The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-21 00:00:00

Bill was said to he tluis—that the lowest class under the Poor-
lart Amendment BM, should be as well off as thoe of the
lowest class which subsist upon the produce of their
labour—that is, that the; should be on as good a footing in
food, raiment and habitation as the worst paid labourers.
Now, he would ask, was this the cause, when it was notorious
they were subjected in the poor.houses!o algriftrd dietary,
to separation from their farnilien, tile wife from the husband,
the child from tlhe and finally, to a system of rigid and
severe tlist;iline? In all these respects the avowed principle
or the Poor-law Amendment Bill was violated. lle alluded
to the alarming fact, that the wages of a man of fenuil", say
four children, working as a labourer in the puperised distnets
which was about 13s. 8-1. weekly, prior to the passing of the
Poor-law Amendment Bill, had since fallen, so that at present
the wages of a labourer of this class would net average more
tbrn 93.

c argument as to the wages of the labourer. He could,
from his own experience, assert that weges were not risen
since. the passing of the Poor-law Amendment Bill. It ‘vas
supposed that even if a decrease should take place, an ( qui-
valent would be afforded to the labourer in the additional em-
ph,yittnt which iVoiild lib gileen to .his Children. 1113 own
experience did net lead him to think that they had benefited
much in this way ; but'still thinking as lie did the Board of
Gust-diens a mere efficient executive than the Overseers under
the old system, he could net accede to the me.ien of the Hen..
M .roter for Oldham.
Mr. HODGES was one of these who had opposed the
pessing of the Poor-law Amendment Bill when it was under
discussion, and he had seen nothinrs in its operation calculated
to alter the opinion he then formed of it ; but it was one thing
to oppose it in the shape of a Bill, and another to repeal it
now that it was the law of the land. Even as now adminis-
tered, he was convinced that it was productive of much diffi-
culty and distress, yet he should not rote fir the motion of
the Honourable Member for Oldham, in the confident hope
that sonic modifications would be made in the provisions of
that law.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY said that if on the one hand many
Honourable Members felt it impossible to give the Honourable
Member for Oldham their vote, so, on the other hand it was
' eqeally
obvious that it was impossible to give a positive nega-
tive to his motion, more especially after the speech of the Noble
Lord, which gave no encouragement that Government would
relax in its attachment to this question, which they had over
and over again asserted they would maintain —( Hear.) The
lion. Gentleman then said, that as he was always opposed to
ate paupers, so likewise he could never ceuntenance,paupsrs
is the humbler walks of life who were able to work. Though
he did not agree to an instantaneous repeal of this law, he still
%idled to guard himself againstany approval of the principle
of it, and the course which under the circumstances he would
was to move the previous question. He maintained
that the condiiion of the labouring poor .via anythiets but im-
prored since the pissing of this Bill. The Hon. Gentleman
then referred to various defects in the poor-law system in the
rural districts. In many cases a pauper was obliged to walk
eight miles in order to obtain relief.—(Cries of " Oh, oh !"
mingled with the word " Humbug I") Some lion. Member
cried " Humbug," but he (Mr. H.) maintained that the as-.
scrtion he made was not humbug, but a positive fact. Ha
thought that if the prohibition to administering out-door re-
lief were removed, much of what was obnoxious in this mea-
sure would be done away. The average is-ages of an able-
bodied labourer with a wife and four children did not exceed
10s. a week, and what was 10s. when divided among four
persons ? The Hon. Member concluded by moving the pre-
vious question as an amendment.
On the amendment being put from the Chair,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he hoped the House would
not sanction this indirect manner of ineeting the quesvion.—
( Hear, hear.) No consideration that a Committee was then
sitting—no consideration that another inquiry might be made,
ought to prevent the House from coming to a decision on the
point submitted to them, and on which, in his humble opi-
nion, they had already quite sufficient information—namely,
whether the Poor-law Act ought to be totally and absolutely
repealed. He certainly should be no party to holding out to
the country that it depended upon any report of the Poor-law
Committee whether or not the Act should be repealed—
( Hear, hear, hear)—and, therefore, it was he should call
upon the House to join with him in opposing the amendment
of the Hon. Member for Southwark. He could not avoid
observing that many of the charges made against the Bill upon
former discussions seemed to be abandoned on the present. Last
year they were told that
,the measure chiefly pressed on the old
and infirm, while the main objection now urged was the taking
away of the allowance from the able-bodied labourer, and not
permitting them while receiving wages for labour to have
any aid from the poor-rates. \N all regard to the effect of the
Bill upon the old and infirm, he believed it was now eenerally
admitted that they received a better allowance, and were
better taken care of under the present than the old system.—
( Hear, hear.) Another question which had been raised last
year, and partly this, was, that although the Bill might be
applicable and beneficial to the agricultural districts, it was
totally inapplicable to towns, and especially to the manufac-
turing population. Now, however, they heard the Hon.
Member for Finsbury telling them that though the Bill
might work in towns safely and beneficially, that it did sot so
in the agricultural districts, and that it ought to be repealed.
In this state of the matter he did say it was absolutely requi-
site that the House should now come to a decision with
the view of allowing whether they were prepa:ed or not to
sanction these shifting and exaggerated charges against the
law.—( Loud cheers.) It was alleged that much excite-
ment prevailed throughout the country upon , the sub-
ject of this measure, but it was his conviction that a great por-
tion of it was fur the most part artificially got up, and that in
reality the feeling of the country was strongly in favour of the
Act. He believed that the real opponents to the measure in
the North did not amount to a dozen individuals, hardly one
of them respectable for attainments or intelligence, and but
few for character. These few, persons made a practice of pla-
carding the various market towns in the North with announce-
ments of meetings to receive the delegates from the Lancaster
Anti-poor-law Association ; and when at one of these meetings
Mr. F. O'Connor, Mr. Stephens, and Mr. Oastler had deli-
vered themselves of their thrice-told talc to one or two gaping
individuals, it was made to appear that th• sense of a whole
district had been taken upon the subject, and that such and
such a place had decided against the Poor-law Amendment
Act, and called for a repeal. He need net say little importance
was to be attached to such meetings, although, from the pains
taken to disseminate the monstrous assertions made by tke
speakers, and conveyed in the resolutions, they were calcu-
lated to do great mischief, and raise much doubt throughout
the country.—(The Noble Lord here read from a Manchester
paper a pa.:sage containing some strong comments on one of
the meetings to which he alluded, as also a resolution it
adopted,.-stating that the Poor-law Bill had been the cause of
numerous child murders and deaths Irons starvation.) Now,
would the House sanction the continuance of the doubts which

Mr. WAN LEY eeseended the motion. The 'power of the
Corierniselcners was most uneonstitetional, and the sooner it
was got rid of the better. In the Chichester Union, with-
out the interference or controul of the Commissioncre, the
same beneficial improvements had been eff.cted rs acre said
to arise from this law. It might be said that those improve-
ments had been effected by the adoption of such regulations
as had been introduced by the Commissioners. If he even
granted that that was the case, could any thing more corn-
ple:ely show that the interference of the Commissioners was
unnecess ? But, in fact, the Chichester Union had been
governed upon a system which had been established for 80
years. This law was supported by a leree expend tare of the
public money, and by all the power of the Commissioners at
Somerset House ; on the other head, on the part of the pOor
people there was not money nor ability, nor organis"tion, nor
evidence. An inquiry wider such a system of partiality was
but a mockery.
Lord II °WICK was likewise glad that the subject •hael
beer, thus dietinetly brought forward. The system followed
under the present law was not greatly different from that'
which had formerly existed in well-administered parishes.
The system of confining relief to the able-bodied to relief in
workhouses, was in operation before 1644, in teeny large
manufacturing towns. Therefore he could not understand on
whet principle it was that Hon. Members told them that they
objected both to the system and the machinery, while at the
same time they argued that the machinery was unnecessary, be-
cause the system which previously had prevailed in parts of Eng-
land was a good system. Thesewere arguments wholly irreconcile-
able. With respect to the workhouse system, the Hon. Member
for Oldham had again that evening reverted to that complaint,
so often made, of the separation of man and wife in the work-
houses. It was remarkable that in the same speech, the Hon.
Member should have cited the former administration of relief
in Oldham, as a proof that no change in the law was neces-
sary, bee :use in the account of the system formerly prevailing
at Oldham, as detailed in the evidence collected in 1833, there
was this statement concerning the workhouse :—" There is a
complete separation of the sexes, except in the cases of old
married people, who are allowed to live together ; young mar-
ried persons are separated." Why then, with the objects which
he professed, did the Hon. Member propose simply a re-
peal of the Act of 1834 ? Why was it that previous to 1334
his philanthropy had not stimulated him to come forward
nn behalf of those for whom he now appeared ? Why was it
that he had not come forward previous to 1834, and pro-
tested ageinst the separation of man and wife in workhouses ?
Not only in Oldham, but in nearly all parts of Lancashire, the
system of which the Hon. Member complained had prevailed
previous to 1834. The only objection to the Act of 1834 which
had been urged by the Hon. Member, and which was intelligible
to him (Lord Ho,.vick), was, that it was unnecessary to intro-
duce the new regulations, because the system of relief pre-
vailing in Lancashire was already so good. Then the Hon.
Gentleman had told them that tits work-houses were prisons.
Were they in a greater degree prisons then they had been be-
fore 1834.? If so, in what respect? He had always thought
that the real hardship of a prison consisted in this, that you
could not get out of it ; and he certainly had never heard that
there had been refused to any mar, the liberty of leaving a
work-house. Undoubtedly, a man was refused the liberty of
going in and out of a workhouse at his pleasure ; he being
maintained at the expense of the industrious part of the com-
munity, it was necessary that he should not have relief in such
a manner as would interfere with their welfare. It was per-
fectly optional to him to remain or not ; relief was tendered
to him on certain terms, and the acceptance of it depended on
himself. It was made an objection that, although in a large
number of unions in the south of England the expenditure had,
by means of the operation of the new law, been reduced 42
per cent., yet, notwithstanding, the expenditure was still greater
than it was at Oldham. No doubt of that ; but it only proved
that from long habits of pauperism which had prevailed in
the south of England we had net been able, even with the
means provided by the Act of 1834, yet to adopt as perfect a
system as existed in some parts of the north; that we had not
in four years corrected ail the evils which arose from a long
course of mal-administration. Instead of being an objection
to the measure, he thought tile was one of the strongest argu-
ments in its favour. The Hon. Member for Oldham, in
stating another objection, had stated some circumstances as
the result of his own experience. He had stated that through
agents, whom he had employed to go from house to house in
Bedfordshire, he had learned that the old people's allowances
were reduced, and that the greatest distress prevailed. Now,
without imputing the slightest imputation of unfairness to the
Hon. Member, he thought it would be much better if he
selected his instances from those parts of the country, the
condition of which had been made a subject of public inquiry
before the Committee, because it might be recollected that,
• when evidence was adduced with reference even to the very
cases of which the late Member for Berkshire complained,
it appeared that, however the able-bodied labourers might
be, the old, the sick, and the infirm were better off, had
larger allowances, and were more indulged in every way
under the new system than under the old. He thought it
would have been better therefore not to make ex parte state-
ments. The Act was net to be condemned, even though some
particular cases of abuse might be found to prevail, unless .as
the Hon. Member for Finsbury said, the tendency of the mei-
sure was to create those abuses. It was impossible for any vi-
gilance on the part of the authorities to prevent all abuse; but
the question was, whether under the new or the old system,
these offences occurred more frequently. The Hon. Member
for Oldham said that there were no petitions from agricultural
labourers in favour of the continuance of this law, but that
there were petitions from them against it. He did not know
how this might be, but ho knew that, while those who com-
plained of a law were ready to petition against it, it was little
the custom of those who were suffering no grievance, and re-
quired no change, to take the trouble of petitioning ; but he
would ask the Hon. Gentleman if he could show, in those
places where the Act had been carried into moat decided ap-
plication, that any general distress or dissatisfaction existed ?
( Mr. Fielden said, " Very great.") What were the symp-
toms of any great or wide-spread dissatisfaction at the pre-
sent period of unexampled 1 ressure?—was there any thing
approaching the state of thinee which existed in 1830, when
the labouring population hal the full benefit of the law which
the Hon. Member wished to restore ?—a state of actual open
insurrection, approaching almost to the capital itself—outrages
of the most frightful desciip ion throughout the west and
the south of the kingdom—nightly fires and universal alarm
amongst all the owners of agricultural property. The state
of things was now most fortunately different, and in his
opinion that difference was mainly attributable to the very Act
which the lien. Member condemned. The effect of the old
system was, that the moment a labourer ens known to have
become possessed of a small sum ef money, lie was refused
w
labour until it
as expended. It had been proved that in the
parish of Royston several labourers, having become entitled
to small legacies left them by a relative, were refused labour,
and thus thrown into a state of compulsory and involuntary
:idleness, and left to spend their money at the beer-shop
instead of placing it in a savings' bank as a provision fur
their future years. He could cite many other cases of
sinii!ar natere, bet thought it unnecessary to trouble the
iHouse with them. The Hon. Member complained that
:,the present law made no distinction between tile honest
eean and the greatest vagabond in England. It did make a
,distinction—it secured to the honest men the legitimate re-
ward of his honesty and industry, and left to the dishonest
Pan and the vagabond the penalties which Providence, and
she l
eternal,aws of society, impose upon his conduct. The
distinction made by the law to which the Hon. Member
avished to revert was, that the honest man was punished for his
honesty, end the vagabond received the greatest indulgence
Ond the greatest favour. Under that law the labouring poor
twere reduced to such a state of degradation, that mere than
ikalf the able-bodied labourers in a parish were employed in the
Itnoat useless, and purposely disagreeable tasks—such as dig-
Oing holes and then filling them up again, or carrying stones
leo one spot, and then carrying them back again. Nay, he
~could refer to a list of items entered in parish books of pay-
'mente made to men—not for labour, but for standing in the
pound so many days, at so much per day. This was the sys-
tem which the friends of the poor wished to re-establish.—
<Cries of " No, no.") But this was not all, for it was by no
means uncommon under the old law for the honest English
labourer, who was guilty of no ceime but poverty, to have his
labour put up to auction to the highest bidder, without his
consent, and without any option. He asked if the House was
prepared to revert to those evils ? lie admitted that the Act
of 1834 was a strong measure—that the cure was corre-
spondent to the intensity and malignity of the disease—but
could the House return to the former evils? Relief was
promptly afforded where it was really necessary. The sick,
the dying, women, and children, obtained relief more efficiently
than tinder the old system. He trusted that, by the decisive
majority by which the motion of the lion. Member for Old-
ham would be rejected, the H 01.1.70 would show its regard for
the poor and industrious classes of the country.
Ms. LIDDELL although he could not look upon the New
Poor-law, as regarded our application of it to the north of
England, with any degree of favour, yet did not feel disposed
to support the proposition of the Hon. Member for Oldham.
All the particulars connected with the operation of the law
ought to be inquired into, and then the House would be in a
better condition to consider any alterations that might be ne-
cessary, and he should probably avail himself of that oppor-
tunity of suggesting some which he had in his own mind,
but w ith which it was not now necessary to trouble the House.
Mr. CLAY entered into the warmest euloeiums of the
Pour-law Amendment Bill, which he contended was calculated
to raise the moral condition of the poor, and which by its ope-
ration
had proved that those who had advocated the measure
while in progress, were right in ail the beneficial results they
had anticipated from its enactment. Those benefits were not
confined to reduction of rates arid the abolition of peculation,
for they had the clearest proof that the poor had been most
materially benefittcd—that their condition, in fact, had not
only been morally but physically improved. lie should not
object to an amendment of the law if it were required, but he
must protest most strongly against a motion for its repeal.
Mr. DARBY must oppose the motion of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Oldham, fer he believed they could not altogether re-
turn to the old law. One thing he wished to reply to was

• such assertions were likely to give rise to among the in-no-
• rant by assenting to such a motion as that of the honourable
Member for Southwerk ? Surely it was but justice to all
parties interested in the subject either pro or con, to lot them
• -now what was the opinion of their representatives upon the
L representations which had been made on this important sub-
: ject. If the House believed these representations they should
lose not a moment in repealing the Act ; but if, on the con-
trary, they disbelieved them, it was their duty, by a decided
vote, to give to those who had the administration of this law
• the moral force of a decided vote in its favour. After the speech
of his Noble Friend he did not feel it necessary for him to
enter at any great length upon the merits of the loer-
lew Amendment Act. In his opinion the existing law was far
more simple in principle than it was generally considered to
be. It was but a combination of the leading principles of
the Poor-law Acts of Elizabeth and the 9th of George IV.
• The principle of the Act of Elizabeth was that the infirm and
impotent poor should be relieved, while the able-bodied
should be compelled to work ; and that of the 9th George I.
that workhouses should he built, into which all claimants for
relief should be compelled to enter, or have their names struck
off the list. These two principles, be repeated, formed the
basis of the law on which they now acted, and all they sought
to do by the Act was to provide a better means for carrying
that law into operation. If any errors had been committed
the experience of these Commissioners would enable them to
apply a proper remedy. Ilis belief was, and every conversa-
tion which he had with th m more thoroughly convinced him,
tl a they understood fully the nature of the duty
imposed on
them, and that they would carry the law into operation with
the most humane feelings. Ile did not believe that any advice
which they might receive would he so effectual as the dictates
of their own intelligence and humanity.--( Cheers. )
Sir IL PEEL rose amid cries of " Divide I" He did
not mean to enter upon the general considerations arising
out of this question, hut to state very shortly the grounds
of his vote. Ile intended to oive a direct negative to the
prooosilion made by the honourable Member for Old-
ham ; and he could r not consent to vote for the prooozi-
tien lately made by the lion. Gentleman on his left, know-
ing that the question should not be put, and that Parliament
should express no opinion on this subject. When he re-
collected, four years since, the universal impression on the
part of the Parliament of this country that the mode of admi-
nistering relief then in existence was pregnant with the most
injurious consequences ; that it was, in I oint of fact, dis=olv-
ing property, and, in this dissolution of property, doing irre-
psrable injury to the poor, relaxinz all the springs of in-
dustry, and holding out temptations to idleness : when he
recollected that Parliament, with the universal assent of the
country, determined to make a great experiment for the pur-
pose of recovering from this state of things, he eould not
think it would be for the honour or credit of Parliament to
refuse to pronounce an opinion as to whether the present
law be adhered to or not. And he did believe that the Hon.
Gentleman who made the first proposition, by compelling a
decision on the question would do more to establish and en-
sure a satisfactory working of the law, by procuring from, he
hoped, a large majority the expression of their determination
to uphold its principle, than any combination of Ministers and
their opponents eeuld effect.—(Cheers front both sides of the
House.) For, in point of fact, the whole country was in doubt
as to what wes the intention of Parliament, and under such
circumstances no system could be satisfactorily worked. Ile
knew in his own pert of the country that doubts were enter•
tented as to the propriety of enlarging the union, from the
expectation that a motion would be made for the repeal
of this law ; and while such doubts were entertained as to
whether they should recur to the old system, or persevere
with the new, it was impossible to give satisfaction.
He, therefore, rejoiced that a decision was provoked on
this question.—( Cheers.) There was a Committee al-
ready sitting for the purpose of determining whether,
consistently with the maintenance of the principle; same
relaxation might not be made in the provisions of this
measure. But the alteration of the law in details was per-
fectly different from maintaining the principle of the existing
s) • ,
-stem —( Hear hear.) Why, when they were told that
abuses existed in the administration of the poor-laws, how
' could they hope to see a great experiment come into operation
without the occurrence of cases of abuse and individual
hardship ? When a system so monstrous, and which involved
so many evils, was changed, it was contrary to human na-
ture and the ordinary operation of human affairs that indivi-
dual grievances should not occur, to which, helee„r deeply
we might deplore them, it would be impossible to apply
a remedy. But on the whole he was bound to say, con_
sidering the magnitude of the experiment, which was only
four years under trial, it was as satisfactory as any man
could expect—(Cheers)—and under these circumstances,
believing it to be absolutely necessary, not to save the
property of the rich (for that was a subordinate part
of the question), but to elevate the moral condition of
the labouring poor, and to invigorate the springs of in-
dustry, so far as the Bill went—and it was not to be ex-
pected that a wonderful change should he mode in four years
--the experiment was satisfactory. He believed, on the

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDA Y, .11411311.11A/CY. 21±.}.83S

whole, that there was a gradual encouragement for the de. '
mud of honest labourers, and they had a right to anticipate
that the temptation to i►►dustsy would well met. Under
these Circumstances, he held that it would be discreditable to
Parliament to hold out a hope, or rather tl►e apprehension,
ll►at the old system would. be recta: red to : and all those gen-
tle:nen who throughout the cdutitry acted on the belief that
they would adhere to their own principles, and who were e:lt -
posed to the obloquy which it was easy for agitation to direct
against them if they found that House disp(,sed to relax the
provisions of the lan, minht fairly censure their conduct, and
refuse to give their necessary co (Iteration to the law.—
( Cheers from both sides.)
Mr. FIELDEN then, amidst loud and constant cries of
" Divide," and " Question," rose to reply, and said that he
considered it desirable that the decision upon this important
question should be taken at once.—( Hear, hear.) Ile had
expressly stated, and he row repeated that his opposition was
directed against the whole Pill, as well against the principle
as the details of it ; and he the more particularly opposed it
on account of its operation upon wages throughout the coun-
try_(•t Hear, hear," and cries of " Divide," among which
the lion. Member resumed his scat.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the 1101131
divided, when there appeared—
For the previous question l2l
Against it
Majority
On the motion for leave to bring in the Bill—
Ayes
Noes
Majority against the motion —292
HUME AND PAPINEAU CORRESPONDENCE.

Mr. HUME moved, pursuant to notice, for " copies of all
letters between Air. Hume, Mr. Roebuck, and any other per-
sons in Great Britain, with M. Papineau, Mr. McKenzie, Dr.
Duncombe, and any other indivilwils who have held public
situations in the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, which
have been seivql in those provinces, or otherwise come into the
pessession of Government."
Sir G. GREY stated that no corrc;pondence of the nature
of that named in the motion had come into the hands of the
Government.

Mr. HUME said a paragraph had appeared in the papers
containing what was called the correspondence of " that arch-
traitor Joseph Home."—(A laugh.) The correspondence
was copied from American papers, and consisted of a letter of
which he had no reason to be ashamed, and he thought it was
only fair it should be laid on the table when moved for.
Sir G. GREY agreed with the Hon. Gentleman in such
opinion, but said that the return to the motion would be nil.
He was happy to find the statements as to the nature of the Ilon.
Member's correspondence to be what he had before believed
them to be, not entitled to credit.—(licar.)
Colonel SIBTIIORP postponed to a future day his notice
respecting the Government appointments in various,depart-
menta, including the recent one in Greenwich Hospital more
particularly. Also his notice as to the reduction of the Com-
missioners of Greenwich Hospital to four, to be selected from
the of ricers of the navy.
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA.
Mr. HUME moved for a " return of the quantity of cor-
poral punishments awarded and inflicted on the sepoys of the
native armies of Bengal, Madras, anal Bombay, and the num-
ber of men discharged from the years 1834, 183.5, and 1836.
Also showing the average number of lashes inflicted per regi-
ment, in the cavalry and infantry, severally (in continuation of
the return for the years 1831-3). The Hon. Member also
added (at the suggestion of Sir R. Inglis) to the motion a
further one, for " copies of correspondence between the Tan-
jore Commissioners and the Government, from the I.lth of
July, 1836."---Agreed to.
BRITISH MANUFACTURES.
Mr. HAWKE S moved for leave to bring in a " Bill to
prevent the imitation of the names and marks of British manu-
factures on foreign articles imported into this country in bond,
and exported to any one of the British colonies or elsewhere,
and for the better identification of foreign manufactures ad-
mitted on duty for sale into the United Kingdom."
Mr. L ABOUCHER E said there could be no objection on
the part of the Board of Trade to the introduction of the Bill,
although at the same time he considered it doubtful whether
the evils it was intended to meet could be remedied without
the risk of incurring greater.—( Hear. )
Leave was given to bring in the Bill, which was then read
a first time, and ordered to be read a second time this day
week.

no torn-tent of the White inflicted on his Black fellow-
creature—if the care-whip were thrown aside, and
the prison-house also thrown epen—and there were no
collars, no chain;, no treadmill, no starvation, no over exertion
' extorted by the fear of punishment from these their victims—
!
had that traffic which they justly denounce, which they deno-
mieate a crime and not a trade, which bring; over Af jeans
to the islands of the West, they would no longer inflict thet
misery which they now call on their Sovereign 'to relieve.
That you should ever join your voice with their's is a consume
metion so little to be dreaded, that Its ill not delay you longer on
that point. Reminding your Lordships of what I stated to yau
on a former occasion—recalling your recollection to the
facts 1 then unfolded--the influence of the head. money
existing--above all, the uninterrupted slave trade of
-Portugal and Spain--I now call on your Lordships to
join in the only measure for effectually preventing it.
Since those statements were made, my Lords, they have been
promulgated all over the kingdom—they have met with no
contradiction 1 They have been complained of', with one
trifling exception only, fIA having been under the mark.
That exception is this—that in a public daily news-
paper, the principle one on the part of the Govern-
ment, but from no fault certainly of its respectable conductor
—I have read with astonishment, and I repel the insinuation
with scorn, that I had acted the part of an advocate, and that my
facts were misrepresented and exaggerated. How dares
any man so to charge me ? How dares any man,
without giving his name, to utter so false—so
slanderous an imputation? I come forward in my own
proper person--I ay re my ease--I drag the criminel
to justice. I defy the erongdoer-1 defy his defender -- I Ap-
pear with my defiance, and I challenge investigation. How
dares any man who shrinks and skulks behind a false name
to charge me with having come forward with my de-
fiance—as having, like en advocate spoken from a brief
and misrepresented the fact ?—( Cries of " Hear, hear.")
The absurdity of this charge, my Lords, outstrips its
malice. I stated that Negroes, in order to lighten the
ship during chase, were flung overboard by pairs, in
fetters, to insure their being drowned, before they could be
captured by the cruiser to give evidence against their
murderers. The answer to that ii that this man—if he be
a man—bas been on board slave ships, and had never seen the
practice! I charged that the fetters of the slave were not
locked but rivetted with the forge—the answer is that
he hes been on board slave ships, has seen fetters,
that those fetter; were locked, and not rivetted with the forge.
More dares any man deny the fact upon such a trumpery state-
ment, as if it were any thing like a proof that another man
had not seen the crime committed, because this individual him-
self did not happen to be present at the commission of it ?
According to this, ten, •r twenty, or ono hundred per-
sons might prove a murder which their own eyes saw ;
another coming forward says it is false, for he was not pre-
sant when the crime was done. Did I not state my
authority? Did not I avouch my author? Did I not say
from whom I had my statements ? Did I not state
distinctly, my Lords, that it was Commmodore Hayes, of her
Majesty's Nary—and I did not give half of the atrocities
which he states its his dispatches.—( Hear.) My Lords, I shall
not now be charged with exaggeration. No more, my Lords,
will be I charged with understating—l will now tell what I
withheld. I will call upon my Noble Friend, the late Governor
ofJamaica—himsel f a planter—himself the proprietor of slaves—
whether he did not know a vessel with a space of 31- feet only ?
There my Lords, I am understating again—it was only
two feet and a-half feet between the decks. In that space
my Lords, one hundred and fifty of these beings had been
crowded and jamed like lifeless lumber—in a way in which
no Christian would treat the lower animals. I will
ask my Noble Friend whether he did not know of that vessel,
and that it was to all the senses a nuisance not fit to he described.
The opthaltnia had broken out to a considerable extent in
that vessel, and whenever a poor unhappy wretch was
seized with it, in place of having medical assistance—in place
of a surgeon being called to him—he was instantly and in
his chains flung overboard in order to stop the infection. I
will be charged, my Lords, no longer with under statements.
I said that one ship had brought 700 slaves, and I stopped
there, for it was quite enough to harrow the feelings
of all ; lent, my Lords, there was another ship which brought a
cargo of 980 poor, miserable, unoffending beings, and out of
that 980, without any direct murder, but from the hardships
and sufferings inseparable from the traffic, 600 fell the
victims of the pestilential hold ; and four other ships, which
sailed from the same port with from 2,300 to 2,400, no
less than I,doo of these poor slaves fell sacrifices to the disease.
As long as the slave trade was only contraband, the calcula-
tion was constantly made—" If we escape three or four times
and are taken once,—even if we escape one half the number
of times and the other half are captured, the profits are so
enormous—twenty, thirty, fifty thousand pounds on one
voyage—the profits are so vast, the risk is well worth the
running, and therefore persist we will." In the year
1809 I had the singular felicity of laying the axe to
the root of the traffic, by at once stopping all such calculation
—making it felony—punishing it as such ; for I know that
they who would run tie risk when it could be reduced to the
calculation of profit and loss, would be slow to put their heads
in that halter,. which, like other felens, their crimes deserved.
The Bill was passed unanimously through its stages in the
Ilouse of Commons, and since then I will venture to say, though
English capital is covertly employed in many channels in
promoting that traffic, yet since it was made felony, English
subjects have ceased to engage in it ; but the same cannot be
said of Portugal, Spain, and Holland. I will be accused no
more of mis-statement. Two slavers were chased by a cruizer.
They were seen to throw over in pairs, one after another,
130 captives in their fetters—the elder ones fettered, the weaker
ones free—all alike doomed to that watery grave, to assist the
criminals to escape : so that this horrible spectacle presented
itself -to the view of the afflicted chaser, and they Yalu) were in
the chaser saw tke surface of the water covered with struggling
wretches, the elder ones, in fetters, sinking swiftly— the
women, and, above all, the helpless children, struggling for life
until the waves closed over them. But now I must approach
that subject which for some time has excited almost universal
anxiety. I would first of all remind you (because that goes to
the root of the evil)—l would remind you of the anxiety which was
felt as the time approached for the coming into operation
of the Emancipation Act in August, 1834. My Lords,
there was much to apprehend from the character of the
masters. I know the nature of man—fond of power--
jealous of interference in its exercise—averse., above all
things to have it wrested from him—especially when it
has been long enjoyed—and, my Lords, I know another
and a worse part of human nature. I know that he who has
abused power clings to it with a yet more convulsive grasp. I
know the nature of man—his revenge against those who have
been rescued from his tyrannous fangs—never forgiving those
he has injured, whether white or black. I have never experienced
an unforgiving enemy, except its the person of one of whose in-
justice I felt that I had just reason to complain. On the part
of the slave, my Lords, I was not without anxiety, for I
knew the corrupt nature of the degrading system under which
he groans. I know that in the language of one of the earliest
of profane poets, "the day which makes a man a slave robs
him of half his -value." I knew that he might become averse
to voluntary labour, and unwilling to work for hire, and
incapable of labouring in his own behalf from never
having had any concern to watch over or tend, but
always being provided for by others; and I thought it, my
Lords, extremely far from impossible that his nature, through
those who had taught him bad lessons by their maltreatment
of himself, might become so perverted as to have made
him too familiar with his chains ; and it was therefore
I confess, my Lords, with some anxiety I looked forward
to the Ist of August, 1834, and I yielded, though
reluctantly, to the plan of an intermediate state
before the full enjoy meat of freedom by what is called
the transit ion condition of indentured apprenticeship.
The Ist of August came, that day so confidently and joyously
anticipated by the poor slaves, and so sorely dreaded by their
hard taskmasters, and if ever there was a picture interest-
ing to leek upon—if ever there was a passage in the
history of a people that could redound to their honour,
if ever there was an answer to the scandalous calumnies which
for ages we had heaped upon thoon, as if in justification of the
wrongs which we had done them—that picture and that pas-
sage ere to he found in the uniform history of that day
over the whole of the West Indian Islands. Instead
of the fires of rebellion, lit by a sense of lawless revenge and
resistance to oppression, the whole of these islands were
illuminated by the light of joy, contentment, peace,
and good:-ill towards all men. No civilised nation
after gaining as unexpected victory, could have shown more
delicacy and forbearance than was exhibited by the
slaves at the great moral consummation which they
had attained. There was not a look or a gesture to
goad the eyes--not a sound escaped from negro lips to
wound the ears of the Planters. All was joy, congratulation,
and hope. They felt that their fetters had been lessened,
and they looked forward with hope to the time when
the degrading marks which they had left would be
wholly erased.—( Hear.) This delicate peaceful joy was all •
that was to be seen, heard, or felt, in the West Indian Islamic
Amusements there were none to be seen that day—not even
those amusements by which they were accustomed to beguile
the hard lot of slaves, and which reminded them of the
country of their forefathers—no, for the negrocs are an
eminently pious people, and they hold sacred the day of their
liberation. They enjoy the advantages of relizious
struction in a great degree—they enjoy the consolations-
of s-
of their religion to a great extent. They have them not from
the administrations of an Established Church—not that they
are withholden from them ; but another was to be found more
suitable to their purposes, and therefore more acceptable to
their feelings. They had the meek and humble pastor, who
although, perhaps inferior in secular accomplishments, was not
the less calculated to guide them is the paths of religion.
But the Missionary, not set above them by great learning
not too refined by any peculiarities so as to differ from
them—passing the time among them during the week in
the same way as they minister to them on the Sabbath—he
is their friend in common matters, as well as their
guide in religion : and I cannot pass over this part of the
case, without offering my humble tribute of very heartfelt
admiration of the labour and zeal of those 'slims and disin-
terested men—( Hear, hear)—and I know if I were to
make my appeal to my Noble Friend behind me (the
Marquis of Sligo), he would say, as be lied promulgated else-
where, that for the source of religious information among the
slaves, it was to the missionary they had to look.—( Cheers.)
Therefore it was that fourteen yenta ago I felt all the anxiety
I have already alluded to, when it was ray lot to bring
before the Commons of England the persecutions of one of the
most devoted, most pious, and most useful of that class of
men who, because of his self-devotion, had been hunted down,
and made to die the death for teaching the Gospel of peace to
the poor negroes of one of those islands; and then it was that
I gloried to recollect, the first of those blows was struck, of
which we now have happily lived to witness the day when
the final accomplishment shall be, in which the chains
of the Negroes by those blows shall be struck off,--( Hear.)

The first of August came, and the day was kept as a sacred
holiday. All the churches were crowded from early dawn.
Five or six times in that day was each of the churches filled and
emptied in succession, with multitudes elm came to render
thanks to God fur their liberation. In that island, where the
bounty of nature seems to provoke the appetite to indulgence,
and to scatter with a profuse hand all the means of excitement,
not one negro was, on thet first day of August, found in a state
of intoxication.—( Hear, from Lord Sligo.) Three hundred and
forty thourted slaves were liberated on that day, and their peace-
ful festivity was disturbed only on one estate, in one parish,
by an irregularity which three or four persons put down.—
( Hear, from Lord Rolland.) But, my Lords, we were told
that that day would be a day of disturbance, of outrage, of
disaster.—(Hear, hear.) We were told that there would
be no voluntary labour ; but we find now that
there is no want of men to work for him—(l-leer, hear, from
Lord Holland.) ! have the authority of my Noble Friend be-
hind me ( herd Sligo) that there has been no want of labour.
My Noble Friend has made en inquisition into
this matter, and I am enabled to mention his authority
for saying that on nine estates out of ten there is ne difficulty
whatever in getting labourers to work for hire.—(Repeated
cries of " Hear, hear," from Lords Sligo and Holland.) And
yet, my Lords, there were people bold enough to tell us that
without the cart-whip no negro could be made to work—we
were told that the negro would fall asleep when released front
the lash. Yet the difficulty has not been found. My
Lords, we find that the apprentices work without the
whip and that wages aro as good a stimulus as the scourge
even to negro industry. Oh, but it %iris said, Oita
will do for cotton planting and cotton picking, and
indigo making—all these are the ordinary descriptions
of negro work ; but the cane will cease to grow--
the operation of hoeing will be put an end to ; boiling will cease
to be pract;sed; and the sugar will be turned out of the Island.
Many thought that those whose experience of the West Indies
was better than their own reasons and their own hopes, which
had been founded upon ignorance of the negro character,
were more likely to come to pass ; for they were the confident
predictions cf confident men. Now, let the experienced man
come forth with his prediction, and I will state mine against
it, and you will find that he will talk no more about it. Twice
as much sugar was made in that year per hour as in the for-
mer one, and of a better quality--and one man a largo planter
expressly avowed, that give him twenty free men and he would
do more work than with 100 slaves, or 50 indentured appren-
tices. But Antigua, what has happened there ?—for in Antigua
there was not even the indentured apprenticeship. In Antigua
and Bermuda, as would have been the case at Montserrat, if the
Upper House had not thrown out the Bill which had been
passed by the planters themselves, there had been no prepara-
tory step. In Antigua and Bermuda, on the first of
August, 1834, three years and a half ago, there was not a
single slave or indentured apprentice. But it has been said
that it could hardly be expected that, after so complete and
abject state of slavery which had so long existed, the sudden
emancipation would endanger the peace of the Island. The ex-
perience of Aug.l at once scared away the phantom which bad
been raised in the minds of the planters, then it Was
said—only wait till Christmas, when all who have
practical knowledge of the Negro character dread rebel-
lion. They did wait—and I will go to Antigua, for it is the
strongest case—there there was no preparatory state—there
there was no transition—the chains were at once knocked oft
and the negro was made free. For the first time, within 31
years that year, the Christmas of 134, was the first that martial
law was not proclaimed in Antigua. You call for facts
here are facts ; you call for experience—here it is : and let the
man who scoffed at us—who laughed to scorn at what lie called
our visionary, theoretical schemes, which were impracti-
cable—that never could be carried into effect without
a rebellion, and the lose of the colonies—let him come
forward and deny any statement which I have made. Let
those who thought that with the use of the phrases "
Planter of Jamaica—the West India interest—resident
in Jamaica"—they could make our balance kick the beam--let
them hear what I have told, for they arc facts—that when the
chains were knocked off there was not one breach of
the peace committed, neither on the Ist of August itself, or
at the Christmas following. My Lords, under what flimsy
pretext did they next undertake to disparage the poor negro
race? Had he not seen it in print, and been otherwse
informed of the fact, he could not have believed it. They
actually held out this last fear, which, like the others, wes
fated to be dissipated by the fact—they saide-wwt
only till the anniversary of the first of August,
and then you will see the effect of your rashness—as if they
said, you will see what will take place on the anniversary °`
the emancipation—they were prepared for liberty in 1834, but
when the anniversary came about they would break out into re-
volt and rebellion. My Lords, I ask you merely t°
yourselves be
experience—by that experience which you have
y gained—l ask only that you should be guided
the fruits of your own experience—that this Legislature
should be guided by that experience which, according
to that Book which you all revere, teaches even t}l° o°s
foolish of our foolish race.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.
But now, my Lords, I think my task may be said t out
done. I think I have proved my case, for I have shorn tbs.:
ot
the negro can work without the stimulant of the whip.
1.1
have skews that he can labour for hire without any he.,
motive for industry. I have demonstrated that all
over the West Indies, even when fatigued with working the
allotted hours for the profit of his master, he can work
again for wages for him who chooses to hire him, and
has wherewithal to pay him. I have also most dis•
tinctly shewn that the experience of Antigua and Bermuda
is demonstrated to show that without any state of preparation
—without any indenture of apprenticeship at all—he i 5
fit to be at once entrusted with his freedom, and
will work voluntarily as a free labourer for hire.
But I have also demonstrated, from the same experience, b
reference to the same state of facts, that a more quiet, inoin
artnix-
sive, peaceable, innocent race, is not to be found on the
c but
than the negroes—not in their own unhappy country,
after they have been turned from it, and enslaved
1:!!
your Christian land—made the victim of the barbarizing
demon of civilized powers,
and
has all
his characte
if It were possible to corrupt it, and all his feelings, if it wro
possible to pervert them—attempted at least to be pt.ireertedned,
corrupted by christian and civilized men ; and that in this f'taac t
with all incentives to raisdemeanour poured around
temptations to misconduct which the arts and artis
from
men can give—that after this transition is made so
slavery to ;apprenticeship, aye, and from slaveryno'i
absolute freedom—a Negro's spirit has been found to rig.
the entire unbroken tranquillity of the Carribean sesilo
My Lords, have I not proved my case ? I refer you te it
records of your own Statute-books. On what ground to it
that. this intermediate state was sugssested ? All men admitte.
were it not for fear that the slaves,through being unaccustolne:.
to voluntary labour, would not be able to accommodate the'
cheism:tha..t.
selves to the state of freedom, there need not have hnee
any delay, and freedom might have been absolutely con:
ferred. This was the delusion which prevailed, and which
was stated in the preamble of the statute—the same delusion
which had made the men on one side state, and the other
.tle
believe, that it Was necessary to pay the slave-owners for tltoe
loss it was supposed they would sustain. But it was founti
be a baseless fear, arid the only result of the phantom so co
jured up was a payment of twenty millions to the conjurors.vv---.0
( Hear, and a laugh.) Now, I maintain that had we kno
what we now know of the character of the negroes, neither
would this compensation have been given to the slave-owners,
nor we have been guilty of proposing to keep the negro in
slavery five years after we were decided that he had a right t
his freedom. The Noble and Learned Lord here proceeded
to contend that up to the present time the slave-owners, so far,.
from being sufferers, had been gainers by the abolition 01
slavery and the eaactment of the system of apprenticeship, arid
that consequently up to the present moment nothing had oc-
curred to entitle them to a claim upon the compensation allot-
ted by Parliament. The shire-owners might be said to have
pocketted the seven millions without having the least claim
to them, and therefore, in considering the proposition he ens
abutit to make, Parliament should bear in mind that the
slave proprietors were, if anything, the debtors to the station.
The money had, in fact, been paid to them by mistake, and,
were the transaction one between man and man, an action for
its recovery might lie. But the slave-owners alleged that if
the apprenticeship were now done away there would be a loss*,
and tkat to meet that loss they had a right to the money;
For argument's sake Ito would suppose this to be true, 0"
that there would be loss ; but would it not be fair that thr,
money should be lodged in the hands of a third party,
authority to pay back at the expiration of the two years what,
ever rateable sum the master could prove himself to have lost
His firm belief was, that no less could arise ; but, desirous to
meet the planter at every point, lie should have no objection
to make terms with him.• Let bite, then, pay the money into
ensue, as it were, and at the end of two years he should be
fully indemnified for any less he might prose. He called upon
their Lordships to look to Antigua and the Bermudas f 6
proof that the freed negro worked well, and that no loss was
occasioned to the planters or their property by the granting
of emancipation. But it was said that there was a elle',
renee between the cases of Antigua and other colonies, eu
as Jamaica, and it was urges? that while the negrolace:
the former, from the smellness and the barrenness of the p
would be forced into work, that in the latter they ,'4,),,tihi
),
run away, end take refuge in the woods. Now, he nSi'W •
vthy should the negro run away from his work on being*
made free more than during the continuance of his aPPreli';
ticeship ? Why, again, should it be supposed that on the s
of August, 1840, the emancipated negroes should have ,co
inclination to betake themselves to the woods than in 183'
If there was a risk of the slaves running to the woods in 183.8+
that risk would be increased and not diminished during the
intermediate period up to 1840, by the treatment they were
receiving from their masters, and the deferring of their hopes.
My Lords (continued the Noble Lord), I have now to say afew words upon the treatment which the slaves have received
during the past three years of their apprenticeship, and which
it is alleged during the next two ears is to make them o fitted_
for absolute emancipation. My Lords, lam prepared to show
that in most respects the treatment the slaves have received
since 1834 is no better, and in many others more unjust and
worse, than it ever was in the time of absolute slavery. It Is
is true that the use of the cartwhip as a stimulus to labour has
been abolished. This I admit is a great and most satisfsctory
shlvenapro,ven.ent ; but, in every other particular, the state of the
I am prepared to show, is not improved, and, in many
respeocftsi,ooitd,islmvia,itielteiaonp
materially worse. First, with regard to die ar-
ticlereanrtei
etehde
nJeamraoicesa
u otherprison
e oloallowance
with
the Jamaica prison the g allowance of rice is 14 pints a week to
each. I have no return of the allowance to the indentured appren-
ni.
ttice in Jamaica, but I believe it is little over this ; but in Barba
does and the Leeward Islands it is much under. In I3arbadoee,
that allotted to the apa
insteeid of recei.ing the Jamaica prison alio:N.lrace of 14 pints a
week, the apprenticed negro received but 10 pint:, v,nile in
the Leeward Islands he bad but 8 pints. In the Crown co-
lonies, before 1831, the slave received 21 pints of rice, now
the apprentice gets but 10 ; so that in the material article,