sion would be the result of this measure, in | of Wellesley, as having lent its sanction to consequence of the chimerical notions en- liberal commercial principles. In a recent tertained by some parties as to its opera- publication of his he had urged those printion. The idea was entertained in some ciples, and the noble Marquess, in a letter quarters that this measure would have the which he would not trouble the House by effect of raising prices and augmenting reading, said he approved of them; he rents; and a landlord who held this opin- congratulated himself on having given his ion might suppose that his tenant's objec- proxy to his brother (the Duke of Weltion to be bound by a lease executed under lington); he said, he agreed with Sir R. widely different circumstances might arise Peel and with the Duke of Wellington in from ignorance or error, and he might in- the policy they had advocated. The noble sist upon the observance of the lease, Marquess, in that letter, extolled Sir R. thereby reducing the tenant to ruin and Peel as the man of the day, as a man who beggary. The object of the Amendment was born to conduct the affairs of the counwas to prevent such oppression and in- try, and expressed his conviction that there justice, and to assert the sacred and eternal must be a change in our commercial sysprinciples of even-handed justice; and he tem. He (the Earl of Mornington) believed called upon their Lordships to give it their that he was supporting Mr. Pitt's policy in assent. He would deny that the introduc- voting for the present Bill. He believed tion of this clause would be attended with he had also supported that policy when he any confusion whatever, any more than in advocated the Reform Bill and Cathothe case of an ordinary tenancy at will. lic Emancipation. That policy must not He entreated their Lordships not to pass be judged by what Mr. Pitt had done this Bill-which might truly be called a during a state of war, but by what he said Bill of pains and penalties, an edict of con- he would do if he could have maintained fiscation without making provision for peace. some compensation to those who would be EARL STANHOPE explained. injured by it. Let the bane and the anti- knew that the Marquess of Wellesley had dote at least go together, although no anti-been the coustant companion, the friend, dote could be sufficient to meet all the and the colleague of Mr. Pitt; but he could evils of the measure. He looked upon the not forget that the noble Marquess had in vote which their Lordships had come to in the latter part of his career adopted a favour of this Bill, as the death-warrant of course of policy which Mr. Pitt would that House, as the entire and final extinc- have reprobated. tion of their legislative functions, and of their very existence as an independent branch of the Legislature. Their Lordships had shown no disposition to retract that vote, and it therefore behoved their Lordships to pause, to hesitate, and to meditate well on the consequences of rejecting the Amendment of his noble Friend, lest the cup of bitterness should be filled to the brink, and and at last overflow.

The EARL of MORNINGTON explained. He repeated his assertion that Mr. Pitt was a free trader. The Continent of Europe would not reciprocate our overtures of free trade, unless this country proved its sincerity by passing the present measures of the Government. If it were denied that Mr. Pitt himself expressed free-trade opinions, the proverb noscitur a sociis, applied to Mr. Huskisson, Lord Grenville, and others of his intimate acquaintances, would give them reason to believe that Mr. Pitt also held those opinions, and that he held them in very good society. He might mention the name of his late most illustrious relative, the Marquess

He

LORD ASHBURTON was not going to follow the noble Earl (the Earl of Mornington) into the discussion which had occupied the House for the last two hours. He wished merely to bring the House back to the question really before them, namely, the Motion of his noble Friend on the cross benches, to allow tenants to vacate their leases, and receive compensation for unexhausted improvements. He confessed that, if the question were pressed to a division, which he hoped it would not because it would spare him from an unpleasant dilemma, he should be inclined to vote against it. He admitted that great injustice would fall upon the tenant if some arrangement of the kind proposed was not come to; but at the same time he feared that its tendency would be to open a door to so many discussions and disputes of a disagreeable kind, as to its mode of execution, that he was not prepared to give it his support. What he would recommend to the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) was, to withdraw his Amendment in the meantime, and wait to see the result of the

measure of Government, and if the conse- | let at Michaelmas, 1845, before any one quences should prove so disastrous as was had dreamt for a single moment that Sir anticipated, some arrangement of this kind R. Peel had the slightest intention of might be proposed next year. He would changing his opinions, or that, if he did, not say that much suffering would not take the House of Lords would sanction such a place in the meantime; but it was still in change. The farmers were an opentheir power to come to the relief of the oc-hearted, unsuspicious race of men, and cupying tenant, when they had ascertained they never expected that the House of the probable extent of his injury. He per- Lords would turn round like a weathercock fectly agreed with those who thought that and change their opinions at the beck of three-fourths or nine-tenths of the landlords any Minister, be he who he might. He would do what was right and fair in the thought that Sir Robert Peel could never circumstances. In fact, they had no in- be justified, in the eyes of any body of terest to do otherwise, because it was no men, for the conduct he had pursued. benefit to a landlord to have tenants on his Free traders might like the Premier's freeestate who were ruining both themselves trade measures; but he begged the House and his land; but at the same time he to mark his words, they would never be thought that, in the uncertainty of the found following Sir R. Peel or placing concase, and without an exact measure of their fidence in him. They might in the meansuffering, it would be better to wait till time back him up, because, if permitted to next year to see what the consequences stay in office, he would be the means of were, when they might then call upon Par- carrying all their measures, for they knew liament to interfere and make some ar- very well that if they could only bring the rangement of this kind. Before sitting pressure from without into operation, Sir down, he begged to intimate to the House R. Peel would not have the nerve to withthat he wished to postpone, until the third stand it. They might on that ground be reading of the Bill, the Resolution of which induced to like him, but he defied them to he had given notice to move on the sub-respect him. He was sorry to say that he ject, respecting the necessity of some better provision against the calamity which would be occasioned by the sudden importation of the large quantity of wheat now in bond. In the meantime, he entreated both sides of the House to take the matter into earnest consideration, particularly the supporters of the Bill, who should take care not to bring discredit upon its imme-sibility of carrying his clause, he was andiate operations.

The DUKE of RICHMOND replied: He was willing to concede that the noble Lord (the Earl of Mornington), might know much more about France than he (the Duke of Richmond) did, but he denied that he knew so much of the opinions of the farmers of Essex. He had seen them frequently, he had met 500 of them not above a fortnight ago, and he knew their opinions of the measure before the House, and he again complained that noble Lords got up in that House, and declared that the farmers were in favour of free trade, when they were nothing of the kind. He would rather take from the farmers themselves what were their opinions, than take from any noble Lord what the farmers felt on the subject. The noble Earl, in order to show the feelings of the farmers on this measure, had quoted a number of farms whieh had been let; but, it would be observed, that all of them but one had been

could not withdraw his Amendment, because he conceived it to be an act of justice, and an act of justice alone. He should not, however, trouble the House, by dividing, because he did not see what advantage there would be in being beaten by a majority of 33 or 34, or perhaps 40 of their Lordships, and as he did not see any pos

xious not further to discredit their Lordships in the eyes of the country.

The EARL of MORNINGTON explained, that so far from the leases referred to having been executed before the announcement of the free-trade measures, most of them had been executed only the day before yesterday.

On Question, to insert the said Clause,
resolved in the negative.
Bill reported.
House adjourned.

byterian College of Anahilt; and by Mr. Ross, from Magherally and Kilmore, complaining of the refusal of the Proprietors of Land to grant Sites for the Erection of Churches for the Free Church in Scotland.-By Viscount Morpeth, from Inhabitants of the Parish of St. Clement Danes, and by Mr. Ord, from Inhabitants of the Town and County of Newcastle upon Tyne, for the Better Ob

servance of the Lord's Day.-By Lord John Manners, and Viscount Morpeth, from a number of places, in faAcland, from Clergy of the Deaneries of Barnstaple and Sherwell, and by Mr. Finch, from Clergymen residing in the County of Rutland, against the Union of the Sees of Saint Asaph and Bangor, but providing for the Immediate Appointment of a Bishop to the newly erected See of Manchester. By Viscount Morpeth, from Thomas Clarkson, for Alteration of the Duty on Sugar.-By Mr. Sharman Crawford, from Inhabitants of the Borough of Rochdale,

vour of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.-By Sir Thomas

from Subscribers of the Art Union of London, in favour

The question he wished to ask was, whether any communication had taken place between Mr. Coode, one of the Assistant Secretaries of the Poor Law Commission, and the Commissioners, on the subject; whether Mr. Coode had resigned his situation as Assistant Secretary; and, if so, whether the right hon. Baronet would be ready to produce any minute of the Poor Law Commissioners relative to the subject?

SIR J. GRAHAM said: Sir, when I saw the petition to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I had received no previous communication on the subject of it; but, in conseagainst the Embarkation of Troops for the Colonies.-By Viscount Morpeth, from Clergy and Gentry of Dewsbury, quence of the statements contained in that Batley, and the Neighbourhood, and by Mr. Newdegate, petition, I wrote an official letter to the of Art Unions Bili.— By Mr. Lyall, from Members of the Poor Law Commissioners, desiring them London Dock Company, for promoting Establishment of to communicate to me officially the inBaths and Washhouses.—By Mr. Vesey, from Magistrates, quiries which they had made on the subClergy, Freeholders, Landholders, and others, in the Barony of Sliemarrigue, in the Queen's County, for Altera-ject. The result is, that I have received tion of County Works Presentment (Ireland) Act.-By an official answer to that letter, which conSir Thomas Esmonde, from Operative Slaters of the tains a memorandum as to the conduct of City of Dublin, against the Abolition of the Guilds of Dublin.—By Mr. Hume, from Members of the Metropo- Mr. Coode, and information that Mr. Coode litan Working Classes Association for the Improvement of is no longer an Assistant Secretary to the the Public Health, for the Adoption of Measures for pro- Commission. I shall have no difficulty moting the Health of Towns.-By Mr. Allix, from Guardians of the Poor of the Chesterton Union, against the whatever in laying on the Table of the Highways Bill.-By Mr. John Henry Vivian, from Guar- House copies of my letter to the Poor dians of the Poor of the Swansea and Mansfield Poor Law Law Commissioners and their answer. Unions, for Repcal or Alteration of the Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act.-By Captain have not yet received a full Layard, from Out-Pensioners of Chelsea Hospital, residing on the subject from the Lunacy Comin Deal and its Vicinity, complaining of Deductions from missioners. I expect one in the course their Pensions.-By Mr. Gisborne, from James Wilson and others, for the creation of a Fund for the Superannuation of a few days; and as soon as I receive it, Fund for Poor Law Officers.-By Mr. Octavius Duncombe, I shall be ready to lay before Parliament and Viscount Morpeth, from several places, for Alteration the whole of the correspondence. Sir, I will now trouble the House with an explanation which is personal to myself, with reference to Mr. Mott, formerly an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, who has been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Times newspaper contained two days ago an allegation as to myself, unintentionally erroneous I am certain, but still grossly erroneous. The statement was this :

of the Poor Removal Bill.-By Mr. Sharman Crawford,

Mr. Ross, and Mr. Trelawny, from various places, for the Total Abolition of the Punishment of Death.-By Mr. Thomas Duncombe, from Shareholders in the Dublin and Armagh Inland Railway Company, for Alteration of the Railway Companies Dissolution Bill.-By Mr. Hume, from Gloucester, complaining of the Break of Gauge on Railways.—By Viscount Bernard, from Inhabitants of

the Town of Innoshannon, for Repeal or Alteration of the Salmon Fisheries (Ireland) Acts.-By Mr. Thomas Duncombe, from Landowners of Glasgow and Vicinity, for Alteration of Law respecting Service of Heirs (Scotland). -By Lord John Manners, from the Vicar of Yardley, complaining of Alienation of Tithes.

I

answer

The

'Mr. Mott became, we believe, the editor of an unsuccessful journal in Sir James Graham's neigh

HAYDOCK LODGE ASYLUM-POOR LAW bourhood, and under his especial patronage."

COMMISSION.

Now, I have to state to the House that MR. W. O. STANLEY rose for the Mr. Mott is personally altogether unknown purpose of asking a question of the right to me, and that he has ceased to be an hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Assistant Poor Law Commissioner for Department, with respect to an allegation nearly four years; and the only origin of contained in a petition from Dr. Roberts, this error that occurs to me as possible, of Bangor, as to a lunatic asylum, called consists in the fact which I will now state Haydock Lodge. The allegation of that to the House. Mr. Mott, in the year, I petition was, that the establishment in think, 1843-on the 11th of March, 1843 question was under the influence or con--became editor of a work called the Poor trol, and established by, parties connected with the Poor Law Commissioners; and that Mr. Mott, the ex-Poor Law Commissioner, was president of the asylum.

Law Guide, which, so far from being conducted in my neighbourhood, was edited in London, and I think printed by Bradbury and Evans, and published by Mr. Onwhyn.

quire any time, on the part of the authorities of Somerset-house, to give an answer to that question.

Mott, who was the master of the asylum, did MR. CHRISTIE inquired whether Mr. not hold office under the Poor Law Commissioners, as district auditor; and whether the Poor Law Commissioners, from their connexion with him, had not been cogni

zant of all the circumstances?

On the 1st of October, 1842, there was another publication issued, called the Union Gazette, edited by a gentleman named Marryatt. That paper, published weekly, SIR J. GRAHAM had already stated contained information on the subject of that he had addressed a letter to the Poor paupers in different parts of the kingdom Law Commissioners. On the day but one who had deserted their families; and the following he received an answer, informing board of guardians of Longtown, of which him that Mr. Coode no longer held office I am chairman, applied, in the year 1842, under them. [Mr. T. DUNCOMBE: Why?] to the Poor Law Commissioners to know I think Mr. Coode was connected with the if they might have permission to take in establishment of Haydock-lodge in a manthis work, as being convenient in their ner not inconsistent with the due perproceedings. The Poor Law Commission-formance of the duties of his office. ers answered that application by stating, that if the information contained in that publication was considered useful by the board of guardians in question, they were at liberty to take in that publication, and to charge it on the rates. I have the honour of being chairman of that board of guardians, but I was not cognizant of this particular transaction. Now, Mr. Mott, SIR J. GRAHAM: The last part of the in the first number of his publication, in question will be easily answered by the letMarch, 1843, having a knowledge, from ter of the Commissioners, which I am presome source or another with which I am not pared to lay on the Table. In answer to acquainted, of this answer to the Longthe first part, I beg to state that I undertown board of guardians, published the let- stand Mr. Mott is auditor of a certain dister, but omitted to state all the circum-trict, being chosen under the Act of Parstances and the names, and left the infer-liament, of which the hon. Member must ence to be drawn that the board of guar-tors rests with the chairman and deputybe cognizant, whereby the choice of audidians were authorized to take in the pub-chairman of the board of guardians of a lication in which it appeared. Nothing chairman of the board of guardians of a could be more irregular than this transaction on the part of Mr. Mott. I repeat, that he has ceased for four years to be an Assistant Poor Law Commissioner; and, except on the supposition that The Times was led into error by the circumstances I have mentioned, I cannot understand on what ground such a statement can have found its way into that journal. But it is due to myself to state that Mr. Mott was never at any time editor of a newspaper under my especial patronage.

MR. W. O. STANLEY said, from the way in which the right hon. Baronet had referred to The Times, it might appear to the House that he (Mr. Stanley) had been in some way connected with what had appeared in that paper. He begged to state that he had never known anything about the article in The Times, and had nothing

to do with it.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE said, the most material part of the question of the hon. Member had not been answered, which was, whether any parties connected with the Poor Law Commission had had any speculation with Mr. Mott in connexion with this lunatic asylum. It could not re

district.

Subject at an end.

SIR R. PEEL'S EXPLANATION. SIR R. PEEL: Mr. Speaker, in rising, Sir, to move the Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the Bill for the Prevention of Murder in Ireland, I deeply regret that it should be necessary for me to obstruct, even for a short time, the progress of public business by any explanation of a personal nature. I deeply regret that it should be necessary for me to avail myself of the privilege (perhaps a doubtful one, as I have spoken in the course of the debate), of making any observations upon the Motion for reading the Order of the Day; but, Sir, I greatly doubt whether there be any Gentleman, however deeply impressed with the importance of proceeding with the public business, however he may regret the obstruction of that business by personal explanations, however rigid his adherence to the forms of this HouseI greatly doubt whether there be any Member who now hears me, in whose estimation I should not suffer were I not to avail myself of the earliest opportunity of noticing that

કાકા

which took place in this House on Monday | to a distance from London, in the full conlast. fidence that it would not be necessary to resort to them for any purpose of explanation or defence. When the speech to which I have referred was made on Monday night, I had not the means of access to a single paper; occupied as I was by urgent public duties, I was unable to repair to the place of their deposit; the private secretaries by whose aid the correspondence of that period was conducted have passed away; the whole of the correspondence had been sent to my country residence in Staffordshire. It has been examined by those who were no parties to the conduct of it, and who have brought to London a confused and complicated mass of documents, from which I have for the last three days been attempting to collect the materials for my vindication from charges directed against my veracity and honour. Sir, when I heard those charges, I had a perfect conviction that they were unfounded. I listened to them with that calmness which results from the conscious knowledge that they were not founded in truth, but yet with that anxiety which every man must feel who fears that after the lapse of twenty years he may not be enabled to establish that complete and satisfactory defence which he could have made, if, in common fairness and common justice, such accusations had been preferred when the memory of those who heard the debates, and took part in them, was yet recent; when I could have referred to personal friends whether I had used this or that expression; when I could have trusted, not merely to the recollection of friends, but to the honour and generosity of political opponents, for their confirmation of my own impressions as to facts, and the inferences to be drawn from them. Sir, that advantage is denied me; and, debarred of it, I am now to answer these charges. I confine myself to the charges and to the evidence by which they are suported. Nothing else shall I notice. If there be other charges and other evidence, they ought to have been brought forward at the time. It will not be just, on a second occasion, to prefer new charges inculpating my honour, unless the evidence on which those charges rest be at once brought forward in the fullest manner. If there be other evidence, hitherto withheld, of which I am not cognizant, I shall be pre

I thank the House, at least the great majority of the House, for their ready acquiescence in my appeal to them to suspend their judgment upon the accusations which were directed against me until they had the opportunity of hearing my defence. There was on the part of this House a general and a generous acquiescence in the justice of that appeal. They felt, Sir, that I must labour under no small disadvantage in being called upon to answer accusations which might have been preferred at any time within the last fifteen years, when the means of defence were more within my reach, and the opportunities of elucidating the whole matter were greater than they can be after the lapse of so many years. I little thought that I should have been called upon in the year 1846 to answer accusations connected with the transactions of 1825, 1827, and 1829. There have been great political conflicts and great political excitement since that period. Since the first period-since 1825 there has been the severance from Mr. Canning; the formation of his Government; the formation of the Government of Lord Goderich; the union of the friends of Mr. Canning with the Duke of Wellington and myself in 1828; the separation from us of those friends of Mr. Canning in the same year, on matters totally unconnected with the reputation or character of Mr. Canning. Then followed the fierce conflicts of 1829, when I felt it my duty to propose the adjustment of the Catholic question. In 1830 the Government of the Duke of Wellington-the combination of parties against that Government, and the loss of power by the Duke of Wellington, and those who held office under him; then followed the Government of Lord Grey, and the severe conflicts of Reform; of the dissolution of the Government of Lord Melbourne in 1834; and the formation of that Government over which I presided in 1835, attempting to conduct the affairs of this country by a minority of this House for about three months, when I yielded to the right hon. Gentleman opposite; and the formation of their Government in 1835 ensued. Surely after such a series of party contentions, I was justified in presuming that the events of 1825, 1827, and 1829, so far as they could be the subject of crimi-pared to meet it; but I ask this House nation against me, were buried in oblivion; and many years ago every document connected with those events had been sent

again to be generous and just enough to suspend their judgment on any new allegations, and to give me the opportunity of