Page images
PDF
EPUB

settlement of the question. The slidingscale always had the objection, that it carried within itself the seeds of change and decay. And now he would appeal to the noble Lords who represented so powerfully the great landed interest, and the great solid and permanent interests of the country; and he beseeched them to beware how they lightly rejected the present measure, which went at once, and not indirectly or circuitously, to their benefit as landowners; because, being final, it let all men-landowners, farmers, capitalists know where they were. Let the House think of the millions of capital now locked up, as he knew of his personal knowledge, waiting until this question of the Corn Laws should be finally settled. Not one guinea of that capital would go out while all was in suspense-not a guinea would have gone out towards the land under a fixed duty which on the face of it could never be regarded as a final arrangement of the subject. Let them settle the question, finally and for ever settle it, and that capital would flow throughout the land for purchase, for lease, for improvement, for loan. These were the grounds, in addition to those he had advanced when he last addressed their Lordships, why he should vote for going into Committee on the Bill.

The DUKE of RICHMOND said, it was not his intention, at that late hour, to trouble their Lordships at any length; but he wished to make an observation or two after the eloquent speech of his noble and learned Friend, which, though it did not contain much argument, was a most amusing display. He agreed with his noble and learned Friend in what he had said with respect to the mischief which would arise if, instead of Members of Parliament being sent, the country should send delegates to the House of Commons; but he did not agree with him in every other part of his address. In 1829, he had pressed upon the Legislature and the Government the necessity of dissolving Parliament; and he did the same thing now; and he did so for the same reason. He maintained that in 1841 the question of protection or no protection was that which had been reechoed on every hustings throughout England. He did not approve of Members of Parliament giving pledges to their constituents; but he did not approve of their breaking the pledges which they had made; and during the period that he had the honour to represent a city in the other House of Parliament, he had invariably re

fused to become pledged to any particular measure; but this he would say, that if he was pledged to pursue a particular measure, no power on earth should induce him to forfeit his pledge, and to occupy a position which he should then feel he had obtained by fraud. But he thought the course which unfortunately Her Majesty's Ministers had pursued on the present occasion, would lead to making more delegates than before; for representatives were formerly believed to be honourable men, in whom confidence might safely be reposed. On the one side a man said, I am a Conservative; on the other, a man said, I am a Liberal; and the constituencies of the country, generous as they were, took these Members at their word, and returned them to Parliament. But, now, would these constituencies believe them-could they credit the assertions they made? Would they not know-would they not remember the 112 that unfortunately, if they had not broken their direct pledges, had at least broken the faith which their constituencies had put in them; and this, therefore, in his opinion, would lead to more delegates. His noble and learned Friend said that they, as landed proprietors, ought to let this question be immediately carried; and that he himself was for an immediate free trade in corn. But he would ask their Lordships whether the present Bill was for an immediate free trade in corn? Did they expect to get rid of agitation when they passed this Bill, while for three years they were to have the sliding-scale? Upon his honour he could not find out why, except that the men who had broken their pledges wished to look opposite and see men who were in favour of a fixed duty violate their opinions by voting for a sliding-scale. That was the only way in which they could account for it; and they all knew that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was a very sagacious gentleman, as it was called; but on this point he would not dwell, because he never had attacked Sir Robert Peel personally, and he never would. He had a right to attack his conduct- he would not presume to judge of his motives. Well, but it was said their Lordships ought not to encourage agitation. Did not his noble and learned Friend know that noble Lords in that House were but a small body of the landed interest in the country? Was it to be supposed that the landed interest was composed of a certain number of people who frequented the saloons of London, who belonged to the

clubs, or attended Almack's? Why, the agricultural and the landed interest of England was a great and important body: their Lordships were not even entitled to be called their representatives; they were too few in number for that, and their possessions were much larger than those of noble Lords. But when they told him that he could prevent agitation if he wished it, he proudly avowed that, instead of preventing agitation, he would do his utmost to recommend it. He would do his utmost to tell the farmers of England that they had been ill treated, and to recommend them to exert themselves in every one of their counties, and in every one of their boroughs. The question was stated by his noble and learned Friend to be one in which the landed interest alone was concerned; but he would say boldly that the operatives in the manufacturing districts were hostile to this measure; and it was well known that the counties of England were hostile to free trade, or the Anti-Corn-Law League would not have gone and bought votes for these counties. The manufacturers knew well how to expend their money; and they would never have gone and bought fictitious votes in the counties if they had not known that the real votes in the counties were against their schemes. He believed it was a fact that the Anti-Corn-Law League had never, up to the present time, ventured to hold a public meeting in any town in this country without giving tickets to those who attend ed; and this was a proof that they knew the operatives were hostile to protection. His opinion, however, on this subject being well known, and as he had on a former occasion received the attention of their Lordships, he would assure them that he should not have now risen to trespass on their attention, if it had not been for what he conceived to be a most unjustifiable attack which had been made upon him by the right rev. Prelate with the blue ribbon around his neck (the Bishop of Oxford). That right rev. Prelate stated that the landowners of England knew nothing whatever of their labourers; that they only saw them at their public meetings; and that the Clergy alone, forsooth, knew anything of the habits and wants of the people. He should not have taken this as personal to himself if the right rev. Prelate had not condescended, in the very next paragraph of his speech, to take notice of a circumstance which he understood to have been mentioned in one of the newspapers of the day, where it was said that at a public meeting

the labourers drank, out of empty glasses, the health of their landlords. He understood that there was a report of a meeting in one of the London papers, which was held on Tuesday last, and at which he filled the chair. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) had made, he thought, some allusion to that meeting; and as the right rev. Prelate had landed property in Sussex, near his, he thought he might have alluded to him when he said the landholders were deficient in the duty they owed to their poorer brethren. If that were his intention, it would have been more manly for him to have avowed it. He listened to the eloquent speech of the right rev. Prelate with pleasure, at the talent which it displayed; but he looked in vain for that Christian charity which ought to be manifested by all, and more particularly by a young Prelate of the Church, one of the youngest Bishops who ever sat in their Lordships' House. He could well understand the gratitude which the right rev. Prelate felt towards Sir Robert Peel, and found no fault with him for that; but he must say that the right rev. Prelate ought not to have made those charges; and he deeply regretted the allusion which had been made to that meeting, because three or four years since he had the satisfaction of seeing the right rev. Prelate upon a similar occasion, which not only met with his approbation, but with the approbation of the Bishop of his diocese, and the numerous Clergy who were in the habit of attending those meetings The gentlemen of the county had held these meetings for some years back; and he did not think there was anything in their nature which ought to bring upon them either the contempt or the ridicule of their Lordships. They were got up for the purpose of rewarding the honesty and fidelity of the agricultural labourer, who obtained a premium upon the presentation of a certificate of good moral character, and the performance of his Christian and social duties in a proper manner. The labourer dined there, and considered the day upon which this meeting was held as one of the pleasantest in the whole year. There was no intoxication-all was morality and good order. The right rev. Prelate said, the labourers drank the landlords' health out of empty glasses; but he (the Duke of Richmond) could not see how a man could drink out of an empty glass. That reminded him strongly of a saying of Earl Spencer, who, when charged with having uttered something ab

surd, exclaimed that he had never uttered such nonsense because he was not an eloquent man. He left the House to say how far the comparison might be carried in the present instance. Notwithstanding what the right rev. Prelate said, he would still encourage those institutions, which he thought promoted good feeling and confidence between the labourer and the employer, and were, in fact, productive of the greatest advantages. There was another remark of the right rev. Prelate which he did not perfectly understand. The right rev. Prelate said that the display of friendship for the Established Church came from an unexpected quarter. Now, he (the Duke of Richmond) always supposed the protectionists to be the strongest friends of the Established Church; but he supposed they were now no longer to be considered He would just make one remark on the subject of tithes. He consented to the passing of that measure, because it would set the matter at rest; but no power on earth should have induced him to support that Bill if he had thought it was intended to get rid of protection altogether, and keep the average of the tithe at seven years.

So.

aided to the best of my power similar institutions in other places. I by no means undervalue them; but what I meant to say, however inadequately I may have expressed it, was that such meetings did not at all reveal the real sufferings of the peasantry—that we were not to judge of their feelings as to the present state of the laws and institutions of our country, by the passing excitement produced on such occasons-that this was rather to be judged of by following them home to their cottages in their daily struggle for a livelihood, and seeing then how they do feel; when we should find that many of the institutions of the country are felt by them to bear hard upon them, and in their opinion, to require alteration. I once more beg to thank your Lordships for the kindness with which you before heard me, and to beg the noble Duke, if he felt hurt by what I said, to receive the assurance of its having been my intention to say nothing whatever which could personally hurt the feelings of any noble Lord.

Debate adjourned.
House adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Friday, June 12, 1846.

MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.-1°. Churches; Landlord and Tenant (Ireland); Ejectments, &c. (Ireland); Leases (Ireland).

2o. Steam Navigation; Wreck and Salvages.

3o and passed. Railway Companies Dissolution.

The BISHOP of OXFORD said: I desire to say a few words in answer to the charge which the noble Duke has brought against me. I can assure the noble Duke that one result at least has followed from the contiguity of my small property in Sussex to his large domain: it has made me acquainted with the noble Duke's kind- PETITIONS PRESENTED. By several hon. Members, from ness, care, and attention to the state of the cottagers and the peasants in that county; and I therefore beg the noble Duke will believe what I say most unfeignedly and unreservedly, that if in the heat of debate, not being particularly experienced in debate, I have said anything of the noble Duke which impeached his character in that respect, it was most unintentionally said, and is most sincerely regretted. I can assure him that even if the compliment which he was pleased to pay me, for what he kindly called the talent shown in my speech, were deserved, that, in my estimation, would be a miserable set-off for any lack of charity which such a speech exhibited. I can also assure the noble Duke that I did not in the least degree find fault with that meeting of the peasantry to which he has alluded. Three years ago, I myself, I remember, took a part under his auspices in that very meeting; I have

an immense number of places, complaining of Refusal to grant Sites for the Erection of Churches for the Free Church of Scotland.-By Mr. Aldam, from Inhabitants of the Town of Thirsk, for the Adoption of Measures for promoting the Due Observance of the Lord's Day. -By Captain Duff, from Secular Clergymen and Laymen of the Town of Banff, and its Vicinity, professing the Roman Catholic Religion, and by Mr. Ricardo, from Roman Catholic Inhabitants of the Village of Cowbridge, in favour of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.By several hon. Members, from various places, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, but in favour of the Immediate Appointment of a Bishop to the newly erected See of Manchester.-By Mr. Wilshere, from Merchants, Shipowners, Manufacturers, and other Inhabitants of the Port of Great Yarmouth, praying that all Expenses for the Erection and Maintenance of Lighthouses, Floating Buoys, and Beacons on the Coasts of the United Kingdom, should be henceforth defrayed out of the Public Revenue.-By Mr. Morgan, from Ratepayers of the Parish of Llandogo, for Repeal or Alteration of the Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act. By Sir James Graham, from Officers of the Longtown Union, for a Superannuation Fund for Poor Law Officers.-By Mr. Muntz, from Members of several Religious Societies, and others, for the Abolition of Capital Punishments.-By Mr. Owen Stanley, from Owen Owen Roberts, of Bangor, complaining of Treatment of Lunatics in Wales.-By Mr. G. Hamilton, from Solicitors of Dublin, for Alteration of Protection of Purchasers, &c. (Ireland) Act.-By Mr. Forbes, from Cromarty, for Alter

ation of Prisons (Scotland) Act.-By General Morrison, from Alloa, for Repeal of the Corn Laws.-By Mr. W.

Williams, from Rhayader, for Extension of Education in Wales.

POISONING IN NORFOLK.

come to the resolution that they would not allow expenses where the verdict on an inquest had been " died by the visitation of God." The consequence had been that at Ilfracomb a coroner had refused to hold an inquest because his expenses would not be allowed. This course had operated most injuriously in reference to the performance of their duties by coroners, and inquests had in many cases been omitted that ought to have held.

An HON. MEMBER begged to ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) whether any steps had been taken on the part of the Home Office to institute further inquiry into the late awful cases of poisoning in Norfolk, and to prevent the possible repetition of such crimes. He wished to know whether the attention of CHURCH OF SCOTLAND AND THE DUKE the registrar-general of deaths had been directed to the subject, and whether it would not be advisable for all registrars to refuse to enter notices of sudden death, until inquiry should have been instituted?

SIR J. GRAHAM: The question put by the hon. Member was one of very great importance, and the subject to which he had referred one of very great consequences. The inquiry instituted by the Crown had closed, but the report had not yet been received by him. With regard to the other question, and the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman, he must observe that it was the duty of the registrar of deaths to receive from a householder an account of the death (with its cause) of an individual in his district, and to enter the statement so made; and positive instructions had been issued that the registrars should be satisfied as to the accuracy of the statement. But as to refuse to enter a sudden death when there should exist no suspicious circumstances to occasion a doubt as to its fairness, he thought such a proceeding would be most vexatious. He would take that opportunity of stating to the House what he believed to be a serious cause of the commission of these crimes. It was the infrequency of coroners' inquests throughout the country. In the case alluded to, it appeared that no less than twenty persons had lost their lives by poison, administered by one individual, without any inquiry having been held. Any person having reason to think that death had occurred under suspicious circumstances, had a right to call for an investigation. But he regretted to say that, during the last few years, so much jealousy had arisen at courts of quarter-session with regard to the charges consequent upon holding those inquiries, as to prevent their being holden; and in his opinion inquests had not been held in a great many instances in which they ought to have been. Some of the magistrates of Devonshire had

OF RICHMOND.

MR. F. MAULE referred to what he had said on Wednesday last, and to the mistake that had been committed in some quarters, by supposing that he had placed. his noble Friend the Duke of Richmond in the category of those who had refused sites to the Free Church of Scotland. He found that what he really said had been correctly reported in these words: "He next came to the case of the Duke of Richmond; and he would not have referred to the case of his noble Friend, if it had not been for the assertion which had fallen from him in another place, that the Free Church of Scotland had shown a disposition to cavil at the offers made to them of sites; and the noble Duke instanced a case which he (Mr. Maule) believed to be his own." Immediately afterwards he had gone on to state, that, so far from not granting sites, the Duke of Richmond had granted or offered not less than twelve, eleven of which had been accepted, on terms on which he thought parties would hardly like to invest their property; he had added the reason why the twelfth site had been refused. Thus he was far from connecting his noble Friend the Duke of Richmond with those who had refused sites; and he (Mr. F. Maule) should be extremely sorry if, after the noble Duke's conduct to the Free Church, an erroneous impression were to get abroad as to the course he had pursued.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND).

MR. O'CONNELL availed himself of the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the Protection of Life (Ireland Bill) to express his regret that he had not been able to be present yesterday when the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Lincoln) made his speech on introducing his three Bills. He hoped he should not be considered arrogant if he apologized for his absence; but he was at a meeting on

the important subject of the education of Roman Catholics, which he felt bound to attend. Had he been able, he should have had great pleasure in listening to the speech of the noble Lord; and even through the not very lucid medium of the published reports, he saw that the noble Lord had deeply considered the question on which he enunciated his views. The tone and temper seemed excellently suited to the occasion; and had he (Mr. O'Connell) been in his place, he should have said a few words merely to direct attention to some principles he deemed of importance. He should not detain the House more than a few minutes, and he hoped he might be allowed now to proceed. In the first place, he would remark that the noble Lord's measure was too retrospective; it did nothing for the existing tenants. The great object was to produce tranquillity in Ireland; and in order to accomplish that end the Bill ought to be made applicable to the present race of tenants. It might be urged that their expenditure upon the land had not been much, since they had no certainty of being remunerated. The attempt ought to be made to give the occupiers fixity of tenure-words frequently assailed, but implying what it was most desirable to accomplish for Ireland. Next, he would direct the attention of the noble Lord to the evidence respecting the tenant right in Ulster. The witnesses had not only been numerous, but most credible; they were persons incapable of deceiving, and they all declared that the tenant right in Ulster was a great source of prosperity and tranquillity. It could not be more strongly recommended to the House than what had been stated regarding it by the agents of the Marquess of Londonderry and Lord Lurgan. He feared that the Bill as it stood might induce many landlords to combat with their tenants; and in that respect it might have a very bad effect. He also submitted that compensation to tenants ought to be estimated at the time of the expiration of their leases; whatever improvement had been produced on the land ought to be given to the tenant, and the consequence would be that the landlord would be better secured in future. It would operate as an inducement with him to grant new leases to tenants, who would have claims at the expiration of their terms. As to the difficulty of ascertaining how much the land had been improved, he might observe that the same difficulty existed at present. A very

little alteration in the machinery of the Bill would give periodical ascertainments of what had been expended in labour or in money upon an estate. At present the law respecting the planting of timber was analogous to what he desired to see it: at present the tenant had not only the full benefit of the crop at the expiration of his lease, but he was entitled to one cutting after that expiration. He had taken the liberty of throwing out these suggestions, being most anxious to assist the noble Lord in carrying out his objects. He was extremely desirous that the Bill should be read a second time, and then referred to a Select Committee for such improvements as it might be thought capable of receiving in order to render it a most beneficial measure. He was certain that it was the wish and intention of the noble Lord to make it so; but he had considerable apprehension that in its present form the measure was not calculated to do all the good of which it was susceptible.

POOR LAW.

MR. CHRISTIE wished to put a question to the right hon. the Home Secretary, and hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a satisfactory reply. It was, whether, on a former day, when the right hon. Baronet answered a question relative to the administration of the Poor Law, he was informed of the existence of a letter, of which he made no mention, and which was completely opposed to his answer? He (Mr. Christie) had called the attention of the right hon. Baronet to two cases that had come before the public, regarding two women, the mothers of infants, who, on leaving the workhouses of the Wootton Bassett and Ledbury unions, had had their children stripped. The question he had put on a former day was this:-" Whether the attention of the Poor Law Commissioners had been directed to the case of Elizabeth Butcher, tried at Salisbury on the 12th day of March, for the murder of her infant child, and acquitted, the child having been stripped of its clothing on the mother's leaving the Cricklade and Wootton Bassett workhouse; and to the case of Harriett Bowkett, tried at Hereford on the 30th of March for the exposure of her infant child with intent to murder, and acquitted of the intention to murder, the child having been stripped of its clothing on the mother leaving the Ledbury workhouse; and whether the stripping infants

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »