Debates anb tiroceebings in Varifament.
FRANCE IN BARBARY.
In the House of Commons, on Monday, on the motion for going into Committee of Supply, Mr. SHED, drew attention to the position of France in reference to Morocco, and to British commercial interests in that quarter of the globe. Originally he had intended to move for a Select Committee to receive evidence as to the effect of the ordinance issued by the French Government in
December 1843, which doubled the duties on British shipping and raised the duties on British cottons to 30 per cent : but objections had been made to the form of the motion ; and in order to avoid a debate on a mere form, he should now move for copies of documents Betting forth the requisite information. That
course also would be the one least calculated to give offence to agallant but exceedingly susceptible people. He went on to recite at great length the
diplomatic correspondence, beginning in March 1830, on the occupation of Algiers. It exhibited, he said, a most striking contrast between the soundness of Lord Aberdeen's judgment and a certain infirmity of purpose, owing to which he omitted to obtain from France the pledge that the occupation of
Algiers should not be permanent ; the necessity of which he had asserted. The whole correspondence is a curious specimen of diplomacy, in which, on the one
hand, a plain Englishman asks that a pledge should be given in plain language; and, on the other hand, a French Minister, polished and well lubricated in the sinuosities of diplomacy, escapes from his grasp. On the 5th of July 1830, Algiers was taken ; and in the same month the French Minister, Prince Polignac, became a prisoner in Ham. There arose a throne, which the Duke of Wellington and Lord Aberdeen hastened to recognize as the legitimate result of the national will : but is it not wonderful that the new Go-
vernment was recognized by England without any sort of stipulation in reference to Algiers? Four months after its capture, the Tory Govern-
ment went out of office ; and the Whigs, finding the French army in pos- session of Algiers, and not being able to refer to any stipulation, took no steps one way or another, but stood passively by. Mr. Shell skipped over the space from 1830 to 1841; when, according to a statement by M. Gurzot, Lord Aberdeen, having been a few weeks in office, said, in conversation with the Count de St. Aulaire, that he had " no abjection " to the French occupa- tion of Algiers! The phrase was subsequently denied by Lord Aberdeen; though he admitted that the report of the conversation was substantially correct. In December 1843, the French Government issued an ordinance which imposed a duty of 4 francs a ton on our shipping and 30 per cent on our
cottons: the effect was shown in the complete exclusion of Bntish commerce from the port of Oran. Morocco has now been invaded by the French army,
and it may soon be annexed to Algiers. Of that empire, inhabited by eight
millions of people, we almost monopolize the market ; but, no doubt, the French protective system will be extended to it. The questions therefore
arise, what explanations have been demanded and given ? what force have the British Government taken the precaution to assemble in the Mediterranean ? Here several naval statistics were introduced by Mr. Shell : and a tabular statement showed that the war-ships in commission, of all kinds, had dimi- nished from 199 in July 1841 to 138 in July 1844; and that the war-ships of all kinds within the Mediterranean had diminished from 44 in 1841 to 18 in 1844; ships of the line alone, in the Mediterranean, falling from 17 to 1. The First Lord of the Admiralty had lately declared that our naval force was em- ployed on the coast of Ireland, and could not be spared for the Mediterranean;
thus admitting that the honour of England must be perilled in order that Ire- land might be kept down ! Mr. Shea wound up by charging the present Go- vernment with having lost British influence abroad; and he moved, as an amendment on the motion before the House, for copies of the French ordinance of December 1843, and a return of our naval force in the Mediterranean.
Sir CHARLES NAPIER seconded the motion.
Sir ROBERT PEEL deprecated the whole discussion, at a moment when the British Government is doing all it can to prevent a hostile collision between France and Morocco, hurtful to the independence of the Moor- ish empire and to British commercial interests.
To illustrate the spirit of the motion, and its tendency to call into action the passions of popular assemblies, he referred to its original terms—" The right honourable gentleman was to move for a Select Committee, of which he should be the Chairman, to inquire in what manner the French possessions in Africa have been acquired, and how far their extension is consistent with our
political and commercial interests. If the French Government had proposed
a Select Committee to inquire in what manner we acquired our possession of Hong-kong, or how far the extension of our territory in China was consistent
with the interests of France, I wonder what the right honourable gentleman
would have thought of it ? " The motion was tantamount to one that Mr. Sheil should be Foreign Secretary. In 1830, Prince Polignac declared that
the French troops would not be recalled from Algiers until satisfaction had been obtained for certain insults; but that the French Government would dis- cuss with their allies " the new order of things " in Algiers. Lord Aberdeen's party left office after having recognized the new Government of Louis Philippe; the stability of which might have been much endangered by any attempt to force the evacuation of Algiers. In the eleven subsequent years, the Whig Governments quietly acquiesced in that occupation. Indeed, so far from any remonstrance' having been made during that period of eleven years, a com- munication was made to the Government of France in the course of that time, to the effect that the conquest of France in Africa, if limited to Algiers, would not endanger the harmony that subsisted between England and France. In 1841,
every reason against reviving the question had been strengthened. As to the ordi- nance of 1843, it was directed not against British ships and goods but against ships and goods from all countries except France. Nor was this the first time that the principle established by this ordinance was proposed by the French Govern- ment. It was decided upon long before. [Mr. SHELL—" Yes, in 1835."] " Yes, the right honourable gentleman now tells the House that the principle in the ordinance was settled by the French Government in 1835; but he did not tell the House this in the course of his speech, which was accusing the present Government of submitting to the ordinance in 1843. The right ho- nourable gentleman concealed the fact, although he was in fall possession of it." The duty had been raised from 2 to 4 francs : he regretted that it had been raised, but that was a widely different matter from the right to do it. As to Morocco, he could not speak with perfect freedom on such a delicate subject. A declaration, however, had been made to England, in the face of the world, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in France, that the French Government had no desire to provoke hostilities with Morocco, but that, on the contrary, the French Government were anxious to maintain peace—that they had no pos- sible or national motive for entering into a war with that country ; and he dis- claimed all views of territorial aggrandizement. The points which they had demanded, and which they had a right to demand, were, that the assembling of "troops by General El Guenaoui and Abd-el-:Rader should be put an end to; that those officers who bad attacked the French should be punished ; that if the Emperor of Morocco felt himself bound to afford an asylum to Abd-el-Kader, he should be required to retire into the interior, or to the coast ; that a fixed _residence should be assigned to him, and a guarantee afforded from a friendly state that he should not for the future direct any hostile attacks upon the French. There was no reason to mistrust the integrity of the French Govern- ment. He declined to enter into the naval discussion ; but, while urging the wisdom of husbanding the resources of the country, he pointed to the fact that the Naval Estimates had been increased from 3,085,000/. in 1838 to 4,004,0001. in 1844. Although it was quite true that there was not the same number of ships in commission as in former years, yet it was his conviction that in a very short period this country would be enabled, with the consent of the House of Commons, to make a demonstration worthy of its very great fame as a naval power. In conclusion, he called upon Lord Palmerston and Lord John Rus- sell to imitate the forbearance which had been shown to them in 1830, when they deprecated the discussion of their policy in Algiers.
Lord Joint RUSSELL professed to be satisfied with the assurances respecting Morocco; but asserted the constitutional right of the House to call for accounts of the manner in which supplies granted for the naval and military service had been expended ; and expressed his opinion that sufficient attention had not been paid to the state of the Vavy. Mr. MONCKTON MILNES, Mr. HUME, and Mr. MACKINNON, spoke against the motion ; Mr. HuSSE praising the reductions in the Navy which have been effected by the present Government.
Sir CHARLES NAPIER turned the discussion exclusively on the state of the Navy, in a manner not differing from many previous discussions ; asserting that the ships are too few in number, and that they are ineffi- ciently manned : in which he was supported, with a considerable display of dry details, by Mr. MORE O'FERRALL. Viscount INGESTRE and Sir GEORGE CocanuRN admitted the necessity of maintaining a respectable force at sea, but thought the existing establishment sufficient for present circumstances. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT maintained, that the comple- ments of men, which the present Administration found to be very in- efficient, had been gradually increased ; that the steam-power had been nearly doubled since 1839; and in other respects defended his depart- ment.
Viscount PALMERSTON asserted the right of the House to watch over the interests of the empire, and reiterated some of Mr. Sheil's repre- sentations; remarking that it was not a question of requiring France to evacuate a conquered country, but one of exacting conditions before sending out an expedition. But he forbore to enter upon the subject of Morocco.
The amendment was negatived, without a division.
ADMINISTRATION OF RAILWAYS.
Before going into Committee on the Railroad Bill, on Monday, Mr. GLADSTONE explained the principal alterations which had been made.
In the first place, the great change in the form of the bill, and which had reduced it so considerably in bulk, had been caused by the omission of upwards of twenty clauses, consisting of the executory provisions and provisions of de- tail, laying down the manner in which the option of revision or purchase, if exercised by the Government, could be carried into effect. The clauses had been originally inserted as a guarantee to railroad proprietors that they would not be injuriously dealt with : but their omission had been demanded as a proof that Government really reserved the policy of that interference; and therefore they bad been abandoned. With respect to poorer passengers, the provisions of the present bill were applicable not only to future railways but also to the existing railways seeking from Parliament an extension of their power. Lines under five miles in length would not be considered as new lines. One material alteration had been made in the terms of the option of revision and purchase, namely, that the right to exercise that option should not accrue until after twenty-one years, instead of fifteen, from the 1st of January after the date of the incorporation of the railway-company. If a railway-company at the end of twenty-one years were in the receipt of less than 101. per cent of profit for the last three years, instead of being purchaseable at the amount of divisible profit, it should be open to the company to require that any other circumstance, such as the prospect of an increase in traffic, or the value of stock, be taken into account and added to the purchase-money. The effect of this would be, in substance, that railways would be taken at their full value at a period when there was no improvement in their profits. So also, if at the ex- piration of twenty-one years a railway was making more than 101. per cent, then it must be bought up at twenty-five years' purchase. If in any case a branch became liable to the option provided for in the bill, which was in connexion with a line not liable, and if the Legislature purchased the branch, then it would be in the power of the railway-company to require that the main line should be taken up, upon similar terms.
The House went into Committee, and proceeded with the clauses seriatim. On clause 6th, which obliged railway-companies to provide "on every week-day" a train for third-class passengers, Mr. THORNELY remarked, that it was tantamount to preventing the travelling of third- class passengers on Sundays ; and he moved that companies should be compelled to provide such trains "every day on which passengers are conveyed." Mr. GLADSTONE could not consent to any provision which would render it compulsory on companies to run third-class trains on the Lord's Day. Government would be setting a most dangerous ex- ample to the country in countenancing such a doctrine. Mr. SHEIL did not see why Dives should travel on Sunday and Lazarus be prevented. Mr. GLADSTONE tried to get the clause postponed. But the House di- vided; and the amendment was carried, by 73 to 41. The remaining clauses were disposed of, and the House resumed.
THE PooR-Law.
On Wednesday, Sir JAMES GRAHAM having moved the further con- sideration of the report on the Poor-law Amendment Bill, Mr. BORTH- WICK moved the addition of four clauses, enacting—first, that married couples above sixty years of age in workhouses should not be separated, and that suitable accommodation should be provided for each such couple ; secondly, that in the case of married couples under that age, when one party should be sick and require the presence of the other, they should not be separated; thirdly, that if any poor and industrious person " should be unable to maintain himself through "temporary infirmity or insufficiency of employment," any Justice of the Peace in the neighbourhood should certify the fact, on which out-door relief should be granted; fourthly, that children under four years of age should not be separated from their mothers, and that children under thirteen years of age should have free access to them.
'Sir JAMES GRAHAM opposed the motion.
Such proviaions as those now .suggested were quite unknown to the old law. With respect to married persons, in cases of age, or in any other particular case where it might be considered advisable, the Poor-law Guardians have the discretion of allowing them to be together, and to have separate rooms. Chil- dren under seven years of age have free access to their mothers, both by day and by night, at all reasonable hours. To permit Magistrates to order out- door relief, would introduce all the evils of the old Poor-law : the power of granting such relief is much more safely intrusted to Boards of Guardians. The resolutions were supported by Lord Joae MANNERS, Mr. Es- COTT, Mr. STUART WORTLEY, (except as to the third,) and Captain PE- cmELL ; opposed by Mr. HAWES, (who said that the classification and discipline of workhouses were the causes of the cleanliness and content which prevails in them,) Mr. DARBY, Lord STANLEY, Mr. BECKEIT DENISON, MI. BROTHERTON, Colonel ROLLESTON, Mr. P. H. HOWARD, and Mr. CURTEIS. The first clause was negatived, on a division, by 95 to 32. Mr. Borthwick did not press the others, and they were nega- tived without a division.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN moved a clause requiring the appointment of a clergyman of the Church of England as a salaried chaplain in every workhouse. When " the Church ' is toasted at Conservative dinners, it is called " the Church of the Poor "; whereas, for the last ten years, the Legislature has left the poor, so far as legislation is concerned, in absolute Atheism ; because the rich choose to save their money. Sir JAMES GRAHAM complained of Mr. O'Brien's language ; and doubted whether to enforce the payment of a chaplain in every workhouse would advance the cause of religion. Some unions have no workhouse at all ; in some, the workhouses are very small ; but out of 513, 411 unions have chaplains. Licence to perform worship in a workhouse is to be ob- tained from the Bishop ; and a benevolent clergyman connected with the State does nothing more than discharge his duty when he includes his visit to the workhouse among his parochial avocations. The clause was rejected, by 82 to 19.
The further consideration of the report was proceeded with on Thursday ; when Sir CHARLES NAPIER moved two clauses, authorizing Guardians at their discretion to give a higher rate of relief than that now given to people above sixty years of age who have paid their poor- rates, and authorizing out-door relief to owners of cottages under 51. annual value who have paid their rates. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the former clause was superfluous, as the Guardians already have such discretion. As to the second clause, if the destitution were clear, it was not the law that relief should be refused unless the cottage of the man were given up. Sir CHARLES NAPIER withdrew the first clause ; the second, after a brief conversation, was negatived, by 42 to 28.
Colonel SIBTHORP moved a clause abolishing the Commission, and transferring its powers to the several Boards of Guardians, with appeal to the Justices of the Peace in Quarter-sessions. In the course of the short discussion, Sir JAMES GRAHAM admitted that, at the beginning, too much was written by the Commissioners, and iu too hostile a spirit. This meeting with dissent, he afterwards said that, in the early stages of the new law, the Commissioners had too often delegated the power of writing to one who expressed his opinions in too abstract a manner, and somewhat too harshly. The clause was negatived, by 81 to 8.
The Earl of ARUNDEL moved a clause requiring permission for all paupers, not being members of the Church of England, to attend their respective places of worship. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that the in- structions given to the Commissioners were exactly such as Lord Arun- del wished to have recognized by this proposition ; and the motion was withdrawn.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN moved a clause authorizing the admission of other than pauper children into district schools having more room than is required for the pauper pupils, on payment at a rate sufficient to cover the expense of each child. Sir JAMES GRAHAM adduced several reasons against such a clause ; principally that it would complicate accounts and arrangements, and would check private exertion in the same be.half. Eventually, the clause was withdrawn.
Captain PECHELL moved a proviso to prevent the appointment, by the Commissioners, of auditors in parishes under local acts, leaving the appointment to the rate-payers in Vestry. Sir JAMES GRAHAM men- tioned a meeting at Brighton, which petitioned against the appointment of auditors under the Commissioners ; although, at the same meeting, a gentleman who had been auditor said, hundreds and thousands of pounds were passed which he was sure were illegal. Captain Pechell's clause was negatived, by 32 to 10. Several amendments were made, and finally the report was agreed to. THE GOVERNMENT COMMERCIAL MEASURES.
On the motion for going into Committee on the Joint-stock Banks Regulation Bill, on Monday, Sir WILLIAM CLAY moved an amendment, declaring it expedient to give facilities for the formation of joint-stock banks, with limited liability of the shareholders. Sir ROBERT PEEL objected, that the proposed limitation might be applied to any other partnerships just as well as to joint-stock banks ; and that it would render shareholders indifferent to the management of the banks. The amendment was negatived without a division. The House went into Committee ; the first clause was agreed to ; and the Chairman reported progress.
On Tuesday, the Committee was continued, and the remaining clauses were disposed of.
The Joint-stock Companies Bill was recommitted ; and Mr. GLAD- STONE inserted a clause extending the measure to Ireland.
Both bills passed on Thursday.
DISFRANCHISEMENT OF SUDBURY.
In the House of Lords, on Monday, Mr. Sergeant Wrangham was heard against the second reading of the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill ; contending that their Lordships ought not to sanction ;t unless the whole of the evidence were given on oath at their ow.-: bar.
Subsequently, the LORD CHANCELLOR moves the second reading of the bill. He reminded the House of the many obstacles which the mea- sure had encountered, and especially in the coalition of the Sudbury electors, of both parties, to suppress the evidence : evidence was at last obtained, however, by a Parliamentary Commission, amply proving the general existence of corrupt practices ; bribes being accepted by inha- bitants of the middle class. After a few remarks by Lord BRowaLtat, the bill was read a second time. It passed on Thursday.
CHA.RITABLE TRUSTS.
On Monday, the LORD Cnaricam.oa moved the second reading of the Charitable Trusts Bat There are in the kingdom charities the annual income of which amounts to 300,0001., without any superintending control: cases of abuse only come before the Court of Chancery when some private person chooses to take notice of them : there is no power to appoint trustees in place of old ones who die, except by the Court of Chancery, at an expense of 60/. or 701. These and other defects would be remedied, by authorizing the Secretary of State to ap- point Commissioners with the requisite powers. The Bishop of LoNnosi was prepared to concur in the principle of the measure ; but he deprecated being forced into Committee in the absence of several Bishops, as the bill would require some modification which would secure to the rulers of the Church their due influence over charities left for Church purposes. In the course of a short discussion, Lord CAMPBELL agreed that they ought not, at so late a period of the session, to think of proceeding further with a bill of such infinite importance ; which applied to thirteen thousand trusts, and affected the administration of 13,000,0001. of pro- perty. The bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee. After it was read the second time, the Loan CHANCELLOR announced that he should not proceed further with the bill this session.
THE IRISH PENAL ACTS.
Lord BEAUMONT having moved, on Monday, the committal of the Roman Catholic Penal Acts Bill, the Bishop of LONDON objected to pro- ceeding with it in the absence of the Bishops, and at the present ad- vanced state of the session ; and he moved that the bill be read a second time that day three months.
The LORD CHANCELLOR explained, that he had directed the omission of several clauses, which would remove every objection to the bill ; and he suggested that it should be reprinted, for consideration during the recess.
The Earl of WICKLOW made some remarks on the pretexts for delay- ing the measure.
The right reverend Prelate wished it postponed because the month of July was arrived : but that would be a reason for putting off all legislation. The fact was, their Lordships sat from February to June before they got any bills to go on with ; but now July was commenced the table was loaded with them. And was there one of them against which the same argument might not be used? The right reverend Prelate had already opposed a pretty good number on that very ground. But the right reverend Prelate objected to legislation upon this bill because of the absence of his right reverend colleagues : why were they not present, as well as other members of their Lordships' House? The bill had been long enough under consideration : his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had stated that measures had been taken to have it ,properly considered and matured; and he should be quite sorry if the noble Lord were to withdraw it.
The bill passed through Committee pro forma, in order to be recom- mitted.
LUNACY LAW REFORM.
In the House of Commons, on Tuesday, Lord ASHLEY moved for an address to the Crown, praying her Majesty to take into her considera- tion the report of the Metropolitan Commissioners in Lunacy to the Lord Chancellor ; and he somewhat elaborately set forth the defects of the existing law.
The lunatic asylums of England are divisible into three classes,—houses for single patients; public asylums; and private madhouses, into which paupers and others are admitted for payment. It is known with respect to the first class, that 282 patients are under the care of Chancery ; but the returns to the Commissioners have been very defective, as the class has been excluded from their superintendence ; an arrangement which shields many horrible abuses. Many patients were confined in this way by a person who received 500/. a year for their keep. What a temptation to render the lunatic incurable, in order to keep him in perpetual confinement ! Why, the returning health of the patient was the signal for the discontinuance of the 500/. a year. The only species of control which existed over these asylums was this: if any patient was detained in any one of them for a longer space than twelve months, it was the duty of the keeper of the asylum to make a return, privately, to the clerk of the Lunacy Commission, of the name and designation of such patient. In many cases no notice whatever was taken of this clause in the act of Parliament. In other instances, the law was evaded by the removal of the patient to some other house after he had been for twelve months an inmate of any particular dwell- ing. The next class of these establishments—the county lunatic asylums— were very inadequate in their number to the wants of the country. In Eng- land and Wales, on the 1st January in the present year, there were no fewer thin 16,821 lunatics; whilst in the different county asylums there was only provision for 4,155, leaving more than 12,000 to be provided for ; 89 of whom were in asylums established under local acts, 121 in Bethlehem and St. Luke's, 343 in other public asylums, and 9,339 in workhouses. The management of these county asylums was very unequal; some were admirably managed, others were extremely ill conducted: but certainly, whatever their manage- ment, they all of them offered this advantage, that no profit whatever was given in them to the superintendents, and that they had no direct or indirect interest in the confinement of the patients. There were twenty-one counties without any local asylum at all. One reason, no doubt, was the cost of erection, which had varied from 11l/. (at Wakefield) per head on the number of inmates to 357/. (at Gloucester): the average cost of erecting workhouses was 40/. per head ; and no sufficient reason appeared for that vast difference. In the third class of asylums—that in which pauper lunatics and others were re- ceived at a very low charge—the total number of patients was, on the 1st of January last, 4,072. Of these there were in Metropolitan private houses 973, and in provincial licensed houses 1,426. Upon this a very serious question arose— whether or not they ought to license any houses at all for the reception of patients, as it involves a very dangerous principle. Whatever might be thought respect- ing the wealthier patients, there could be no doubt as to the cases of pauper lunatics received at the starvation-rate of 6e. or 7s. a-head per week ; out of which sum the keeper of the asylum was to keep the lunatic, to clothe him, afford him house-room, apply remedial processes, and, above all, realize a profit for himself! At ohe time in this metropolis, the competition was so great that some proprietors of asylums tried to get persons sent to them at 6s. a- week. The Commissioners stopped that, and the minimum now, he believed, was 8s. a-week. Bat in the provinces the evil was beyond their control, and the consequeuces were frightful. The Commissioners said in their Report- " Many asylums were formerly private houses: the mansion is sometimes en- grossed by the proprietor and a few private patients, the paupers being con- signed to buildings formerly used as offices and out-houses." But he would read some.of, the statements. From West Auckland they were told, that in the asylurn4he,le, there were confined " 13 males and 16 females ; the violent and the quiet,lhe dirty and the clean, shut up together ; only one small yard, = and when the (mese:-in it the other shut up in the day-room of the males ; tr _4 five restrained by le - ks, and two wearing in addition iron handcuffs and ; . *tam from the wr j to the ankle,—all tranquil, but they would otherwise 7 . .escape. Chajna fastened to the floor in many places, and to many of the bed-
•
ton, near Gateshead, they heard, that chains were attached to the floor is several places, and that it was the practice to chain patients by the leg upon their first admission, in order, as it was said, to see what they would do: the bedding was described as filthy, the cell offensive—also the sleeping-room. This house was improved by visitation, but was still unfit for patients." The licensed house at Derby was described as "damp and nnhealthy, and the bedding in a disgusting condition from running sores." Lord Ashley read several other passages of a similar kind. He followed them up with statements of lunatics, some under dangerous forms of madness, confined in union workhouses, to the great detriment of each and all ; often on account of the greater outlay for a pauper in a lunatic asylum. The following was given as a specimen of the condition and treatment of Welsh lunatics, quoted from a letter by one of the Commissioners now on a visitation in South Wales—" We have met with one case which we think most atrocious. A. B. was sent to the Hereford Asylum from near Brecon on the 28th November 1843 : she died on the 30th January : she was in such a shocking state that the proprietor wished not to admit her. She had been kept chained in the house of a married daughter : from being long chained in a crouching posture, her knees were forced up to her chin, and she sat wholly upon her heels and her hips ; and considerable excoriation had taken place where her knees pressed upon her stomach. She could move about, and was generally maniacal. When she died, it required very considerable dissection to get her pressed into her coffin!" The Welsh pauper lunatics are sometimes sent to English asylums ; but that involves the cruelty of putting the unhappy patients among people whose language they do not understand. He now approached the consideration of the criminal lunatics under confinement ; of whom the number in April 1843 was 257 ; distributed in the following manner—in gaols, 33 ; in Bethlehem Hospital, 85; and in various asylums, 139. With respect to those criminals who were confined in the hospital of Bethlehem and in the asylums, he would put it to the House whether it was not an improper and unnecessary aggra- vation of their miseries towards the other lunatics to subject them to con- finement in the same place and under the same regulations as criminal lunatics, some of whom had committed the most atrocious crimes—such as murder. He assured the House, it was felt by such lunatics to be a serious hardship that they should have to associate with these persons. The regulations also which were enforced in those places where criminals were confined were more severe than elsewhere; and their severity was felt by all the lunatics alike. They were likewise debarred from much indulgence, which under other circum- stances their melancholy situation would have procured for them. He was sorry to say with reference to the power of supervision, which was exercised by the visiting Magistrates generally over private lunatic asylums, that this duty was very shamefully neglected. Of this the facts would themselves speak; for, if the Magistrates performed their duties with vigilance and perseverance, the abuses which he had referred to would not have existed ; nor would those ma- terials out of which the report of the Commissioners already referred to had been principally framed have been available. That the vigilance of the Metro- politan Commissioners has been productive of the greatest advantages, is proved by the altered state of Mr. Warburton's Asylum at Bethnal Green : in 1826, it was an bad as to call for an inquiry into its condition; and he had shuddered at the disgusting scenes, the sights and sounds, that met his eyes there. Now there were great improvements. The proprietor had laid out large sums in extending and improving the grounds and buildings of his asylum; and where- as in 1828 there were commonly from 150 to 200 of the patients restrained by means of leg-locks and chains, in 1844 there were out of 582 patients only five whose violence rendered this species of restriction necessary ; and even the confinement or coercion resorted to was of the moat moderate description, and in the opinion of the visiting-officers most necessary. In drawing to a close, Lord Ashley exhorted the House to provide a speedy remedy for such miseries; and not to run away with the idea that when a man becomes mad he is hope- lessly so; for lunatics are painfully alive to surrounding circumstances, whether irritating or soothing.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM cordially complimented Lord Ashley ; admitted the necessity of dealing with the subject, especially as the act by which the supervision of lunatics is regulated expires next year; and avowed that in leading points he agreed with the mover, though he took some exceptions to the motion.
He admitted the necessity of an immediate resort to curative measures when primary symptoms of lunacy make their appearance; the necessity of separating curable, and incurable, and criminal lunatics, of removing dangerous lunatics from workhouses, and of revising the whole treatment of pauper lunatics. As to the single lunatics detained by their friends at private dwellings, the practice was open to abuse, but it did not appear that such actually prevailed;, and he recommended the House to approach that part of the subject with great caution. He should be prepared to submit to Parliament some proposition for the separation of lunatics. He trusted Lord Ashley would not press his motion, as it would raise expectations which could not be realized ; while Government would aid him in carrying out those ameliorations which the state of the case requires.
Mr. SHEIL called attention to the painful fact that in Ireland 300 lunatics are scattered among the prisons—murderers and maniacs mixed up together.
Mr. WAKLEY advised Lord Ashley not to press his motion ; as he was convinced, from what Sir James Graham had said, that he would legislate practically and usefully on the question. He dwelt on the necessity of prompt attention on the first appearances of insanity. In the Middlesex Asylum there were only 30 curable patients out of 900; and some had been there from the very first week it opened—now fourteen years ago. At the same time, it was perfectly notorious that in every union-workhouse of this country there were at this moment numbers of pauper patients, many recently afflicted with insanity, who could not get admission into that asylum. He heartily rejoiced that Sir James Graham approved of the system of establishing district-asylums for incurable patients, and recog- nized the necessity for early attention to cases of insanity. If they lost sight of that great fact—if their minds were not impressed with the necessity of at- tending to them at the earliest possible period—they would never adequately understand the subject, or adequately apply the means which science afforded for the relief of these afflicted persons. It was not -within the first three months, nor the first three weeks, but within the first three days, if they could discover that insanity existed, that remedies should be applied. In this county he had had twenty-four suicides before him in twelve days—not one having com- mitted suicide in a public or private institution ; and in a great majority of them insanity had been entirely unobserved by the whole of their relations and friends ; and in fact at the inquest, in the most searching investigations, in the majority of these cases not a single symptom of insanity had shown itself. The witnesses, in almost every case, observed nothing strange or pecu- liar in the conduct of the suicide, except that he had " a little pain in his head." He was satisfied that the system which the noble Lord had hinted at—the establishment of institutions for the treatment of insanity as soon as it manifested itself—would not only be a work of humanity but of economy too; and he was thoroughly persuaded by experience, that they would not have in the course of years, even with an increased population, more than two-third; of the number of lunatics they had now. He regretted that the Commis- sioners' report rather sneered at the non-restraint system and Hanwell Asy- lum; of which Mr. Wakley spoke in terms of warm praise.
Lord Emor assured the House that the subject of the pauper and criminal lunatics in Ireland had engaged the serious attention of the Government. As to criminal lunatics, it was proposed to grant a sum of public money towards the erection of a central asylum in Ireland.
Mr. VERNON SMITH made some remarks in concurrence with Lord Ashley's objects ; vindicated the Commissioners (of whom he is one) from the charge of having sneered at Hanwell Asylum ; and suggested some alterations in the composition and powers of the Commission. He recommended that attention should be extended to Scotland ; espe- cially mentioning the island of Arran, where 123 lunatics are lodged in cottages and other places, and grossly neglected or ill-treated.
After some further discussion, Lord ASHLEY said, that as Sir James Graham had promised serious attention to the matter, he would with- draw his motion.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
In the House of Lords, on Thursday, Lord Bsoucwew moved that the report of the Insolvent Debtors Act Amendment Bill be considered. The discussion was to have been taken on the third reading; but, by some mistake, the report had been postponed until that night.
Lord CorrEswast made a long statement, complaining of the way in which a measure of his own had been treated, and comparing it with other bills of a similar kind.
His bill was founded on the report of the Commission appointed in 1839 : it was introduced in 1841, and again in 1842. Its object was twofold,—first, to make alterations recommended in the improved bankrupt-law ; and secondly, to abolish imprisonment for debt, and substitute various provisions by which the creditor would obtain a better remedy against the debtor's property, also con- solidating the bankrupt and insolvent laws and courts. The part for making the alterations in the bankrupt-laws was incorporated in a separate bill by Lord Lyndhurst, and passed into law. The remainder of his own bill was reintro- duced in 1843, but postponed because he heard that Government intended to deal with the subject. The session went on, and nothing was brought forward; so he reintroduced his bill in 1844. After many delays, it was read a second time, on the 30th April, and was then warmly applauded by Lord Lyndhurst. After many more delay s, it was reported on the 13th June, and Lord Lynd- hurst introduced several clauses ; after which he no longer called it his own bill. [Lord BROtTGLIAAt proposed to call it " the applauded bill "!] On the 16th, he received an intimation that perhaps " the applauded bill " might not pass at all ; and on the 21st, it was referred to a Select Com- mittee of twenty-one, seventeen of whom uniformly took their opinions from Lord Lyndhurst; and that Committee reported that it should not be proceeded with. On the 15th of April, Mr. Sergeant Manning had written to Lord Lyndhurst that he had been attending to the subject ; a bill by him, " for fa- cilitating arrangements between debtor and creditor," was introduced on the 13th May : it would have repealed all the laws on the subject since the reign of Elizabeth; but it was ultimately abandoned, as well as a third bill that bad been introduced on the 6th May. On the 21st, a fourth was introduced by Lord Brougham ; and that was referred to the same Committee with his own bill. Lord Lyndhurst had got into a difficulty, for he was not only running counter to Lord Brougham, but to one of his own colleagues, who bad intro- duced into the House of Commons the County Courts Bill, which authorized imprisonment of debtors at the rate of a day for each shilling, or 300 days for a debt of 15/.
Lord Cottenham proceeded to compare the provisions of his own bill with those of Lord Brougham's; having previously mentioned that, in 1842, a bill was passed which obliged insolvent debtors to surrender their property to the Court, but did not provide for its distribution among the creditors. Lord Brougham's bill applied only to traders whose debts and property should not exceed 3001. : all those who owed more, or who possessed more, were not in- cluded in it ; and they might consequently be taken upon execution and im- prisoned. It assumed continuance of imprisonment for debt, and con- tained a clause by which the creditors were impowered to compel cession of the debtor's property for distribution. The bill now before the House contained an important alteration in that respect—it struck out all the clauses giving compulsory cession. Under that bill, therefore, as under the law as it had existed for a great length of time, a man getting into prison might indulge himself with luxuries and laugh at his creditors. By another altera- tion, debtors for sums under 201. could not be taken in execution; which re- moved a very cruel class of imprisonment. A third alteration transferred several dames from his own bill; the remainder being thrown aside. His noble and learned friend's bill, so far from abolishing imprisonment for debt, provided for the indefinite confinement of debtors. [Lord BROUGHAst—" In cases of fraud."] No; the case was left to the opinion of a Judge. A man contract- ing. debts without the means of paying them was liable to be imprisoned for Me. That, surely, was too severe a punishment ; particularly as it was inflicted not after a trial or conviction, but upon the impression of the individual judge before whom the case of the insolvent was brought. His noble and learned friend's bill contained a clause giving to Members of Parliament an immunity from arrest : but he hoped that Parliament would never approve of preserving imprisonment for debt simply for the purpose of covering that privilege. if such privileges were to exist, let them be provided for in a distinct and separate act. But if they proceeded with this bill, they would not only be perpetuating but aggravating the system which his noble and learned friend, in the speech he had already referred to, repudiated and condemned; for instead of having but one system, they would have three. He was yet induced to hope that his bill, abolishing imprisonment for debt except in certain cases of fraud, would become the law of the land : but the bill he certainly would not abandon.
Lord BROUGHAM bantered Lord Cottenham for reading the Lord Chancellor's speech of 1843 again and again, and for saying his own speech over so often that it could be followed from memory ; and he .proceeded to defend his measure in comparison with its rival. The two plans proceeded upon entirely different principles. He was for throwing it upon the debtor to prove himself entitled to freedom from arrest and imprisonment for debt : his right honourable friend was for liberating the debtor, and throwing it upon the unfortunate creditor to prove that the debtor should be incarcerated. The principle of the law was prima facie that the man who could not pay his debts was in the wrong, though he might be an inno- cent debtor ; but let him show that he was so, and not a culpable debtor. His noble and learned friend said that his principle was an applauded principle : but the part of that plan which his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack applauded was that which equalized and assimilated the processes of bank- ruptcy and insolvency. How his noble and learned friend could say that his bill abolished imprisonment for debt any more than his (Lord Brougham's) was perfectly unintelligible. Did not his noble and learned friend allow a per- son to be arrested and imprisoned, ay, and indefinitely, if he did not disclose where his property was concealed, and give it up? " But oh !" said his noble and learned friend, "that is not imprisonment for debt, but for contumacy." Con- tumacy ! was that a crime known to the law ? How ? in what respect ? In not disclosing his property to his creditor. Therefore the contumacy was of the debtor towards the creditor; and that was exactly what he called imprison- ment for debt. Did he complain of that ? On the contrary, he thought t the just and tree principle. He had always laid it down, there and else- where. His proposition had always been, that the fraudulent or extravagant debtor should be so dealt with. if a man with 100/. a year only ran in debt 20,000L, or if, having little or no property, he went to a tradesman and in- duced him to give up hie property, a couple of thousand pounds worth of goods in which his capital was invested, by appearing to him as a person of wealth, he might as well rob the tradesman at once ; and be ought to be sent to Botany Bay for it, not because he was a debtor, but because he was a fraudulent indi- vidual, or an individual quasi fraudulent. The bill of his noble and learned friend did not work out the principle at all : his would. Talk of poor debtors !- why, there were poor creditors. Harsh creditors were spoken of : were there not cruel debtors ? His noble and learned friend left the creditor to prosecute for fraud by indictment, subject to all flaws and failures, to bills of discovery and writs of error. The poor creditor, who had suffered the loss of 19s. 6d. in the pound, or the whole 20s. perhaps, was to be saddled with the further ex- pense of prosecuting for a fraud, for the sake of public justice, and an example to the community. [Lord COTTENHAH—. At the expense of the estate."] Suppose the estate did not amount to Is. in the pound ? Why, in one of the very two cases of prosecution for fraud under the act of 1842, how much did their Lordships think it cost the creditor besides the loss of his debt ? It cost 2501. See the consequence, then : nobody would prosecute, and the fraudulent debtor would go scot-free. But the fraud was not the only thing: the common case was not where there was any indictable fraud at all, but where there was gross, culpable extravagance, a running up of scores without the ability to pay them. His noble and learned friend's bill provided no remedy for that : his bill did. The debtor most be called before the Commissioner, who would examine and sift into the whole case ; and to him was given a discretionary power to imprison the debtor, and not to the creditor. His bill said the creditor should not imprison a man, because he could go and get a protecting order if not arrested, or if arrested he might get his imprisonment abolished altogether. Such were the different principles of the two measures; and he left their Lordships to judge whether his bill did not effect the abolition of imprisonment for debt, leaving it only for crime, and not for misfortune. There were other objections to his noble and learned friend's bill. It made traders of all kinds of persons —judges, physicians, princes, peers, lords, commoners, country gentlemen, country clergymen, and of all persons whatsoever, though they were not traders, and never had been—no one was exempt from it. There had been noble Peers owing 200,0001. or 300,000/., and Princes Royal as much as 700,000/. or 800,000/. Well, suppose the Prince got notice that he must pay within fifteen days, or he must be advertised in the London Gazette as an adjudicated debtor, which was the same as being a bankrupt : his whole property would be seized. That was the bill of his noble and learned friend ; which he verily believed its author himself never could have expected that any ten mem- bers in that House or in the other House, or any hundred out of Parliament, whose opinions were worth a straw, would approve. Well, now suppose the Prince to make some inquiries into this unwelcome interference with his free- dom. " What is the official assignee ? " asks the Prince of Wales. " Oh, Sir, he is a very drastic person ; he sifts people's affairs and property, and takes possession of what they have not got rid of." " Well, but cannot you let me keep my pictures at Carlton House? " " Oh dear, no ! not one. Your Royal Highness is an adjudicated debtor." "An adjudicated debtor—what is that ? " " Why, please your Royal Highness, or whether it pleases your Royal High- ness or not, it means in plain words, you are a bankrupt." " Impossible! I never was under the bankrupt-laws." " No matter, your Royal Highness; Lord Cottenham has passed a retrospective law which makes you so." " I am sure," exclaims the Prince, " the Legislature never passes an ex post facto law." " Pardon me, your Royal Highness; they have done so. Lord Cotten- ham, whom you most know—he was Lord Chancellor four years—has made them do it." " It is a very hard case," complains the Prince: " why did you not apprize me of this before ? I should not have spent so much money in plate, or in horses; I should not have bought so much marischal powder ; I should not have presented so many jewels to this person and to that. Why did you not give me notice of this before ? " " I cannot answer that question, your Royal Highness ; perhaps my Lord Cottenham may." (Frequent laughing during this dialogue.) That was the gross injustice—he would say, with all respect to his noble and learned friend, the scandalous and intolerable injus- tice—which this act would do, that ex post facto it would make people liable for past debts to the bankrupt-laws. He (Lord Brougham) having seen the injustice of that principle, had abandoned it ; and when he came to consider how repugnant it was to the public mind that all persons should be made traders whether they were so or not, he had adhered to the distinction which bad been made in all bankruptcy-laws from the time of Henry the Eighth downwards.
The LORD CHANCELLOR put the question ; but Lord CAMPBELL re- buked him for his silence under Lord Cottenham's reproach of incon- sistency. Whereupon, the LORD CHANCELLOR defended his conduct, and the bill before the House, at some length.
Two bills were submitted to the Committee; who adopted the principle of Lord Cottenham's bill, and engrafted it upon another. He denied that they had departed from the principles of his noble and learned friend's bill. A prin- ciple of that measure was to introduce from the law of Scotland the cessio bonorum : to that be had always adhered, and he had never departed from it. Another principle was, to abolish imprisonment fur debt : to that he had always adhered, and from it he had never departed—he adhered to it so far as it was wise and prudent to act upon it. Another principle was, that they should adopt the administration of the bankrupt-laws as applicable to the laws of cessio Lonorum : and to that principle be still adhered. He had not, therefore, de- parted in the slightest degree from the course which he had adopted on the second reading of the bill, and which did not pledge him against desirable al- terations. To the principle of making all people, even those of the Blood Royal and Peers, amenable to the bankrupt-law, he had always avowed his oppo- sition. He proceeded in defence of the bill before the House ; especially of retaining a discretionary power of imprisonment as a check upon the debtor, and of the abolition of imprisonment for small debts; citing several instances of abuse in bad prisons for that class of debtors.
The report was received.
NEW PLANS FOR SUPPRESSION OF THE SLAVE-TRADE.
On Thursday, the Earl of ABERDEEN laid on the Lords' table copies of instructions recently prepared for Naval officers in the sup- pression of the slave-trade ; and made a statement on the subject.
On coming into office he found the instructions to Naval officers very inade- quate; often contradictory and inconsistent, and not always conformable to public law. As fresh treaties for the suppression of the slave-trade were con- cluded, they were sent to the officers on the service, unaccompanied by expla- nation or further instructions. He therefore appointed a Commission—con- sisting of Dr. Lushington, Mr. Bandinell of the Foreign Office, Captain Den- man, and Mr. Ratherhay of Doctors Commons—to revise the whole subject ; and the result of their labours was a complete body of instructions, They were composed of different parts, and applied to different objects ; and in addition to the instructions, every treaty on the slave-trade was given, with a digest of those treaties, the peculiarities of which were pointed out, with specific di- rections applicable to each treaty ; the endeavour having been to provide for every difficulty. He adverted to the new plans of cruising. He did not pro- pose to enter into any lengthened view of the progress that had been made by
this country in the suppression of the slave-trade : he might, however, just mention, that notwithstanding the unceasing exertions and the great sacrifices made by this country, their work was still very imperfect ; and although much had been done, still they were far from arriving at a completely successful re- sult. It appeared, from the first year with regard to which they had the best accounts on this subject, down to a recent period, that about the same number of slaves continued to be imported into the American colonies. The number of 100,000 slaves annually appeared to have been ex- ported from Africa down to a recent period. In the last three years, the average had been 28,000; in 1842 it was as low as 17,000, but last year it had risen again to 38,00: during the government of Cuba by General Valdez, who resigned rather than relax his efforts to suppress the traffic, very few slaves were imported into that island ; but the slave-trade interest of Spain was too strong for him. Had Spain and Brazil acted in good faith, the trade might have been annihilated. Lord Aberdeen described other countries—Por- tugal, France, and the United States—as observing the treaties better. It had always appeared to him, that the proper places to watch for slave-ships would be those places where slaves are to be procured, on the coast of Africa ; and having consulted with Captain Denman and other officers of great experience on the coast of Africa, be had determined to have the greatest possible increase of force ou that coast, with a view of preventing any export whatever of Ne- grees. This plan had been spoken of as a blockade. There was to be no blockade: a blockade was a belligerent right, and this could only be done by those who engaged in acts approaching to hostility. In this case there was to be no blockade; so far from that, there was the greatest desire by every possible means to extend the commerce and trade with the African coast. It was to be no blockade—it was to be only a strict watch for these vessels, belonging to Countries which had bound themselves to England by treaties, and which ves- sels they, by the law of nations, as well as by the municipal law of this country, had a right to detain. Difficult as this undertaking might appear, yet they had the opinion of those best acquainted with the service on the coast, and all
agreed as to the practical effect certain to follow from the means they proposed. The force on the coast of Brazil would be diminished, ships being wanted elsewhere; but some force would be kept up there to intercept those who might
possibly escape from the cruisers on the coast of Africa ; though from the plan they adopted, and from the proper disposition of their forces, they did believe that it would be impossible for a single ship to escape from the coast of Africa. They did not, he begged to observe, mean to confine themselves to the Western coast of Africa alone. By no means ; for there would be a sufficient number of cruisers allotted to the Eastern coast also. That was a coast more easily watched, and where ships were required of so much larger size, that their cruisers, he was sure, would be able to act with the greatest possible success.
The Earl of MINTO and Lord COLCHESTER signified approval.
The Earl of CLARENDON expressed satisfaction at Lord Aberdeen's speech and statements respecting the good faith of several foreign powers, and commended some portions of the plan ; but he feared that the new regulations would not be more successful than any previous steps had proved. The more he considered all that had been done for the abolition of the slave- trade, and the prospect which was now before us, notwithstanding what had fallen from his noble friend, the greater and the more discouraging did the diffi- culties appear : for the enormous expense we had incurred and must still incur, and the danger of embroiling ourselves in war with other countries, were not more manifest to his mind than the failure of all that had been done hitherto.
And indeed, so far as success had crowned our efforts, it had only been the means of extending the slave-trade, and adding incalculably to the sufferings of the unhappy creatures who were sacrificed to it; because those unhappy creatures of rapacity were now battened down iu vessels constructed exclusively with reference to speed, and the mortality was far greater than before; and in order to fill up the deficiencies thus occasioned by death or by capture—his noble friend did not believe this, but he believed he was rather understating than overstating the case, when he said that double the number of persons were torn from their families and friends and sold into bondage than when the slave- trade was free and the dealer was able to treat his living cargo as he pleased. These were melancholy reflections; but it would be trifling with the great inte- rests of humanity to shut our eyes to the fact, and to continue relying exclusively for success upon arrangements which had hitherto not been successful. We had no right to expect better results from treaties than they had produced hitherto. His noble friend might not agree with him ; but let him recollect, that of the countries which had concluded those treaties, some had been bribed, others had been influenced by political considerations, but not one had entered into them with the same spirit of philanthropy that had actuated our conduct. There was not one of those states that had signed a treaty without an intention of adulating its stipulations. Far be it from him to say that we ought to abandon our system, to release other countries from the engagements by which they were bound, or to cease to place our cruisers where the Government of the country thought they would be most useful; but he said that we ought to prove to other countries that the labour of freemen was more productive than that of slaves, and therefore that it was the interest of other countries to put an end to slavery. It was because we had not given that proof to other coun- tries that they looked upon our experiment as a failure, and viewed our disinterested philanthropy as a trick only intended to delude. And the reason why we had not given that proof was, that in our Colonies free labour had not had a fair trial. After glancing at the altered state of the labour-market in the West Indies, the deficiency in the newer and less thickly-peopled but more fertile colonies, and the continued pandering of Government to suspicions which had arisen in the long and severe struggle for Emancipation, he proceeded to say, that if the affairs of our Colonies were administered with a regard for the best interests of all parties, they would not now be in that state of depression which was appealed to in all parts of the world as the strongest proof of the necessity of slavery. If the Government, and not Exeter Hall, would legislate—if they would assist labour for the Colonies in a less jealous, and suspicious, and nig-
gardly spirit than hitherto—if they would secure to the labourers the same civil rights as their employers enjoyed—if they would remove the restrictions which still weighed upon our Colonial trade—he believed in his conscience that the time was not tar distant when differential duties would become unnecessary, the West Indies would be a source of prosperity instead of being a cause of irri- tation and discontent, and the success of free labour would become the most formidable weapon fertile abolition of slavery in all parts of the world. The conversation was closed by Lord BROUGHAM ; who approved of the new plans, and remarked that though the export of slaves had not decreased, without efforts at suppression it might have increased.
NATIONAL ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE FINE ARTS.
The motion for going into Committee of Supply, on Monday, gave Mr. Home an opportunity of making his threatened attack on the Royal Academy, with an amendment.
In no country in the world bad artists been treated as they had been in this country ; in no country had rising genius received leas protection than in Eng- hnd : and he attributed this entirely to the manner in which the Royal Aca- demy had been preeminently favoured by Royal patronage. The patronage of the Crown had been used as a damper on rising genius, from the mode of its distribution. The Cartoon exhibitions had been of more avail in develop- iag the talent of the country than all the proceedings of the Royal Academi- cians. He strongly censured the "audacity " of the President, in saying that the public ought not to have free access to the annual exhibition. He moved, " That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that, as pa-
troness and controller of the Royal Academy of Arts, she will be graciously pleased to take into her consideration the laws and regulations of that institu- tion, with a view of rendering it more conducive to the advancement of the fine arts, better suited to the spirit and circumstances of the present age, and more consonant with the original intention of its Royal founder, George the Third."
Sir ROBERT PEEL warmly defended the Academy.
What was the presumed departure from the original intention of George the Third ? The exhibition was freely open to all artiste; its funds were applied solely to the promotion and support of art; and he did say, that it was to the Royal Academy, and not to Parliament, that the merit was due of found- ing in this country a national school of art. All that the Royal Academy re- ceived from the public favour was the use of the apartments in Trafalgar Square. The public gave nothing towards the payment of Professors of Paint- ing, Anatomy, and Architecture. All this was provided for by the Royal Aca- demicians. That body, too, supported, and liberally supported, from its funds, decayed members of the profession when in the decline of life, for whom little or no public sympathy was shown ; and in many cases it also made provision for their widows. And when he considered the names which had adorned the list of Royal Academicians, he could not hesitate to say that he found in them the strongest proof of the success of the institution. What great masters had it not numbered among its members? No doubt, some had been disap- pointed of attaining its highest honours; no doubt, many were unable to ex- hibit within its walls: but this arose rather from a limited space than from any want of liberality among the Royal Academicians. As for artists them- selves, speaking of them as a body, he was bound to say, that in the course of a life in which he had been brought into frequent communication with them, he had ever looked upon them as men of honour and as gentlemen who shed a. lustre upon the British character. He hoped the House would not concur in. the assault thus made upon them.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Lord PALMERSTON joined in landing the Academy. In reply, Mr. HUME said, he might have adduced many other argu- ments, had he pleased ; and with regard to the free admission of the public to the Royal Academy, he remarked that up to the twelfth exhi- bition no money had been taken at the doors.
Sir ROBERT PEEL explained that circumstance.
Up to the twelfth exhibition of the Royal Academy, the Academicians re- ceived from King George the Third the liberal annual grant of 5,0001. a year, out of his Majesty's private purse. The Royal Academy very properly de- clined, after the Academy was once established, to receive a continuance of this donation ; and in order to enable them to carry out their design, the very mo- derate charge which was now taken was first imposed.
Subsequently the following colloquy occurred. Mr. Hums observed, that an artist had the audacity to refuse an audience to two Members of Parliament who desired to confer with him ; and this, he thought, was carrying impudence to its utmost height. Sir ROBERT PEEL observed, that the honourable Member had now substi- tuted the word " impudence," in speaking of the Members of the Royal Academy, for the term " audacity," which he had at first used. He would not, however, quarrel with the honourable gentleman ; considering him a good judge as to how far impudence might be carried with impunity. (A laugh.)
Mr. HOME said, that if he had not had the impudence of the Devil, he would never have done any good in that House. (A laugh.) As to the taunt which the right honourable Baronet had thrown out respecting his impudence, it was, quite thrown away upon him ; for he should go on as he had always done, per- forming his duty to the public.
The amendment was negatived. The House went into Committee ; and affirmed several votes, among them 8,0001. to complete the Nelson Monument.
MISCELLANEOUS.
CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS. On Tuesday, the Commons went into Committee on the Controverted Elections Bill, and disposed of all the clause% Sir ROBERT PEEL introduced one altering the number of each Committee front seven to five, including the Chairman.
THE MARRIAGES (IRELAND) BILL was read a second time in the Com- mons, on Thursday; to be committed on Monday next.
ACTIONS FOR GAMING DISCONTINUANCE BILL. The examination of James Thomas Russell was proceeded with on Monday; Lord Baonautta endeavouring to extract from the witness the name of a person who accom-- panied Mr. Charles Henry Russell (the witness's brother, clerk, and nominal client) in giving instructions for the qui tam actions. The Earl of Raratos originated a long conversation as to the legality of forcing the witness to dis- close the name. It afterwards appeared that Mr. James Russell had only learnt the name through his other client; and that disclosure was understood. to be a privileged communication. The bill passed through Committee. On Thursday it was read a third time, and passed.
CRIMINAL APPEALS. On Wednesday, Mr. FITZROY KELLY consented to postpone till next session his Appeal in Criminal Cases Bill, at the earnest re- quest of Sir JAMES GRAHAM; who pleaded, that while Ministers approved of the principle, they had not been able to give it sufficient examination, and that the Attorney-General was unfortunately absent.
GAME-LAWS. Mr. BRIGHT has given notice that, early next session, he will move for a Select Committee to inquire into the operation of the game-laws ; especially with reference to the consumption of agricultural produce by game, and to the effect of these laws upon the interests of the tenant-farmers, and the morality and wellbeing of the peasantry.
SUGAR CERTIFICATES. In reply to Mr. LABOUCHERE, on Thursday, Mr GLADSTONE stated that a Consul had been appointed at Manila, (the same gentleman that was Consul at Damascus,) and that at Batavia Mr. Bonhote, at Semarang Mr. M'Neil, and at Sourabaya Mr. Fraser—commercial gentle- men—had been authorized to grant certificates of the origin of sugar.
MR. O'Dniscora.'s CASE. On Tuesday, Mr. Ross moved that an humble address be presented to her Majesty praying for the removal of Mr. Alexander O'Driscoll from the commission of the peace. He repeated the well-known tales of Mr. O'Driscoll's misconduct; and animadverted on his restoration, after being removed from the commission, on the plea that he was restored to health,—though the cause of his removal was not ill health, but ill temper and unfitness. He thought nothing of the requisition signed by 2,000 persons, because Irish tenants will do anything to gratify their landlords. Lord ELIOT admitted that Mr. O'Driscoll's conduct had been very blameable ; but it had been much exaggerated. His faults had arisen greatly from his bad state of health : but his health had materially improved, and it was hoped that he would be more careful for the future. The requisition represented the feeling of a very respectable portion of the community. After a short debate, ut which Mr. DILLON BROWNE, Mr. Moan O'FERRALL, Mr. Salm' and MIL BELLEW supported the motion, and Sir Lamm Gamiest backed Lord ElioIsI the motion was negatived, by 92 to 59.
Previous page
