Neeld, J.

Stanley, hon. E. H.

Newport, Visct.

Stanton, W. H.

Osborne, R.

Stuart, Lord D.

Parker, J.

Stuart, Lord J.

Patten, J. W.

Talbot, J. H.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Tenison, E. K.

Peel, F.

Tennent, R. J.

Peto, S. M.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Pilkington, J.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Thompson, Col.

Plumptre, J. P.

Thompson, Ald.

Power, N.

Thornely, T.

Price, Sir R.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Richards, R.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Walpole, S. H.

Roebuck, J. A.

West, F. R.

Romilly, Col.

Westhead, J. P. B.

Romilly, Sir J.

Willcox, B. M.

Sadleir, J.

Williams, J.

Salwey, Col.

Wilson, J.

Sandars, G.

Wilson, M.

Scholefield, W.

Wood, W. P.

Scully, F.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Slaney, R. A.

Wyld, J.

Smith, J. B.

Smyth, J. G.

TELLERS.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Strickland, Sir G.

Spearman, H. J.

Bright, J.

List of the NOES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Heywood, J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hollond, R.

Anson, Visct.

Hope, A.

Armstrong, R. B.

Hotham, Lord

Bagot, hon. W.

Howard hon. C. W. G.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Barrington, Visct.

Jervis, Sir J.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Keogh, W.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Bernard, Visct.

Marshall, W.

Blackall, S. W.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Blakemore, R.

Milnes, R. M.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Mitchell, T. A.

Bromley, R.

Moody, C. A.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Morgan, O.

Carew, W. H. P.

Naas, Lord

Chatterton, Col.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Clive, hon. R. H.

O'Connell, M. J.

Clive, H. B.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Cobbold, J. C.

Oswald, A.

Coke, hon. E. K.

Palmer, R.

Colvile, C. R.

Palmer, R.

Crowder, R. B.

Palmerston, Visct.

Cubitt, W.

Pelham, hon. D. A.

Denison, J. E.

Perfect, R.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Portal, M.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Prime, R.

Duff, G. S.

Rawdon, Col.

Duff, J.

Rendlesham, Lord

Ferguson, Col.

Ronton, J. C.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Repton, G. W. J.

Forbes, W.

Rice, E. R.

Forster, M.

Rushout, Capt.

Freestun, Col

Russell, F. C. H.

Frewen, C. H.

Seymer, H. K.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Seymour, Lord

Gwyn, H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Simeon, J.

Hatchell, J.

Smythe, hon. G.

Headlam, T. E.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Heathcoat, J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

529

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Wegg-Prosser, F. R.

Townshend, Capt.

Wrightson, W. B.

Villiers, Visct.

TELLERS.

Vivian, J. H.

Packe, C. W.

Wawn, J. T.

Pakington, Sir J.

MR. ROEBUCKhoped the hon. Baronet, after such a decision, would withdraw the Bill altogether. He could not see what use there would be in proceeding with it further, after the power of whipping offenders between 14 and 16 years of age had been cut out of the measure.
SIR J. PAKINGTONregretted the decision that the House had just come to, which he did not think a merciful decision; but the Bill as it stood would still leave the magistrates the power, if they saw fit, of discharging an offender altogether who was brought up for the first time on a trifling charge; and as it would enable the juvenile offender to be saved from the contamination of the period passed in the gaol before trial, he thought it worth while to go on with the measure.
MR. ROEBUCKwould like to know how much use a Bill would be that could only save the offender from the contamination of the gaol, by allowing him to go altogether unpunished?
MR. AGLIONBYconcurred with the hon. Baronet in thinking the decision of the Committee an unfortunate one for the criminal himself. But the manner in which they had discussed the Bill was not calculated to raise the credit of their proceedings. They had several divisions upon it earlier in the evening, and at every subsequent hour a set of fresh Members came in, and not having heard the previous speeches they repeated other people's arguments over and over again. And then came, as the climax of all, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth—"Presto, change!" and all that they had already decided, substantially, was all overturned. Still the Bill would prevent contamination in gaol. [Mr. ROEBUCK: No, no!] The hon. and learned Gentleman should show a little patience to others, when they had often to show so much to him. The Bill would now enable the magistrates to inflict on these men—for boys he was not allowed to call them—between 14 and 16 years of age, a short period of imprisonment—a week, or a few days, for example—in minor offences; whereas, if they destroyed the Bill altogether, they would have to
530
go to prison six months or so before trial. On that ground he hoped the measure would be proceeded with.
SIR R. PEELsaid, he could not conceive a stronger proof than that given by the hon. and learned Member for Cocker-mouth, that the sense of the House was decidedly against the Bill. The hon. and learned Member said, "Here have been Members dropping in who have not been subjected to the contamination and confinement of the House; and one after another they have expressed an opinion adverse to the proposed jurisdiction." This was no party question: if it were a party question, he apprehended that his (Sir R. Peel's) authority would not be very great. He did not speak until after two of the highest authorities—the hon. Member for East Kent and the hon. Member for Oxfordshire—both of whom had had great experience in such matters, had expressed a decided opinion on the subject. He had no wish, however, to disclaim his own responsibility, but he heartily rejoiced in the decision to which the House had come, and he repeated that the hon. and learned Member had given a most decided proof of the sense of the House in stating that independent Members entering the House at different periods of the debate, had arrived at the same conclusion. This was no very recondite question; it was simply whether the jurisdiction of flogging should be extended to boys between 14 and 16.
MR. HUMEreminded the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth that in two divisions the majority was six and nine; and if the Cabinet had been taken out, the Amendment would in each case have been carried.
MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGH: The hon. Member for Droitwich had, since the last division, frankly admitted that the great object of the Bill was to secure the power of the lash over those who came under the jurisdiction. If the hon. Baronet were determined to proceed, he was disposed to divide the House against that course.
SIR G. GREYsaid, the House had already affirmed the principle of the Bill, which was to extend the summary jurisdiction from offenders of 14 to those of 16 years of age. He, therefore, trusted, although they had rejected a particular species of punishment for the elder class of offenders, they would not now destroy the principle by rejecting the clause altogether; and he thought they had already had divisions enough on the Bill.
MR. BRIGHTwould recommend the hon. Member for Droitwich not to go to a division on the question then. On the question that the Chairman report progress, the Bill had been kept alive only by a majority of 6; on another question the majority was only 9. He thought it would be unwise to proceed with legislation of that nature with such a division of feeling in the House. He would suggest, that under the circumstances it would be best to withdraw the Bill for the present; and two or three years hence, if a case of necessity or desirableness had been made out, the House might return to the consideration of the question, and perhaps decide by a majority which would give weight to the measure proposed.
SIR J. PAKINGTONwas not prepared to admit that the House was so equally divided as the hon. Member for Manchester appeared to suppose. On the question whether the House should or should not go into Committee on the Bill, a full House had divided, and so far he had a right to infer that there was a majority of 60 or 70 Members in favour of that part of the Bill which was retained. If the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk persevered, he should take the sense of the House on the Bill as it stood.
MR. LAWLESS MR. LAWLESS moved the insertion of a clause exempting Ireland from the operation of the Bill; his principal reason for doing so was, that in Ireland there was not the power of appeal which existed in this country.
LORD NAASthought the Bill was more required in Ireland than in any other part of the united kingdom, seeing that so much contamination had arisen there from the overcrowded state of the gaols.
SIR J. PAKINGTONsaid, that when he introduced the Juvenile Offenders Bill in 1847, he was strongly appealed to by Irish Members to extend it to Ireland. He declined to do so at the time; but in the following year a Bill for that purpose passed unanimously.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clonmel complained of was, that there was no uniformity. He said that Ireland differed from England, inasmuch as the accused had not the power of appeal.
SIR J. PAKINGTONdid not know what the hon. Gentleman meant by a power of appeal. He was not aware of the existence of any such power. What the hon. Gentleman called the power of
532
appeal, was no appeal at all. If the hon. Member thought the distinction between the two Acts of so much importance, he could propose a clause on the report.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday, 2nd of May.

MARRIAGES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
SIR F. THESIGERhoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would not attempt to force on the Bill at this late hour (a quarter to 12 o'clock). He had been expecting the Bill to come on at an early period of the night.
MR. S. WORTLBYsaid, that the present regulations of the House were such, that it was almost impossible for a private Member to proceed with a Bill. He believed it was for the convenience of the House to proceed. He believed that a large portion of the House had attended with a view to this question. The Amendments were not a new subject, but those on which most men had made up their minds, and it was very easy for the House to come to a vote.
SIR F. THESIGERbegged leave to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."
MR. HUMEsaid, that really the House ought to be prepared to decide one way or the other.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERthought it was not doing justice to the motives which actuated those on the other side, in wishing for an adjournment, as if no question was to be discussed which had not been discussed already. The contrary was the fact. Several important principles arose in Committee which would require full consideration on the part of those who had given notice of Amendment. He had given a notice that went to the exemption of the Established Churches of England and Scotland from the operation of this measure, and it would be his duty in pressing that Motion to occupy the House a considerable time.
MR. F. MAULEsaid, that he had a Motion that Scotland be excluded from the operation of the Bill. This question which he had undertaken to move, was the only question upon which he could really say that he believed Scotland was almost unanimous. He believed there did not exist a difference of opinion to any extent on

533
the subject, and Scotland would be disappointed if the matter would be taken without full discussion.
MR. FORBEShoped the Bill would not be pressed forward at that late hour. He, too, had an Amendment, similar to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War.
COLONEL CHATTERTONsaid, that he also had an Amendment to propose, for the exclusion of Ireland from the Bill; and believing that the people of Ireland were unanimous for exemption from the operation of the measure, he should support the Amendment.
SIR B. HALLhoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw his Bill for the present. This measure was said to have been brought forward for the advantage of the poorer and humbler classes. He denied that allegation. Looking at the former Act, which was precedent to the present Bill, to the great outlay and expenditure that had been incurred to carry out the object of this Bill, he believed that the Bill had not been brought forward for the benefit of the poorer and humbler classes, but to put certain persons of a higher grade in a better position than that they now occupied. It was impossible that all the expenditure could have been defrayed by poor people. He could not mention names, but he knew who had paid the cost.
MR. COCKBURNsaid, it appeared to him that the House was in a state of quite sufficient attention and vigilance to enable them to go on with the Bill. They were not called upon to conclude the debate the same night. If hon. Gentlemen on the other side were satisfied that their numbers were full, they would have no anxiety as to the result of ft division. Every hour saved was an hour gained in the progress of the Bill, and he thought his right hon. and learned Friend justified in pressing on the Committee at that comparatively early period of the evening.
SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, that he would join issue with the hon. and learned Member who had spoken. He did not think that any advantage would be gained by their going into Committee at that late hour. He held, with the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon, that they should not go into Committee.
MR. BOUVERIEagreed that no advantage would be gained by their going into Committee at that hour.
MR. S. WORTLEYsaid, he was in ex-
534
actly the same position as other hon. Members, in having been in unbroken attendance in the House for many hours, and he had not received the slightest intimation till just before the Amendment was moved, that there was any intention to oppose the Speaker leaving the chair. He trusted they would allow the Committee to go on; otherwise he must divide.
SIR G. GREYsuggested that the House might go into Committee, but without taking the discussion, which might be postponed.
SIR F. THESIGERsaid, his object was to prevent the Bill going on at that late hour. He had no objection to his right hon. and learned Friend taking a stage, or any desire to oppose the Speaker leaving the chair, on the understanding that there was a general feeling in the House not to go on with the discussion at that period of the night.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that if the House went into Committee, the Bill would be rediscussed when it came again before them. He had no objection whatever to go into Committee on the understanding that there should be no discussion.
SIR R. H. INGLISobjected to any compromise or understanding, and would Support the Amendment.
The House divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 152: Majority 63.

List of the AYES.

Anson, Visct.

Edwards, H.

Arkwright, G.

Farnham, E. B.

Bagot, hon. W.

Farrer, J.

Beresford, W.

Fellowes, E.

Bernard, Visct.

Fergus, J.

Best, J.

Forbes, W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Fordyce, A. D.

Boldero, H. G.

Grace, O. D. J.

Bramston, T. W.

Greenall, G.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Greene, T.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Grogan, E.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Gwyn, H.

Carew, W. H. P.

Hale, R. B.

Chatterton, Col.

Hall, Sir B.

Christopher, R. A.

Halsey, T. P.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Hastie, A.

Clive, H. B.

Hayes, Sir E.

Cocks, T. S.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Colvile, C. R.

Henley, J. W.

Cowan, C.

Hildyard, R. C.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Deedes, W.

Hodges, T. L.

Divett, E.

Hodgson, W. N.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Hope, A.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Hornby, J.

Duff, G. S.

Jones, Capt.

Duncan, G.

Lockhart, A. E.

Duncuft, J.

Lockhart, W.

Dunne, Col.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Du Pre, C. G.

M'Neill, D.

535

Manners, Lord J.

Seymer, H. K.

March, Earl of

Sibthorp, Col.

Monsell, W.

Simeon, J.

Naas, Lord

Stanley, hon. E. H.

Napier, J.

Stanton, W. H.

Neeld, J.

Tenison, E. K.

Oswald, A.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Palmer, R.

Verner, Sir W.

Palmer, R.

Villiers, Visct.

Peel, F.

Walpole, S. H.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Wegg-Prosser, F. R.

Plumptre, J. P.

West, F. R.

Portal, M.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Renton, J. C.

TELLERS.

Richards, R.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Rushout, Capt.

Thesiger, Sir F.

List of the NOES.

Adair, H. E.

Frewen, C. H.

Adair, R. A. S.

Galway, Visct.

Aglionby, H. A.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Glyn, G. C.

Armstrong, R. B.

Goddard, A. L.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Greene, J.

Bagshaw, J.

Grenfell, C. W.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Baring, T.

Hanmer, Sir. J.

Barnard, E. G.

Harris, R.

Barrington, Visct.

Hatchell, J.

Bass, M. T.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Bellew, R. M.

Headlam, T. E.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Heald, J.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Heneage, E.

Blackall, S. W.

Henry, A.

Blake, M. J.

Herbert, H. A.

Blewitt, R. J.

Heywood, J.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Heyworth, L.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Bright, J.

Hollond, R.

Broadwood, H.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Brocklehurst, J.

Howard, Sir R.

Brockman, E. D.

Hudson, G.

Bromley, R.

Hughes, W. B.

Brotherton, J.

Hume, J.

Carter, J. B.

Jervis, Sir J.

Caulfeild, J. M.

Johnson, Sir J.

Chaplin, W. J.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Christy, S.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Clay, J.

Lawless, hon. C.

Clifford, H. M.

Lewis, G. C.

Cobden, R.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Locke, J.

Coke, hon. E. K.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Copeland, Ald.

Mahon, Visct.

Crowder, R. B.

Mangles, R. D.

Denison, E.

Marshall, W.

Duff, J.

Martin, S.

Duke, Sir J.

Masterman, J.

Dundas, Adm.

Matheson, Col.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Ellis, J.

Melgund, Visct.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Milner, W. M. E.

Evans, W.

Milnes, R. M.

Fagan, W.

Moffatt, G.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Morgan, H. K. G.

Filmer, Sir E.

Morris, D.

Foley, J. H. H.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Forster, M.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Fox, W. J.

Muntz, G. F.

Freestun, Col.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

536

Ogle, S. C. H.

Smyth, J. G.

Parker, J.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Patten, J. W.

Spearman, H. J.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Stuart, Lord D.

Pelham, hon. D A.

Stuart, Lord J.

Pilkington, J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Power, N.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Price, Sir R.

Thompson, Col.

Rawdon, Col.

Thompson, Ald.

Ricardo, J. L.

Thornely, T.

Ricardo, O.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Rice, E. R.

Townshend, Capt.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Romilly, Col.

Watkins, Col. L.

Romilly, Sir J.

Wawn, J. T.

Rumbold, C. E.

Westhead, J. P. B.

Russell, hon. E. S.

Willcox, B. M.

Russell, F. C. H.

Williams, J.

Salwey, Col.

Wilson, J.

Scholefield, W.

Wilson, M.

Slaney, R. A.

Wyld, J.

Smith, J. A.

TELLERS.

Smith, M. T.

Wortley, J. S.

Smith, J. B.

Hill, Lord M.

Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
CAPTAIN BOLDEROthen moved the adjournment of the House.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
COLONEL RAWDONprotested against the suspension of public business through the course taken by the opponents of the Bill; and he asked whether it was calculated to raise the House in the estimation of the country?
SIR F. THESIGERunderstood that his right hon. and learned Friend only proposed to take one stage, that of the Speaker leaving the chair, and to undertake not to proceed with the measure in Committee. Under these circumstances he thought there was no necessity for pressing the Motion.
MR. F. MACKENZIEsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would gain either something or nothing by the stage. If he were to gain anything by it, he (Mr. Mackenzie) would oppose it; but if he gained nothing, why press on the Bill?
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, nobody was more opposed to the measure than he was; but it was only fair to place the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the position he would have been in had the Bill come on at an earlier stage.
MR. PLUMPTREwas not satisfied with any arrangement for a stage being gained by Mr. Speaker leaving the chair. The more the Bill was discussed the more objectionable would it prove to be, and he was unwilling to lose any opportunity of making its objectionable principles apparent.
MR. WALPOLEurged the House to consent to this stage, observing that there would be a full opportunity of discussing the principle upon the third reading.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERthought the cause of those who, like himself, opposed the Bill, would hardly he strengthened by the course which was taken in moving adjournments. They must lead to an impression that their object was obstruction rather than discussion.
SIR R. H. INGLISremarked that the concessions of his two hon. and learned Friends would not have been made at eight o'clock, and they had been addressed to the House solely from a conviction that the hour was too advanced to proceed with the discussion. Had his right hon. and learned Friend gained or advanced a single step? He had not; nor would he after the division. Under these circumstances it would be better for him to withdraw the proposition for going into Committee.
CAPTAIN BOLDEROsaid, he was determined to oppose the Bill at every stage and by all means in his power, for a more objectionable measure he had never known introduced into that House. Upon his honour he had a stronger feeling against this Bill, and greater pleasure in voting against it, than against any other ever brought before Parliament. With these feelings he should oppose it at every point which the forms of the House would allow.
The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 147: Majority 95.
Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
MR. FORBES MR. FORBES moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."
The House divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 133: Majority 85.
MR. S. WORTLEYappealed to the House to allow the Bill to be committed pro formâ, promising to defer discussion to a future occasion.
SIR G. GREYdeprecated the opposition with which the right hon. and learned Member had been encountered, but thought that it would be futile to persevere further with the Bill that evening.
Debate adjourned till Thursday 16th of May.
The House adjourned at One o'clock.

Preamble
MINUTES.—Sat first. The Lord Godolphin, after the death of his Father.
1a Process and Practice (Ireland).
2a Pirates (Head Money).

PIRATES (HEAD MONEY) REPEAL BILL.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, did not consider it necessary to say more than that the object of it was to repeal the law under which all persons engaged in the capture or destruction of piratical ships and vessels were entitled to be rewarded by head-money. It was a measure adopted when piracy at sea was more universal than it was at present. In the early part of the reign of George IV. the sea on the coast of China swarmed with pirates; and it was with a view of stopping their atrocious proceedings that the Act of the 6th of George IV. obtained the sanction of Parliament. It was not intended by the present Act to exclude all persons engaged in the capture or destruction of pirate vessels from rewards; but it was thought better to give to the Crown the power of rewarding them according to the nature and extent of their services.
LORD COLCHESTERobserved, that piracy formerly existed to a great extent in the Mediterranean as well as the West Indies, and indeed in all parts of the world, and the Legislature thought it desirable that rewards should be given to Her Majesty's forces for the performance of services frequently attended with great danger and loss of life. An analogous case was that of rewards given during the war, for the capture of privateers belonging to nations with whom His Majesty was at war. With reference to the present Bill, he must say that he thought it would be very in-convenient to apply to Parliament in every case of a pecuniary reward being earned,

483
and perhaps the noble Marquess would say in what manner the reward was proposed to be given.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that the Admiralty would have the power of adjudicating the reward in every case.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHwas of opinion that if the noble Marquess had referred to the Act which this Bill was intended to repeal, the course which he would have recommended the House to pursue would have been somewhat different. The party now engaged in capturing or destroying piratical ships and vessels would have to go to the Admiralty to get his money for such services; but the misfortune was that the money was already earned. Nay, more, the noble Marquess would find that the money would be claimed by parties rendering such services. The principle was admirable that the Admiralty should adjudicate upon all such services; but his objection to the Bill was that it did not give the Admiralty the power of paying the reward. It would not be difficult to fix a limit to the rewards which the Admiralty should be authorised to pay; and he suggested to the noble Marquess that such a limit should be at once fixed. He approved of the repeal of the existing law, for the remuneration which it authorised was extravagant. It was four times the amount of that given to those who captured or destroyed ships and vessels in action with a national enemy. He had recently seen with feelings of the deepest pain an account of an action where, without the loss of a single man on our part, British ships with shot and shell and 32-pounders had captured, destroyed, and sunk certain vessels and ships alleged to be piratical. On the coasts of China it might be necessary that such military executions—for he could characterise such attacks by no other term than that of military executions—should sometimes be inflicted. He did not, however, think them justifiable on the coast of Borneo. He thought that an engagement of such a kind as that of which we had recently heard was not in the purview of Parliament when it passed the Act of the 6th of George IV. It never could have been the intention of the Legislature to give head-money for the destruction, he would even say the extermination, of whole tribes, by 32-pounders for alleged acts of piracy. Another objection to this Bill, in his mind, was, that it took notice only of actions at sea; but the most daring and dangerous
484
operations against pirates occurred when they had left the sea, and had drawn their ships up the rivers, and had made stockades and other defences for their protection on shore. He recollected a case some two years ago, where considerable danger was incurred and much gallantry was displayed by our seamen in forcing the stockades of some pirates on shore, where a boom was even thrown across a river to impede, if not to prevent, our approach. This was not, however, the case in the recent engagement to which he had already referred, where the boats of the natives were met in the open sea, not engaged, as he was informed, in piratical enterprise, but in carrying on an international war. There was likewise another point to which he wished to call the attention of the noble Marquess, as some additional provisions were required upon it. Where pirates were pursued and attacked in the eastern seas, the ships of the East India Company, as well as those of Her Majesty, were oftentimes engaged. No provision was made for taking into account the services rendered by the ships of the East India Company, and no remuneration was made to the officers and seamen employed on board those ships. It was only fair that they should be placed in similar circumstances, as to remuneration, with the officers and seamen of the Royal Navy. Not that he wished their reward to come from the public purse of this country; but the East India Company, he thought, should be placed under an obligation to do that for its officers and seamen which the Admiralty was to be authorised to do for the officers and men of Her Majesty's Navy. He did not altogether approve the principle of the present measure, namely, that all the information relative to the capture and destruction of piratical ships and vessels should be placed before the Admiralty, and that thereupon the Admiralty should suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer what vote he should propose to the House of Commons for the remuneration of the captors. He had every respect for the House of Commons, but he must express his doubts whether a numerous representative assembly was the authority to which it would be the most convenient to refer for the purpose of fixing the precise remuneration to be given to the men and officers engaged in action with pirates, or parties whom they might please to treat as pirates. This, however, must be the case now, as the Admiralty had only the power to recommend a vote to the Chan-

485
cellor of the Exchequer, and had no funds of its own out of which it could make good that vote. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must go to the House of Commons, the papers in each case must he printed, and on the evidence of the papers so printed the House of Commons would have to decide in each case. This was an unknown principle for the House of Commons to act upon, and would be found full of inconvenience in practice. It should be left to the Crown to decide what rewards should be granted to its naval and military officers. He then gave notice that when the Bill got into Committee he should move a substitute for one of the present clauses, the effect of which would be to give the same power of conferring rewards on those engaged with pirates on shore which was now granted to the Admiralty with regard to those engaged with pirates at sea. He should also propose some minor amendments for the purpose of avoiding some inconsistencies which he perceived in the Bill at present.
The EARL of ELLESMEREintended to confine his observations on this subject to one object alone, and that was, to doing justice to an individual whom every one would rank hereafter with the heroes of civilisation—he meant Sir James Brooke. What the noble Earl had just said in his speech about Borneo, was calculated to give countenance to the observations which had been made on that subject elsewhere, and which he never expected to have heard repeated in that House. For his own part, he could not see the distinction which the noble Earl had drawn between the commission of piracy on the shallow coast of China, and its commission in the deeps which surrounded Borneo. The noble Earl would find it difficult to get legal evidence of piracy in cases where the pirates murdered every person who fell into their hands; but, in the present case, there was sufficient evidence to prove that the persons whose operations Sir J. Brooke intercepted were engaged in the most sanguinary piracy. When he heard the noble Earl complaining that we had brought shot and shell and 32-pounders to bear on boats filled with naked savages, he could not help asking the noble Earl whether he would have us dispense with all the advantages which the superiority of skill and ingenuity and civilisation gave us in our future contests with the natives of the East? Would he have us sacrifice the lives of our seamen and merchants and fellow-country-men
486
in the seas of Borneo by neglecting to use the means which Providence had placed at our disposal for their protection against pirates? If so, it would be better for us to give up at once all our schemes of colonisation, and all our attempts at civilising the world. He could not hear any question started in that House injurious to the character of Sir J. Brooke, without entering his protest against it, and without disputing the distinction, which the noble Earl had endeavoured to draw between international war and the most atrocious piracy. He (Lord Ellesmere) had done all that he could to obtain from the Government the establishment of Labuan; and he had little doubt that under the salutary superintendence of Sir J. Brooke, with whom he had no personal acquaintance, it would soon become a thriving and flourishing settlement.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHwould repeat what he had formerly said. He thought that the whole character of the operations which were in contemplation by the natives of Borneo savoured more of international war than of that which we called piracy. The law which it was now sought to repeal, never had in its purview any interference with operations of international war. It looked to piratical objects, and to piratical objects alone; it never once contemplated the extermination of whole tribes. The tribe which we had attacked was not in vessels or ships of war, but in boats; it was not in possession of musketry, it was only armed with bows and arrows, and it was only in contemplation of future danger to European commerce that it was attacked and exterminated. The noble Earl had informed their Lordships that he had done all that he could for the establishment of Labuan. He (the Earl of Ellenborough) was in office at the time. He had read with the greatest care and deliberation all the papers presented to him on the subject, and he had then done all that he could to prevent the establishment of Labuan. Nothing had since occurred to satisfy him that he had been wrong in so doing. Labuan had now twenty-nine inhabitants, and five of them were women. That population was fixed on a small peninsula, the whole of which, during five or six months in the year, was a swamp. It was said that a company was formed to work the mines of coal it contained. Whether such a company had ever been formed he could not say, but this he know, that no company had yet appear-

487
ed to work any mines there. It was utterly useless to England, but it was not useless to those who, like Sir J. Brooke and others, were speculating in Borneo, It would require for its protection a naval force which was not necessary for the interests of our commerce in Borneo, although it would have a tendency to favour the pretensions of Sir J. Brooke. He had recently read with great alarm a proposition of Sir J. Brooke to establish a fort at the mouth of one of the rivers of Borneo, and to post armed vessels at the mouths of two other rivers, and he now warned the Government against the occupation of any part of Borneo by the troops and sailors of England. We had already colonies enough, and we should be weakening our naval and military force most injudiciously by taking possession of new settlements, which we should have to defend by military garrisons in case of hostilities with an European power. He therefore augured ill of that proposition. They might depend upon it, if they once set their feet in Borneo, and proceeded to build forts there, that they would be led on step by step from one war to another, and from one conquest to another, until they were involved in transactions which would tend, not to the prosperity, but to the injury of this country.
EARL GREYsaid: The noble Earl who has just resumed his seat has stated that the operations of these pirates were more in the nature of international war, than what might properly be called a piratical transaction. I hold in my hand a copy of a paper which I received by the mail of yesterday, a Singapore newspaper, containing an account of the proceedings in the admiralty court in that settlement, which, I think, afford the most conclusive answer to that allegation. I find there copies of the depositions of numerous parties with respect to what had been the conduct of that very fleet of pirates which Sir James Brooke and the force employed under his directions attacked and destroyed. I will not trouble your Lordships by reading at any length the depositions of these persons, but will refer to one or two merely as specimens:—
"Burut, a Bornean, maketh oath and saith, that his residence is at Brune, that he was at Mato when that place was attacked by the Serebas pirates about two months ago. Deponent was one of the crew of a large trading prahu, about 60 ft. 5 in. long, and 17 ft, beam, built at Striki, belonging to Nakodah Masallah, and had just arrived at Singapore: the cargo was piece goods. On her arrival at Mato the greater part of the
488
cargo was landed. The prahu was anchored outside the defences across the river; there was another large prahu there, also laden with sago, and bound for Singapore. The Serebas pirates captured, plundered, and burnt both these prahus: the crews escaped on shore. The fleet then attacked Mato, and were beaten off; there were upwards of 100 prahus. If it had not been for the booms secured across the river below the town, the place must have been taken. These defences were made to protect the town against the people of Serebas and Sakarran. The deponent is certain that the fleet was either from Serebas or Sakarran."
That is one case, and there are dozens of similar ones. There are cases of fishermen in their boats, engaged in peaceful occupations, attacked not only for the sake of their property, but for their heads, for your Lordships are probably aware that it is considered a great achievement to have a number of human heads hanging up in the houses of the savages. Then we have, my Lords, depositions of unfortunate men, driven from their boats, and wandering about the interior in a state of the utmost wretchedness, to escape from the pirates—boats engaged in the peaceful occupations both of fishing and commerce—instances of whole villages along the coast attacked without warning by these piratical fleets, and atrocities of the most monstrous character perpetrated up to the very moment in which they received the treatment which they so richly deserved, at the hands of Her Majesty's naval force and Sir J. Brooke. In this Singapore paper I also find an address presented to Sir J. Brooke, signed by all the principal mercantile firms in that settlement, stating that this system of piracy is destructive of and opposed to the progress of peaceful commerce and to the hope of civilisation extending in that region of the world. I have no doubt whatever that this statement is perfectly correct. What, my Lords, has been the result of Sir J. Brooke's operations? I am not sufficiently acquainted with the pronunciation of these eastern names, or the exact geography of the island, to be able to describe the place exactly to your Lordships; but I find that along the whole coast, up to a point somewhere about 500 miles from Labuan, about five years ago there was nothing but insecurity—no unarmed ships could attempt to carry on any trade in that part; but, in consequence of the operations and conduct of Sir J. Brooke, the trade of the whole of that large extent of coast is now completely opened to unarmed ships. Commerce is in consequence taking root; a lucrative trade is springing

489
up, and with it other civilising influences, and a diffusion of knowledge both of European manners and of Christianity by missionaries and others. I want to know whether this is or is not a line of policy which it becomes a great country to pursue? Are we or are we not to use our superior force to provide that the progress of peaceful commerce shall not be interrupted, and that the peaceful fisherman and trader shall not be plundered and slaughtered by a horde of barbarians? This is, therefore, what we have done. Every warning had been given to these tribes. They received a severe lesson about two years since from Captain Keppel. For some time that lesson made an impression upon them, and their piratical attacks were not continued. They, however, forgot the lesson, resumed their previous conduct, and brought upon themselves this merited punishment. Sir J. Brooke applied to the naval commander on the station, who placed a force at his disposal, and proceeded to put an end to these wanton attacks. The noble Earl complained that we had not lost a man in the engagement. Would the noble Earl have thought the case better if Sir J. Brooke, instead of taking care that the force should be skilfully as well as gallantly employed, had lost 50 or 100 of our brave sailors in the conflict? The noble Earl also complained of the conduct of our naval force because the pirates had only bows and arrows. Does he suppose that we should generously have refused the use of our 32-pounders because those who were opposed to us had only bows and arrows? If so, that is a doctrine which I certainly cannot understand. He also referred to the settlement—I cannot call it a colony—and said that we had colonies everywhere already, and wanted no more. I, too, am far from considering that we ought to extend our colonial possessions. Labuan, however, is not a colony; it is an island occupied for the same purposes, and in a manner analogous precisely to that of Singapore. The same complaints as have been made with respect to Borneo were made when the settlement of Singapore was first established, and the same prophecies of evil were made on the subject. Will any man now say that the formation of the settlement at Singapore has not been of immense advantage to British commerce, and has done much towards civilising and improving these distant regions of the earth? It was intended
490
by the settlement of Labuan to provide a secure depot for our commerce in that part of the world, and also as a station from which could be obtained valuable supplies of coal for our shipping. At the time when Her Majesty's present advisers were appointed to office, I found in the records of the office with which I had the honour to be invested, a considerable amount of correspondence on this subject, and found that the noble Earl who was, in the previous Administration, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had very strongly expressed his opinion in favour of the policy of occupying that settlement. That opinion was, I believe, dissented from by my immediate predecessor in the Colonial Office; but I must say, that, upon comparing the reasoning of the two, it appeared to me that the arguments of the noble Earl were completely conclusive on the subject, and steps were accordingly taken in pursuance of the recommendations of the noble Earl. But the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) has stated that this settlement is a complete failure. Now, it so happens that I received only yesterday from Sir J. Brooke a report of the progress of that settlement, which gives the most decisive proofs to the contrary. It is undoubtedly true that the settlement had in the first instance many grave difficulties to surmount. Your Lordships are well aware that a settlement never is made for the first time in any tropical clime upon land which is in a state of nature without disease generally breaking out among the settlers. Borneo was no exception to this rule. There was a large marsh in the immediate vicinity of Labuan, owing to which disease broke out in 1848 to a very large extent. That marsh, however, has been drained, and the jungle, full of deep waterpits, cut down, and last year no case of fever had occurred. I have the report of the surgeon, with an account of every case of sickness which arose in the island, and that appeared in Labuan, and he says that the health of Labuan is now equal to that of any other tropical clime. Another proof of the improved state of health at Labuan was afforded by the fact that, upon the relief of the detachment of the army stationed in that place, there were only two men upon the sick list. The settlement is now, therefore, perfectly healthy. But the noble Earl said it was making no progress. It has only been formed a year and a half; and it must be

491
borne in mind that it was never expected that Englishmen would go out and settle there to any extent, but that Chinese and other merchants would establish themselves at Labuan for purposes of commerce, and in that manner a large tropical commerce would be carried on with the coast of Ceylon and other parts; because in these barbarous countries it is impossible for trade to be safely carried on unless there existed some place which might serve as a depot where goods could be deposited and kept in safety, for the purpose of their being conveyed by larger vessels, which were, of course, not always be found. The settlement has had to endure all the privations of a famine consequent upon the sickness which broke out in 1848; that famine, however, has been removed, and Sir J. Brooke now informs me that many Chinese, and other traders who frequented the place, had come to the determination of transferring their establishments altogether to Labuan. That was exactly what was anticipated would take place, and that the merchants and traders of those parts would take shelter under the British flag, and make that settlement the centre of their commercial transactions. Sir J. Brooke goes on to say, that already 124 town allotments had been disposed of; that the entire amount of revenue estimated under that head had been fully realised; and that there prevailed throughout the settlement a very general opinion of the ultimate success of the undertaking. This information was contained in a despatch dated so recently as the 2nd of February last. The noble Earl has said that the prosperity of the settlement was represented to depend, in the first instance, upon the working of its coal mines, and that those mines were to be worked by a commercial company, and that no such company had ever yet appeared. It is perfectly true that the operations of the coal company have been far from being so active as I anticipated. There were, however, various causes which would account for this state of things. Among other things the general disturbance of commerce in 1848, and we all know how severely commerce was affected in every part of the world; the number of failures which occurred, not only in England but in India, and the many difficulties to which the mercantile classes were exposed during that period. Those circumstances will, I believe, account mainly for the great want of exertion which had been displayed on the part of the company.
492
But at the same time it must be stated that they have made a beginning; and X find that there have been already furnished to Her Majesty's Navy very nearly 2,000 tons of most excellent coal; and the reports of the engineers of Her Majesty's steamers upon the quality of the coal have been highly favourable. Now what is the difference in price at which coals are contracted to be furnished to Her Majesty's Navy by the new company, as compared with the previous contract prices? The present contract price at the pit's mouth is 11 s. per ton, but of course there is considerable expense incurred in conveying the coal to the coast in consequence of the deficiency of suitable roads, and the admiral on the station has agreed to pay 17 s. 6d. per ton upon delivery on board the steamers, after a deduction of 2s. 6d. per ton duty; whereas the previous contract price at Singapore was 33 s. 6d. per ton. So that in the first instance, and at the commencement of the company's operations, a very considerable advantage has accrued to the Government, I am also informed that excellent coal has been discovered close to the harbour, which will enable the company to deliver the coals at a much lower rate by saving the heavy expense of transit to the coast. Now, having made these statements, I cannot help referring, and referring with great regret, to an observation which was made by the noble Earl in the course of his address. He stated that this settlement would never be of any advantage to the country, but that it might be advantageous to Sir J. Brooke, and to the other speculators who had embarked with him in the concern. I confess that I did not expect to hear a charge of that description made in this House. I agree with the noble Earl on the cross benches (the Earl of Ellesmere) in his opinion of Sir J. Brooke, and I admire the character of Sir J. Brooke more than that of almost any man whose character has been before the public. His self-devotion, his entire disinterestedness, his refusal to take any advantage for himself, and the fact that he has been governed only by the highest motives of charity and Christianity, are to me beyond all doubt. I have seen, but a few days since, an answer made by Sir J. Brooke to a letter sent to him, in which a commercial speculator pointed out to him that if he would join him in some enterprise which he wished to establish, and give up his former notions of keeping himself entirely independent from all commer-

493
cial transactions, that with his influence and ability he might soon become the richest commoner in England. What was the answer of Sir J. Brooke? He said—
"I see no objection to others who are fairly engaged in commerce engaging in these transactions of a pecuniary nature. But this is not my object. My object is an entirely distinct one; and I will not sacrifice or endanger those higher objects which I have in view by having any concern with speculations which have any reference to pecuniary profit."
This letter was written so long ago as December, 1846, and I think it is a complete answer to the charge brought against him by the noble Earl. I think I am justified in saying, that, so far from Sir J. Brooke having made any profit of what he has done, he has sacrificed very largely his own private fortune in carrying out his great enterprise of humanity. More than that, I grieve to say, that by accounts which I received yesterday, I greatly fear that Sir J. Brooke has certainly endangered his most valuable life. It is difficult for me to describe the grief with which I yesterday read in his report to me that his State of health was such that his medical advisers had declared it absolutely necessary, in consequence, that he should immediately retire from Labuan to Penang, and if that change of climate did not in a short time effect an improvement in his health, that he should return to England. Sir J. Brooke never thoroughly recovered from the effects of the fever which he suffered in Labuan in 1848, and his recent exposure in the boats against the pirates has brought on additional attacks, which have most seriously endangered his health and his life. At the moment when we have this painful information with respect to this most generous, most public-spirited man, who has been risking his life and fortune in furtherance of objects of the highest importance—to hear him in this House classed with others as a mere speculator, who, for his own selfish purposes, and for the promotion of his own advantages, would cause this country to incur any amount of expense, has, I must say, given me the greatest pain.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHobserved, that the blue book which treated on the condition of Labuan had recently been laid on the table by the noble Earl who spoke last, and he had taken his facts, and formed his opinions, on the statements contained in that blue book. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) himself lived in a coal country, and knew well the difference
494
between the value of different kinds of coal. Some coal at 33 s. a ton might be cheaper than other coal at 20 s. a ton. Now, if the noble Earl thought that the coal of Labuan or Borneo was likely to be of use to Her Majesty's steamers, he would recommend him to have its value tested by engineers of competent talent. He (the Earl of Ellenborough) had himself been in the country, and the impression on his mind was, that so far as regarded the purposes of steam navigation, the coal of the East was so unequal in its operation as to be far dearer than the coal of England or Wales. Besides, the coal of the East was more liable to spontaneous combustion. He recollected that during the expedition to China 500 tons of coal were lost at one time at Hong-Kong by spontaneous combustion. He was satisfied that in time of war it would be cheaper for Government to import coal from Wales, for steam navigation, than to buy cheap coal in the East. The noble Earl had told their Lordships that Labuan would succeed as Singapore had succeeded. But what was the reason that Singapore had succeeded? The success of Singapore was owing to its being on the high road of commerce. Was that the case with Labuan? No; Labuan was hundreds of miles out of that high road, and, therefore, Labuan could not succeed, unless, by some unexpected contingency, a new commerce should spring up around it. He had not intended on this occasion to enter into any discussion on the conduct and character of Sir James Brooke. He would say candidly that he thought Sir James Brooke a great, generous, and romantic English gentleman. Sir James evidently thought that, by extending the influence of England and his own in those seas, he would render great services to humanity. On the other hand, he (the Earl of Ellenborough) was of opinion that Sr. James Brooke would fail in his great objects, and that he would bring on a great amount of evil and suffering. Yes, that gentleman was so blindly devoted to his own ideas that the consequence might be much injury to himself and to humanity, worked out on the most conscientious principles. What he (the Earl of Ellenborough) dreaded was this—nay, what he well knew was this—that by bringing the naval force of England to Labuan, where it was not wanted, it would be practically used to work out Sir James Brooke's objects, be they bad or be they good, and in the attempt he

495
was certain that great injury would be done to humanity.
EARL GREYassured the noble Earl opposite that reports of the great value of Labuan coal had been received from engineers of first-rate ability.
After a few words from the Earl of WALDEGRAVE,
Bill read 2a.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that in order that the House might be furnished with more complete information on the subject, he would postpone the further stages of the Bill until copies of the despatches relating to the destruction of the pirates of Borneo had been laid upon their Lordships' table. On the subject of the destruction of human life in the engagement with the pirates, very erroneous statements had been made. Instead of 1,000 persons having been killed in the engagement, there had been only 500.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that 500 persons had been killed in the jungle, in addition to those killed in the engagement. He also wished to know whether the Admiralty approved of the attack?
The EARL of MINTOsaid, that it formed no portion of the duty of the Board of Admiralty to express any opinion upon the policy of the measure; but the Lords of the Admiralty had highly approved of the courage and bravery of the officers and seamen who were engaged in the attack.
The Bill was then ordered to be committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.
House adjourned till To-morrow.