Seeing the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department in his place, I beg leave to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the first place, whether Her Majesty's Government have received information of the intention of a body of persons called Chartists to meet on Kennington Common in very large numbers on Monday next, for the ostensible purpose of proceeding through the metropolis in procession, and of presenting this House with a petition in favour of what are called the six points of the Charter? In the second place, I beg leave to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, the attention of the Government having been called to these circumstances, they are prepared to take those measures which may be necessary to secure the independence of this House from being overawed by any meeting calculated to intimidate it; and likewise, I will add, to protect the peaceable and loyal inhabitants of this metropolis?

Sir, in answer to the question of the hon. Baronet I beg to say, that now I hold in my hand a notice, published yesterday, signed by three individuals, one of whom styles himself "secretary"—as I presume, of the Chartist Association—in which notice it is stated, that a convention of forty-nine delegates, elected at public meetings held in different towns in the empire, will assemble on given days, their purpose being to superintend the presentation to this House of a petition, and to devise such other measures as they shall deem to be necessary to secure the enactment of the People's Charter. The notice proceeds to state that a great metropolitan demonstration would accompany the petition in procession to the door of the House of Commons; and the men of London who wish to take part in the demonstration are invited to assemble on Kennington Common on Monday, the 10th instant. A route is then prescribed, by which, arranged and superintended by marshals, they should proceed to the House of Commons. Sir, the attention of Her Majesty's Government having been called to this notice, and other information having reached them with respect to the intended proceedings on Monday next, they directed a notice to be issued, which, I trust, will be published in half an hour throughout the streets of London, and circulated over the country, pointing out that by the statute and common law of these realms this intended procession is illegal, and warning all loyal and peaceable subjects of Her Majesty to abstain from taking part in such procession, and calling upon them to give their best assistance to the constituted authorities in maintaining order, preventing disturbance, and preserving peace.

was aware he was not strictly in order in addressing the House, but trusted for their indulgence while he remarked that the right hon. Baronet by the course he proposed would certainly be taking the people by surprise; for, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman, in 1831, when many of his Colleagues were in office, 150,000 men, having given notice of their intention at the Home Office, marched down and deposited their petition for reform; that in 1837 a procession of 100,000 men marched with the petition in favour of the Dorchester labourers; and that, very lately, a procession consisting of a very large number of sailors had accompanied a petition. Why, the persons against whom the notice of the Government was directed, had passed a resolution that every single man should himself be a special constable, and they had pledged themselves not only to preserve the peace themselves, but to take every individual into custody who violated the rights of property. It was not the intention of the people to come to the door of the House. They proposed to cross Westminster-bridge. There was no ulterior object in view; and if he thought that a single breach of the peace would be committed, he would not sanction the proceedings. The liberty that was sought for had been always granted once in every Session on the occasion of presenting the people's petition; and, moreover, he believed it was a constitutional right, and he had precedents for it both before and after the era of the Reform Bill. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would reconsider his determination, and that the people would be allowed to come down with their petition, containing from 5,000,000 to 6,000,000 signatures—to come down and present that petition, but not with any intention of overawing that House. He should hold himself unworthy of filling a seat in that House, if he could lend himself to any demonstration calculated to overawe the House.

With reference to what the hon. Gentleman has said about taking the people by surprise, I can only say that at the earliest moment at which the Government could enter into deliberation upon the subject after seeing the announcement of the meeting for Monday next, they gave directions for the notice to be issued to which I have referred, and which will be printed and in the possession of the hon. Member, I hope, this evening. That notice will contain the opinion of the law advisers of the Crown, without reference to precedent. I assure the hon. Gentleman I give him full credit for being the last man to encourage any persons to join in violating the law of the land.

submitted that it might be dangerous to interfere with the procession. He was not of opinion that the meeting together of a numerous body of persons—however numerous it might be—a million, for example—was illegal, so long as the people were peaceable and quiet. He was sorry the Government had taken up the matter so seriously, and advised them to rescind their determination.

, pursuant to notice, asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, "whether he can state the probable number of persons who have died in Ireland, during the last twelve months, from starvation or from disease superinduced by an insufficient supply of the bare necessaries of life, and, if not, whether he can state the probable number of those persons who have died during that period in the counties of Galway, Mayo, Cork, and Clare, and the steps taken by the Government, through the aid of the coroners, police, poor-law guardians, and clergy of Ireland, or by other means, to aecertain the probable number of persons who may so die in Ireland during the present year?"

replied, that the subject had more than once before been mooted, and on every occasion the answer had been that there were no means in Ireland of giving the precise information.

, in bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice, was anxious as a matter of justice and courtesy, to leave the question as much as possible in the hands of the Member for Stroud. That hon. Gentleman had taken it up long since. Three years ago he had introduced a Bill for the reclamation of the waste lands in Ireland. Last Session he had a notice on the books of his intention to bring the same subject before the House. He had, in the present year, more than once made a similar attempt; and he had published a pamphlet for the purpose of calling attention to the public importance of a measure of the kind. He (Mr. French) should endeavour to confine himself to authorities untouched by the hon. Member; and leaving to him the evidence taken before the Devon Commission, content himself with calling the attention of Members to the reports of the Bog Commissioners, gentlemen selected by the Government of the day for their ability and practical experience; and to the recommendation of different Committees of the House of Commons, to show that what he sought for would be most desirable and remunerative. It would not be necessary for him to detain the House by any statement of the necessity at the present time of devising measures to improve the agriculture of Ireland, and to stimulate the industry of her people. The lamentable experience of the last two years had unfortunately made English Members as well acquainted with the wretched condition of that country as those who were constantly resident there—nor was he disposed to underrate the difficulties Her Majesty's Government had to contend with; but let the path be rough or smooth, they must tread on it; the attempt must be made; Ireland neither could nor should be suffered to remain in her present condition. It must be borne in mind, that were the present very deficient state of agriculture in Ireland raised to the level of England or of the Lothians, there would still remain 500,000 agricultural labourers destitute of employment, or the means of subsistence. England had 34,250,000 acres of cultivated land, and but 1,055,000 labourers; whilst Ireland had 1,131,000, with but 14,600,000 acres of cultivated land. The only projects which had yet been brought forward to provide for this surplus population, were emigration and home colonisation. The former was more expensive, less remunerative, and was not at present to be thought of. The disease and the distress of those who left Ireland last year, had brought about so great a change of feeling, that the colonies objected to receive emigrants, and the Irish were less disposed to emigrate; the latter had, therefore, remained solely for consideration; and it was worthy of remark, that the reclamation of the waste lands was the first measure after the Union devised by Parliament for the improvement of Ireland. Upwards of forty years ago a commission was issued to inquire and report on the practicability of reclaiming those wastes. This inquiry cost 40,000l., and produced a series of as able reports as were ever laid before Parliament. Prom these they learned that the bogs of Ireland were all level, and on an average of 300 feet above the sea, intersected by streams which served as natural outlets for the water taken from their centre. From them they also learned that a portion of Ireland, little more than one-fourth of its entire surface, and included in a line drawn from Wicklow Head to Galway, and another drawn from Howth to Sligo, comprised within it about 6–7ths of the bogs of the island, exclusive of mountains and bogs under 500 acres in extent, in its form resembling a broad belt, with its narrowest end nearest the capital, and gradually extending in breadth, until it reached the western ocean. This great division of the island, extending from east to west, was traversed by the Shannon from north to south, and was thus divided into two parts; of these the division to the westward of the river, contained more than double the extent of bog to be found to the eastward. Where distress was greatest, the House would perceive the means of employment was most abundant. He should proceed to show, from the testimony of the ablest and most scientific men of their day, that the reclamation of these wastes was not alone feasible, but would be remunerative, and to point out the course, that without any embarrassment to the finances of the country, could be pursued for this purpose. Mr. Nimmo reports that—

"I am perfectly convinced that any species of bog is, by tillage and manure, capable of being converted into a soil fit for the support of plants of every description, perhaps the most fertile that can be submitted to the operations of the farmer. On the whole (he says) I am so perfectly convinced of the practicability of converting the whole of the bogs I have surveyed into arable land, at an expense hardly ever exceeding the gross value of one year's crop, that I declare myself willing to undertake the drainage and formation of the wastes in any piece of considerable extent for one guinea an acre, which is about seven years' purchase of the rent it would then afford."

Messrs. Griffith and Longfield entertained similar opinions. Mr. Ahern's experience has proved that reclaimed bog will make a most prolific soil, furnishing almost all the principal necessaries of life in abundance, and of as good quality as the produce of the rich and fertile soil of the adjacent country. Mr. Brassington, in addition to the other advantages, dwells strongly on the improvement in the salubrity of the climate, which would follow the reclamation of the bogs. The Commissioners state—

"That the reclamation of the bogs would, according to the estimates of the different engineers employed by them, return to the improver a permanent rent of from 10 to 15 per cent on the expenditure; and they go on to say, 'It is not on more theoretical speculation that these premises are rested; our engineers uniformly adduce the example of hundreds of acres actually improved within their respective districts to justify their estimates."

Mr. Edgeworth states—

"That it is not surprising that the project of improving Irish bogs should have occurred at different periods, both to individuals who had only their own profit in view, and to the patriots who were zealous for the prosperity of their country. Undoubtedly (he says) it is an object of the highest importance to the State, and particularly to this portion of the empire, because the mode of life is such in Ireland as would immediately be suited to the cultivation of the kind of soil which may be obtainerd by the first stage of improvement in bogs. Much of the cultivation amongst the great mass of the people in Ireland is carried on by the labour of men without the plough; the soil of newly-reclaimed bog would not, for some time, bear the tread of cattle, though it might be manufactured by the spade and shovel. He offers to reclaim 1,000 English acres for 7,800l."

The Committee of 1830, to inquire into the state of the Irish poor, report:—

"The possibility of recovering the hog I of Ireland has long been the matter of parliamentary attention; it appears there are three millions of Irish acres of waste lands, equal to five millions English, which are considered almost all reclaimable. The Committee of 1819 state, that it was proved before them for an expense of 7l. an acre, land in the county of Sligo had been reclaimed and rendered worth 30s. rent per acre."

This evidence was confirmed by an intelligent witness who considered the expense of improvement to have been rather overstated: both these witnesses were Englishmen, having no local bias whatever to influence their judgment. Similar evidence was given by General Bourke and others; and the Committee go on in this report:—

"When the immense importance of bringing into cultivation five millions of acres now lying waste, is considered, it can only be a subject of regret and surprise that no greater progress has been made in this undertaking. Were this work accomplished, not only would it afford a transitory but a permanent demand for productive labour, accompanied by a corresponding rise of wages and improvement in the condition of the poor—opportunities would be afforded for the settlement on the waste lands of the peasantry, now superabundant in particular districts. This change would be alike advantageous to the lands from whence the settlers are taken, and to those to which they are removed, and would facilitate the introduction of a comfortable yeomanry, and an improved system of agriculture into the country; the screw pressure of the clearance sustem would be mitigated, and the general state of the peasantry improved."

Bog improvements were stated not to be permanent: this he was prepared to disprove. As to the permanence of improvements of this nature, Mr. Griffith reports on 292 acres reclaimed by Mr. French, of Woodlawn, fifty years before, and observes that they effectually contradict an assertion frequently made, that bog, however reclaimed, will again return to its original state, if left undisturbed for a few years. He says that eighty years before the time he wrote, there were but eight acres of green ground between the town of Castlebar and the sea coast, a district which at present supports about seventy thousand souls. Mr. O'Flaherty, who reclaimed one thousand acres, mentions the reasons which prevented such works being more generally undertaken, viz. the uncertainty of the mearings of the different proprietors, and the impossibility of getting the proprietors of adjacent estates to join in the necessary main drainages: both these objections are now removed by the Ordnance Survey and Drainage Acts. The Dutch, in the time of King William, offered, on condition of being governed by their own laws, to form a colony in the Queen's County, and to make meadow of the whole Bog of Allen. The Bog of Allen is in the same state that entertained that in the event of the drainage and reclamation of the bogs, the country would be left without sufficient fuel. It seems not to be generally understood that if the bogs of Ireland were reclaimed, we should derive not merely the advantage of cultivating their surface, but at the same time the power of applying them for fuel would be increased some thousand fold. The beneficial effects of improvements of this nature he could show from other countries. He would not trouble them with a statement of what had been done in Holland, nor lately in France and Algeria; one example would probably suffice. In Sweden formerly it was necessary to import from Dantzic or Holland every year, corn to the value of from three hundred thousand to four hundred thousand pounds sterling; but the commercial scale has been completely turned since 1803; upwards of six thousand farms have been reclaimed out of large tracts of waste lands; the result has been of immense value to the agricultural prosperity of Sweden. Instead of depending on foreign supplies of grain, she affords abundant provision for the inhabitants, and annually exports a considerable surplus. In 1829, the deficient harvest of France was recruited from the produce of Scandinavia, and in 1830 the ports of Malmo, Loncrona, and Wisby alone, sent to England 32,000 tons of oats, and 6,000 of barley. The present position of Connaught was frightful to contemplate, and unless employment was procured for the people, they must perish by thousands. The poor-law passed by Parliament, in defiance of the representations of Ireland, could no longer be maintained under it—the property of the country had been almost destroyed, and the people starved; it was unsuited either to the interests, the wants, or the wishes of the people, and if longer persevered in, the existence of any poor-law in Ireland would be endangered—a result, he for one, should deeply deplore; but he told the House that the entire force at the disposal of Government would not collect the rates under the present system, or maintain the existing law two months longer. They might endanger the connexion between the countries by a refusal to retrace their steps. It would require three millions a year to support the poor of Connaught under the present law, whilst the annual value of all the property of the province rated to the support of the poor was but a million and a half. In this province there was in Galway 708,000 acres it was 150 years ago, and so will the five I millions remain. A prejudice is generally of wastelands; Leitrim, 116,000; Mayo, 800,000; Roscommon, 130,000; Sligo, 152,000: nearly two millions of acres. He regretted the Government had allowed themselves to be sneered out of their measure last year by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk. England, when her own interests were concerned, knew the value of such measures. Witness the Bills which followed the 43rd of Elizabeth. Though the present poor-law could not be maintained in Ireland, an effectual law for the support of the poor could be established; but to it every description of property must be rated: mortgages and annuities must pay their proportion, as they did here, to the income-tax. One shilling in the pound would raise a fund sufficient for the purpose, if rated on every description of property. This should be administered under the direction of a central board, by whom the proportion of the fund necessary to meet the distress of each district would be decided; and if the actual expenditure exceeded their award, the excess should be levied off the union. The heads of the Bill he proposed to introduce were—

"1. That two Commissioners be appointed, who, with the Chairman of Board of Works, shall be the Commissioners for the purposes of this Act.

"2. That such Commissioners should be enabled to appoint engineers, surveyors, and other officers.

"3. That Commissioners should have power to make surveys and estimates of waste lands, and to take the same compulsorily under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act.

"4. Commissioners to have power to reclaim the land so taken—to lay them out in farms of not less than ten, or more than 100 acres—with power to sell or let the same in perpetuity, or for a term of years.

".5. Right of pre-emption of the whole or part of such lands to the original proprietors.

"6. Commissioners to have powers for the general maintenance of the works, &c., similar to those vested in the Drainage Commissioners.

"7. Commissioners to have powers to issue debentures, limited in proportion to the value of the land, and secured thereon. The extent of such issue must be determined by experience. Taking the waste lands of Ireland alone as the basis, there is improveable for cultivation and pasture 3,755,000 acres. There is, probably, another million that might be planted. If the present value of these wastes be averaged at 1s. 6d, per acre, the sum at twenty years' purchase would exceed 7,000,000l.: one-third of which, or 2¼ millions, might safely be taken as a limit for the issue of debentures.

"8 Commissioners to have power to borrow from the Government such portions of the money advanced for the relief of the famine in Ireland as shall from time to time be repaid by the counties."

To this plan he could not see any objection. A very able friend of his, who had given this subject much consideration, wrote to him some short time since—

"Bank notes are now issued upon two bases;—

"1. Government securities held by the issuing bank to a certain amount.

"2. Bullion retained in the bank coffers. The proprietors of land in Ireland might, without any violation of principle, be enabled to hypothecate their lands to the Government for the purpose of their being made the basis for the issue of notes to a certain amount, which should be limited to a definite proportion of the value of the lands.

"The plan might he made to work somewhat in this way:—

"A proprietor possessing lands capable of improvement might be authorised to lay a report before the Board of Works, as is done under the present Land Improvement Act, setting forth the value of the lands, the nature and cost of the proposed improvements, and the probable profit. The Board should be required to investigate the facts, and if they should report that the improvements were feasible, and the statements as to value, &c., correct, the proprietor might then he authorised to apply for a loan to the amount of (say) a third of the existing value.

"Say the lands were reported to be worth 15,000l., the proprietor might be authorised to apply for a loan of 5,000l. His application should specify the particulars of the proposed outlay, and the number and amount of the instalments in which the money would be required, and these particulars should be vouched by the Board of Works, upon whose certificate an issue of land debentures to the amount of the first instalment should be made from a distinct office to the proprietor. The application of the proprietor, and his acceptance, together with the certificate of issue of debentures, should form a lien on the land, and should be made to give power to the Government to sell it summarily in case of the interest not being punctually paid. The issue of debentures for subsequent instalments should only he made upen the Board of Works' certificate of the actual expenditure of the former issue in the manner proposed.

"The debentures should be for sums varying from 20l. to 100l., and should hear a certain daily interest like Exchequer-bills, and this interest should be 1 per cent lower than the interest to be paid by the borrowing proprietor. Thus, if the latter was charged by the Government 4½ per cent per annum, the debentures issued to him should bear an interest to be commuted per diem, at the rate of 3½ per cent per annum. The difference would pay the cost of management, and would leave a surplus to be applied to the creation of a redemption fund, which should be used, from time to time, to pay off the loans upon lands in the order of the priority of their hypothecation.

"The Bank of Ireland should he authorised to issue notes upon the basis of land debentures, as the Bank of England now docs upon the basis of Government securities.

"The working of the plan would then be in tills way:—the borrower would take his deben- tures into the stock-market and sell them; they would sometimes fall into the hands of small capitalists, and be held as a convenient interest, paying security; sometimes they would be bought by the bank, and, if necessary, made the basis of an issue of notes. In falling into the hands of small capitalists, they would produce the desirable effect of tapping hoards of available money now lying useless in stockings, the thatch of houses, or, what is nearly as bad, savings banks."

He trusted Her Majesty's Government would not offer any opposition to a plan by which the surplus labour of the country would be provided for, and 500,000 labourers provided with farms of ten acres in extent. The annual value of the produce of these lands would be raised from 751,000l. a year to 22,520,000l. The magnitude of the evils under which Ireland was suffering demanded comprehensive remedies, and he trusted that the enlightened recommendations of the noble Lords the Members for King's Lynn and Falkirk would encourage his hon. Friend to enter on the right path. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to facilitate the reclamation of waste lands in Ireland.

in rising to second the Motion for leave to bring in the Bill, expressed his regret at the little attention which the House had accorded to the exposition which the hon. Member had made of the benefits derivable from a measure having for its purpose the reclamation of waste lands in Ireland. He had taken the deepest interest in this question during the last twelve years. He had become convinced so early as 1835, when a Member of the Board of Works, that to ensure occupation and subsistence to the Irish peasantry, they would inevitably have to compel the reclamation of the lands now lying useless and uncultivated, while a fine population was idle, and therefore was starving; and in 1846, on the failure of the potato crop, he had again brought a proposal under the notice of the House very similar in its main provisions to the Bill which the hon. Member now sought to introduce. It had been said that the poor-law, now introduced into Ireland, would accomplish the object of providing employment for the ablebodied poor. But the mode in which the poor-law was administered in Ireland was not according to the principle adopted in England even. The poor-law here from the earliest times required that the poor who could not find work, should be "set to work." In England, however, almost all the ablebodied could find work; whereas in Ireland it was notoriously difficult for the ablebodied to obtain any employment. The relief given there was in the shape of food, not in in return for labour, but gratuitous relief, which tended to nourish idle habits. Last year the stones broken, which were of no use and encumbered the country, were valued, at the cost price, at a million of money. Other measures had been devised for the employment of the ablebodied poor—the million and a half loan under the Land Improvement Act, the Landlord and Tenant Bill, the Encumbered Estates Bill; but these were all inadequate, or were too slow in their operation, and of too cumbrous and complicated a character, to give prompt productive employment to the poor. Then, what was there but ruin to Ireland if something were not done? Nothing but some strong interference on the part of Government could provide a remedy. He had presented a petition from the ratepayers of the Ballina union, in the county of Mayo, which depicted a frightful state of distress, whilst large quantities of waste lands lay around. The petitioners stated that more and more land was every day left untilled, from the poverty and ruin of the holders; that the increasing rates were adding to the number of ruined farmers; and that there were vast tracts of waste but reclaimable land within the union upon which the labour of the poor, now unemployed and idle, might be made to produce enough for their own support, and by this means the progress of ruin might be stopped, whilst the cost would be amply repaid by the produce. It was admitted that throughout the west and south of Ireland there was general distress, a redundant population, yet an abundance of waste land offering ample means of employing that population. Emigration had been put forward as the true remedy.

"Promote emigration," said Mr. Sidney Hall, "from Galway town into the neighbouring wastes of Connemara—the hundreds of thousands of barren acres of the 'wild west,' which (to the eternal shame of their owners be it spoken) never yet sustained life in aught but the hare and grouse; but which, while they would largely repay cultivation, are sufficient to grow food for the whole unprovided population of your country—a country which some people, unthinkingly arraigning the wisdom of Providence, describe as over-populated, with its millions of acres waste."

Ireland was, in fact, the very last country that could spare her people. So far from being over-peopled, if the land was properly improved, drained, and reclaimed, Ireland would not have population enough to carry out cultivation to its full extent. The Report of the Poor Inquiry Commission of 1836 had recommended the policy of a measure for enforcing the improvement of that country by the reclamation of the waste lands. Lord Devon's Commission had recommended the same thing. In spite of these repeated recommendations, however, the matter had slept, and nothing was done to give effect to one of the greatest means of improving Ireland. It had been made a question whether the bogs, swamps, and morasses of Ireland were really reclaimable with profit. He would ask Gentlemen to consider the attempts that had been successfully made to reclaim such land in England and Ireland with the most profitable result. No one could travel over Chat-moss towards harvest time without seeing what was once a bog, now growing magnificent crops of corn, and paying as high a rent as the best lands. The cost of reclaiming such land in Lancashire was, on the average, 10l. an acre, and it proved a most productive and profitable investment of capital; land being made worth 20s. and 30s. an acre which had been previously of no value at all. Mr. W. France had reclaimed about 1,000 acres on Rawcliffe-moss, near Garstang, very much in a similar state to what the Irish mosses were: about twelve years ago he began improving his moss, and, having expended 9,000l., the outlay now paid 10l. per cent; and it should be remembered that the average rate of wages in Ireland was not half that in Lancashire. Under these circumstances, the omitting to employ the numbers of idle and starving ablebodied men in Ireland in reclaiming the Vast bogs immediately under their eyes, and surrounding the very workhouses where they were maintained in idleness, was criminal madness; it was acting contrary to the designs of Providence not to avail ourselves of those resources which were placed in our hands. Nor were there wanting numerous examples of the reclamation of the waste lands and bogs in Ireland, from a few acres to several hundred, with success and profit. Mr. Cecil Wray, a magistrate in the county of Donegal, had reclaimed very large tracts of moor, and was repaid by the second year's crop. Mr. Reade, of the county of Gal-way, had reclaimed 500 acres, worth about. 2s 6d. per acre. The very first crop paid all his expenses, leaving the land worth 20s. per acre. These and many other instances of successful experiments were stated before Lord Devon's Commission. In some cases tenants had reclaimed; but not unfrequently, when they did so, their rents were, as a consequence, raised. Tenants, therefore, could not be expected to drain bogs, as they knew and found, in a number of instances, that if they undertook to do so, and rendered the land more valuable, in two, or three, or four years, the agent stepped in and put on an additional rent. It was a singular and striking fact, that the greatest amount of waste land lay in those localities where there was the greatest number of able-bodied poor. Those particular counties, from Donegal to the north of Ireland, where the greatest extent of waste lands was found, were at this moment occupied by an idle population, in a state of destitution for want of employment. How was the object to be attained of setting them to work on the land, which was so capable of producing the food necessary to maintain them? Private enterprise could not do it—private enterprise had not drained the cultivated land. Landlords, burdened and embarrassed as they were, could not be expected to undertake the reclamation of lands for the great mass of the people. Had we not, therefore, arrived at a dead-lock? Private capital would not flow into Ireland for want of security, arising from general distress and discontent; and that general distress and discontent could only be removed by employment, which nobody could give. Here then was a vicious circle—here was a crisis which could be met only by the active interference of the Government. His object in the Bill of 1846 was two fold—namely, to give temporary employment to the ablebodied out of work, and to locate a body of proprietary tenants on the land so reclaimed. After bestowing upon this subject a good deal of attention, his present impression was that it would be most desirable to carry the principle of the proposed Bill into practical operation by means of the machinery which the poor-law supplied; for example, the guardians under the poor-law might be authorised to send all able-bodied paupers to the officers of the Board of Works, who should employ them in the reclamation of waste lands. If the paupers now maintained in idleness were employed in under takings of that class, the country could not fail to derive from their labours a return of the full amount, at least, of the sum expended. One of the earliest objects now proposed, would be to make immediate progress in the great work of arterial drainage: that having been once accomplished, the labour of reclaiming acre by acre might proceed from year to year, and be carried on perhaps by the unassisted labour of those who might be located in the farms which would be cut out of the waste. Captain Kennedy, one of the highest authorities connected with the improvement of land in Ireland, stated, that if the work of reclaiming waste lands in Ireland were judiciously carried on in the manner now proposed, there might at least be 500,000 men removed from the present overcrowded labour-markets of the country. He calculated, no doubt, that it would raise the produce of 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 of acres of land to 6l. an acre, which now yield only 4s. on the average per annum. The compilers of the digest of the Devon Commission asserted as the result of a calculation carefully made on a close investigation of the evidence taken by that Commission—

"That nearly 200,000 families, comprising 1,000,000 of souls, might be permanently and happily provided for upon lots of eight acres of good, and twelve of inferior, waste land (farms, that is, of twenty acres the average each); and, if properly selected from the now redundant small farmers or cottiers, this would enable their holdings to be consolidated up to eight acres, thus providing a comfortable maintenance for 134,000 more families, comprising 750,000 more souls. By this at least 500,000 labourers will be abstracted from the now overcrowded labour market and land market; and the evidence leads to the conclusion that this can be done not only without loss, but with a very large permanent gain—raising the produce of the 3,755,000 acres of waste land, now not averaging 4s. per acre, to a value of at least 6l. per acre—that is, creating a new produce of the annual value of at least 22,000,000l. The first three or four years' crops will return the cost requisite to bring about this change."

Mr. Kennedy showed that this process would not cost one-eighth of the expense of providing the same amount of relief by draining and subsoiling the cultivated lands, while the effect would be temporary, not permanent. He showed, too, that to produce the same amount of relief by emigration, would cost twice as much, the effect being far less valuable, if practicable. "Reclamation of waste land, moreover, could be carried on," he said, "at all seasons of the year, no crops being in the way." His estimate was—"For the cost of emigration, 20,000,000l.; drainage and subsoiling, 80,000,000l.; waste land reclamation, 10,000,000l," an equal effect in relieving the overcrowded labour-market being produced by the latter comparatively small expenditure. And he proved by abundant evidence that a farm of eight acres of average land, well cultivated, would keep a family in comfort, paying a fair rent. Blacker had proved the same by practical experiment, even during three years of famine. His ten-acre farmers were holding their ground and their stock, notwithstanding the two years' scarcity. It was to be remembered that Captain Kennedy was not only secretary to the Devon Commission, but that he was a practical improver of great skill and experience, who had been extensively employed in improving the estates of Sir Charles Style, and other proprietors in the north of Ireland. Unless the Legislature of this country undertook some large operation of this kind for securing productive employment to the ablebodied paupers, he believed they never would be able to solve the tremendous problem which the condition of Ireland presented. He would conclude by quoting the opinion of Mr. Delmine, a magistrate of the county Wicklow, who at a public meeting declared that the monster grievance there consisted in the relation subsisting between landlord and tenant—that there were 4,000,000 of acres of land in the country now waste and neglected, which, if cultivated, would give a return for the capital expended of from 8 to 20 per cent—and that within the last six months more money had been expended in useless public works than would have sufficed to pay the charge of bringing a very large proportion of those lands into cultivation. In many counties of Ireland the people were starving, though the land was not more than half tilled; mortgages were being foreclosed—famine was prevalent in every part of the country—property was plundered in open day—and the whole island was one great lazar-house, in which no trade flourished but that of the coffin-maker. Those were the statements made by a well-informed and dispassionate magistrate of Ireland. There was in that country a mass of destitution which Parliament must meet. The people must be employed, and they ought to be employed upon productive improvements; the waste lands offered the means of doing so without loss or injury to any one; and it was for the Government to take the matter into their own hands, or a heavy responsibility would rest upon them, if through want of exertion on their part, the country should drift onward, as he feared it was rapidly doing, to irretrievable ruin.

I do not rise to offer any opposition to the introduction of the Bill which the hon. Member proposes. I admit the importance of the subject, and that it is most desirable, by practicable measures, to facilitate the employment of the poor in Ireland; and I believe that means do exist for employing them on the soil of Ireland to a great extent. At the same time, to talk of waste lands in a country the whole of which is apportioned into separate estates, is using the word in a sense in which it is not used in relation to the colonial possessions of the Crown, where land is never appropriated. My noble Friend has promised to lay on the table a Bill embodying his views as to the best means of effecting an object so important in itself and so desirable. I am quite aware of the difficulties which exist in the way of the apportionment of property, and the great danger of aggravating the evil which it is proposed to diminish. I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will enable us to overcome the difficulties with which the question is surrounded. I understand that he does not propose to avail himself of the machinery of the Government, and a large staff of Government officers, and docs not ask for any grant of public money. To accomplish this object, I shall be glad to give him every assistance in my power.

approved of the proposition of his hon. Friend: he thought I it of the greatest importance that some means should be devised for the employment of those who were now receiving their livelihood from the rates. Leave given.

in rising to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, felt himself under peculiar difficulty, as he generally did, whenever he rose in the House to bring forward any Motion connected with popular movements. For the last fifteen years, both in the House and out of the House, he had boon connected with popular movements in this country, and, as a matter of course, a good deal of odium attached to his own character, and under no circumstances more extensively than in the present case. He was aware that the House had on a former occasion given this matter the best consideration; and he was also aware that whenever it had been mooted in or out of the House, his name had been very prominently mentioned; and it was in order to purge himself of any suspicion which might attach to him, so as to enable him to become the advocate of those persons whose liberty he now sought to restore, that he should occupy the House for a single moment in contradiction of allegations which were wholly unfounded. Hon. Members were perfectly aware that the outbreak, of which these parties were the victims, was the consequence of distress. The country was much disturbed—there was a great deal of poverty and discontent—and it had been industriously circulated by the press that he was cognisant of the facts connected with the outbreak at Newport, and that he had absconded and gone to Ireland. He was happy to seize this first opportunity of declaring, in the face of the country, that he had never heard of it, and was not aware of such a thing being in agitation till after it had occurred; and if he had been aware of it he should have thrown himself into any danger that presented itself to save those whose lives were in danger. He must remind the House that this question had before been favourably considered by the House—that when the Speaker's predecessor filled the chair, the question had been brought before Parliament, and had only been decided against the restoration of these parties and all other political offenders by the vote of the Speaker. Surely, then, he had sufficient grounds, if he had no other, for making this appeal to the clemency of the House and the mercy of the Crown. It was very well known how slight was the distinction in troublesome times between what was called sedition, riots and tumults, and high treason. He was proud of having attempted to gain a fair trial for these men, who were in the same movement with himself—he had sat under the dock listening to their trial—he had given them every countenance and assistance—and, after all, had heard the Judge emphatically charge for an acquittal, the Judges being divided as to whether they were legally put upon trial at all, one being in favour of the prosecution, and two in favour of the prisoners. A mere patient hearing—a more impartial trial—never took place. However, they were convicted of high treason; but he could tell the Government that one of the jurors, who had been served by a wrong name, came to him afterwards, and was willing to make an affidavit that he was not the man called on the jury, and that it was only by the influence of the foreman of the jury that he found the parties guilty of high treason—that all that he then found them guilty of was being at Newport when the troops were under arms. The object of the meeting in the first instance, as proved by the very evidence examined on the trial, was not to levy war against Her Majesty—not to oppose the troops then at Newport—but simply to call upon the magistrates as a deputation, and to insist on better treatment for Vincent, then a prisoner in Monmouth gaol, who was treated in a barbarous manner. The question as to whether the trial should go on afterwards came before the Judges in error, when six divided in favour of the legality of the objection which was taken, and nine against it. Every man knew it was a maxim in law, that when a doubt existed, the accused should receive the benefit of that doubt. Could the matter be said not to be doubtful when the three Judges differed, and fifteen Judges differed more materially? He should not attempt to say what was the character of the six Judges who were in favour of the legality of the trial, for all Judges were equal. If, then, on these grounds alone he was to make his appeal to the clemency of the Government and the mercy of the Queen, should he not make that appeal on strong grounds? We all knew that in other countries, whenever anything produced public exultation or rejoicings, advantage was taken of this exultation in regard to political events; and where political offences were committed, even such as were dangerous to the existence of the monarchy and the institutions of the country, the monarchs had sought the opportunity of the first jubilee to grant a free pardon. Since this trial we had had a Royal marriage; we had had many Royal births; but instead of taking the opportunity of pardoning political offenders, the hulks and the gaols were searched, and pickpockets and thieves were let loose; and to them the Royal clemency was extended. If he were to base his Motion on no higher pretensions than these, he might justly ask the exercise of the Royal prerogative; but he went further, and contended that these parties had fully expiated their crimes. It was admitted by all that ample time should be given to men to repent; and the object of punishment by banishment was, that men should become good subjects. At the present moment Mr. Frost, who had been considered so bad as to be convicted of high treason, was a tutor in a clergyman's family. Did not that prove that there was something essentially good in this man? that he must have been operated on by circumstances over which he had no control, and been forced by other persons into acts against his own wish? He (Mr. O'Connor) was bound to say, that no movement had taken place in the country for the last fifteen years to which he had not been a party (and he trusted he did not injure the cause of his clients by thus manfully avowing it); and if there had been such a thing as a premeditated outrage, or a conspiracy to destroy the power of the Queen, or to attack the soldiery, or to subvert the constitution of the country, he thought he might say, he was sufficiently in the confidence of the people to have heard it, to have learnt it, and to know it. But there was a still more important fact connected with the movement, and he was borne out in that statement by the question of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for Limerick, who had said that he would to-morrow ask the Secretary of State for Ireland whether it was not proved that a subordinate of the Government was a manufacturer of pikes in Ireland? If he were allowed, he could show that the Government was aware of the person who got up this outrage. All the circumstances were made known and communicated to the Government; the individual who attended these meetings was never examined, but afterwards went to Lancaster and York to establish the same ruin there. He was in Lancaster and York when the man, who was described as having a glazed hat, came with large placards inviting the people of Lancaster and York to revolt, and assist the men of Wales; and although he had been reviled for having known of this, and absconded when danger was apprehended—if it had not been known to him, this man would have created in those parts the same misfortunes and heartburnings, After the decision which had been come to—after the division which had been amongst the Judges, he would ask the House whether it was expedient and just to retain those men, not as prisoners, but as hostages? If the Government wished to win the affections of the people, they should win them by clemency and mercy, but not by coercion. Perhaps if some hon. Member had taken up the question, it might have been more successful than it would be in his hands; but he had adopted it from a desire to induce the Government to take a wise as well as a merciful course towards those individuals. Such a line of conduct as he would recommend would be a valuable concession to the popular opinion of this country; and if ever there were a necessity for such a concession it existed at this moment, when the minds of men had been so strongly directed towards changes. He was sorry that the noble Lord at the head of the Government was not present, because a general belief prevailed that the course adopted against Frost had been caused by a supposition that the noble Lord was to be opposed at Stroud by Mr. Frost with every chance of success. He hoped that the House would agree with him in exhibiting their opinion that the laws were so strong and the constitution so powerful, that they would prevent the possibility of danger on the liberation of those individuals. He was aware that be made this Motion at an unseasonable time, after the notice which had been given that evening by the right hon. Baronet; but he could not but remark that since 1842, up to the present moment, notwithstanding all the distress which had afflicted the people, there had been a perfect absence of political offence; and under those circumstances he would implore the House not to keep those men any longer in their present degraded condition, but to agree to their immediate restoration to liberty, by which neither the law nor the constitution could be injured. The hon. Member concluded by moving—

"That an Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty would be graciously pleased to extend Her Royal pardon to John Frost, Zephaniah Williams, and William Jones, and all other political Offenders."

The hon. Member began his speech by disclaiming, with the natural indignation of a man to whom an unjust imputation has been attached, the charge of having been cognisant of those proceedings which led to the conviction of Frost and others—of having been a party to those designs which were developed in a treasonable attempt made to subvert the institutions of the country—and of having afterwards absconded and stayed away from the place of danger. [Mr. F. O'CONNOR: It was so stated in the press.] I never heard of the charge, and I have never seen in the conduct of the hon. Gentleman within the walls of this House, or heard from him language, however warmly he may occasionally speak, of which any complaint could be made, that it was calculated to excite others to crime. The hon. Gentleman has said that this is not the first occasion on which this subject has been brought before the House; but he is mistaken in stating that on any occasion on which the question was discussed an equal division took place, and that the Motion was negatived only by the casting vote of the Speaker. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the Motion on which the division to which he refers took place, in a small House, was one which did not in the least affect the case of Frost, Williams, and Jones. That Motion was made on the 25th of May, 1841, when Frost, Williams, and Jones were in Van Diemen's Land, and was to the effect that an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She would be graciously pleased to take into Her merciful consideration the case of all persons confined in England and Wales for political offences; and, therefore, if that Motion had been carried, it would not have affected the cases of the three individuals to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred. In 1846 a Motion was brought before the House for the release of Frost, Williams, and Jones; and every circumstance that could be alleged in favour of those persons was urged with great ability; and the result was that thirty-one Members voted in favour of the Motion, which was similar to that now brought forward by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. F. O'Connor), while it was negatived by a majority of 196. That, I believe, was the only occasion on which the House has come to a distinct vote on this subject. The hon. Member for Nottingham has been good enough to pay me compliments which I must disclaim, and which I cannot receive, either at the expense of any of my Colleagues, or of my right hon. predecessor in the office of Home Secretary. The speech made by my predecessor upon the Motion brought forward on this subject by the hon. Member for Finsbury, shows the spirit in which he was prepared to deal with the question; and it was acknowledged at the time that no complaint could be made against the manner in which he treated the Motion. A sense of duty then influenced the right hon. Baronet to resist the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury; and a sense of duty now compels me to resist the Motion of the hon. Member for Nottingham. I must take this opportunity of observing that I think it is unfortunate and inconvenient that questions of this nature should be brought before the House; because, when such statements as we have heard from the hon. Member for Nottingham are made, it becomes the duty of the Minister of the Crown to vindicate the course pursued by the Government—to remind the House of the real circumstances of the case—and to show that the crime of which the persons in question were convicted, was not of that mild, light, and comparatively innocent character which was ascribed to it by the hon. Gentleman opposite. In this case the crime was marked by circumstances, I must say, of great atrocity; and it might have been attended with consequences fatal to the peace of society and to the happiness and welfare of many families among the industrious classes. One of the grounds upon which the hon. Gentleman based his appeal to the House was, that the crime of which Frost, Williams, and Jones were convicted, was one which, in his opinion, fell very far short of treason; and he said, what is perfectly true, and what I hope will have its effect out of this House, that the lines of demarcation between sedition, riot, and treason, cannot be very easily or distinctly defined; and that when persons enter the ranks of sedition they may find themselves, perhaps inadvertently, committing acts of treason, and subjecting themselves to the highest penalties the law can inflict. The hon. Gentleman had admitted that persons may be led inadvertently far beyond their original intention, and that they may eventually find themselves the victims of the law—that law being justly and necessarily administered in such cases with a view to the protection of society. But let me remind the House what were the circumstances of this case. The hon. Gentleman says, that at the time the outbreak took place, great poverty existed in the country; but were the persons to whom the hon. Gentleman referred—Frost, Williams, and Jones—suffering from that poverty? Had they the excuse of being goaded by poverty to acts of insurrection? Had they any possible excuse for sharing in the general discontent which arose from that poverty? On the contrary, did they not, for the purpose of their own personal aggrandisement, avail themselves of the existing poverty and discontent? Did they not devise plans and schemes which would have made the dupes and instruments of those schemes the victims of their own personal objects of ambition and aggrandisement? The hon. Member for Nottingham said he would not go into the facts of the trial. I do not wish to go into the facts or into the evidence; but I may refer to one extract, which was read on a former occasion, from the address delivered to the prisoners after their conviction by Chief Justice Tindal—than whom a more humane and intelligent Judge never sat upon the bench. That learned Judge said—

"It has been proved in your case that you combined together to lead from the hills, at the dead hour of the night, into the town of Newport, many thousands of men, armed in many instances with weapons of a dangerous description, in order that they might take possession of the town, and supersede the lawful authority of the Queen, as a preliminary step to a more general insurrection throughout the kingdom. It is owing to the interposition of Providence alone that your wicked designs were frustrated. Your followers arrived by daylight, and, after firing upon the civil power and upon the Queen's troops, are, by the firmness of the magistrates, and the cool and determined bravery of a small body of soldiers, defeated and dispersed. What would have been the fate of the peaceful and unoffending inhabitants of that town, if success had attended your rebellious designs it is impossible to say. The invasion of a foreign foe would, in all probability have been less destructive to property and life. It is for the crime of high treason, committed under these circumstances, that you are now called upon yourselves to answer; and by the penalty which you are about to suffer you hold out a warning to all your fellow-subjects that the law of your country is strong enough to repress and to punish all attempts to alter the established order of things by insurrection and armed force."

But I now understand that the hon. Gentleman does not rest his case upon the comparative lightness of the crime committed by these persons. He admits the crime, and he rests his case upon the alleged informalities of the trial. I rejoice at this; because I am glad that it should go forth on his authority to those who look up to him as their leader, that what are called political offences, such as those of which Frost, Williams, and Jones were convicted, are acts involving guilt of the greatest magnitude, and are deserving, if a legal conviction is obtained, of being punished with the utmost severity of the law. Without wasting the time of the House by going into the circumstances under which those parties were convicted, I will come to the point upon which the hon. Gentleman now relies, namely, the alleged illegality of the convictions. Persons who are tried for treason are entitled to peculiar privileges: they are entitled, by Act of Parliament, to a copy of the indictment, and to a list of the witnesses, a certain time before the trial takes place. In this case an application was made by the prisoner's solicitors to the Solicitor for the Crown for a copy of the indictment some days before the period fixed by the Act of Parliament; and the solicitor for the prosecution, acting under the directions of the Attorney and Solicitor General of the day, who were anxious to afford every possible means of defence to the prisoners, furnished a copy of the indictment to the solicitors for the prisoners some days previously to the time when they were legally entitled to claim it. The solicitors for the prosecution did not, however, furnish the list of witnesses at that time; but they delivered the list of witnesses to the prisoners' solicitors, at the period prescribed by the Act of Parliament, up to which time they might have withheld the copy of the indictment. At the commencement of the trial a point was raised on the part of the prisoners, that a list of the witnesses had not been furnished to them, pursuant to the 7th of Anne, c. 21, s. 11., the objection being that the list of witnesses ought to have been delivered at the same time with a copy of the indictment. [Mr. O'CONNOR: A supplementary list of witnesses was not delivered until some time after the original list had been furnished.] The hon. Member for Nottingham stated that the Judges before whom the trial took place were divided in opinion on this point, but that the trial proceeded, and the question was reserved for the consideration of the Judges. The point was argued in the Exchequer Chamber on the 25th, the 27th, and the 28th of January subsequently to the trial; and on the last of those days Chief Justice Tindal reported to the Secretary of State that the Judges, in the proportion of nine to six, were of opinion that the conviction was not illegal, for that the delivery of the list of witnesses was not a good delivery in point of law. But that was not the only question the Judges entertained. The same proportion of nine to six were of opinion that the objection to the delivery of the list of witnesses was not taken by the counsel for the prisoners in due time; and all the Judges agreed that if the objection had been made in due time, the effect would not have been to entitle the prisoners to an acquittal, but merely to the postponement of their trial, in order that a copy of the indictment and a list of the witnesses might have been delivered in accordance with the statute, and they would then have again been put upon their trial. But the Judges went even beyond this, for they came to the determination that the conviction was perfectly legal. I hope, then, that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman that the Judges did not report to the Secretary of State that the conviction was illegal. If that had been the case, according to the ordinary and universal practice, a recommendation would have been made by the Secretary of State to the Crown, which would have entitled the convicts to a pardon; but, the opinion of the Judges being that the conviction was legal, the Secretary of State could not make such a recommendation. But here, again, the conduct of the Government was marked by anything but undue severity. Under all the circumstances, they recommended that the capital sentence should be commuted to transportation for life, and such a commutation accordingly took place. Along with Frost, Williams, and Jones, fourteen other persons were arraigned on the charge of high treason; and what course was taken with regard to them? Ten of the fourteen were allowed to withdraw their plea of "Not guilty," and to put in a plea of "Guilty;" and not one of these persons—although their lives were forfeited to the laws of the country—was even transported, but they were sentenced to various periods of imprisonment, all of which have now expired. The remaining four cases were those of persons who had not taken any very active part in the outbreak; and as it was considered that the law had been sufficiently vindicated, no evidence was offered against them, and they were consequently discharged. I must say that I think the lenity of the Government was most conspicuous; and the reason which has induced Her Majesty's Ministers to consider that it would not be right to give any other indulgence to these parties is this—that the Government conceived, from the ground upon which the cases of these persons have been put from time to time in this House and elsewhere, that by so doing they would be sanctioning one of the most dangerous doctrines that can be promulgated—a doctrine most dangerous to the interest of the great body of the people of this country, who do not possess an acquaintance with the law—the doctrine that persons having political objects in view may adopt any course they please to effect those objects—that they may have recourse to bloodshed, rapine, and murder—that they may disturb all the relations of society—and that if the law proves to be too strong for them, if they are taken in the prosecution of their unlawful proceedings, and are convicted by a jury, it is then to be said, notwithstanding the blood through which they have waded, the risk they have occasioned to the peaceable subjects of the Queen, and the peril in which they have placed the safety of the country, that they are only political offenders—that the sympathies of the House and of the country ought to be enlisted on their behalf—and that they ought to be allowed to escape unpunished. It is the leaders in these cases upon whom the law ought to lay hold. It is to the leaders in these cases that the attention of the Government is most closely directed, and upon whose acts their observation is most closely fixed; and I am sure the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. O'Connor), with that magnanimity which characterises him in the sentiments he expresses on the part of the working classes, will agree with me that undue lenity to the leaders would be cruelty to the great body of the people. With regard to the advice that the sentence upon Frost, Williams, and Jones should be remitted, and that they should be relieved from the legal penalties they have incurred, I must say that I think such a proceeding would tend to encourage crime, and crime of the worst character; and that any person filling the situation I have the honour to occupy, would be shrinking from the duty imperatively forced upon him if he were to sanction the doctrines embodied in the Motion now before the House. The hon. Member for Nottingham admits that no undue severity has been inflicted upon Frost, Williams, and Jones—he allows that in the colonies they have been treated with great lenity—he states that Mr. Frost is a tutor in a clergyman's family—and he adds that these persons have not been subjected to any special punishment. [Mr. O'CONNOR: I said they had not subjected themselves to any special punishment.] I am not aware that any complaint has been made that undue severity has been exercised to these individuals. I regret that the hon. Member has forced me to say what I have been compelled to say with regard to these per- sons, and to speak of them in the language of censure, which was rendered necessary by this Motion. The hon. Gentleman expressed his hope that the subject would not be treated with levity; and I must say that the House has given the most patient and considerate attention to his statement. The only expression which fell from the hon. Gentleman that induced a disposition to laughter on the part of the House, was his allusion to a report which was most unfounded—I may almost say absurd—that the proceedings instituted against Frost, notwithstanding the acts he had committed, were instigated by the jealousy of my noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, who was apprehensive that Frost might meet him on the hustings and prove the more popular candidate. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will feel that nothing could be more unfounded and impossible than the existence of such a feeling. Under these circumstances, I shall certainly feel bound to oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.

said, it had been stated by the hon. Member for Nottingham that the object of Frost, Williams, and Jones, in going to Newport was to induce the magistrates to relax the severity of the treatment to which Vincent, who was then a prisoner in Monmouth gaol, was subjected. But if that was their object, it certainly appeared extraordinary that they should have chosen such an hour as two o'clock in the morning for their visit to Newport; that they should have been accompanied by armed bands of men; and that they should have prosecuted their journey on one of the darkest and most tempestuous nights that had ever been experienced in that part of the country. He could state, from his own knowledge, that during the period of Vincent's imprisonment, at Monmouth, he was allowed every indulgence compatible with his position. It had been stated by the hon. Member for Nottingham that a person wearing a glazed hat, who had frequently been seen in the neighbourhood of the hills previously to the outbreak, was a Government spy, who had incited the people to violence; but if there was any foundation for this statement, it was strange that the circumstance had not been urged in favour of the prisoners at their trial.

had before expressed his opinion that this case had been dealt with in a manner contrary to the usual practice in criminal cases. He considered that Frost, Williams, and Jones, had been illegally convicted and sentenced, and that they were now illegally detained in transportation; and he would therefore vote for the Motion. England and Russia stood alone in withholding an amnesty from political offenders; we ought to have had the liberality to grant it before this.

considered the Motion vague in its phraseology. It differed from every Motion which had been made upon the same subject. Without entering upon the question of the guilt of those men, he would say that he thought it very meet and competent to the petitioners to pray for a remission of their punishment; he held the same opinion in 1846; and if the hon. Member for Nottingham would alter the terms of his Motion, and if he would specify the names of those parties for whom be would wish to interest the Royal prerogative, he was prepared to vote in its support.

would not enter into the particulars of the case, nor was he going to say that these unfortunate men committed no offence; but he begged the House to remember, that had they been successful in their attempt, they would have been designated as heroes, and not as criminals; and that that House would be lauding their heroic conduct, as successful men had been lauded in other countries. All he desired to do was to draw the attention of the House to the state of feeling which was manifested upon this subject by the working classes in the country; the display of which occasioned some little uneasiness to Gentlemen upon the Treasury benches. [Sir GEORGE GREY: Not in the least.] The working classes had a right to feel deeply upon the matter; they were not properly represented in that House; and as the law at present stood, it was impossible for them to rectify that evil. These classes, comprising millions, to a man believed that Frost and his companions were illegally convicted—that opinion could not be shaken; even the hon. Member for Montrose, after all he had heard, strongly maintained the same opinion. Sir Fitzroy Kelly and the present Chief Baron stated that to be their belief; and they were all aware that there was a difference upon the subject among the Judges. Under these circumstances the working people of England besought the humane bestowal of the attention of the House on the case of these unfortunate men. Were they prepared to concede anything to the working people? He believed that they were prepared to concede very little. He considered that after the manner in which they had persevered in the manifestation of their wishes, that it was the bounden duty of the House to interpose and claim the indulgence of the Royal prerogative. The noble Lord at the head of the Government interfered in the case of the Dorchester labourers; and had those men, who were convicted of a very slight offence (designated by the Judge as very serious), recalled to their country; and he would ask, what did the House lose by that concession? Nothing; it had gained the gratitude and the confidence of many: and when he reflected how much was done for the country by the working classes—how much they contributed to its wealth and happiness—it did appear to him, that year after year their petitions were not treated with the respect to which they were entitled, and that it was not the Government, but the House, which had misconducted itself upon this question. Look at their conduct towards traitors in the shape of kings, who laid plots and entered into conspiracies against the liberties of their subjects—who endeavoured to abridge their privileges, and trample upon their rights. When these royal miscreants came from foreign countries into this, they received the attention of the highest persons in the land. ["Oh!"] "Ay, I say royal miscreants and royal ruffians—they can experience the kind sympathies of your nobility: even Royalty itself does not refuse to receive such royal miscreants into the Palace, and to bestow sympathy and favour upon them. I regret to see this, Sir, when I see the inattention which is bestowed upon the anxious petitions of the working people of this country."

had been asked by his constituents more than once what course he would take with regard to the case of Frost, Williams, and Jones; and his reply was, that if they would allow him to take his own course, he would do the best he could for them. In pursuance of that pledge, he now took the liberty to impress upon the Government how much the heartburning and ill-feeling might be removed by a display of clemency. The time chosen for the Motion was not a very happy one: a week sooner or a week later might have been better; but the sentence must eventually have the revision of the Government—and he should hope that, at some time or other, their decision would he favourable. If in the meantime they would take the preliminary step of allowing the parties to quit the penal colony under an engagement not to return to the country of their birth, that would have a most favourable effect, and the Government would find themselves strengthened not weakened by it.

had formerly voted in support of a similar resolution, on the principle that it was not useful to prolong punishment, when there was sufficient proof of the power of the law to vindicate itself and to put down crime. It was the deep desire of the working classes that their pardon should he wholly granted; and he trusted that the Government would take their case into its favourable consideration.

said, in accordance with the wishes of large electoral bodies in the kingdom, of whose sentiments he was fully cognizant, he was prepared to vote for the Address.

regretted that he had not been able to attend the House sooner. He entered only when the hon. Member for Finsbury was addressing the House, and he was surprised to hear him say, as if that were an argument to be addressed to the House, that the people of England—who they were he did not know—were dissatisfied with the verdict; and because the people were dissatisfied, therefore they, lawyers and men who were conversant with law, and who wished to live in obedience to law, and to the institutions of the country, should give way in a matter that they believed to be right—who knew that this question was rightly decided according to the law of the land, by which alone every man in the House and the country held what he had, whether it was life, or liberty, or property, or whatever else was dear to him. He was astonished that the hon. Member for Finsbury should in such a case lend the aid of his authority to such an argument. The hon. Gentleman was conversant with the forms of law—ay, with the substance of law—he administered the law in the way in which, by law, he was called upon to administer it; and he should therefore have been the last man, in any assembly, to tell an English House of Commons that because people were dissatisfied with a verdict, while he himself is not so dissatisfied—at least he did not understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he was so dissatisfied—therefore the clemency of the Crown must be invoked, by Parliament, to interfere and save those persons fcom the penalties of law, which, if they had been men of spirit and courage, and willing to adventure their all upon the success of their cause, they ought to be content manfully to bear. He did not understand men who could lightly speak of changing the Government of the country, and who could perhaps think of it as lightly, and who were not prepared to suffer everything for their principles. If he thought it his duty to his God, to his conscience, and his country, to stand up in rebellion against the establishments of the country, and that failed, he should be content to bear the penalties. He thought this was not unwholesome language in an honest man's mouth. The question the House had now to consider, was—what did Mr. Frost, Zephaniah Williams, and Mr. Jones do, and what was the penalty which they had incurred? The hon. Member for Bolton, indeed, rises at the eleventh hour, and he says, have not these men suffered enough? He should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, who was well acquainted with the meaning and the object of punishment, would not have attributed the whole of its effects to the man who suffered it in his own person. Pœna ad paucos, metus ad omnes adveniat. It is not what the man himself may suffer, but that a wholesome and godly fear may be inspired into others through the operation of his suffering. Let it not be forgotten that though Frost had suffered—and whether his sufferings had wrought his own good in their endurance or not he could not tell—he might be deserving of the mercy of the Crown at some time or other, and he had not risen to interpose an eternal power between him and the mercy of the Crown—God forbid!—but he was satisfied that now was not the time to relax the penalties of law in favour of persons who had been guilty of that of which Frost had been guilty, and for which he was now enduring the penalty. Penalty! He ought to thank God daily on his bended knees that he had been allowed time to repent of that which he did, and for which the forfeit of his life ought to have paid. What was the crime which Frost committed? He feared, from having come late into the House, that he was going over ground which had already been traversed. But, if the House would permit him a few minutes, he would state what was his impression of the crime. What then was the crime which Frost committed? He was a man of education. He had held a certain authority in the country to which he belonged. Therefore the stronger was the duty in him to preserve the law, and to teach others to observe it by his example. He was a man who, whether for good or evil, had influence and authority among his countrymen, and therefore the rather was he hound by his duty to his God, to his Sovereign, and to his country, to observe the law in his own person, and to take care that no one over whom he had authority, no one over whom he had control, should disobey the law. What did this Gentleman do? He had not lately read with so much attention as the hon. Member for Nottingham the proceedings in the case; but if he was not mistaken in the view he entertained of the matter, this was the defence made at the trial. Mr. Frost said, "I belong to the Chartists—I have great influence over a number of the Chartists. There was a Chartist gentleman of the name of Vincent then in Monmouth gaol. I had authority to bring down large bodies of people. I did not desire to overturn the establishments of the realm and the sway of our Sovereign the Queen; but I did desire to make—(what he thought was an exceedingly dangerous word)—a demonstration in favour of the principles which I support; and I desired, by numbers of people coming together at that time, and by my authority, to show the magistrates of Monmouth that there was a strong feeling among the Chartists in favour of Vincent; and it was on his account that we made the demonstration—that by this demonstration he might obtain a better measure of prison liberty than he would otherwise have done, and therefore we did that for which you now tell us we are punishable." Now, was not that the defence used at the trial? He was defended—rightly said the hon. Member for Finsbury—by able men, by Sir Frederick Pollock and Sir Fitzroy Kelly, and that was the defence they made for him. What, however, were the facts of the case? That he collected together many thousands of the people at the dead of night—men who knew not what they did—armed men, armed with muskets, pistols, swords, and other offensive weapons—that he led them to the town of Newport—and what was his purpose? That purpose, as he had already said—that purpose was stated in his defence. It was not treason—it was short of treason. It was a demonstration in fa- vour of the gentleman who was then in gaol. But what said the law? The law said that, by the Statutes of Edward and of George, he who levies war against the Queen is guilty of high treason; and we find you here leading a body of many thousands of persons, with multitudes of armed men. You went to Newport to accomplish your intentions—to beat down authority—to blow up the bridge—to stop the communication with Birmingham, for that was to be the signal of defiance, when the midland counties would rise—the north of England would rise—his (Sir David Dundas's) county would rise, and in every direction the populace was expected to rise in defiance of law. He asked the hon. Gentleman if that was the offence charged? if that was the offence of which they were proved guilty? if that was the crime of which they were convicted? Was it not the gravest, considering all the circumstances of the offence, of which they could be convicted by any State authority in the world? Was there any doubt of the facts in the minds of the jury? They, one and all, after the deliberation of a very few minutes, found all the prisoners guilty; but they gave their verdict accompanied with a recommendation to mercy. They were not asked, nor did they give any ground for the recommendation so offered; but it was taken into consideration afterwards, and the Judge who passed the sentence of the law upon those persons was a wise man, a good lawyer, of a tender conscience in all cases relating to matters of life, and most ready to seek every excuse why the extreme penalty of the law should not be carried into effect. Who were the Judges before whom this case was tried? He did not know whether it was said that this trial was ill conducted, as it had been said that the verdict was wrong given. Those Judges were the very best of the earth. The first was the late Chief Justice Tindal, who had gone to his account, who was one of the wisest of lawyers, of the best of men—a gentleman who had not left his superior behind him either as a man of feeling, of judgment, of discretion, or of firmness. Who was the second on that Commission? A friend of his, who, he thanked God, was yet spared for the use of his country, Mr. Baron Parke, a most consummate Judge. He would not "praise him in the gate," for he now lived. Let those speak who can say with authority—which he had not—of the reputation he bore among the Judges and lawyers of England. There was another Judge who had since fallen by fate, the late Mr. Justice Williams. He had lived for many years on terms of intimacy with that excellent man, and he knew him; and he knew not a more honourable gentleman in the land, and he knew that he would never have done, as a Judge, anything of which his conscience did not approve. What did those Judges say on delivering the sentence of law? They agreed with the jury—they found no difference among themselves, nor any excuse that could be offered for the prisoners; and the first of the Commission—the Judge who was the organ of the court in delivering the judgment of the court—he told these men, on being called up for judgment, what the unanimous judgment of the court was, that it was not a judgment of transportation; but that by the law on which they had been judged, their lives were forfeited. He told them what is most true—what ought never to be lost sight of—what ought to be kept in perpetual memory by all classes, high and low, and by every estate in the realm, that crimes against life and property, which are ordinarily tried at the assizes, end with the sufferings of individuals, their families, and their friends; but that in the particular case in which Frost was convicted) it was a crime against all society—it broke down the barriers of safety to life, safety to property, safety to every institution in the country. For if once the levying of war against the Queen, within her own dominions, was to pass free, no one could say what was left to us in any of the institutions now belonging to us. He therefore said that the crime was great—that the trial was as good, according to law, as any lawyer ever saw in England. Every defence that could be made for the prisoners was made; they had the benefit of the best counsel—the verdict of the jury was a competent one—the Judges answered to that verdict, and approved of that verdict. Then the question was, why should the hon. Gentleman—he spoke of the hon. Member for Finsbury, because he had a value for his understanding—why should the hon. Member tell the House, in the name of the people, that they were dissatisfied with the verdict? Had the hon. Member for Finsbury forgotten that on that mischievous night nine men were shot down and killed. They died; they were of the party of Frost—he compassionated them none the less for that—but they died in the guilt and sin of rebellion. Who led them on? They were ignorant persons—poor country people, without friends, without persons to vouch for their character. They followed their leader to the death. What, then, was the guilt of their leader? He must answer for those nine lives. He did not understand the excuse of the man who led on others to evil, and who wished to escape while they must die. His opinion was that the leader must answer for his followers. Their actions was his crime; and the punishment should be laid upon him. But was this all? What was the disturbance caused in private and social life by these disorders? What was the disturbance in the town of Newport alone? It was true that the occasion called forth the moderation, the firmness, and the conciliatory policy of the magistrates of the town; and the soldiers behaved themselves like good citizens in the service of their country—they stood their ground and maintained their position in the face of greatly superior numbers; and they had their reward. Then came the question—if these things were so, what was the ground of the dissatisfaction of the people with the verdict? Was it on the ground that substantial justice had not been done? He put that to the hon. Member for Finsbury. Were the people of England enamoured of the quirks and forms of law? it was the first time in the history of the hon. Member for Finsbury that they saw in him the champion of the statutory form of delivering the list of witnesses. He had expected better things of the hon. Member for Finsbury. The hon. Member did not seem to be aware of the decisions of the Judges on this point. He speculated upon majorities and minorities of the Judges. A majority of the Judges, he said, held the objection to be good; but they held that it had not been taken in good time. But now let the hon. Member for Finsbury lay this to his heart. A majority of the Judges found—a majority!—all the Judges agreed that if the objection had been taken in good time the only effect would have been to postpone the trial. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wakley) shook his head. Had he any doubt of it? Let there be no doubt about the matter. Either the hon. Gentleman was leading or he was misleading the people. He was a lawyer, and hearing this question discussed, and as he thought misrepresented, he could not sit by in silence; and, therefore, he had been induced to offer himself to the notice of the House, which he seldom did; but in the present case, if there was a misconstruction of law in the matter of Frost, Williams, and Jones, it was a sad misconstruction, which ought immediately to be rectified. But he said there was no misconstruction. He understood the thing as clear as he saw the light of day; and he could not understand how the hon. Members for Montrose, and Finsbury, and Bolton, who were one and all of them Gentlemen of experience, and conversant with the forms and practice of law—he could not understand how they should shut their eyes to the light of heaven, and not see what was so plainly spread before them. He had with him the decision of the Judges: he did not know whether or not it had been read in an earlier part of the debate. He would read the letter of the Chief Justice Tindal to the Secretary for the Home Department. That letter was to the following effect:—

"1. A majority of the Judges, of nine to six, were of opinion that the delivery of the list of witnesses was not a good delivery in point of law.

"2. A majority of the Judges, of nine to six, were of opinion that the objection to the delivery of the list of witnesses was not taken in due time."

Now, if the hon. Member for Montrose would hear what was the next opinion he thought that he also would be satisfied upon this subject:—

"3. All the Judges were agreed that if the objection had been made in due time the effect would have been a postponement of the trial to give time for a proper delivery of the list of witnesses."

Was not that satisfactory? He was not there to deny that there might have been a wrong done in point of form. There was enough to justify the exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy; and God forbid that he should say it was not well exercised! Neither did he say that they should despise form in matters of law. Matters of form strengthened the administration of justice: it protected the innocent, and kept the power of the strong in its proper place. Now, if these things were so, what was the conclusion to which a man of his mind must come? He did not say that the Royal prerogative of mercy should never be extended to persons who had in some degree paid the penalty of their crimes. He thought there might occur a time—but he could not think that time was now arrived—when those persons might receive the mercy of the Crown. Considering that they had been cast for their lives in a trial for the crime of treason of such a kind—for he must say, that the levying war within the Queen's dominions was, of all species of treason, the worst—he was of opinion that it was inconsistent with his sense of law to vote with the hon. Gentleman, who had honestly taken another view of the subject. The view of the hon. Member was, no doubt, a zealous and conscientious one; but, in his opinion, they should not petition the Queen or intercede for these criminals merely because of their sufferings, unless they were sure that the example afforded in their suffering had worked in the country as it was intended it should work.

would support the Motion. He thought that the same measure of merciful clemency which had been exerted in favour of Papineau and the other rebels in Canada might be now extended to Frost, Williams, and Jones. This question came before them supported and recommended by the sympathies of a large portion of the people who were not represented within the walls of this House, and as such it would have his cordial support.

rose to move—

"For the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of the Court of Directors of the East India Company and of the Government of India towards the late Rajah of Sattara, and to report thereupon to the House."

As this was a new Parliament, and as there were many hon. Gentlemen in that House to whom this question was probably not familiar, he should consider it necessary to state somewhat in detail the facts connected with it, in order that the House might be prepared to give an enlightened decision upon the Motion which he had the honour to propose. He begged to say, that it was not in his own name alone that he ventured to address the House on the present occasion, but in the name of the vast number of persons who had petitioned Parliament on the subject. He appeared there on behalf of a bereaved family who had recently lost their illustrious head, and who, up to the date of the latest advices—which was the 21st of February last—had been left without any support from the Government of India—who had not even been furnished with the means of defraying the expenses of the funeral obsequies of the late Rajah—and who had had no intimation from the Government of India that it was intended to make that provision for them which was absolutely necessary. The late Rajah of Sattara, far from being, as had been represented, a person of no dignity and importance when the Government of India first entered into communication and alliance with him—far from having been taken from circumstances of poverty and impotency, and raised to a throne by an act of spontaneous generosity—was the lineal descendant from Seevajee, the founder of the Mahratta empire, who was born in 1727; and down to the time that the late Rajah was taken under British protection, the princes, descendants of Seevajee, were universally recognised as the fountain of honour and authority; for although the power and the dynasty had previously been transferred to the Peishwa, it was acknowledged that the Peishwa reigned in the name of Seevajee's descendants. Mr. Prinsep, who, in his work, had fully gone into the history of the Mahratta war, and our whole question with the Rajah of Sattara, stated, that after the battle of Ashta, Mr. Elphinstone had declared it to be the intention of the British Government to restore the family of the Rajah to an independent sovereignty, and to punish the long-continued treachery of Bajee Rao by the perpetual exclusion of his dynasty; and why did Mr. Elphinstone place so much stress on an alliance with the Rajah? Because he knew that if he sought to depose the Peishwa without recognising the claims of the rightful prince, he would not have been able to secure the allegiance of the Jagheerdars. It was not generosity, but prudence, that dictated the propriety of that alliance. In a letter which he had received last August from Colonel Taylor, who had discovered the Rajah on the field of Ashta, and saved him from being cut down by the dragoons under his command, the Colonel said that the victory was the result of the declaration that the Rajah was to be restored to his possessions; and the late Mr. Canning, in moving a vote of thanks to the army in India, said it had fallen to the lot of General Smith to replace the rightful and legitimate sovereign on the throne of his ancestors at Sattara, and that he wished the Rajah's sovereignty might continue. In 1819 a formal treaty of alliance was entered into with the Rajah; and he believed that a wiser, juster, and more beneficent prince had never existed in India. Every person who came from that country bore testimony to his merits; and if the Committee he now asked for were granted to him (Mr. Thompson), he could prove that it was the British Government who first violated the treaty with the Rajah. It was the conduct of the Bombay Government, and their concealment of the unanimous decision of the Court of Directors, that led to the plot which was subsequently hatched, and ultimately brought the Rajah to ruin. When the treaty was entered into there were within the Rajah's territory persons living upon estates, called Jagheerdars, who had received from the Peishwa, or other princes, instead of money pensions, authority to collect the revenue over a certain district during their lives; and Mr. Elphinstone declared that they should not be disturbed in their possession. In 1832 some dispute arose in consequence of Mr. Warden, a British Judge at Poonah, having undertaken to adjudicate between the Rajah and two Jagheerdars, the Rajah considering that it was an usurpation of his authority. Major General Lodwick, then the Resident at Sattara, wrote to the Government in favour of the Rajah, and in 1834 the Court of Directors sent a despatch to the Bombay Government, conveying their unanimous decision in favour of the Rajah. It reached Bombay in April, 1835; Sir Robert Grant was then Governor, and General Lodwick was anxious to communicate the whole despatch to the Rajah, but was prohibited from communicating more than a part of it, and what part he could not say. It was, in fact, in two parts; the first was complimentary to the Rajah; the latter conveyed the decision of the Directors in his favour; and, judging by what had since passed, he thought it was the latter part which was withheld from the Rajah. The Rajah sought an interview with the Governor, and urged upon him the necessity of obtaining something like a decision in reference to the question of the Jagheers; General Lodwick was present at the interview, and he would appear before the Committee, if it were granted, and would tell them that, although he was in possession of the decision of the Court of Directors, he was not allowed to communicate it to the Rajah. Sir R. Grant suggested that another statement should he made, which he promised to send home. It was made, of date July 3, 1835; but it never was sent home. Another case had occurred to raise the same question. A small Jagheer had lapsed, in reference to which the Rajah made an application to the Government of Bombay on the 24th of June, 1835. Major General Lodwick never received an answer to that application; and it might be mentioned, in passing, that no papers as to the Rajah's state were to be found at the residency. In May, 1836, when Sir R. Grant went to the Neilgherry hills, the Rajah again visited him. The Rajah asked if his statement had been sent home. Sir R. Grant, in reply, said what was not the truth. He said the statement had gone home. The Rajah repeated his inquiry. Sir R. Grant consulted with the Secretary of Government at Bombay, and then said that a statement had gone home; but he promised that the statement should still go home. The Rajah, when he had retired, declared that he had been deceived, and expressed his intention to appoint an agent for the purpose of applying to the Court of Directors. Sir R. Grant caused inquiry to be made on the subject, and it was intimated to the Rajah that the appointment of an agent would involve a breach of the Treaty of 1819 in two articles. The Rajah acknowledged that he had appointed an agent to go to England. He asked what were the articles contravened? An article was pointed out which prohibited him from corresponding with foreign princes. He declared that he had not corresponded with foreign princes, but was only applying to a superior authority against the decision of an inferior. He was reminded that he was bound by treaty to apply to the Resident; but he was appealing from the Resident to the Governor, and from the Governor to the Court of Directors. It was the appointment of an agent which led to the Rajah's ruin. He delayed sending the agent, a Mahometan gentleman, till after the feast of the Dusserah; but the representations made in the meantime to the Government on his behalf passed unnoticed. In judging of these transactions, it ought to be borne in mind who were the aggressors. The Rajah had been accused of being in traitorous league with the native princes, to subvert the British empire in India by a sudden combination. What was the evidence? That of two native soldiers, who deposed that they had been in the palace of the Rajah, who had acknowledged the fact to them in conversation. Upon this evidence only a secret despatch had been sent home to the Court of Directors, saying that there was no doubt of the guilt of the Rajah. What did Sir R. Grant next do? If the Committee were granted, he would produce a private letter addressed by Sir R. Grant to Major General Lodwick, who had no idea of the secret despatch which had gone home. This let- ter was called, "the paper of hints," and it instructed General Lodwick to send the two native soldiers to demand an interview with the Rajah, and to tell him that he had denounced him to the Government, and that if the Rajah gave them hush-money, it would he a proof of his guilt; but that if he sent for General Lodwick, and ordered the soldiers under arrest, accusing them of calumniating him, then General Lodwick was to appeal to the Rajah to secure them, but was, however, to take measures for their safety. What was General Lodwick's answer? It was in the blue hook, and it was to the effect, that honour and honesty had been his motto in public as well as in private life, and he spurned such shifts as these. He (Mr. Thompson) would produce before a Committee another private letter in which Sir R. Grant said to General Lodwick that he would not have asked him to pursue the course recommended in the former note, but that in a hasty hour the Rajah had been declared to the Court of Directors in London to be guilty—that the affair had gone too far to be quashed—and that it was necessary to prove the conviction. A Commission was next appointed to sit at Sattara to take evidence against the Rajah, receiving its instructions from Sir R. Grant. In the proceedings of that Committee, all rules of law, all principles of justice, and dictates of morality, were set at defiance. No representative of the Rajah was allowed to be present, and no cross-examination of witnesses took place. The two soldiers agreed as to the words alleged to have been used by the Rajah, but differed as to the place of the interview, and the circumstances attending it; and a third witness contradicted them both as to the place. Yet upon such evidence the Commissioners found the Rajah guilty, unheard, and undefended. Although General Lodwick had, as President, signed the report of the Commission, he had dissented throughout the proceedings from the conduct of his colleagues, and had twice declared in the Court of Proprietors that he should never regret any act of his life more than having allowed himself to be induced by overwhelming entreaties to sign that report. [Sir J. HOBHOUSE: Hear, hear!] Let the right hon. Baronet make what he could out of that. He might convict General Lodwick of infirmity, but he had not cried "hear, hear," when he (Mr. Thompson) had convicted Sir Robert Grant of falsehood. The Com- mission having closed, and this plot having broken down, a second conspiracy was got up. A Brahmin, a native of Calcutta, forged a petition purporting to be from another of the Ministers of the Rajah, and stating various falsehoods against the Prince and his servants. There was no doubt that that petition reached Sir R. Grant; but if a Committee were granted, it would be shown that it was in his hands a full month before it was produced at Bombay. Sir R. Grant afterwards endeavoured to get rid of Major General Lodwick, and as he refused to accept a sick certificate, which was the pretext offered, he resigned. Colonel Ovans was appointed in his place, and reached Sattara in June, 1837. The petition was at last brought forward, and Colonel Ovans was directed to make his first duty an inquiry into this document, with a view of tracing its origin, and discovering if it were authentic. Colonel Ovans entered upon a very minute and pretendedly careful search, and reported that he had traced it correctly to the mother of the Minister, and that it was genuine. Immediately upon this declaration full powers were granted him, and, without any delay, he threw into prison a great number of the Rajah's servants, and among them those to whom the Rajah was known to be most attached. This was in August; but, in September, after all these professed discoveries, a man walked into the office of Colonel Ovans, gave his name and occupation, and deposed that he, for a certain sum, had written the petition, the party employing him having informed him of its object, viz., to injure the Rajah. This man, though he had been promised large sums of money for what he had done, received none, and came to Colonel Ovans and made a full statement of all he knew. Now, he contended that it was the duty of Colonel Ovans to have sent this document to the Government without a moment's delay. He had received instructions to find out the writer of the petition, and communicate the same to the Government; but instead of that he put the papers in his desk, and kept them there until the Rajah was ruined. Major Oliphant, one of the Directors of the East India Company, had stated, that there was proof that Colonel Ovans was from the 7th of September, 1837, in possession of information disproving the truth of the evidence sent by him on the 30th of July; and he further gave his opinion that if this had been given up at the time it was obtained, the case against the Rajah would not have been proceeded with. He had brought twelve charges against Colonel Ovans at the India House, and copies of these charges were now on the table of the House. [The hon. Gentleman read the charges, which were generally that Colonel Ovans had been guilty of the suppression of evidence, of systematic interception of the Rajah's correspondence—of the extortion of false documents against the Rajah—of the suppression for eleven months of evidence in favour of the Rajah—and of having been guilty of gross and wilful fraud, &c.] These charges he pledged himself to prove out of Colonel Ovans's own mouth, and from documents derived from authority. Another charge was brought against the Rajah, of having intrigued with the Viceroy of Goa; but in this case he was prepared to prove that the seals on the documents were all fabricated, and that every document was forged. If, however, there was proof that he had intrigued with the Viceroy of Goa, why was no representation made on the subject to the Portuguese Government? The right hon. Baronet said he believed that such an intrigue took place; but if he did believe it it was singular that no complaint had ever been made to the Portuguese Government as to the conduct of their Viceroy. If it was necessary, he could show what the opinion of the Indian Government itself had formerly been as to the guilt of the Rajah. Lord Auckland, it was true, was brought to a belief that the Rajah was guilty, but not while he was at Calcutta, but when he was up the country, whore he had proceeded in order to be nearer the scene of military operations. It was there he received the elaborate minutes of Sir Robert Grant, penned in April and May, 1838. Those minutes, however, were penned in utter ignorance of the facts which had come out with respect to the innocence of the Rajah. He (Mr. G. Thompson) challenged the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control to say that, up to 1839, there was one man in the India House who believed the charges against the Rajah. On the contrary, when Sir James Carnac went out to Bombay he was desired to bury them in oblivion; and he knew that it was Sir J. Carnac's wish to do so. If the House would grant him a Committee, he would show why Sir. J. Carnac did not carry out the intentions of the Board of Directors. There were parties at Bombay who were determined that, as their reputations were implicated in the former transactions, no amnesty should be granted. He would prove that a Member of the Council of Bombay threatened Sir J. Carnac, if he persevered, with the disclosure of matters detrimental to his character as a public man. Well, Sir, J. Carnac told the Rajah, after this, that he must either admit his guilt, or be deposed; and he was finally deposed because he would not admit his guilt. He offered no resistance to the Government, and yet even his private property was not respected; and to this hour neither the Rajah himself nor any member of his family had obtained one penny's worth of his private property, which was valued at 300,000l. His private correspondence had been intercepted and published; and yet there was not one letter in which a syllable could be found which would fix a charge of conspiracy upon the Rajah; nor had a single circumstance come to light, since his deposition in 1839, corroborative of the charges made against him; on the other hand, there had been a mass of evidence in his favour. Take another fact. Who were the persons connected with the Government of India who were satisfied of the Rajah's guilt? Did the Directors of the East India Company generally believe in his guilt? They did not. It had been recently admitted at the India House that the whole was a mare's nest. Did the Chairman of the Court of Directors believe it? He did not. It had gone abroad throughout India that the Rajah had been unjustly deposed, and the people of India looked to this country to see whether redress for injustice perpetrated there could be obtained by an appeal to this House. It had been often said that our empire in India was less an empire of the sword than an empire of opinion; but what public opinions were such acts as this likely to foster in India? These were facts which, in his estimation, justified the Motion which he had deemed it to be his duty to bring before the House; and he asked for this inquiry for the sake of the House itself; he asked it for the sake of the public men whose characters were implicated in the transactions which were the subject of the Motion, and for the sake of the late Rajah's family. He asked it in the name of the people of India, who had a right to demand that a case of this kind should undergo an impartial and a full investigation. Let the inquiry be as rigorous and as searching as the House pleased; he was ready and willing to stand or fall by it; he asked it in the name of British justice, and he hoped he should not make his appeal in vain.

seconded the Motion, observing that, if the Motion were not now granted, it would he only postponed, and would be ultimately forced from the justice of the House.

said, whatever difficulty he felt in following the able and elaborate speech of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, upon a subject with which that hon. Member had been familiar for many years, and to which the hon. Member had devoted a considerable portion of his life, that difficulty was considerably diminished by the nature of the Motion. When the hon. Member for Montrose had given notice of a Motion on the same subject, it was for an inquiry into the case when the Rajah was living. Such an inquiry was of a practical nature; and, if the late Rajah's advocates could have succeeded in convincing a Committee, and, through the Committee, that House, of his innocence, it might have led to his restoration to the rank and position he had previously enjoyed. Since the hon. Member for Montrose had given notice of that Motion, intelligence had been received of the death of the Rajah; and the Motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was of a very shadowy and intangible character. The inquiry the hon. Member wished the House to undertake had lost its chief importance. There was another reason why he felt less difficulty in resisting this Motion. If ever there was a case to which the principle of res judicata was applicable, it was the present question. The Rajah was deposed by the Bombay Government, their act being confirmed by the Government of India, in 1839. From 1840 up to the present time, the subject of the Rajah of Sattara had been agitated successively by petitions to the East India Company, by Motions in successive Courts of Directors, and in Courts of Proprietors, and by Motions in this House; and every time the question had been mooted, the result was the same. Successive Boards of Control, and successive Courts of Directors and Courts of Proprietors, had come to the same conclusion; and whenever the subject was discussed in this House, the House had refused to interfere. As, however, the hon. Member had gone at great length into the question, and had made imputations upon the Indian Government, which were unfounded in fact, and unjust both to the living and the dead, he trusted the House would give him its attention while he went into a vindication of the conduct of the Indian Government in respect to the Rajah of Sattara. It was a remarkable fact that the three persons who were principally concerned in these transactions were all dead. First, Sir Robert Grant, the Governor of Bombay, under whom the inquiry was originally instituted; secondly, Sir James Carnac, the Governor, by whose means the Rajah was removed from his sovereignty; and, lastly, the Rajah himself. The hon. Member began by giving a very copious account of the foundation and history of the Mahratta empire, whence sprung the State of Sattara. It was perfectly well known that Sattara was only a portion of the Mahratta empire, and that the Peishwa and not the Rajah was the head of that State and empire. The Rajah was, in fact, a mere State prisoner, with an allowance of half a lac of rupees, or 5,000l. a year; and when the Peishwa surrendered to Sir J. Malcolm, the Rajah was released by the English troops, and by a mere accident his life was saved. There was nothing whatever to show that the Rajah possessed any substantial power. In 1818, Mr. Mountstuart Elphinstone thought it would he politic to assign, as a mere bounty, and as a voluntary act on the part of the British Government, a small sovereignty to the Rajah of Sattara. There prevailed, however, a difference of opinion, at the time, on the subject; but it was eventually agreed that the Rajah should be placed on trial and be invested with a provisional sovereignty at Sattara. He was accordingly put in possession of the State, but in entire subordination to the British Government; and it was stipulated that all his political relations were to be subservient to British authority. It was agreed that the British Government should cede the sovereignty to the Rajah of Sattara, which implied that the territory so ceded then belonged to the British Government. The Rajah was to hold it in subordination to the British power, and to be guided in all matters by the advice of the British Agent resident at his Highness's Court. The Rajah also engaged for himself and his successors to forbear from all intercourse with foreign Powers. The Marquess of Hastings was the Governor General who made the arrangement with respect to Sattara; and in a paper written by him during his voyage home from India, his Lordship gave a summary of the transaction, in which it was stated, that to the Rajah of Sattara an independent territory had been assigned out of the late Peishwa's possessions; that he had a large revenue, competent to the maintenance of considerable pomp; and that this was an extraordinary change in the position of one who used to be kept in such strict custody by Bajee Rao, that orders were given to the Rajah's guard to put him and his family to death on any probability of his being delivered from captivity—orders which were only prevented from being carried into execution by a sudden attack made by the British troops, who rescued the Rajah from the Peishwa, Bajee Rao. For many years after he had been installed in the office of Sovereign, he administered the affairs of his Government in such a manner as to give entire satisfaction to the British authorities, and no doubt whatever was entertained of his loyalty. There is reason, however, to think that the Rajah of Sattara, like all Oriental princes, living in an atmosphere of flattery, permitted those who surrounded him to raise in his mind an idea that he was the legitimate successor, as he was the lineal descendant, of the founder of the Mahratta monarchy, and that he might be able eventually to establish an independent Power in India. The first instance of his discontent manifesting itself was on the occasion of his authority with regard to some Jagheerdars being disputed. The whole subject appeared to have been quite an after-thought, and there were the best grounds for concluding that the quarrel did not in any respect influence the proceedings against him, though his advocates might at present find it convenient to put forward such a supposition. Those Jagheerdars held territories which were situated partly within the dominions of the British Crown, and partly within those of the Rajah. He claimed to be the paramount lord, not only over those portions which lay within his own boundaries, but over those also which were contained within the possessions of the British Crown. The question in dispute was referred to the Governor at Bombay, and that Governor—Lord Clare (not Sir R. Grant), being then the Governor—gave an opinion unfavourable to the claim of the Rajah; and the matter being further referred to the Court of Directors, the decision of the Governor of Bombay was by them confirmed. He should now come to a part of the hon. Member's speech which he listened to with sincere pain; he alluded to the serious imputations sought to be cast upon the character of a gentleman no longer alive, who certainly was one of the most honourable and truth-loving persons that ever existed. He was only slightly acquainted with Sir Robert Grant; but he believed that every one who knew him would repudiate with indignation the charge that Sir Robert Grant had lent himself to a base intrigue, for the purpose of subverting the government of the Rajah, and that the means he adopted for that purpose amounted to nothing less than subornation of perjury. It was impossible to conceive that a man like Sir Robert Grant should have given himself up to a motiveless persecution of a potty Indian prince, to be carried on by means which would have disgraced a common swindler. He was sure the House paid no attention to a charge brought against the character of one so spotless and unimpeachable as was Sir Robert Grant. The hon. Gentleman professed to be in possession of certain documents which showed that his accusations were well founded. [Mr. G. THOMPSON would prove his statement by reference to blue books on the table of the House.] He understood the hon. Member to refer to private and confidential letters. Now, he would show from a Minute drawn up by Sir Robert Grant himself, that though there had been some unintentional delay or mistake with respect to one letter of reference to the Court of Directors from the Government of Bombay, yet that another was extant in which the reference had been perfectly clear and unequivocal. A short time after the period to which he was then referring, Colonel Lodwick reported that the Rajah of Sattara had attempted to tamper with certain Sepoy soldiers; and, in consequence of that report, a Commission was issued by the Bombay Government to investigate the matter. After giving the Rajah every opportunity of hearing the evidence adduced, the Commission came to the unanimous conclusion that the Rajah had tampered with some of the native officers of a regiment stationed at Sattara. If that conclusion were correct, the Rajah had engaged in a design clearly inconsistent with his situation as a subordinate prince, holding his sovereignty by a grant from the British Government. The hon. Member said, that Colonel Lodwick merely signed this report in his official character as President of the Commission, and that he had since repudiated concurrence in it. No doubt it might be that, after Colonel Lodwick's removal from his Residency, and after the expression of a want of confidence in him on the part of the Bombay Government, that officer might have signified his disapproval of the conclusion to which the Commission had come; but it was impossible to conceive a more dangerous doctrine than that a person, after concurring in a solemn manner in a report, by signing it, and allowing his signature to be taken without protest, should be permitted, several years after, to come forward and disavow the report. The Commission conducted its proceedings with perfect impartiality; and a full opportunity was afforded to the Rajah to produce any evidence he might wish to tender. After the Commission had reported, Sir R. Grant made an elaborate examination of the Minutes, and considered the course to be pursued. The hon. Member said, that Sir R. Grant was actuated by vindictive motives—that the Rajah's boldness in his complaints about his Jagheers had given offence to Sir R. Grant—and that the latter was determined to sacrifice him out of revenge for those complaints. This statement was inconsistent with the information in the papers before the House; for it appeared that, though forfeiture was a punishment that might have been adopted against the Rajah, Sir R. Grant recommended a punishment short of that—namely, the mere confiscation of one of his Jagheers. Subsequently, Colonel Ovans was sent out in the place of General Lodwick, and he investigated two charges against the Rajah of Sattara: one of them relating to a correspondence with the ex-Rajah of Nagpore; and another relating to an intrigue with the Governor and certain authorities of Goa. He was firmly of opinion that this ill-informed Oriental prince had been weak and inflated enough to suppose that, by the aid of military assistance from Portugal, he could succeed in re-establishing himself at the head of the Mahrattas, and had been duped into violating his solemn obligations with this country by engaging in such a vain and absurd enterprise. The ease of Mr. Hutt, referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Thompson), had been formerly met by an explicit and positive denial (to be found in the papers) from Mr. Hutt himself. The hon. Member had laid great stress on the asserted want of genuine- ness as to the writer of a petition which formed part of the papers; but the only material question was, whether the circumstances stated in the petition were true. The hon. Member had made most serious charges against Colonel Ovans, principally founded on the petition to which he had referred. The hon. Gentleman had made charges against Colonel Ovans of official delinquency and dishonesty, which, if they could be supported, would render him not only unfit to hold office under the East India Company, but even to be received in the society of gentlemen. These charges, which had previously been made by the hon. Member (Mr. G. Thompson) in his speeches out of doors, had been brought under the notice of the Board of Control by Colonel Ovans; and the statements made by that officer in refutation of those accusations, with the evidence by which they were supported, were now in his hands. These documents were so voluminous that he could not attempt, on this occasion, to call the attention of the House to them; but he might state, that Colonel Ovans denied, in the most positive manner, the justice or accuracy of any one of the charges made against him; and he trusted that the House would at present suspend its judgment on the matter, and not vote for a Committee on the strength of mere unsupported allegations. He would, on the earliest opportunity, move that these papers should he printed, in order that hon. Members might be able to judge how far the charges made against Colonel Ovans were well founded. The hon. Member had animadverted upon the East India Company's not having expressed any opinion upon these charges which had so frequently been made; but the Directors had given their opinion. On the 30th of September last, Colonel Ovans addressed a letter to the Court of Directors, referring to observations which had been made by the hon. Member, in the Court of Proprietors, reflecting on his conduct, and soliciting the Court either to adopt legal measures against Mr. Thompson, or to grant him permission to prosecute that gentleman. The Directors, in their reply, which was dated the 25th of October, expressed in strong terms their opinion that not the slightest stain attached to the public or private character of Colonel Ovans; but they declined to be parties to the prosecution of Mr. Thompson. To return to the history of the ex-Rajah: Sir Robert Grant died in September, 1838, and Sir J. Carnac went out as Governor of Bombay in 1839. Lord Auckland had referred the case to the Court of Directors, and Sir J. Carnac haying been a member of the Court was in possession of their views. Contrary to the opinions of the Supreme Council he determined to adopt a lenient course, and allow the Rajah to continue on the throne, provided he would sign a supplementary treaty binding himself to a strict observance of those articles which the British Government considered he had violated. But the Rajah refused to accede to the treaty. The reason now assigned by his advocates is, that the preamble contained an admission of his guilt. But this is not the fact: it merely contained a statement that the English Government believed him to have done acts contrary to the treaty; and Sir J. Carnac has stated, that if objection had been taken to the preamble, he would have cancelled it. After the Rajah had refused to give the assurances required of him, Sir J. Carnac came to the conclusion that he could not do otherwise than adopt the resolution of the Council of Calcutta, and depose the Rajah. That resolution was carried into effect with as much regard for the feelings of the Rajah as could possibly be exhibited. We might have annexed the whole of the Rajah's territories to the British dominions; but in order to place our motives above suspicion, we contented ourselves with setting the Rajah's brother on the throne. The question which the House had to decide on this occasion was not a question of evidence on the credibility of Indian witnesses, and transactions which occurred nine years ago, at a distance of many thousand miles; but simply whether at the time the British Government had not reasonable ground for doubting the loyalty and good faith of the Rajah of Sattara. If they had, after the investigation, ground for doubting the fidelity of their ally, they were, according to all the maxims of international law, justified in taking steps to secure their relations with the Sattara State. If the House agreed with him in this view of the transactions in which Sir James Carnac was a principal actor, they would be of opinion that there was no necessity for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry. There was nothing in the conduct of Sir R. Grant, Sir J. Carnac, or any other of the distinguished persons referred to, which required to be investigated by a Commit- tee of the House of Commons; and even if the Committee were granted, he did not see in what manner the inquiry could be conducted, or how the vast tangle of evidence could be unravelled by a Committee of Englishmen, ignorant of the Indian language, incapable of examining Indian witnesses, and unable to tell the difference between a forged and a genuine seal. If they gave any opinion, it must be one derived altogether from the knowledge of other persons. The inquiry would necessarily, therefore, be a fruitless one, and could lead to no satisfactory result. The only point of a practical character noticed by the hon. Member, was one of a very subordinate and minor kind, which could easily be disposed of in a very few words. The hon. Member had spoken of the destitute condition of the Rajah's family, and had attempted to excite the sympathy of the House by describing them as loft without any means of support. Now, it was quite true that the bulk of the provision settled on the late Rajah ended with his life; but there was also a considerable settlement made upon his two wives, one of whom still survives, and is entitled to a pension of nearly 1,000l. a year, while his daughter has a pension of 600l, a year. It was entirely a mistake, then, to state that the late Rajah's family were in a state approaching to destitution. For these reasons he begged to meet the Motion of the hon. Member with a direct negative.

moved that the debate be adjourned till that day week.

said, he was glad that the adjournment had been moved; but he hoped that in the meantime he might be permitted to remind the House that the disgraceful charges which the bon. Member (Mr. Thompson) had brought against Colonel Ovans were bare charges and no more. He begged the House to bear in mind also, that the charges were not new—that they had been preferred over and over again in another place, and repudiated by all the authorities at homo and abroad. The hon. Member (Mr. C. Lewis) had asked hon. Members to suspend their judgment. He (Sir J. W. Hogg) begged them not to suspend their judgment. He begged them to believe that a British officer, who had been declared innocent by competent authorities, both civil and military, at home and abroad, was unimpeached in his honour and character, until at least his guilt was demonstrated, and until something more was done than a Member of Parliament getting up in his place, and, without offering a tittle of evidence, reading a list of twelve of the most atrocious charges ever brought forward against a British officer. The hon. Gentleman, it was true, had offered to bring forward proof of every one of the charges, and had said that he would stake everything upon the result. When he heard the hon. Member say that, he felt almost tempted to say, "Give the Committee." But no, he would not so far gratify the impulse of his mind, because he did not see that the Committee could be granted without a primâ facie case of guilt having been made out. Now, he denied that any primâ facie case had been made out. Where was its foundation? The hon. Member had brought forward no evidence whatever. It might be that he had forborne to do so until the Committee was granted; but, at all events, the evidence had yet to come. Having filled the situation—filled the chair of the India House when the conduct of Colonel Ovans was investigated, and knowing how he had been hunted down, he considered that he ought not to allow it to go forth to the public that these charges had been preferred for the first time. He assured the House that they had been brought forward three years ago, and had been repudiated again and again. [Mr. THOMPSON: But never answered.] At all events they had been repudiated by all the authorities at home and abroad.

begged to call the attention of the House to the question before it, which was that the debate be adjourned; and in doing so he begged to say, that if there was one Member who had more reason to fear the appointment of the Committee than another, it was the hon. Baronet who had just spoken; for if the Committee was granted, they would have to inquire not merely into the conduct of the accessories after the fact, but the principal offenders; and of these offenders the hon. Baronet was one of the most important.

begged to take advantage of the question of adjournment to state, that in the course of the speech he had that night delivered, he thought he had substantiated one, at least, of the many charges which he had brought against Colonel Ovans in another place. The evidence he had adduced upon that charge was a specimen of the evidence he could bring forward upon every other charge. If the Committee he now asked for was granted, he pledged himself (life and health permitting) to substantiate every one of the charges from the letters of Colonel Ovans and other documents contained in the blue books before the House; or, if not, he would submit to the censure which the House was bound to inflict upon every Member who brought forward allegations for which there was no tangible foundation.

wished to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the duties of the Sergeant-at-Arms attending on this House, and the salary, emoluments, and patronage of the office, with a view to the regulation of the same before the occupation of the new Houses of Parliament. He was sorry to find that the office of Sergeant-at-Arms had been filled up, for he had hoped that the hon. Gentleman who had been so long in the service of the House, and who had always performed his duties so efficiently as the Deputy Sergeant, would have been appointed to the vacant office, and allowed to terminate his life as the Sergeant-at-Arms. He thought that the Lord Chamberlain ought not to have the nomination.

seconded the Motion, and stated that Mr. Clementson, the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, was unwilling to lose that opportunity of reminding the House of the length of his service. He had been Deputy Sergeant forty-four years. When Mr. Colman was appointed Sergeant, he was serving in the Peninsular war; and during that time Mr. Clementson performed the duties of the office. When Colonel Seymour was appointed, having been promised the office long before, Mr. Clementson for some time discharged the duties and received the emoluments of the office; and for the last year and a half the whole duty and responsibility had fallen upon him. It was with no wish to impugn the decision of those in whom the patronage of the place rested that Mr. Clementson wished upon that occasion to record the length of time he had had the honour and privilege of being a servant of that House. Mr. Clementson's friendship with his family began long before he could remember; and for that reason, as well as from a sense of his private worth, he had much pleasure in making this statement to the House. And how- ever much they might feel that the present Sergeant-at-Arms would perform his duties satisfactorily, yet they could say little more for his earnest success than that he might copy the example of the Deputy Sergeant; and, whatever motives had induced the appointment of Lord Charles Russell, yet both in that House and out of it there was a general feeling of respect and esteem for the officer who had been so long in their service.