The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-12 00:00:00

TilE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 12 1845.

Ihe'ltati,ti,"°,!numeeUfh in'Fe ff. Some two years ago he had drawn
the House to the state of the colonies, and
'ton aita? express his thankfulness to the House for the atten-
le had"
also
they had favoured him on that occasion ; and
the to express his gratitude to the House and
lore, ry for the weight with which public opinion and the
d'a thisthe`:sht',ch public feeling had 'been brought to bear
us au ion in consequence of that attention —( Hear.)
Nat
ta; again apply to that public feeling, he would again
bade a" t Peblic opinion, and be did hope that both would be
vadahl
Not, e on the present occasion for the be^efir of the
had ale' and the country.—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. C. Buller)
tott ~e'lYs in former days understood' that when an Enghsh-
!itht'orft the land of his birth he carried with him the birth-
isßet ta art Englishman ; that he was entitled to the same privi-
Nest'," wsg in hi* native land, and that he was nowhere
sett
e'F? gad;xed without his consent. But now matters
theywere only thought of as the colonies of the
what the Hon. Gentlemen of the Colonial-,•ffice know
la Cro
t this wn colony was ? When the colonists, in early days,
they entry to found those splendid empires in the west,
with this at s 0 long as an Englishman retained his connexion
ks feat thanountry he felt that he was entitled to its privileges.
C;oat t he was entitled to all the benefits of a representa-
,,aorfe la,rorrisnt ; and when the State of Pennsylvania and
sae w and other of the American Sta' es, were founded,
t'ilL'atara„e"ra care taken to secure a repreentative Gover n-
e'sds Cem. Indeed to such an extent did this go, that
it, io'hand had a domestic Legislature, though the number
ie sy abitants did not exceed five thousand. But now,
auesao7.l° Pursued towards the colonies was one of despotism,
7lP„'°' which, but. for the supervision of that House, would
r'ect de ,•
otit sPesm and this was the system they pursued
°J the Yew Zealand—a system which prevented all liability
;es Parta of the Governor to have his conduct or his mea-
itlaet awed by the colonists. They had in the island a
aole! it was true, but it consistedof the ttorey-Gener,
Oepeedetal Secretary, and the Colonial TreAasurenr, and threale
the ent members • but the three official members,
Zia to assistance of the Governor, were always
to ao dioUtvote the independent members. These
vperfectd 'grace in that matter. The whole thing was
v t k "Polisra—a round-about despotism it might be,
ti!tora, t"Potism nevertheless. Of these three despotic go-
t:: tat w° of them had belonged to the Royal Navy. He
la4t hem eari to speak disrespectfully of the Royal Navy,
aOast' t say that the Royal Navy was the very
„that 0 choose a governor from who would be vested with
t4itsetooProwers. They had no light charges to make against
if 'sg trroy He would stateahree instances of his mini-
h' ert'erit • •
tate yvhile governor, that must convince every person
las, sod ,ineompetence for that onerous position. It was
,Oiet ii".aintained, that the Government of the Right Hon.
:d disseminated the soundest views with respect to
ipsto; and it was therefore the more extraordinary
rf New Zealand should, upon the subject of 'finances
t4o4t; wldelY as he 'possibly could' from the Right Hon.
did the Would the House suppose that in any part of the
i;:sy atiae2rienezisted an inconvertible paper currency ? Could
esaibee, any thing more monstrous ? And yet such had
aaldraiaratotd
neci in New Zealand Governor Fitzroy. In
a ,norree they had, at a considerable sacrifice, returned to a
selatrea,'_'}e but in the colon• of New Zealand they had get
Qs. silovvertible currency established. In this country they
ktulett po ed a paper currency to be issued for any amount
waiZslalialidn'a 41,3sui t Captain Fitzroy had issued five shilling
gnats. There was something wicked in
ss°. 5401itical econotny. What was the object of this issue
ea2as• assieriats? They were issued to pay work-
ist'" • And what were the consequences of
se as? •
e a This—she depreciation of that currency.
IV 4 tha4gnats were in a course of deprecia-
t slap e very time the Governor issued his proclamation.
it'a.PattPaet'ing that some accredited party had stated that
the country gave no authority to the Governor to
al?, a assignats. what would then be the consequence ?
411 *ZIP naturally have followed, that the credit of the
ih dsp,„ suffer by the conduct of the Governor, and that
lta elation of the currency would he reduced to the
hilt,'l theta' stale. What would be the further consequence
• el 41 •• , • • ,
let • , assignats would perhaps have been depreciated
liatlis at "Y. that they would have to p 15," 00l
. on as-
kivleatd which, they would not get 15,01)0 pence. Was not
"tte'd ? W•as it to be tolerated that any Governor
Qa,"l'p„:"ne with the community, and so violate the most
litststl al.nciriles laid down by the Government which had ap-
lhawas ',ra? Captain Fitzroy was not merely incompetent.
fa des sitively mischievous and dangerous, as in every
dete'rs hear kind he entailed the most extensive harm.—
Ya tug. Such blunders as these were enough to eon-
l'iltha` 4 roan, no matter how superior his other qualities
tatl(l4l4th Let them now turn to his system of taxation.
kseseerep,!Y find there Why they found that the,Governor
ths-ure ' sheep imported 10s., and cattle 20s. Let them
alet-arean doing all he could to destroy the resources ef
'isf 111
lla,",er which he was appointed Governor ; if he tried
he
a could not do more than Captain Fitzroy had
i'l,;thld tear' hear.) Since the time of the Houynyhins,
(tel)srt ter, heard of such a thing blg the customs
ef province and allowing sit to remain in another.
111.4;e4atirl,ttecbetatrl.dr cheers.) The Hon. and Learned Member
complaining of the misrule in the Island.
Tienl Ill'a'n"egged to have the custom-house abolished in the
qratat and they ended by pulling down the flag-staff.
s,,it,ritie,"„°l" sent t 'dries, for forces, he alarmed the
If 7litta"'nere out of
th''). -"ts and 150 men were sent to
oea~ds,t':e• The natives requested him to send them back.
~.tto'ro:11)(1 in order to conciliate them further, he abolished
Its"' oth el'se in the Bay of Islands, and left them standing
4astia4:_itat the:parts of the colony. What could the man mean
latir? custom-house in one place and abolishing it in
9tlitsaad sbelPing the Bay of Islands and ruining the pora
ka•Leeta nhat would the think of the Government if it
t„11)11 "'toms at B • 41;
I and left them in full and active
l'ist 'hiie i•a„er the rest ofrs (t)lie country ? ( Hear, hear. )
n4Pl)°,e that any ship would unload at any other
Solattry "ristol
les it be was so privileged ? Did they think that the
'at •° be d come down to the House and say that they
Rt, who at.'olsported because they had abolished the custom-
'a'at°l? The Duke of Buckingham, he thought it
k 1),e; t Cti,' e°nl public meeting lately held, came down
information, and complained to the audience—
litt seat oral audience—of the Right Hon. Baronet, and of
(ltiOliosatiert the budget. He complained that the Right
""ddetr d, id not mention the agricultural interest at all ;
t,lt !retie -4 We are treated as if we were a colony.'
;ant'sinah'attglater.) That was the way in which the Duke
L. 114 t!'la. °Poke of their colonies. " They care for us no
t;hl,, rth we were a colony."—(Renewed laughter.)
I Lilt .atiathe literal
for us—let us legislate for
,ourselves."
att,,Cl for literal interpretation of this remark, They care
tliqthailcoloa The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Aglionby)
altsl,!4
who
lightly on the subject of the proclamation. By.
fatls'Y th of Victoria it was enacted that no waste land in
lea the °tlld sell for a less sum than 1/. per acre, and the
sot!efore was, whether land held by the natives was
Nsd t'ideed and sold as waste land. If the House
sells God that
23d section of that Act, they
is the laas waste lands were intended to de-
Thltris vested in the Crown with the sanction of the
It:ltta'atead Rua a most just and a most humane enactment.
itittaPeaeh td to protect the savage by making all such sales
''tataatia a ',llO hands of Government. All lands held by the
Ikle,a4„of -s'ftid to Europeans became vested in the Crown as
is. 4t r•s"lt and, the terms of the Act, lands sold
ao _ mold
nattpineeid ,u came part of the waste lands of the Crown.
oti„ sras„. "Guist that such was the proper reading of the
Itltitlit-,ltrolis'ent. He (Mr. C. Buller) complained that by
Alt e °f the Governor's pen he reduced the value of
Wttlis col°
tar tip„ nY from 20s. to 10s. They had asked for in-
le..httlaaesis4,,,six subjects connected with the administration
• sao;°.le, and they had only got information one
red
smlaeunthiot nrhad
fbeenimneade
eon%
ltehmeen a
wrhoou rnhas,-1
tLNatli. qtt ati° theg e natives.—(The)n g Honourable and
rtes ee,,l;'!rnan was so much affected, that for several
a",.l4ltZlee dim not proceed.) He trusted the House would
t galle felt upon this subject. He knew oue of these
oaataeah
ttffi e meant Captain Wakefield,—one of the most,
a'‘es,l'etttish,•neers in her Majesty's navy ; and to think of such
Shai'reeaag in a distant colony, by the tomahawk of the
Oft,".' the incapacity of a man like Captain Fitzroy,
Sliiit"tet-7ards come forward and said that the conduct of
ate die leering to those unfortunate gentlemen) was an
all'a_a Cala rtes to their country. He should be more
,ge-
i,illtaseatida'n Fitzroy than he was to the unfortunate Cap-
, toadal and he would not go into that matter. It had
p't isle al La dispute about land, in which the Commissioners
atOds would or could not decide the point of sale,
'yes were not resent The parties in the other
tiNdthe~4°N3b_e,fore him, and he 'had. decided that in. those
4Sitt,tloe. ,',Y had been sold fairly. and for its_ full
te aorsaney. thought they. had a rieht to that land,
wise a Les, saveY it, and the natives came down and burned
'eelaats he magistrates at Wellington, on information
tat'aa snees being communicated to them, very un-
Oa !Pie TPrOPerly issued a warrant against the natives.
aaistpalaßil'iiras irrational. They wont out, and he must say
qttt:titsd I::tes Mr. Johnson, and the other gentlemen who
laitst rs es :kr°, that they were grievously misled in the
kia` the'',People with whom they had to de. The
11a:1114,11ot at 11,61ghbOUrbOOd of Nelson were few in num-
ka•loa" to ,!.`1 of a warlike temperament. They generally
siMa as% 'Fie decisions of the law, and the unfortunate
l tsihe and his friends were not aware of the for-
ttt a •
tittle 11 "pitaegainst whom they were proceeding, or of their
litA eal'. 'Ow was the principal object of their
it4l4 Tliet took place ; the gentlemen stood their
lal,aod arlael were massacred by the natives.
satitt4 ;ea rril.sle as the customs of those people were, they
Vtaget ft'°arfilng to their established usages, and God
Oio'lrtato tisa„,`)uld say they were to be punished for them,
l't'N;izoa- usages of English law. All he said was, that
sttot` itist4,7ught to have protected the European in-
estanetia," of encouraging the native aggressors. But
eed " was, that he would severely punish those who
td'ejak"et, ti,,°4l the tomahawk of the savage. The conse-
IN for thtt the inhabitants of Wellington, who had held
eaalei,Purpese of defending themselves against their
lii7isca'ate of LantS, were thrown into the greatest alarm. In
e aa things a wise Government would have said to
Shaul yn armed themselves to protect the settlement,
tsaassea u for what you have endeavoured to do, but
ltta, rh" ae tvtorut a body of soldiers for your protection, and
t'tht° your peacreable pursuits." —(Hear, hear.)
tt thatt la: Governor actually do? He issued a procla-
!Asti, oe' `44'onlaeet_, inv of the inhabitants were treasonable,
astir plc again, those who took part in them
;Me to 'nhah,--,wri by the soldiers. He called a meeting
datvee,"dtiee "'ants of Wellington, and denounced
14'0104d. 1,, the words which he (Mr. Buller)
leat ad he 'laving given every encouragement to the
%%ILI ta-a•a gentlet to Nelson. Now, there were in that set-
ita Nettaarnen in the commission of the peace—and it
eat %etti- unimportant to observe, that in so small and
tit ta 'lnent there were five or six gentlemen of pro-
t'un
tltrhtl(ilear St to be placed in the commission of the
41:a4krteraest 11:, ) Well, Captain Fitzroy called those
al4ltessate'.°re him, and rebuked them for having issued
44p14 e wart. it remembered that he (Mr. Buller) did not
IN 'tie'''. ar't• The parties were in a state of war, and
thos 411...,,warrant was foolish—it was most imprudent and
tiet t° it it, wa
tta - goat a extraordinary, that when officers were
ey rn in any of the colonies, they sometimes
4401,4, aedeare Privileged to overlook the feelings of other
PI, NN. '0 violate the common decencies of life. Captain
sats N 'ugly thought with•
yea. tlohaving written some statement in the news-
taW's 1° th tut
Captain Dillon, said that he had not
4lltettlat •e uevsso
a et it Rte aPer. Captain Fitzroy told that gentle
'ttj) not true !"—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Buller)
14,1tti114,1141,wer:
iwo,uld say
lott'sto '3llt h these things were not important.—( Hear,
that they were of importance. If
°at, the u take nuuced to go out as settlers to your colonies,
%st'teo4l at "re that those who represent you should
si Dot gentleteee_( Hear, hear.) Captains Fitzroy
to,.[te tc, 4 months in the lon' and he had in that. time
" °at'd the • colony
p,,a4 . e feelings and to endanger the property
(11 inhabitants. The amount of the expenditure
aesis th - Year II
e • ..e Duller) thought that was pretty
i‘sa,l,,,(te,as)as°a7r,nor of a colony of 14,000 inhabitants—
'ear, a°)rlY new and struggling with every &M-
N, rim of a "an.) 36,0001. expenditure for the
llagttitli"'es -th Population of 14,000 was two and a
tt'lv; '1)111. debt e expenditure of Britain, including
'ist Y aid Fit' In justifying an increase of the expendi-
sid toeroY said that the greatest calamity which a
"s id was
,UgiaN to deprive the officers of their gala.-
e'a•( '44.4 Accordingly he proceeded to make up his
4 'ssr, he' °- He laid a tax epee the importation of
Bit .siteca :9'_a tax upon sheep-dogs—( Hear, hear)
arh! slinata of 2s. and ss. for the payment ot
ell he aborigines rebelled against the customs'

duties, to please them he abolished three custom-houses out of
four.---( Hear, hear. ) He ( Mr. Buller) did nut want to
make Captain Fitzroy a monster. He did not want the
House to impeach him. He wanted to show what the Go-
vernor was worth by his own acts; and he asked the Govern-
ment to pass no further censure upon Into than to say that he
was a very foolish =re—( Hear, bear.) lie asked them what
right they had to commit the safety of 14,000 Englishmen in
New Zealand to such a man as this ?—Hear. hear. ) He
did not want to he hard upon the infirmities and d,ficiencies of
human intellect, but he did not think that they were justified
in putting at the head of a colony a man whom they would not
entrust in the common affairs of life.—( Hear, hear. ) When
they had the proofs of his incompetency, what was the duty f
the Government bet to reeal him ?—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr.
Buller) did not ask that as a pueisement (though he deserved
it)—he did not ask it as a warning to future governors,
(and the warning was wanted) ; —but he asked it for the sake
of the colony, which could never be prosperous or safe whilst
such a man was at its head.—( Hear, hear.) NVhat it was the
duty of the Government to do was—to send nut a keeper for
Captain Fitzroy, and to send out his successor at the same
time.—( Hear, hear.) They ought to have recalled him before
this, and they ought to explain why they bad not done so.—
( Hear, hear. ) He trusted the House would so express its
opinion on this subject as to prevent the colonies from being
exposed to reisrale inch as this. —( Cheers.)
Colionel R. TREVOR would not, on this occasion, have
troubled the House, but that he was the only near relation of
the Gallant Officer whom the Hon. and Learned Member for
Liskeard had so unjustifiably assailed in his absence. The
Hoe. and Learned Gentleman had said, in the course of his
speech, that he did not wish to hurt the feelings of any one.
(" Hear" from Mr. Buller.) He (Colonel R. Trevor) was glad
that he, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, assented to his'
statement. With the charges which the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman made against the Colonial-effice, he (Colonel R.
Trevor) had nothing to do. He had only to deal with the
charges against the Gallant Officer at the head of the colony.
There could be no objection to a Member of that House mak-
ing charges against any servant of the Crown. But he thought
any Member went toe far when he drew unfavourable in-
ferences from general statements, without any specific facts.
He thought it would have been better to wait until the Govern-
ment and Captain Fitzroy had an opportuniq of communicat-
ing the facts to the House. The Horn and Learned Gentleman
said that Captain Fitzroy made up his mind upon the informa-
tion he received from the murderers, without hearing the colo-
nists. But this was not the fact, for the opinions stated by that
officer were the same as were expressed by the Colonial Secre-
tary before Captain Fitzroy went out to New Zealand. The
Hon. and Learned Member for Liskeard himself admitted that
the warrant was illegal, imprudent, and injudicious.
Mr. C. HULLER—I did not say illegal, I said imprudent
and injudicious.—( Hear, hear.)
Colonel TREVOR—The Attorney-General of the colony
denied that it was illegal. He would not have risen but for
the extraordinary, unfair, and unbecoming language used to-
wards Captain Fitzroy.— ( Hear, hear.) That officer had de-
voted all the energy of his mind for the benefit of the colony,
and it was very hard that he should be assailed in his absence
at so great a distance. No voice could be raised in his behalf
in answer to these charges, for four or five months, whilst
those charges rested only on partial information.—( Hear. )
Captain Fitzroy had been so much occupied with the affairs
of the colony, that not one of his relations had received one
line from him.—( Hear.) It would, therefore, have been only
justice to an absent officer to abstain from attacking him,
until his friends were in a position to explain his acts.
Colonel WOOD would not go into the merits of
the case, but he would protest against two epithets applied to
Captain Fitzroy, who was a distant connexion of his (Colonel
Wood's). He trusted the Hon. and Learned Member for
Liskeard would, on reflection, regret that he had applied to a
gallant naval officer the terms " foolish and incompetent."—
( Hear. ) Captain Fitzroy had been many years in the service
of the country. He had been long employed in the survey of
the coast of South America, after which he brought his little
vessel, at great cost to himself, round the world. ]n that voyage
he touched at New Zealand, and he ultimately accepted the
Governorship at the request of the Company itself, after he had ,
refused two or three other lucrative appointments.—( Hear.)
Mr. BULLER—Not at the request of the Company.
Colonel WOOD found that he was wrong, it was at the re-
quest of the Colonial Secretary.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh. )
If the whole transaction were before the House, it would bear
a very different complexion.
Sir W. JAMES said it should be remembered that the at-
tack upon Captain Fitzroy was founded upon very imperfect
intormation.—( Hear. ) The Hon. and Learned Member for
Liskeard himself said that nine-tenths of the information on
the affairs of Zealand was from the newspapers. He hoped,
therefore, that it would go forth to the country that this was
newspaper information and a newspaper spirit.—( Hear, hear. )
He could not conceive that any facts could be brought forward
to justify the assertion that Captain Fitzroy had, on any occa-
sion, been guilty of conduct unbecoming either a gentleman or
an officer, nor did he believe the statement the Hon. Member
had made would increase his character or repetation in the
country, unless ho were prepared substantially and most accu-
rately to prove it.—( Hear, hear.) He would sympathise with
the Honourable Member for Liskeard, when he lamented the
death of his friend, and if the Hon. Gentleman had not made
use of language in reference to Captain Fitzroy which was un-
justifiably strong, he would not have ventured to trespass upon
the time of the House. He hoped, however, the Hon. Mem-
ber would see the necessity of retracting some of the expres-
sions which he had thought proper to use. The expressions
if unfounded in fact, were certainly unbecoming a gentleman,
and he therefore hoped the Hon. Member would either bring
forward some exceedingly strong facts, or else withdraw the
expressions altogether. Captain Fitzroy had, in more than
one instance, proved himself to be a valuable servant ; and if
there was a peison upon whom lie could lay his finger as a
man remarkable for public integrity, or remarkable for his pri-
vate virtues or humanity, that man was Captain Fitzoy.
Sir CHARLES I'APIER admitted the justness of the eu-
logium which had been passed upon Captain Fitzroy by the
Hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House. He was a
remarkably clever man. He had made discoveries and surveys
in a most singular and peculiar manner, but the House must re-
member that a man might be able to make a very good survey, and
yet be a precious bad Governor.—(Laughter.) The Govern-
ment, in his opinion, made a grand mistake when they
sent Captain Fitzroy to govern New Zealand. He would
have made a much better Chancellor of the Exchequer.—

(Laughter.) Nevertheless, he was a gallant officer, but in-
stead of shaking hands with the murderers of Captain Wake-
field, he ought to have executed them.—(Cheers.)
An HON. Mesraza said he knew from other sources than the
public prints that, from some cause or other, the conduct of
Captain Fitzroy had not been such as ought to be expected
from a public officer. He should not, however, have addressed
the House had riot the Hon. Member for Liskeard alluded to a
gentleman with whom he was personally acquainted. He knew
from private information that the conduct of Capt. Fitzroy to-
wards Mr. Dillon had been, he would not say, ungentlemanly,
but certainly it was not such as generally characterised the
usual courtesy which was due from one gentleman to another.
Sir R. PEEL regretted that the debate had extended so far.
It would, he thought, have been much better if Hon. Members
who had lately addressed the House had, like the Hon.
Gentleman who moved for the papers, allowed the motion to
pass without remark. Had this course been pursued, he did
not anticipate that any opposition would have been offered to
the motion, as his Noble Friend at the head of
,the Colonial
Department, and the Hon. Gentleman who represented him
in that House, were perfectly ready to give the Hon. Gen-
tleman all the information he required. If they had de-
sired to call in question the acts of Captain Fitzroy, he
thought it would have been fair to postpone it until
they had got the papers before them. But, as it was, he
thought injustice had been done both to his Noble Friend at
the head of the Colonial-office, and to Captain Fitzroy, by the
comments which had been made that night. One Hon. Gen-
tleman had gone so far as to say that the Colonial Department
showed great ignorance in their policy towards New Zealand,
because they, as well as the public, had been in possession of
certain information three months, and yet his Hon. Friend had
not recalled Captain Fitzroy. Another Hon. Member had
made use of language which, he must. say, was highly unjus •
tifiable. The Hon. Gentleman said it was the duty of his
Hon. Friend to send over a keeper for Captain Fitzroy. :Now,
in his opinion, there was nothing to jusiify this remark as di-
rected against Captain Fitzroy.—( Hear, hear.) What were
the facts of the case ? Why, true it was, his Hon. Friend had
net formally made a statement to the public with respect to
this paper currency, but he had nevertheless declared the fact
that Captain Fitzroy had, from some cause or
other, omitted to send any information on the
subject. It was possible, however, that there might
have been some cause to prevent Captain Fitzroy forwarding
his papers. But be that as it may, Captain Fitzroy had omit-
ted to send them, and it would be fur bim to give some reason
why 'this deficiency should be overlooked. There was nu
doubt, then, that his Hen. Friend was not in possession of any
official information on the subject, and would it therefore be
just to condemn, still more to rent an officer performing duties
in a distant colony upon newspaper information ?—( Hear, hear. )
Such information as the Colonial-office was in possession
of, should be freely given. His Noble Friend was perfectly
right in postponing any comments upon these acts of
Captain Fitzroy, until he should have received an explanation
from that gentleman. It would be unjust for his Hon. Friend
to condemn Captain Fitzroy, without giving him an opportu-
nity of explaining his conduct. They were not in possession
of the ordinance relating to the unconvertible paper cur-
rency, and still less were they in possession of any official ac-
count from Captain Fitzroy, stating the circumstances under
which that order was issued ; and therefore the com-
ments of the Hon. Member upon the ignorance of his Noble
Friend were entirely out of place, and unwarranted by the
facts. With respect to debentures, there was no act of Captain
Fitzroy of which: they had not taken official cognizance, and
when they thought them good they approved of them, and
when the debentures were unsatisfactory they directed them to
be modified.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman con-
demned his Hon. Friend for appointing a naval man to the
office of governor of a colony. The Honourable Gentle-
man said it was not proper to take a man from the quarter-
deck, and set him to perform functions which attached
to a civil Government. Now he was not prepared to acquiesce
in this doctrine. He should be serry, indeed, to say that
either a military or a naval officer was incompetent to per-
form such functions. He could see no reason why gen-
tlemen who had distinguished themselves in one of the
two services should not be appointed to these offices.
Bat they were talking of a man who had distinguished him-
self not merely in active naval service, but in the scientific
part of that profession. He was a man, moreover, who had a
kindly disposition, and had throughout life been distinguished
for strict honoar and integrity. The New Zealand Company
did not object to his appointment, because he found, after the
appoitnment was made known to the New Zealand Company,
Mr. Ward, the Secretary of the Company, addressed a letter
to Captain Wakefield, wherein ho expressed himself warmly in
favour of Captain Fitzroy. Then the Company had a personal
conferenec with Captain Fitzroy, and afterwards they con-
sidered it to be their duiy to notify to their agent in the colony
what were their impressions with respect to this officer ;
and, again, Captain Fitzroy was spoken of by the New Zealand
company in the most favourable towns. That was the opinion
expressed by the Company after communicating with Captain
Fitzroy, and therefore whatever the Honourable Member
opposite might now say with respect to the disqualifications
of Captain Fitzroy, his answer was c naclusive and complete.
It must be remembered that Captain Fitzroy relinquished a
seat in Parliament, and gave up a lucrative situation, to un-
dertake the government of New Zealand. The gallant
gentleman could not, therefore, be said to have taken
office with a view to remuneration. On the contrary, he believed
that Captain Fitzroy was actuated in such a step only by a
sense of public duty, and by a benevolent desire to become
an instrument of good. He fully sympathised with some
of the feelings and sentiments of the Hon. Member for Lis-
keard, for it was not to be wondered at that the Hon. Memlier
should lament the untimely fate of his friend.—( Hear, hear.)
But still he must ask the House to suspend its final opinion
upon this ease of Captain Fitzroy until they could hear from
the gentleman himself. It was consistent with justice that
they should wait until they had a report from Captain Fitzroy,
who certainly had omitted to fotward them certain in-
formation, but he would ask the House, whether it
was not within the range of probability that this
omission had been occasioned by some accident or other? The
Hon. Member for Cockermouth had delayed a motion on the
subject of New Zealand and the Colonial-office, to give him an
opportunity to make himself master of the subject ; but he
could assure the Honourably Member that whenever he
brought his motion forward, be should be perfectly pre-
:rife r, to take his psrt in the debate. His Noble Friend
huh laid on the table of the House the dispatch rela-
tive to the report of • the Committee. It was in pos-
session of the instructions be had given. His Noble

Friend did not shrink from any examination of his conduct.
He would say nothing epon that subject now; but the time
was coins when Hon. Gentlemen should be prepared to bring
forward a motion, if they intended to do so, so as to enable his
friends in that House to vindicate his Noble Friend. .

Lord HOWICK said that, as it was evident this subject
must be brought. forward in a shape which would enable the
House to pronounce a judgment upon both the conduct of the
Government and Captain Fitzroy, he would not on the present
occasion enter upon the field of discussion. He rose for the
purpose of saying that he did not think there was anything in
the language used by his lion. and Learned Friend ( Mr. Buller)
of which the Right Honourable Baronet could justly complain.
His Hon. and Learned Friend felt strongly upon the miscon-
duct of the Colonial Government, and in a speech, no less dis-
tinguished by moderation than ability, imputing no blame to
the motives of Captain Fitzroy, he condemned—what every
person was at liberty to condemn—the exercise of his judg-
ment, and in his (Lord Howick's) opinion his Hon. Friend
could not condemn that judgment too strongly.—( Hear, hear.)
He concurred with his Hon. and Learned Friend in the opinion
that the conduct of Captain Fitzroy, so far as his judgment
was concerned, was utterly without defence. The Right Hon.
Baronet said that they ought not to condemn Captain Fitzroy
unheard, and that the reports of newspapers were not to be de-
pended on. But the newspapers gave formal reports of what
took place in the colony, so that it. was not mere rumour.
When they had dependencies at such a distance, care should
be taken to inform Government of what was going on. Cap-
tain Fitzroy might, at least, have sent home a dispatch which
would arrive as soon as the newspapers, and there was no pos-

sible justification for his not having done so.—( Hear, hear.)
While the welfare of 12,000 or 14,000 persons was in peril from
a total disorganisation, and while accounts of an alarming na-
ture had been brought home far a long time, it was v, ith sur-
prise he learned that her Majesty's Government had not sent
out some gentleman, in whose judgment they could rely, to
supersede Captain Fitzroy.—( Hear, hear.) In his opinion,
her Majesty's Government were, to a great extent, as respon-
sible as Captain Fitzroy, and as this was a matter of import-
ance, he hoped it would soon be brought forward, when they
could pronounce a more distinct judgment upon it.
Mr. MANGLES said that it might appear presumptuous in
him to answer the Right Hon. Baronet, but he had so strong a
reliance on the justice of his case, and such a strong confidence
in the justice of the House, that he would attempt to reply to
the Right Hon. Gentleman. He had heard three definitions
made by the friends of Captain Fitzroy for him, and he had
heard his conduct strongly upheld by the Right Hon. Baronet.
Sir R. PEEL—Certainly not.
Mr. MANGLES—The Right Hon Gentleman, at all
events, said that they ought to suspend their judgment respec-
ting the conduct of Captain Fitzroy until they had further
information. The lion. Baronet the Member for Hull ( sir
W. James) said that Captain Fitzroy was at a distance from
the Government at home, and that he had to act upon his judg-
ment. But it should he recollected that there were others at
the same distance in whoee behalf the Government ought to be
watchful and vigilant. The Right Hon. Baronet at the head
of the Government had alluded to a letter in which the New
Zealand Company, at the time of the appointment of Captain
Fitzroy, expressed their confidence both in Lord Stanley and
Captain Fitzroy. That letter was written, believing that
Captain Fitzroy had given up a lucrative employ-
ment in this country, and that he had undertaken
his appointment in ?few Zealand solely upon public
grounds; and they did not now question his motives,
though they condemned his judgment. When they wrote
that letter, they were also in a state of deception as to what
had been done by the Colonial-office. He believed that
Captain Fitzroy went out to carry out the agreement en-
tered into by Lord Stanley and the colony, and which
was substituted for the better agreement made with the
Noble Lord the Member for the City of Lonilon. They were
under the iron foot of the Colonial-office, and they were ob-
liged to submit ; there were now ten thousand of their fel-
low-subjects in a state of ruin, because they could not get
one acre of land from the Crown. They had not known at
the time that Captain Fitzroy had instructions from Lord
Stanley to explain away the agreement they had made with
him, and they had never seen the letter containing those in-
structions, till many months after Captain Fitzroy had left
the country. If they had known of that letter, they would
have thrown up the affairs of the Company altogether, and
resigned themselves to the loss of tl:e money they had ex-
pended rather than submit to such treatment. Unhappily for
for them the state of the law was such that they could not sue
the Crown to fulfil its engagements. In India, which was
unfortunately under the Board of Directors—( A laugh)—
Lord Cornwallis had, in 1793, placed the Government and
the subject on an equality in the courts of justice. If that
were the case in New Zealand, they would apply to the laws of
their country, and require redress for the monstrous injuries
which they had received horn the Colonial-office. Their
only resource was now to appeal to the justice of the House;
and as this was not a political or a party question, but an
appeal; made by men who believed themselves to be
grievously injured, and not only themselves, hut thousands of
their countrymen, whom they were the instruments of sending
out to New Zealand—he hoped that they would not appeal in
vain. On looking over the correspondence between the Co-
lonial•office and the Governor of New Zealand, he found
that in 1842, 12,4141. were expended, the greater part of
which expense arose from blunders sanctioned by the
Government. Whatever else the New Zealand Com-
pany might be guilty of, they were guiltless of the
bankruptcy of the colony which was to be laid entirely
at the door of the Government. With regard to the outrages
which had been committed—those outrages in the north, where
the Governor had full sway—•the natives and the Company
were on the beat terms; there was no dispute between them, the
dispute was alone between the Government and the natives,
with which the Company had nothing to do. It was owing to
the conduct of the Government that their countrymen were
plundered, that their countrywomen had been outraged, and
that their flags had been torn, and, after all this, the Governor
was obliged to conciliate them, and Captain Fitzroy did not
want testimony as to the conduct of the waives in the imme-
diate vicinity of Auckland, for he found in a debate which had
taken place in the Assembly, that Captain Fitzroy said, in reply
to Dr. Martin, that the Hon. Gentleman seemed to desire that
be should drive the public from the towns to the bushes, where
they had neither safety nor food. He thought that when the
whole case of the Government of New Zealand and the con-
duct of the Colonial-office was brought fully under considera-
tion, justice would be awarded.—(Hear.)
Sir R. INGLIS defended the conduct of Captain Fitzroy,
and the Government of New Zealand. Much had been said
against him and her Majesty's Government; but he could not
but think that a fundamental error—a fundamental sin—had
been committed by the New Zealand Company.—( Hear,
hear.) His sympathy would always be with the poor and the
weak. The inhabitants of New Zealand were those with
whom sympathy ought to be enlisted ; they were not children,
because they could trace their descent front thirty generations,
or from the time of the Norman Canquest, and in that he was
borne out in the statements of the protector of the aborigines—
Sir George Clarke. He maintained, therefore, that the inha-
bitants of New Zealand were entitled to respect, and this
country had recognised their national character. The course
to be pursued by this country was clear—they must either
make it a case of conquest or a case of recognition. They had
adopted the latter course, and therefore they were bound to
recognise New Zealand as a free nation—( Hear, hear)—and
from that moment all their proceedings ought to be upon the
footing of equal rights. The case at present was a case be-
tween a Company and the inhabitants, the object of the Com-
pany being pecuniary interest. It was not high principle
alone that brought any of the individuals connected with the
Company together, •hut a commercial speculation.—( Hear,
hear.) Party bad nothing to do with this question, it was
pounds, shillings, and pence alone—( Hear, hear)—that ac-
tuated all parties to become connected with the Company.—
( Hear, hear.) Captain Fitzroy, he was assured, had no sordid
motives in view, and he therefore had no hesitation in giving
his support to her Majesty's Government on the present
occasion. _ .

The question having been put from the Chair,
Mr. (3. W. HOPE rose to move the amendment of which
he had given notice, namely, to leave out the words, " fulfil
Lord Stanley's agreement of May 12, 1843," and to insert the
words, " execute Lord Stanley's instructions." In the fifth
paragraph, to more to leave out the words, " at a less price
than that fixed by the Act of sth and 6th Vie. c. 36." He
thought if the Company chose not to bring forward their case,
they ought to abstain from making the assertions they had
done.

Mr. C. BULLER hoped the House would not go into a
discussion to-night upon such an unsettled verbal distinction as
that now attempted to be drawn. He thought the course that
had been pursued by Lord Stanley was a direct promise, but
how had that promise been performed? He contended that
between men in private life the course which had been pursued
would not be advisable. Suppose' he were to make an
agreement ?
Mr. HOPE—There was no agreement.
Mr. C. BULLER—Suppose there were an agreement, and
suppose his own servant came to him and said, " I don't know
why those instructions were given without consulting me," in
such a case there could never be faith between gentlemen and
public officers. He did not care a rush for anything but the
substance of the case. They had received the news of Captain
Fitzroy's proceedings in the colony for the first nine months,
and it did not appear that he had taken a single step to carry
out the promises everything which had been done with regard
to the company's title had been upon the sense of the old un-
derstanding. He did not care whether it was called a promise
or an agreement, but he did want to know what were the in-
structions given to :the Governor-General of New Zealand, in
pursuance of the promise in Mr. Hope's letter of the 12th
of May.
Mr. HOPE said the instructions given were in pursuance of
the words of the letter of the 12th of May. (The Hon. Mem-
ber then read the letter.)
Mr. C. BULLER wanted to know what had been done to

fulfil the promise ?
Mr. HOPE said the Hon. Member knew that the course
was to select portions of land, for which they were to obtain a
grant. It was not for the Governor to make a conditional
grant without application being made to him for that purpose ;
and the only intelligenee which th,:f had on the subject, after
a great deal of discussion, was the compensation which it was
proposed to give to the natives. Mr. Hope then consented to
the insertion of the words "in pursuance of Mr. Hope's
letters of the 12th of May."
The motion, as amended, was then agreed to.
NEW POOR LAW.

that the mandamus he issued- at on( o, on the alle-
gation that the toor at the time were starving. This was not
the case, as the overseers of Rochdale, in pursuance of the in-
structions from the Commissioners themselves, continued to
relirve the poor as before, under the local Act. The people of
Rochdale. made every exertion to escape the infliction of this
law; they wished by every legitimate means in their power
to prevent its operation taking place, and to avoid also the ap-
pearance of any resistance to the authorities. The Board of
Guardians signed a memorial to the Secretary of the Home
Department; another memorial was also addressed to the
Right Hon. Gentleman by the rate-payers of Rochdale, each
praying his interference to prevent the law being forced upon
them. The memorial of the rate-payers was signed by 11,415
persons, and of the whole number of rate-payers
in the district, only fifty-one refused to sign it.—(Hear.)
He, therefore, stood there as the representative of a consti-
tuency which, though consisting of many political parties, was
on this subject completely united. The answer of the Secre-
tary of State to the memorials was—that he had no power to
interfere to prevent the operation of the law. Under these
circumstances, the inhabitants of Rochdale appealed to that
House for relief ; they came there to ask if that House could
not prevent the infliction of this law upon them. Though no
reason had been assigned for enforcing the law—though no
regular document had been produced—he had an indirect
knowledge of a document which had been drawn up with the
view of establishing a case for the Commissioners. That
document stated that the expense of the relief
of the poor had greatly increased, and instituted
some comparisons with other districts to prove
it, which he contended were not fairly drawn, inasmuch as
the three towns of the district of Rochdale were compared
with three other towns. In reply to this, he asserted that,
taking the whole number of paupers in England, the expense
of each of them was 2/. 145., while the expense of the poor of
Rochdale under relief was not more than 28s. per head. Was
not that an argument in favour of Rochdale, and a reason why
they should continue a system with which the people were
contented ? This was not the first time he had had to defend
the people of Rochdale. In 1841 he stated in that House the
distress of the town, and in consequence an inquiry was insti-
tuted, which also extended to the system of poor relief then
existing. This inquiry was conducted by Mr. Tuffeell, and
he reported that'the poor were sufficiently relieved, and that
there was a general desire on the part ;of the people to avoid
applying for relief. Now, if the poor were sufficiently re-
lieved, and eeonomy also preserved, surely that syss
tem ought to be continued. He had presented
a petition from the people of Rochdale, which con-
tained a variety of allegations, and he would not be
doing justice to those who had sent him if he did not call the
attention of the House to the allegations of that petition. The
petitioners stated that the new poor-law was unconstitution I
awl was destructive of the principles of civil Government.
Were they not right ? They went on to state that the new
poor-law destroyed the desire for puhlic liberty. The peti-
tioners.allege that the Poor-law Commissioners had the power
of levying money by weans of the poor-law guardians. They
contended that this power ought not to be vested in irrespon-
sible parties. The guardians were machines to be worked by
the hands of the Commissioners, in order to sanction that taxa-
__..

tion which they had no power in themselves to control. The
petitioners contended that the Parliament had no right to dele-
gate any power which was contrary to the Bill of Rights. Why
was this power, to which the petitioners had alluded, given by
the Parliament to the Commissioners ? It was intended that
the Commissioners should do that which the Parliament did
not choose to do. The intention of the framer of the new
Poor-law Bill was to abolish all out-door relief. The poor
man had a right to demand relief when he could not obtain
ork. It had been stated that five-sixths of the poor received
external relief. He did not deny this, but it was contrary to
the intention of the framers of the new Poor-law Act. °The
dietary was the next point which he would take up ; and
here he would say that this was one of the greatest inflictions of
this law upon the poor. He saw by the returns of the Poor-
law Commissioners, issued in March, 1841, that the dietary
for five days in the week was, for breakfast, seven ounces of
bread and one pint of gruel ; and for dinner one pound of pota-
toes. Now, lie would ask, what was a pound of potatoes? Per-
haps some Hon. Members were not aware that one potatoe was
so large as to weigh more than pound—( A laugh)—and it
was quite a common occurrence to find two potatoes weigh more
than a pound; and he would just ask the House to imagine a
working-man having only one potatoe for his dinner ?
( A laugh.) Why, he knew many working men in Ire-
land who would make but a poor dinner on seven
pounds of potatoes.—( Loud laughter.) In fact, this scale
of dietary was not at all suited to the wants or habits of
the poor ; and he would have no hesitation in saying that it
was a starvation scale.—( Hear.) The whole of this oppres-
sive and unchristian system of treating the poor had made such
an impression upon the inhabitants of Rochdale, that they
felt themselves driven to make the appeal they now did to
that House through him.—( Hear.) It appeared that, al-
though out-door relief would be the best possible system that
could be adopted, yet the guardians had made a rule against
it. He had often spoken of the hardship of this system ;
but surely it was not necessary to go this length with it. The
law gave a power to extend out-door relief to the poor in towns ;
but that too, had been rendered useless by the order of the guar-
dians, which went to the extent of depriving the justices
of the power of declaring who were, and who were not the
fit and proper objects of charity. He would be far from wish-
ing to vest too much power in the hands of magistrates ; but
surely they should not have been deprived of this useful
power ?—( Hear.) There was another point to which he
would allude, namely, the evil of compelling a person who
had once been industrious and respectable, but unfortunate
and pauperised, to associate with the very worst characters in
society when they sought relief in the workhouse.—(Hear. )
He contended that this alone would be sufficient to make
many people recoil with horror from the workhouse relief, as
would also what was called the workhouse test of destitut'on,
which was the only test applied, or that the law would be
allowed to apply, and hence its total failure. —( Hear. )
The working men of England claimed subsistence or employ-
ment. It was a birthright which they possessed by the laws
and constitution of England for a number of years, and was as
sacred to them as any right by which:property of any description
was held. The working of the present law was well described
in the words of a distinguished individual, who said that the
law might be defined in these words :—" And be it enacted
that the Poor-law Commissioners have unbounded dominion
over the poor and rich of the land," and it might be added, to
exercise this dominion in the most arbitrary manner. He was
most anxious that the House should inquire into the mode in
which the poor-law was administered, as he felt confident that
many Hon. Members were not aware of the injuries which it
inflicted. Let there be a public inquiry—a full investigation.
His constituents were determined to resist with all their might
the introduction of this law, and would suffer the penalties of
an attachment rather than concur in a measure which to them
seemed full of injustice and severity. The motion he made
was, " that the petition of the people of Rochdale be referred to
a Select Committee, to inquire into the administration of the
roor-law in that district." He had modified the tesolution,
that it might, by its practicability, receive more general sup-
port, but would not push it further if the Right Hon. Gentle-
man would promise to appoint a Commission to inquire into
the matter.

Mr. FERRAND said he was rejoiced that he caught the
Speaker's eye, for he was anxious to bear testimony to the re-
spectabiery and unanimity of the meeting at Rochdale, when
this petition was adopted. He wished to call the attentisn of
the House not only to this law, and to its administration, but
to the pledges which had been given when this law was first
introduced in that House. The people of Rochdale were, he
considered, fully justified in resisting this law ; in fact, under
such circumstances, he thought obedience was a crime, and re-
sistance a virtue. The most solemn pledges were given, when
this law was introduced, as to the mild mode in which the law
was to be administered, and the restrictions which were to be
kept up ; but these pledges, without which the House and the
country would never have consented to the law, were most
flagrantly violated. Lord Althorp said, on the 17th of
April, 1834, in reply to an observation of the Ho-
nourable Member for Marylebone, that the law would
not interfere with well regulated parishes, but the administra-
tors of it would copy their example; and his Lordship further
said that when the parish was well regulated, the slightest ap-
prehension might not be entertained of interference on the
part of the Poor-law Commissioners. This pledge, continued
the Hon. Member, was given by the mouthpiece of the Go•
vernnient, and such was the condition upon which the House
gave its consent to the Bill. The Hon. Member then quoted
the remarks of Lord Brougham on the old poor-law, which he
said destroyed all sense of dignity, erased all manly and honour-
able feeling, and fitted its victims for acts of violence. The
volume on the table of the House, said the Noble Lord, was a
record of the violence entailed by it, of the idleness which it
engendered, and the guilt, the sister of idleness, which stalked
over the land, notwithstanding the progress of education, and
the more extended and impartial administration of justice.
The Noble Lord said the new law would remove these evils,
and restore to industry its proper reward, and lift once more
the character of the English peasantry to that proud
eminence which they were naturally qualified to hold.
The Noble Lord the Member for the City of London had en-
titled himself to the respect of the country for the consistency
with which he had adhered to the views which he entertained
of this law. But what was the conduct of the Right Hon.
Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, and the Secretary of
the Home Department ? They had been elevated to the places
which they now held by an express understanding that they
would oppose the proceedings of the Poor-law Commissioners.
The Right Hon. Baronet had told them that the New
Poor-law would put an end to the giving of alms in this coun-
try. But what was the language used by the Hon. Baronet
this night, and what would be the effect, when the effect of
these declarations was made known in all parts of England? But
how different had been the conduct of the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for the City of London, on the motion in 1839, for the ex-
tension of out-door relief to parties who had been married
before the poor-law came into operation. The Noble Lord
had opposed this extension on the ground that it would be a
continuance of the allowance system, which system it
was ono of the main objects of the poor-law
to abolish—that it would have the effect of dividing
the poor into two classes, and render the law, in
fact, a dead letter. Why it was a dead letter already. There
was one law for the east and another for the north—another
for the south and another for the west. The whole system was
a system of force, and which nothing but force would carry into
effect. He well remembered the speech of the Noble Lord
the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; on hearing that
speech of the Noble Lord he jumped up in his place and
declared that he had no confidence whatever in the poor-law
Commissioners—that he desired. rather to see their powers re
stricted than extended—that his object was to secure to the
poor all the benefits of the law, whilst he endeavoured to
elevate the character of the noble peasantry of England, and
place them in an independent position. What was the inde-
pendent position of the peasantry of England now ? Expe-
rience was a sufficient reply, The Cabinet Ministers sitting
on that bench had been elevated to their places by advocating
the privileges of the poor of the country, either by :peaking for
them on the hustings, or strongly against the new poor-law in
that House. They stated that they were apprehensive
of disaffection in the country. Why, he would tell them that
the greatest inciters of disaffection were themselves and the
Poor-law Commissioners. They attempted to cary into effect
the discontinuance of the allowance system, but what had been
the course they had pursued? They had introduced the new
poor-law into Bradford—they dared not introduce it into Leeds
—within ten miles of the very place which they had deformed
by its odious regulations. They had one law in England on
one side of the brook, and another on the other. They professed
that this grand panacea was to elevate the wages, and secure
the comfort of the poor. But what was the consequence ?
They had wages in the north of Nottinghamshire,
13s.' a week, while in Northamptonshire they were only
9s. a week. It was thus that they raised wages. Now came
some startling facts, which he should adduce, in order to prove
the dreadful malady which they had inflicted upon the country.
In 1841 the population of the country was 19,681,841. In the
year 1842 the number of persons who received in-door relief
was 222,642, while those receiving out-door relief was
1,204,545, making a total of 1,427,187. In 18,43 the number
who received in-door relief was 238,560, those receiving out-
door relief was 1,270,930, making a total of 1,509,490. These
were strong facts, and the House should remember that the
years 1842 and 1843 exhibited a progressive increase of pros-
perity in the manufacturing districts. In 1842 the sum pa;d for
in-door relief was 15,9111., and that for out-door relief was
93,1841. more than in 1841, making a total increase in 1843
over 1842, of 112,0001. In 1442 the total amount of in-door
relief was 944,382/., of the out-door relief, 3,481,0601., making
a total of 4,425,4421. In 1843 the total amount of in-door telief
was 985,8701., and for out-door relief, 3,773,0191., making a
total of 4,758,9891., showing an increase in the in-door relief of
23,8931., and of the out-door relief 230,6241., making a total
increase in those two years of 254,5234 That was the result of

their attempts to save the poor-rates to the country. But he
would now call their attention to the frightful increase of crime
which had taken place under the operation of this Act. He
held in his hand a report extracted from the " British
Almanack for 1845," published by the " Society for
the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge," of which Henry
Lord Brougham was chairman. It was compiled by Mr. Red-
grade, from the " Home-office Records," and the Right Hon.
I3aronet might study them to-morrow at his leisure. The
amount of crime, as evidenced by this document, was in round
numbers—in 1836, 20,000: in 1837, 23,000 ; in 1839,
24,000; in 1841, 27,000; and in 1842,31,000; thus showing
an increase of crime in 1842, over 1836, of 10,000. The poor-
law increased crime in the country. This was a remarkable
fact. But he also took from this book a further extract of the
sentences of death, and of the transportations for life for various
classes of crime; and he found that crime was frightfully on
the increase. He would, if the hour were not so late,
read them to the House—(Hear)—but it might
suffice to say that the capital punishments in 1832
were 1,444, and in 1843 the numbers were 1,735, showing an
increase in this latter year, through the operation of the poor-
law, of 291. But in 1838 they had repealed capital punish-
ments for minor offences—the very period when this law was
first introduced into the manufacturing districts. He would
take the average of the three preceding years, 1535, 1836, and
1837, and he found that the average amount of those capital
punishments was 807, while in 1843 capital punishments had
increased to 1,696, showing an increase of 889 over the ave-
rage of 1835, 1836, and 1837, or more than double. But
that was not all. They were obliged to have a winter's assize
in order to sweep off this mass of crime from the face of the
people of England. At one of those assizes—that held in
York in the winter of 1841 Judge Coleridge, in charging the
grand jury, had stated that another cause for the winter assizes
was the startling increase of crime throughout the country ;
and in Yorkshire he stated that crimes of a petty
kind had net increased in the same proportion with
those of a more serious character. Crime, he stated,
had doubled, and though the population had increased, yet he
did not think that that could possibly satisfy or explain away
the great incubus which hung over them. During the last
six years ! Why, that was the exact time when this obnoxious
law was introduced into Yorkshire. What would the Right
Hon. Baronet say to-night to justify this law ? Had he one
word to sav in its favour. That report, the prisons, the re-
bellion in Wales, evinced the operation of the law ; and how
the Right Hon. Baronet could justify himself to the inhabitants
of Rochdale was more than he could say. Would they adopt
the same plan of thrusting this law upon the people that they
did at Bradford when the bayonet was drawn, and when the
cry was, " Cut down the populace !" The feeling of
England would be raised, and the people of Rochdale
would be justified in the sight of their countrymen. The Right
Hon. Baronet, the other night, had stated that a million and
a half of the population were dependent on the poor-rates.
The best feelings of the British peasant now shrunk from the
workhouse, and he cried, " The workhouse ! a gaol rather—
the gaol for me." That was the result of their infamous law ;
and he had told them a short time ago that that law bad wrapped
the south of England in flames. The Right Han. Baronet had
admitted that it had produced the rebellion in Wales ; and the
Hon. Member for Finsbury, were he in his place, could say
that he held inquests every day on persons who would rather
starve than enter the workhouse. Treat them with mercy as
our forefather did. Give them the protection of the old poor-
law, and they would forget and forgive, for they were a loyal
and peaceable people. But the worm itself would turn when
you trampled on it. With pleasure he seconded the motion.
Sir J. GRAHAM had frequently been called on to address
the House on this subject, in consequence of motions brought
forward by the Hon. Member for Rochdale, and on all occa-
sions he had acknowledged the candid spirit and the excellent
intentions of the Hon. Gentleman. But at this time he
might be allowed to remark on the conduct of his Hon. Friend.
--(Hear, hear.) He trusted, therefore, the Hon. Member
would bring forward his motion at the earliest possible period,
and then the question of misgovernment would be finally dis-
posed of. When he (Sir J. Graham) came down to the
House this day he was prepared for a. motion to hear Counsel
at the bar, and he found that the motion was altered to a de-
mand for a select Committee. The Honourable Gentle-
man (Mr. Crawford) had bestowed great industry upon
this subject; but he would permit him (Sir J. Graham) to
say that he had not heard one new argument in the Hon.
Gentleman's speech. lie must be permitted, also, to observe
that the speech itself was an accusation against the whole of
the existing poor-law, and was well adapted to preface a mo-
tion for the repeal of that law. The Honourable Gentleman
said, himself, that the question was not a local question, but
the Honourable Gentleman would pardon him for observing
that his motion was altogether of a local nature. The Hon.
Gentleman, although he had bestowed much attention on the
subject, still laboured under this disadvantage, that he had no
practical acquaintance with the subject which he studied. The
Honourable Gentleman spoke of the destitution of the people
of this country, and he said that they had a right to claim re-
lief. But the Honourable Gentleman was not aware of the
circumstances of the people of this country, or of the
operation of the law. In the country which the Hon.
Gentleman himself inhabited, there was very great destitution,
but the people had no claim for the smallest dale of relief from
the wealth of the land. Here it was quite true they lived
under a different law, with the effects of which the Hon. Gen-
tleman had no practical acquaintance. It was true, that after
the present poor-law was passed, a considerable time was al-
lowed to elapse before it was introduced into the manufactur-
ing districts. But in 1837 it was introduced into Rochdale,
and officers were appointed under it. At present the case of
Rochdale was under consideration in the courts of law, and
the Court of Queen's Bench had issued a mandamus calling on
the poor-law guardians to carry the law into operation. 'They
had refused to comply with it. They had made a return to
that mandamus which the Crown had since traversed, and the
case now stood for trial at the ensuing Liverpool assizes.
Under these circumstances the House, no doubt, would agree
with him, that no practical good could result from the inquiry
which the Hon. Member sought.
_ _ .

Mr. BRIGHT merely rose for the purpose of offering one
or two observations with respect to the motion which had been
brought forward, because he was a rate-payer of Rochdale, and
acquainted with the circumstances under which that memorial
had been raised. He could bear the fullest testimony to the
truth of a statement made by his Hon. Friend, that the
people of Rochdale were averse to the introduction of the new
poor-law into that town. He believed there was a general
feeling amongst those who paid the rates that the interest of
the poor, and the interest of the rate-payers had been very
well and wisely attended to by the local vestry under whose
direction the old law was carried into effect.—( Hear.) He
said this with perfect impartiality, for he believed he was one
of the fourteen or nineteen rate-payers of Rochdale who did
not sign the petition which had been presexted to the House
a few days ago. He must, however, admit, that among all
classes of the people there was but one opinion upon the new
poor-law. They were attached to the local government,
and entertained great disinclination to be placed
under the control of the poor-law Commissioners.
—(Hear, hear And he eould not help thinking that they
had some reason to be afraid of the Commissioners, for although
they might have been extremely useful in some instances, in
the generality of cases they had administered the law in any-
thing but a wise and temperate spirit.—(Hear, hear. )
Captain PECHELL lisped the testimony which had been
borne that night of the feeling the people entertained against
the New Poor-law would convince the Government of the
existing necessity for a change being made in the law. The
people of Rochdale, seeing what had taken place in the Ken-
sington union, the Cirencester union, and the Lambeth union,
would rather go to jail than submit to be placed under the
Poor-law Commissioners. The Right Hon. Baronet had not
given any reasons for resisting the motion except that the Hon.
Gentleman who moved it was not acquainted with the law in
this country, and that he had better remain in his own country
and assist in carrying out the poor-law there. All the people of
Rochdale wanted was inquiry. Let them get an inquiry and
they would not fear the result.
Colonel SIBTHORP would vote for the motion because he
thought the poor-law was oppressive, and the commission use-
less and expensive. He could not agree with the Hon. Member
for Knaresborough with regard to the feelings of the people of
the country. He thought the people would remain loyal under
all their trials, though he admitted that their feelings would be
changed if the law was continued.—( Hear.)
General JOHNSON would vote for the motion. He would
not go so far as the Hon. Member for Knaresborough with re-
gard to the feelings of the people, but he was as certain as he
was of his existence that they were much changed in conse-
quence of the law.
Mr. BORTH WICK supported the motion of the Hon.
Member for Rochdale.

Mr. ENTWISLE also supported the motion of the Hon.
Member for Rochdale.

Mr. S. CRAWFORD shortly replied, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority against the motion
Sir J. Y. BULLER obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the law affecting the collection of county-rates.
The Consolidated Fund Bill was read a third time and passed.
The House then adjourned, at One o'clock.