of the measure, which then became the law of the land, and I must say that I have been satisfied with its results.  It has, undoubtedly, improved the condition of the working classes, and it certainly does place on a better footing the relations between the working classes and their employers.  It has enabled those who had the care of them to provide better for the aged and destitute than has been hitherto the case; and it has, in general, given satisfaction throughout the country.  My lords, I don’t mean to say that I approve of every act that has been done in carrying this bill into operation.  I think that, in many cases, those who had charge of the working of the bill have gone too far, and that there was no occasion whatever for constructing buildings, such as have acquired throughout the country the denomination of bastiles, and that it would have been perfectly easy to have established very efficient workhouses without shutting out all view of what was passing exterior to the walls.  I say, then, that in some respects, the system has been carried farther than it ought to have been, and, I shall also say that its features have assumed a harsher character in some parts of the country than was necessary; but this has been owing, I must admit, in a great degree, to the adoption of another law by parliament, I mean what is called the dissenters’ marriage act, the regulations depending on which were connected with the execution of the poor law act, and rendered necessary the establishment of unions in many parts of the country which were not yet ripe for the formation of those unions.  But, notwithstanding the circumstances to which I have just now alluded, I must, in general, state my approbation of the working of this act.  I have paid great attention to the subject.  Wherever I have resided, I have attended the meetings of guardians of unions in my neighbourhood; I have visited several workhouses in different parts of England, and I must say that I never visited one in which the management was not as good as could be expected in such districts of the country, and which did not give universal satisfaction.

July 26, 1842.

* * * * *

The government of Lord Melbourne carried on war all over the world with a peace establishment.  That is exactly what we (Sir Robert Peel’s government) do not.

February 2, 1843.

* * * * * Real cause of the Chinese War.

I was almost the only individual who stated that the real ground of complaint against the Chinese government was its conduct towards the person employed in the service of her majesty, and representing her majesty in China.  I was the only person in this house who defended her majesty’s servants.  I said that the war was a just and necessary war.  I will go further, and say, if it had been otherwise—­if it had been a war solely on account of the robbery of the opium—­if her majesty’s government were engaged in that war, and if their interests and honour were involved in it, I should have considered it my duty to make every effort for carrying it on with success, and have asked parliament for the assistance which would have enabled her majesty’s servants to bring it to an early and successful termination.